Speeding Does Not Cause Accidents
Discussion
OTBC said:
Mill Wheel said:
This accident was included in the 3 year KSI stats used to justify the placement of speed cameras at Ings, which started in April 2003.
The article doesn't even mention a heart attack. You made it up. Go away.You really are showing yourself up to be the sorry individual that you are.
The truth is that the speed cameras at Ings - or anywhere else for that matter, are not working as a means of improving safety on the roads.
18,989 people were caught by cameras on the A591 at Ings from January 2010 to May 2013, and not one of them was STOPPED from continuing with their speeding, and a lot more besides slowed down for the cameras, then speeded up again!
The claim was made that cameras were cited because of a drunk lying in the road, someone falling from a bridge and a driver having a heart attack. I take it you now admit that none so this is true? Why did you make up a heart attack, then post a link to a story that mentions no heart attack? Where do you get the heart attack element from?
OTBC said:
The claim was made that cameras were cited because of a drunk lying in the road, someone falling from a bridge and a driver having a heart attack. I take it you now admit that none so this is true? Why did you make up a heart attack, then post a link to a story that mentions no heart attack? Where do you get the heart attack element from?
You are desperate aren't you - surmising that I might have made claims that were untrue, and even attributing posts to me that were not mine, about a suicide from a bridge!The suicide from the bridge was in the press at the time, over 10 years ago, along with an admittance from the camera partnership that the deceased was indeed included in the figures used to justify the camera placement. Their argument was that they were entitled to do that under DfT rules - which is true - and I have furnished a link to that guidance, so there is no doubt in my mind that it is true.
As to the drunken pedestrian, the information was furnished by Kevin Tea of the Cumbria Safety Camera Partnership on their forum, but I did not claim it was used to justify the placement of cameras... that seems to be yet another figment of your imagination - or a desperate attempt to derail the arguments in this thread!!
Since the CSCP forum contained much material which was a source of embarrassment to them, it is no longer available online, but I am sure Mr Tea will be happy to confirm to you that I am correct, as he was keen to point out that the accidents after the cameras were placed were not speed related - the crux of this thread.
Mill Wheel said:
OTBC said:
(Here's a funny thing. There ARE links to this claim on the internet. All are to this forum, and all originate from a poster called..Millwheel! Which begs the question, where did Millwheel get this garbage from?)
I know where you get your garbage from, your breath stinks of it!Despite all the facts about this I provided you failed to find it via Google, because you didn't WANT to find it, instead seeking to hurl unjustified insults... just as you hurl the "straw man" accusations at any poster whose opinions don't fit YOUR ideals!
http://www.thewestmorlandgazette.co.uk/archive/200...
Westmorland Gazette in 2002 said:
Pair hold car back
TWO workmen fought to stop a crushed car from toppling down a bank while fire-fighters rushed to the scene to free an injured couple trapped in the wreckage, reports Jon Taylor.
The elderly couple, believed to be from the Staveley area, had been travelling along the A591 from Windermere towards Kendal when their BMW left the road and collided with a road sign near Gowan Bank Farm.
The car careered along the verge before crossing the carriageway and smashing into a tree and landing on its side.
First on the scene were builders Dave Carrie, 46, and his son Duncan, 20, from Staveley who had been working on a house in Ings when they heard the accident.
"There was a terrible crunching noise and the sound of breaking glass.
We threw our tools down and rushed out," said Dave Carrie.
"There was wreckage scattered along the road for about 300 yards.
The car was on its side on the opposite verge with its wheels pointing into the road.
It was on the edge of a steep banking and was starting to topple over."
Mr Carrie and his son raced to the upturned vehicle, and pushed their shoulder against the car to prevent it falling down the banking.
"We could see an old couple inside; they were covered in blood and very shocked.
"We talked to them to try to keep them calm, but we didn't want them to know we were struggling to keep the car from tumbling down the slope."
Within minutes the volunteer crew from Staveley fire station arrived and were able to fasten a rope around the car and secure it. The fire-fighters used cutting and spreading equipment to release the couple.
A spokesman for Staveley volunteer fire crew praised the quick thinking of Mr Carrie and his son.
"There is a good chance that by stopping the car falling into the ditch they prevented further injuries to the couple," he said.
The driver of the car, a 74-year-old man, was taken by road to the Royal Lancaster Infirmary with suspected spinal injuries.
His condition was described yesterday (Thursday) as "stable".
His 77-year-old female passenger was flown by air ambulance to the same hospital where staff yesterday said that she was "comfortable".
Relatives of the couple requested that police did not release their details.
The crash caused serious traffic congestion for around three hours on Tuesday as vehicles were diverted along the A592 Crook to Windermere road.
This accident was included in the 3 year KSI stats used to justify the placement of speed cameras at Ings, which started in April 2003.TWO workmen fought to stop a crushed car from toppling down a bank while fire-fighters rushed to the scene to free an injured couple trapped in the wreckage, reports Jon Taylor.
The elderly couple, believed to be from the Staveley area, had been travelling along the A591 from Windermere towards Kendal when their BMW left the road and collided with a road sign near Gowan Bank Farm.
The car careered along the verge before crossing the carriageway and smashing into a tree and landing on its side.
First on the scene were builders Dave Carrie, 46, and his son Duncan, 20, from Staveley who had been working on a house in Ings when they heard the accident.
"There was a terrible crunching noise and the sound of breaking glass.
We threw our tools down and rushed out," said Dave Carrie.
"There was wreckage scattered along the road for about 300 yards.
The car was on its side on the opposite verge with its wheels pointing into the road.
It was on the edge of a steep banking and was starting to topple over."
Mr Carrie and his son raced to the upturned vehicle, and pushed their shoulder against the car to prevent it falling down the banking.
"We could see an old couple inside; they were covered in blood and very shocked.
"We talked to them to try to keep them calm, but we didn't want them to know we were struggling to keep the car from tumbling down the slope."
Within minutes the volunteer crew from Staveley fire station arrived and were able to fasten a rope around the car and secure it. The fire-fighters used cutting and spreading equipment to release the couple.
A spokesman for Staveley volunteer fire crew praised the quick thinking of Mr Carrie and his son.
"There is a good chance that by stopping the car falling into the ditch they prevented further injuries to the couple," he said.
The driver of the car, a 74-year-old man, was taken by road to the Royal Lancaster Infirmary with suspected spinal injuries.
His condition was described yesterday (Thursday) as "stable".
His 77-year-old female passenger was flown by air ambulance to the same hospital where staff yesterday said that she was "comfortable".
Relatives of the couple requested that police did not release their details.
The crash caused serious traffic congestion for around three hours on Tuesday as vehicles were diverted along the A592 Crook to Windermere road.
When the justification was sent to DfT by Cumbria County Council it would have only been 2002 sometime and the accident figures for 2002 wouldn't have been available then because they would still be in 2002 with the accident figures yet to complete. Not only that but it takes almost a year for accident stats to be finalised.
Seems like you must be mistaken. Either that or a fantasist.
As I understand it the collisions that were used to justiy cameras did not have to be caused by speed; the collisions could be caused by any reason but the site had to have a certain number of collisions and the site had to have an 85th percentile speed at or above the ACPO speed enforcement threshold. So even if someone did have a heart attack or had an accident for any other reason, the camera could be sited aas long as there were plenty of them and most people went too fast.
It doesn't matter if people who speed are not stopped at the time as they will be given a ticket afterwards and will hence modify their behaviour...well they will unless they are idiots and get caught more than once.
emmaT2014 said:
How could a collision in 2002 be used in a justification for a safety camera site in the safety camera program when the site was set for operation in 2003?
When the justification was sent to DfT by Cumbria County Council it would have only been 2002 sometime and the accident figures for 2002 wouldn't have been available then because they would still be in 2002 with the accident figures yet to complete. Not only that but it takes almost a year for accident stats to be finalised.
Seems like you must be mistaken. Either that or a fantasist.
As I understand it the collisions that were used to justiy cameras did not have to be caused by speed; the collisions could be caused by any reason but the site had to have a certain number of collisions and the site had to have an 85th percentile speed at or above the ACPO speed enforcement threshold. So even if someone did have a heart attack or had an accident for any other reason, the camera could be sited aas long as there were plenty of them and most people went too fast.
It doesn't matter if people who speed are not stopped at the time as they will be given a ticket afterwards and will hence modify their behaviour...well they will unless they are idiots and get caught more than once.
Honestly do you believe that guff? there might be a fantasist on here but I suspect the tag has been wrongly aportioned, we had a mile long "overtaking lane" put in locally a couple of years ago and there was a speed camera van there every day for nearly 3 weeks, brand new specifically designed road so no accident history or any kind of history but yeah thats right we're all wrong...When the justification was sent to DfT by Cumbria County Council it would have only been 2002 sometime and the accident figures for 2002 wouldn't have been available then because they would still be in 2002 with the accident figures yet to complete. Not only that but it takes almost a year for accident stats to be finalised.
Seems like you must be mistaken. Either that or a fantasist.
As I understand it the collisions that were used to justiy cameras did not have to be caused by speed; the collisions could be caused by any reason but the site had to have a certain number of collisions and the site had to have an 85th percentile speed at or above the ACPO speed enforcement threshold. So even if someone did have a heart attack or had an accident for any other reason, the camera could be sited aas long as there were plenty of them and most people went too fast.
It doesn't matter if people who speed are not stopped at the time as they will be given a ticket afterwards and will hence modify their behaviour...well they will unless they are idiots and get caught more than once.
Gary
emmaT2014 said:
How could a collision in 2002 be used in a justification for a safety camera site in the safety camera program when the site was set for operation in 2003?
When the justification was sent to DfT by Cumbria County Council it would have only been 2002 sometime and the accident figures for 2002 wouldn't have been available then because they would still be in 2002 with the accident figures yet to complete. Not only that but it takes almost a year for accident stats to be finalised.
Seems like you must be mistaken. Either that or a fantasist.
As I understand it the collisions that were used to justiy cameras did not have to be caused by speed; the collisions could be caused by any reason but the site had to have a certain number of collisions and the site had to have an 85th percentile speed at or above the ACPO speed enforcement threshold. So even if someone did have a heart attack or had an accident for any other reason, the camera could be sited aas long as there were plenty of them and most people went too fast.
It doesn't matter if people who speed are not stopped at the time as they will be given a ticket afterwards and will hence modify their behaviour...well they will unless they are idiots and get caught more than once.
It is quite simple really... the site was first qualified for occasional mobile "enforcement", then at a slightly later date had to be qualified for the introduction of fixed cameras.When the justification was sent to DfT by Cumbria County Council it would have only been 2002 sometime and the accident figures for 2002 wouldn't have been available then because they would still be in 2002 with the accident figures yet to complete. Not only that but it takes almost a year for accident stats to be finalised.
Seems like you must be mistaken. Either that or a fantasist.
As I understand it the collisions that were used to justiy cameras did not have to be caused by speed; the collisions could be caused by any reason but the site had to have a certain number of collisions and the site had to have an 85th percentile speed at or above the ACPO speed enforcement threshold. So even if someone did have a heart attack or had an accident for any other reason, the camera could be sited aas long as there were plenty of them and most people went too fast.
It doesn't matter if people who speed are not stopped at the time as they will be given a ticket afterwards and will hence modify their behaviour...well they will unless they are idiots and get caught more than once.
As for getting "caught" more than once, that depends on whether or not they were actually speeding when the equipment recorded that they were.
There is no way of knowing, as the Safety Camera Partnership do not keep records of when the equipment is under repair - that is kept by the manufacturers - or so the SCP manager said in response to an FoI request!
Manufacturers are of course well known for not telling lies over aspects of their work that might inconvenience their business - just as Tesco are currently being investigated by the SFO over their accounting "blunders"!
heebeegeetee said:
emmaT2014 said:
It doesn't matter if people who speed are not stopped at the time as they will be given a ticket afterwards and will hence modify their behaviour...
Yep, they'll use other routes which is why the claims over the effectiveness of speed cameras are a pack of lies.When I described said arrogant oaf as a liar and a charlatan, he threatened to take me to court if I did not retract my claim - yet when I accepted his challenge, and offered to see him in court with his evidence that I had slighted his reputation (
) he of course was forced to back down and try another angle!jaf01uk said:
emmaT2014 said:
How could a collision in 2002 be used in a justification for a safety camera site in the safety camera program when the site was set for operation in 2003?
When the justification was sent to DfT by Cumbria County Council it would have only been 2002 sometime and the accident figures for 2002 wouldn't have been available then because they would still be in 2002 with the accident figures yet to complete. Not only that but it takes almost a year for accident stats to be finalised.
Seems like you must be mistaken. Either that or a fantasist.
As I understand it the collisions that were used to justiy cameras did not have to be caused by speed; the collisions could be caused by any reason but the site had to have a certain number of collisions and the site had to have an 85th percentile speed at or above the ACPO speed enforcement threshold. So even if someone did have a heart attack or had an accident for any other reason, the camera could be sited aas long as there were plenty of them and most people went too fast.
It doesn't matter if people who speed are not stopped at the time as they will be given a ticket afterwards and will hence modify their behaviour...well they will unless they are idiots and get caught more than once.
Honestly do you believe that guff? there might be a fantasist on here but I suspect the tag has been wrongly aportioned, we had a mile long "overtaking lane" put in locally a couple of years ago and there was a speed camera van there every day for nearly 3 weeks, brand new specifically designed road so no accident history or any kind of history but yeah thats right we're all wrong...When the justification was sent to DfT by Cumbria County Council it would have only been 2002 sometime and the accident figures for 2002 wouldn't have been available then because they would still be in 2002 with the accident figures yet to complete. Not only that but it takes almost a year for accident stats to be finalised.
Seems like you must be mistaken. Either that or a fantasist.
As I understand it the collisions that were used to justiy cameras did not have to be caused by speed; the collisions could be caused by any reason but the site had to have a certain number of collisions and the site had to have an 85th percentile speed at or above the ACPO speed enforcement threshold. So even if someone did have a heart attack or had an accident for any other reason, the camera could be sited aas long as there were plenty of them and most people went too fast.
It doesn't matter if people who speed are not stopped at the time as they will be given a ticket afterwards and will hence modify their behaviour...well they will unless they are idiots and get caught more than once.
Gary
Mill Wheel said:
emmaT2014 said:
How could a collision in 2002 be used in a justification for a safety camera site in the safety camera program when the site was set for operation in 2003?
When the justification was sent to DfT by Cumbria County Council it would have only been 2002 sometime and the accident figures for 2002 wouldn't have been available then because they would still be in 2002 with the accident figures yet to complete. Not only that but it takes almost a year for accident stats to be finalised.
Seems like you must be mistaken. Either that or a fantasist.
As I understand it the collisions that were used to justiy cameras did not have to be caused by speed; the collisions could be caused by any reason but the site had to have a certain number of collisions and the site had to have an 85th percentile speed at or above the ACPO speed enforcement threshold. So even if someone did have a heart attack or had an accident for any other reason, the camera could be sited aas long as there were plenty of them and most people went too fast.
It doesn't matter if people who speed are not stopped at the time as they will be given a ticket afterwards and will hence modify their behaviour...well they will unless they are idiots and get caught more than once.
It is quite simple really... the site was first qualified for occasional mobile "enforcement", then at a slightly later date had to be qualified for the introduction of fixed cameras.When the justification was sent to DfT by Cumbria County Council it would have only been 2002 sometime and the accident figures for 2002 wouldn't have been available then because they would still be in 2002 with the accident figures yet to complete. Not only that but it takes almost a year for accident stats to be finalised.
Seems like you must be mistaken. Either that or a fantasist.
As I understand it the collisions that were used to justiy cameras did not have to be caused by speed; the collisions could be caused by any reason but the site had to have a certain number of collisions and the site had to have an 85th percentile speed at or above the ACPO speed enforcement threshold. So even if someone did have a heart attack or had an accident for any other reason, the camera could be sited aas long as there were plenty of them and most people went too fast.
It doesn't matter if people who speed are not stopped at the time as they will be given a ticket afterwards and will hence modify their behaviour...well they will unless they are idiots and get caught more than once.
As for getting "caught" more than once, that depends on whether or not they were actually speeding when the equipment recorded that they were.
There is no way of knowing, as the Safety Camera Partnership do not keep records of when the equipment is under repair - that is kept by the manufacturers - or so the SCP manager said in response to an FoI request!
Manufacturers are of course well known for not telling lies over aspects of their work that might inconvenience their business - just as Tesco are currently being investigated by the SFO over their accounting "blunders"!
Mill Wheel said:
This accident was included in the 3 year KSI stats used to justify the placement of speed cameras at Ings, which started in April 2003.
So it appears that the comments made by others are soundly based.heebeegeetee said:
1. D'you know what, I've never heard anyone before say that the climates of France and the UK are similar, but there you go.
The context you should be putting the rta casualty figure is, as you know full well, that of the population you are discussing. So for the UK the figure of 2000 is out of a population of 62 million. Or out of a road-using population of 40 million plus 2000 will die. Or out of the 500,000 people who die each year 2000 will be rtas. Or out of the 1360 people who die each year 5 will be rtas. Or out of the few hundred thousand people who die a premature death each year 2000 will be rtas.
In any way you measure, the uk rta statistic is not a high proportion of any contextual figure you want to use. *Thats* why you guys never use the figure in context - you always quotr the figure in isolation with the specific purpose to mislead.
2. Yes, you can and you do right from the start by using your figure out of context. (The Daily Mail will often use the same tactic).
Don't know what you mean about reducing the risk - nobodies risk is reduced, it is what it is. My risk is what it is, I have the risk of an ordinary average road user who isn't young, doesn't ride a bike, doesn't drive long distances (any more) and so on. Again, by lumping me in with these high risk groups you exaggerate the risk I am in - which is another tactic you guys use all the time. (Btw by 'you guys' I mean the road safety lobby and its supporters that sets out to deliberately mislead the actual risk that people are in).
3. It has more of a place than France has. Obviously we will look to other countries to see how we are stacking up in comparison, but that still doesn't give us a picture of what risk we as the population are in from an early death. As the person who posted that link to the Guardian piece on how we die each year showed, the proportion of people who die of an rta sech year is so small that you struggle to find it on the chart.
Again, this morning I heard that a fifth of women are likely to suffer a stroke each year (a fifth!) and is the third leading cause of death for women, yet it's hardly discussed and not a lot is done about it - yet in a country that doesn't have a road safety issue we bang on about that instead and exaggerate the risk all the time. I'll say again, if you genuinely wanted to save peoples lives you'd do far better looking elsewhere.
4. Because you need to know if 2000 is a lot. By your reckoning there are a lot of european countries safer than us because they have a lower figure. But when you take a look at the population figures you immediately see that in fact their accident rate is higher than ours and the risk is greater.
5. It is, because it highlights how you exaggerate the problem.
1. Erm, our population, and the population of France, are within a couple of million of each other. This is why I used them as comparators - they are what is known as "similar" in size, that is, the number if nearly the same.The context you should be putting the rta casualty figure is, as you know full well, that of the population you are discussing. So for the UK the figure of 2000 is out of a population of 62 million. Or out of a road-using population of 40 million plus 2000 will die. Or out of the 500,000 people who die each year 2000 will be rtas. Or out of the 1360 people who die each year 5 will be rtas. Or out of the few hundred thousand people who die a premature death each year 2000 will be rtas.
In any way you measure, the uk rta statistic is not a high proportion of any contextual figure you want to use. *Thats* why you guys never use the figure in context - you always quotr the figure in isolation with the specific purpose to mislead.
2. Yes, you can and you do right from the start by using your figure out of context. (The Daily Mail will often use the same tactic).
Don't know what you mean about reducing the risk - nobodies risk is reduced, it is what it is. My risk is what it is, I have the risk of an ordinary average road user who isn't young, doesn't ride a bike, doesn't drive long distances (any more) and so on. Again, by lumping me in with these high risk groups you exaggerate the risk I am in - which is another tactic you guys use all the time. (Btw by 'you guys' I mean the road safety lobby and its supporters that sets out to deliberately mislead the actual risk that people are in).
3. It has more of a place than France has. Obviously we will look to other countries to see how we are stacking up in comparison, but that still doesn't give us a picture of what risk we as the population are in from an early death. As the person who posted that link to the Guardian piece on how we die each year showed, the proportion of people who die of an rta sech year is so small that you struggle to find it on the chart.
Again, this morning I heard that a fifth of women are likely to suffer a stroke each year (a fifth!) and is the third leading cause of death for women, yet it's hardly discussed and not a lot is done about it - yet in a country that doesn't have a road safety issue we bang on about that instead and exaggerate the risk all the time. I'll say again, if you genuinely wanted to save peoples lives you'd do far better looking elsewhere.
4. Because you need to know if 2000 is a lot. By your reckoning there are a lot of european countries safer than us because they have a lower figure. But when you take a look at the population figures you immediately see that in fact their accident rate is higher than ours and the risk is greater.
5. It is, because it highlights how you exaggerate the problem.
Your next point is just an attempt at distraction, you're trying to introduce other subjects (5,000 killed by ladders! Ban this ladder menace! etc), which is exactly the kind of Daily Mail trick you are trying to accuse me of, entertainingly. So, I'll repeat - lets stick to the 2,000 deaths ascribed to road traffic, and not bring in the number of people killed by irons whilst pretending that it's in any way relevant.
2. This is reasoning of which PhatBoy would be proud. Once again- you can't pick and choose, or if you can so can I - so I'll discard any drivers who aren't drunk, mad, and actively escaping from the police in a stolen car. Which is clearly ridiculous- just like your suggestion that before we measure risk we discard some of the data as it doesn't fit with whatever point you are trying to make.
I didn't realise that I was the road safety lobby - do I get a badge, and maybe some sort of special hat?
3. This is all irrelevant - so I'm going to ignore it, other than to say (again!) please start another thread for this if you consider it important, it's got nothing to do with this one.
4. This is your most ridiculous statement yet. 2,000 is 1 more than 1,999 and 1 less than 2,001. It's your contention that when this figure represents deaths then it's fine - a positive thing even. I prefer to take the view (shared by the Swedish) that we should target zero road fatalities, rather than be content with slaughtering the population of a small village every year. We'll never get there, but we should try. Taking your view would ensure we never get close.
5.Look! A mountain Lion!
Mill Wheel said:
You are desperate aren't you - surmising that I might have made claims that were untrue, and even attributing posts to me that were not mine, about a suicide from a bridge!
The suicide from the bridge was in the press at the time, over 10 years ago, along with an admittance from the camera partnership that the deceased was indeed included in the figures used to justify the camera placement. Their argument was that they were entitled to do that under DfT rules - which is true - and I have furnished a link to that guidance, so there is no doubt in my mind that it is true.
As to the drunken pedestrian, the information was furnished by Kevin Tea of the Cumbria Safety Camera Partnership on their forum, but I did not claim it was used to justify the placement of cameras... that seems to be yet another figment of your imagination - or a desperate attempt to derail the arguments in this thread!!
Since the CSCP forum contained much material which was a source of embarrassment to them, it is no longer available online, but I am sure Mr Tea will be happy to confirm to you that I am correct, as he was keen to point out that the accidents after the cameras were placed were not speed related - the crux of this thread.
I didnt say you made the claim, i said the claim was made. You claimed Mr Gaskell had a heart attack. He didnt. And now you claim all the evidence that verifies your claim was on a sadly deleted website. Funny that. The suicide from the bridge was in the press at the time, over 10 years ago, along with an admittance from the camera partnership that the deceased was indeed included in the figures used to justify the camera placement. Their argument was that they were entitled to do that under DfT rules - which is true - and I have furnished a link to that guidance, so there is no doubt in my mind that it is true.
As to the drunken pedestrian, the information was furnished by Kevin Tea of the Cumbria Safety Camera Partnership on their forum, but I did not claim it was used to justify the placement of cameras... that seems to be yet another figment of your imagination - or a desperate attempt to derail the arguments in this thread!!
Since the CSCP forum contained much material which was a source of embarrassment to them, it is no longer available online, but I am sure Mr Tea will be happy to confirm to you that I am correct, as he was keen to point out that the accidents after the cameras were placed were not speed related - the crux of this thread.
OTBC said:
I didnt say you made the claim, i said the claim was made. You claimed Mr Gaskell had a heart attack. He didnt. And now you claim all the evidence that verifies your claim was on a sadly deleted website. Funny that.
A assume you are able to prove that Mr Gaskell didn't have a heart attack? 
emmaT2014 said:
It doesn't matter if people who speed are not stopped at the time as they will be given a ticket afterwards and will hence modify their behaviour...well they will unless they are idiots and get caught more than once.
Of course there is always the option of a speed awareness course, which would allow drivers to be caught out more times to ensure they have an opportunity to keep on paying.At the risk of repeating myself, the truth is that the speed cameras at Ings - or anywhere else for that matter, are not working as a means of improving safety on the roads.
18,989 people were caught by cameras on the A591 at Ings from January 2010 to May 2013, and not one of them was STOPPED from continuing with their speeding, and a lot more besides slowed down for the cameras, then speeded up again!
If they had all paid their fines instead of taking a SAC, the treasury would be better off to the tune of close to £1.4 million over the three years from just ONE speed camera site.
Kerching!
Mill Wheel said:
Of course there is always the option of a speed awareness course, which would allow drivers to be caught out more times to ensure they have an opportunity to keep on paying.
At the risk of repeating myself, the truth is that the speed cameras at Ings - or anywhere else for that matter, are not working as a means of improving safety on the roads.
18,989 people were caught by cameras on the A591 at Ings from January 2010 to May 2013, and not one of them was STOPPED from continuing with their speeding, and a lot more besides slowed down for the cameras, then speeded up again!
If they had all paid their fines instead of taking a SAC, the treasury would be better off to the tune of close to £1.4 million over the three years from just ONE speed camera site.
Kerching!
To get some perspective on those figures, we need to know how many cars passed that camera within the speed limits. It could well be that the fines are just a tax on silliness, in which case, those that are silly should carry on paying.At the risk of repeating myself, the truth is that the speed cameras at Ings - or anywhere else for that matter, are not working as a means of improving safety on the roads.
18,989 people were caught by cameras on the A591 at Ings from January 2010 to May 2013, and not one of them was STOPPED from continuing with their speeding, and a lot more besides slowed down for the cameras, then speeded up again!
If they had all paid their fines instead of taking a SAC, the treasury would be better off to the tune of close to £1.4 million over the three years from just ONE speed camera site.
Kerching!
singlecoil said:
To get some perspective on those figures, we need to know how many cars passed that camera within the speed limits. It could well be that the fines are just a tax on silliness, in which case, those that are silly should carry on paying.
But these cameras are run by the "Safety" Camera Partnership, who claim the cameras are reducing KSIs , but all those speeding drivers clearly show that they are not - over 6000 drivers a year are being CAUGHT speeding, while a good many more simply slow down for the camera - meanwhile deaths have climbed since 2008/2009 - highlighted recently by the IAM.Many fatal accidents are not the result of speed - the crux of this thread. It is only a contributory factor - and one which is not being addressed by speed camera enforcement.
e.g. http://www.thewestmorlandgazette.co.uk/news/115668...
The original post was speed does not cause accidents. Since then a whole set of points have been argued and evidenced. My summary:
Speed is not the cause of all accidents but is the cause of some. There are stats to show the prime factors and speed is mentioned in quite a few of the factors.
There are other accidents where speed may not be the prime cause but is a contributory factor.
There are some where speed is irrelevant.
Speed also plays a part in reaction times. The faster you go, the less time to react.
And speed plays a significant role in the injuries resulting irrespective of the cause of the accident.
Stats show lowering the speed limit does have an effect on figures.
Speed limits are one factor in making roads safer. People are very dubious however about the motivation behind enforcement and why they are set to what they are in places. That doesn't make the principal of speed enforcement wrong, just the execution in places.
Other factors like redesigned junctions and car improvements, driver education (which I would class speed cameras as part of, especially through speed awareness courses) etc also play their role.
Overall our roads are safer than other similar countries.
There are other reasons why people get hurt and die that have nothing to do with our roads (falling off ladders, heart attacks, obesity) and investments to save lives and injuries by the state should be looked at in the round. That's not the same as saying any one of them is wrong, it's bluntly a value for money argument mixed with social acceptance. It's also easier to legally enforce a speed limit than it is to enforce what somebody eats as there is no law on how many Big Macs you eat a week.
The speed limits in the country won't be reduced to 5mph with someone waving a flag in front.
Speed is not the cause of all accidents but is the cause of some. There are stats to show the prime factors and speed is mentioned in quite a few of the factors.
There are other accidents where speed may not be the prime cause but is a contributory factor.
There are some where speed is irrelevant.
Speed also plays a part in reaction times. The faster you go, the less time to react.
And speed plays a significant role in the injuries resulting irrespective of the cause of the accident.
Stats show lowering the speed limit does have an effect on figures.
Speed limits are one factor in making roads safer. People are very dubious however about the motivation behind enforcement and why they are set to what they are in places. That doesn't make the principal of speed enforcement wrong, just the execution in places.
Other factors like redesigned junctions and car improvements, driver education (which I would class speed cameras as part of, especially through speed awareness courses) etc also play their role.
Overall our roads are safer than other similar countries.
There are other reasons why people get hurt and die that have nothing to do with our roads (falling off ladders, heart attacks, obesity) and investments to save lives and injuries by the state should be looked at in the round. That's not the same as saying any one of them is wrong, it's bluntly a value for money argument mixed with social acceptance. It's also easier to legally enforce a speed limit than it is to enforce what somebody eats as there is no law on how many Big Macs you eat a week.
The speed limits in the country won't be reduced to 5mph with someone waving a flag in front.
Edited by Jon1967x on Thursday 30th October 07:38
Mill Wheel said:
singlecoil said:
To get some perspective on those figures, we need to know how many cars passed that camera within the speed limits. It could well be that the fines are just a tax on silliness, in which case, those that are silly should carry on paying.
But these cameras are run by the "Safety" Camera Partnership, who claim the cameras are reducing KSIs , but all those speeding drivers clearly show that they are not - over 6000 drivers a year are being CAUGHT speeding, while a good many more simply slow down for the camera - meanwhile deaths have climbed since 2008/2009 - highlighted recently by the IAM.Many fatal accidents are not the result of speed - the crux of this thread. It is only a contributory factor - and one which is not being addressed by speed camera enforcement.
e.g. http://www.thewestmorlandgazette.co.uk/news/115668...
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff