RE: Speed Cameras Watch As Accidents Increase
Tuesday 26th July 2011
Three speed cameras in Preston that pulled in £18,000-worth of fines in 2010 actually bore witness to an increase in the number of accidents since they were installed.
Speed Cameras Watch As Accidents Increase
New stats reveal accident rates up at some speed camera sites; Association of British Drivers not impressed
This revelation, uncovered by the Lancashire Evening Post following new government rules requiring speed camera statistics to be published, has already precipitated a review of speed camera sites in Lancashire.
The Association of British Drivers says the figures, released last week, do not prove that cameras are the key factor in reducing the number of accidents at camera sites, since the accident rate has fallen countrywide in recent years.
The ABD goes even further, calling for heads to roll on the subject: "Not only is it scandalous that cameras where casualties have increased have been kept in operation for many years, it is even more disturbing that the authorities have hidden this data and authorised continued operation whilst being in possession of this knowledge," says ABD chairman Brian Gregory. "The government should get a grip and insist that those responsible for such malpractice in all regions are removed from public service with immediate effect."
Discussion
Judging by the amount of people i see slamming on the brakes (despite doing the limit or less) as they at the last minute see a camera, i am not surprised accidents are up.
For a long time every one i know are positive they cause more accidents than prevent.
Time to call them what they are. "Revenue generation cameras" NOT "Safety cameras"
For a long time every one i know are positive they cause more accidents than prevent.
Time to call them what they are. "Revenue generation cameras" NOT "Safety cameras"
speeding offences are mostly down to predatory and opportunistic police and authorities and trying to catch people out rather than honestly make anywhere safer. just the other day a slip road at junction 16 of the m25 had 30 up on the matrix signs so naturally i assumed there had been an accident somewhere on the motorway up ahead. nope, nothing of the sort. just a "specialised van" full of filth sitting at the end of the slip road waiting for an easy bust. trying to catch people out will cause accidents. the position of a lot of cameras and signs are designed to do this, and people will panic when they see them and this isn't conducive to good, safe driving. am i preaching to the converted? feels good to rant.
richb77 said:
Judging by the amount of people i see slamming on the brakes (despite doing the limit or less) as they at the last minute see a camera, i am not surprised accidents are up.
..I've twice been in motorway traffic when someone spotted a van on a bridge and instinctively hit the brakes.As usual, everyone was closely bunched and a mass collision was narrowly avoided.
The irony is nobody was doing more than 70.
mybrainhurts said:
richb77 said:
Judging by the amount of people i see slamming on the brakes (despite doing the limit or less) as they at the last minute see a camera, i am not surprised accidents are up.
..I've twice been in motorway traffic when someone spotted a van on a bridge and instinctively hit the brakes.As usual, everyone was closely bunched and a mass collision was narrowly avoided.
The irony is nobody was doing more than 70.
Probably because people are too busy looking at the speed on their dashboard rather than watching the road.
The truth is that it's all about money. I find that cameras are placed on wide open roads with good visibility where its safe to speed because they can catch as many people as they can. I haven't heard of an accident in my village in 25 years but the mobile camera van keeps coming back because theres a long straight 30 zone where it's perfectly safe to do 35-40 = £££.
Why else were all the councils banging on about saving childrens lives until the point when it was decided camera revenues should go to central government, then suddenly childrens lives not quite so important any more and many sites were shut down
The truth is that it's all about money. I find that cameras are placed on wide open roads with good visibility where its safe to speed because they can catch as many people as they can. I haven't heard of an accident in my village in 25 years but the mobile camera van keeps coming back because theres a long straight 30 zone where it's perfectly safe to do 35-40 = £££.
Why else were all the councils banging on about saving childrens lives until the point when it was decided camera revenues should go to central government, then suddenly childrens lives not quite so important any more and many sites were shut down
I sincerely hope the whole debacle unravels now.
Speed cameras have never had anything to do with road safety. They owe their existence to politics and bureaucrats defending their own empires.
The whole road safety issue is the same as the energy policy - there are many much better, effective alternatives to the present methods but they are ignored following pressure from vested interests.
One can only depend on the ordinary people rumbling the deception and asking for change.
In the meantime, expect much sabre-rattling from the people in power.
Speed cameras have never had anything to do with road safety. They owe their existence to politics and bureaucrats defending their own empires.
The whole road safety issue is the same as the energy policy - there are many much better, effective alternatives to the present methods but they are ignored following pressure from vested interests.
One can only depend on the ordinary people rumbling the deception and asking for change.
In the meantime, expect much sabre-rattling from the people in power.
Isn't it amazing how a little transparency can cause massive ripples? I can't imagine there's a single driver that can honestly say these things promote safety. As stated elsewhere in this post, most people slam on the brakes even when inside the speed limit.
How can watching the speedo promote safe driving? Road conditions are greater factor to road safety, I was well impressed when I drove through France and noticed, during a spot of bad weather, the signs came on stating a reduced speed limit. Absolute Genius.
Think they should paint the GATSO's green and truly come clean on them being nothing more than cash generators for councils who were daft enough to gamble rate payers money in Iceland.
Grrr!
How can watching the speedo promote safe driving? Road conditions are greater factor to road safety, I was well impressed when I drove through France and noticed, during a spot of bad weather, the signs came on stating a reduced speed limit. Absolute Genius.
Think they should paint the GATSO's green and truly come clean on them being nothing more than cash generators for councils who were daft enough to gamble rate payers money in Iceland.
Grrr!
Edited by T1berious on Tuesday 26th July 12:45
mybrainhurts said:
..I've twice been in motorway traffic when someone spotted a van on a bridge and instinctively hit the brakes.As usual, everyone was closely bunched and a mass collision was narrowly avoided.
The irony is nobody was doing more than 70.
I've done this
although not in my own car (mostly roughly aware of my speed in my own cars), but in a van I lent to move furniture. Saw a camera, slammed on the brakes, the van almost went sideways (wet). Then looked at the speedo and was 10mph under the limit On another note, was on the bike behind a car approaching a well known fixed camera spot, limit 75, which we were both about doing, then he was "surprised" by the camera, slammed the brakes to 50mph (prob not knowing the exact allowed speed there). I almost rear ended him :s on the bike, at over 60mph.
Are the actual data available? If the numbers are small then blips up and down around the mean are normal and not (necessarily) significant.
If a camera is put in at a site where there has been a "high" number of accidents recently, higher than the recent mean for a year, the number in the next year or two may well appear to fall, simply being lower than the blip, maintaining the mean. Then, with the camera in place, the number may go up in a given year. Just stats. A simple change in a number proves nothing.
The article does not report the actual numbers of accidents at the sites (6 instead of 5? 15 instead of 14? 221 instead of 220?), so it's very hard to get a view of what's really going on. It's just sensationalism (it only says: "The Evening Post has found three speed cameras in Preston alone where the number of accidents and casualties has increased since the cameras were installed.").
If a camera is put in at a site where there has been a "high" number of accidents recently, higher than the recent mean for a year, the number in the next year or two may well appear to fall, simply being lower than the blip, maintaining the mean. Then, with the camera in place, the number may go up in a given year. Just stats. A simple change in a number proves nothing.
The article does not report the actual numbers of accidents at the sites (6 instead of 5? 15 instead of 14? 221 instead of 220?), so it's very hard to get a view of what's really going on. It's just sensationalism (it only says: "The Evening Post has found three speed cameras in Preston alone where the number of accidents and casualties has increased since the cameras were installed.").
car95 said:
Are the actual data available? If the numbers are small then blips up and down around the mean are normal and not (necessarily) significant.
If a camera is put in at a site where there has been a "high" number of accidents recently, higher than the recent mean for a year, the number in the next year or two may well appear to fall, simply being lower than the blip, maintaining the mean. Then, with the camera in place, the number may go up in a given year. Just stats. A simple change in a number proves nothing.
...
But that would mean that the camera's do absolutely nothing? Except generating cash though...If a camera is put in at a site where there has been a "high" number of accidents recently, higher than the recent mean for a year, the number in the next year or two may well appear to fall, simply being lower than the blip, maintaining the mean. Then, with the camera in place, the number may go up in a given year. Just stats. A simple change in a number proves nothing.
...
Well if it's a side of the road mobile set up, I suspect you get done for average speed over a set distance?
Hit the brakes hard and slow to 40 in very short space. ABS is good!
Never get a ticket?
Biker friend of mine said he ALWAYS stopped completely when he saw these vans!
They often hide these vans as the road crests and on the Hogs Back A13 London bound seem to like early Saturday morning as their revenue raising time.
Why early Saturday Morning?
Less Traffic of course!
Monday to Friday mornings its hard to actually maintain the 60 limit, when "Being Visible" could actually be a deterrent and improve safety.
Hit the brakes hard and slow to 40 in very short space. ABS is good!
Never get a ticket?
Biker friend of mine said he ALWAYS stopped completely when he saw these vans!
They often hide these vans as the road crests and on the Hogs Back A13 London bound seem to like early Saturday morning as their revenue raising time.
Why early Saturday Morning?
Less Traffic of course!
Monday to Friday mornings its hard to actually maintain the 60 limit, when "Being Visible" could actually be a deterrent and improve safety.
Fixed speed cameras are plain evil. Obviously cause eratic driving behaviour in the many, so doesn't surprise me that accidents are on the increase. Even if you don't have an accident, your stress levels rise and you might then carry that throughout your day, take it out on your spouse/coworkers or whatever.
If the gov wants to keep speed down, use average speed checks so you can at least concentrate on the road instead of the bloddy speedo.
If the gov wants to keep speed down, use average speed checks so you can at least concentrate on the road instead of the bloddy speedo.
ked because everyone is poorcar95 said:
Are the actual data available? If the numbers are small then blips up and down around the mean are normal and not (necessarily) significant.
If a camera is put in at a site where there has been a "high" number of accidents recently, higher than the recent mean for a year, the number in the next year or two may well appear to fall, simply being lower than the blip, maintaining the mean. Then, with the camera in place, the number may go up in a given year. Just stats. A simple change in a number proves nothing.
The article does not report the actual numbers of accidents at the sites (6 instead of 5? 15 instead of 14? 221 instead of 220?), so it's very hard to get a view of what's really going on. It's just sensationalism (it only says: "The Evening Post has found three speed cameras in Preston alone where the number of accidents and casualties has increased since the cameras were installed.").
That was exactly my thought.If a camera is put in at a site where there has been a "high" number of accidents recently, higher than the recent mean for a year, the number in the next year or two may well appear to fall, simply being lower than the blip, maintaining the mean. Then, with the camera in place, the number may go up in a given year. Just stats. A simple change in a number proves nothing.
The article does not report the actual numbers of accidents at the sites (6 instead of 5? 15 instead of 14? 221 instead of 220?), so it's very hard to get a view of what's really going on. It's just sensationalism (it only says: "The Evening Post has found three speed cameras in Preston alone where the number of accidents and casualties has increased since the cameras were installed.").
"The Evening Post has found three speed cameras in Preston alone where the number of accidents and casualties has increased since the cameras were installed."
And a dozen others where accident rates have gone down. But we won't mention them, will we?
I've never understood the argument about people watching their speedo being dangerous. How long does it take you to check your speed?! Half a second, maybe one second at the most. It's not hard to judge your speed while looking at the road, and you don't need to check your speed every five yards. It's such a feeble argument.
Gassing Station | Motoring News | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff