End of road for Cameras that don't save lives
Discussion
Only 245 out of 5,215? 
But, hey 79% of people support cameras (who are they asking?)
http://driving.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,12389-1147429,00.html
End of the road for cameras that don't save lives
By Ben Webster, The Times Transport Correspondent, and Tosin Sulaiman
More than 200 speed cameras are failing to reduce road casualties and may be replaced by alternative safety measures, the Government said yesterday.
Police forces are to be ordered to review 245 camera sites and consider whether a new road layout might bring greater benefits than fining thousands of drivers for speeding.
Alistair Darling, the Transport Secretary, retracted his department’s previous claim that all cameras were in the right places. But he said that a study of the impact of cameras in 24 force areas had shown that they saved 100 lives a year. The number killed and seriously injured at camera sites fell by 40 per cent, or 870 a year
The study covered the first three years of the Governments cash for cameras scheme, under which police and local authority partnerships are allowed to keep a proportion of speeding fines to cover the costs of camera enforcement.
The national figures masked significant regional disparities. Derbyshire’s cameras reduced deaths and serious injuries by only 17 per cent, while North Wales came top with 68 per cent.
The result in North Wales helped to vindicate the draconian approach to speed enforcement taken by its chief constable, Richard Brunstrom, who has been the most vocal supporter of speed cameras.
The Department for Transport also published figures on its website showing the individual impact on casualties of 5,215 cameras in England and Wales. The figures revealed that casualties had increased rather than decreased at 743 locations, 14 per cent of the total.
The DfT claimed that in 269 of those locations, cameras had not been in place long enough to judge their success. Information on another 229 sites was inadequate. But the DfT was unable to explain why casualties had risen at the remaining 245 sites.
A spokesman said: “We will flag up those 245 cameras to the partnerships and ask them to go away and look at them and report back to us.
“We want to know whether it was a road accident involving a minibus which skewed their figures.
“Or it may well be that the camera has been there for a while and the accidents have started to creep back. They may need to change the road layout, put an island in the middle of the road or a pelican crossing.”
The DfT’s comments contradicted a statement made by David Jamieson, the Road Safety Minister, in March. He said then: “All camera partnerships have written back to us and the indications are that the cameras are in the right places.”
Surveys conducted by the partnerships found that 79 per cent of the public supported cameras as a means of reducing casualties.
However, the same surveys showed that an increasing number of people believed cameras were an “easy way of making money out of motorists”, up from 45 per cent in last year’s report to 52 per cent this year.
The partnerships collected a total of £69 million in fines from motorists in the year to March 2003, keeping £54 million to cover their costs and handing £15 million to the Exchequer.
The DfT calculated that the fall in casualties produced £221 million of benefits to society, including reduced medical costs and less lost economic output.
The RAC Foundation said that the report proved that cameras had a role to play but called for more drivers to be given the choice of attending a speed awareness course rather than three penalty points.
Edmund King, the foundation’s director, said: “The Government should review its road safety strategy to include a commitment to increasing the numbers of traffic police on the roads, better signing of speed limits and a focus on re-education of speeding drivers.
“A speeding ticket through the post tends to harden rather than change the drivers’ attitudes, whereas driver training encourages those taking part to think about their behaviour and change it.”
The Association of British Drivers, which campaigns against speed cameras, said there were flaws in the report. Some areas had been excluded because of “insufficient data”, raising suspicions that their results would have dragged down the national average.
Mark McArthur-Christie, the association’s road safety spokesman, said: “Studies claiming cameras are working are all based on localised ‘cherry-picked’ statistics, which are wide open to distortions.
“Camera partnerships, local authorities and the Highways Agency all place every possible obstruction in the path of those who want to examine accident reports.”
But, hey 79% of people support cameras (who are they asking?)
http://driving.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,12389-1147429,00.html
End of the road for cameras that don't save lives
By Ben Webster, The Times Transport Correspondent, and Tosin Sulaiman
More than 200 speed cameras are failing to reduce road casualties and may be replaced by alternative safety measures, the Government said yesterday.
Police forces are to be ordered to review 245 camera sites and consider whether a new road layout might bring greater benefits than fining thousands of drivers for speeding.
Alistair Darling, the Transport Secretary, retracted his department’s previous claim that all cameras were in the right places. But he said that a study of the impact of cameras in 24 force areas had shown that they saved 100 lives a year. The number killed and seriously injured at camera sites fell by 40 per cent, or 870 a year
The study covered the first three years of the Governments cash for cameras scheme, under which police and local authority partnerships are allowed to keep a proportion of speeding fines to cover the costs of camera enforcement.
The national figures masked significant regional disparities. Derbyshire’s cameras reduced deaths and serious injuries by only 17 per cent, while North Wales came top with 68 per cent.
The result in North Wales helped to vindicate the draconian approach to speed enforcement taken by its chief constable, Richard Brunstrom, who has been the most vocal supporter of speed cameras.
The Department for Transport also published figures on its website showing the individual impact on casualties of 5,215 cameras in England and Wales. The figures revealed that casualties had increased rather than decreased at 743 locations, 14 per cent of the total.
The DfT claimed that in 269 of those locations, cameras had not been in place long enough to judge their success. Information on another 229 sites was inadequate. But the DfT was unable to explain why casualties had risen at the remaining 245 sites.
A spokesman said: “We will flag up those 245 cameras to the partnerships and ask them to go away and look at them and report back to us.
“We want to know whether it was a road accident involving a minibus which skewed their figures.
“Or it may well be that the camera has been there for a while and the accidents have started to creep back. They may need to change the road layout, put an island in the middle of the road or a pelican crossing.”
The DfT’s comments contradicted a statement made by David Jamieson, the Road Safety Minister, in March. He said then: “All camera partnerships have written back to us and the indications are that the cameras are in the right places.”
Surveys conducted by the partnerships found that 79 per cent of the public supported cameras as a means of reducing casualties.
However, the same surveys showed that an increasing number of people believed cameras were an “easy way of making money out of motorists”, up from 45 per cent in last year’s report to 52 per cent this year.
The partnerships collected a total of £69 million in fines from motorists in the year to March 2003, keeping £54 million to cover their costs and handing £15 million to the Exchequer.
The DfT calculated that the fall in casualties produced £221 million of benefits to society, including reduced medical costs and less lost economic output.
The RAC Foundation said that the report proved that cameras had a role to play but called for more drivers to be given the choice of attending a speed awareness course rather than three penalty points.
Edmund King, the foundation’s director, said: “The Government should review its road safety strategy to include a commitment to increasing the numbers of traffic police on the roads, better signing of speed limits and a focus on re-education of speeding drivers.
“A speeding ticket through the post tends to harden rather than change the drivers’ attitudes, whereas driver training encourages those taking part to think about their behaviour and change it.”
The Association of British Drivers, which campaigns against speed cameras, said there were flaws in the report. Some areas had been excluded because of “insufficient data”, raising suspicions that their results would have dragged down the national average.
Mark McArthur-Christie, the association’s road safety spokesman, said: “Studies claiming cameras are working are all based on localised ‘cherry-picked’ statistics, which are wide open to distortions.
“Camera partnerships, local authorities and the Highways Agency all place every possible obstruction in the path of those who want to examine accident reports.”
Interestingly that report published the other day shows that casualties have actually increased at over 700 camera sites.
It makes excuses for around 500 of them, saying that they haven't been there long enough or the figures aren't accurate as the camera was already there before the 'before' figures were taken (you what?!).
It makes excuses for around 500 of them, saying that they haven't been there long enough or the figures aren't accurate as the camera was already there before the 'before' figures were taken (you what?!).
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff