RE: Road Peace calls for More Cameras
Friday 30th July 2004
Road Peace calls for More Cameras
Don't wait for four people to die says road safety charity
A charity for road traffic victims was today preparing for the launch of National Road Victim Month and a campaign to end the "body count" approach to siting speed cameras.
RoadPeace, which organises the awareness month every August, will this year call on the Government to axe its speed camera policy which allows cameras to be erected only on roads where at least four people have been killed or seriously injured.
The National Secretary of RoadPeace commented: "It is outrageous to wait for human sacrifice before a very successful life-saving device is installed.
"If someone was killed at a factory because a guard was missing from a machine, the Government wouldn't wait for three more people to die before installing it. Every speed camera in this country is effectively a memorial for at least four road crash victims and this is not right."
"We are now calling on the Government to drop the body count policy so a great number of road deaths can be prevented in the future."
August was chosen as National Road Victim Month seven years ago to commemorate the deaths of two well-known road crash victims - Bridget Driscoll, the first ever car victim, and Diana, Princess of Wales.
Throughout the month RoadPeace will be hosting a series of events and exhibitions to raise awareness.
Discussion
This is an appalling bit of propaganda by this Charity.
Limiting cameras to blackspots (defined as those who have *already* seen serious accidents) is not intended to imply that you have to wait until people have died but properly to identify which bits of road really are more likely to be the site of future accidents based on past experience.
If there haven't been any serious accidents at a particular spot, what would be the reason to mount a camera?
The 'body count' comment is cynical and says a lot about this organisation.
steve
Limiting cameras to blackspots (defined as those who have *already* seen serious accidents) is not intended to imply that you have to wait until people have died but properly to identify which bits of road really are more likely to be the site of future accidents based on past experience.
If there haven't been any serious accidents at a particular spot, what would be the reason to mount a camera?
The 'body count' comment is cynical and says a lot about this organisation.
steve
I would agree with the spirit of the aims here.
That is to make the Government/Authorities take notice before a target number of injuries and deaths.
But as for Scamera's
What should be happening is that a process of accident investigation occurs and the cause found.
If that cause is environmental and can be engineered out by e.g. road alterations, then do so.
If it is one-of driver error, then act against the driver as necessary, if necessary.
If it was the victims fault, then act against the victim as necessary, if necessary.
To simply bung up a photo-booth doesnt save lives, it just takes pictures.
That is to make the Government/Authorities take notice before a target number of injuries and deaths.
But as for Scamera's
What should be happening is that a process of accident investigation occurs and the cause found.
If that cause is environmental and can be engineered out by e.g. road alterations, then do so.
If it is one-of driver error, then act against the driver as necessary, if necessary.
If it was the victims fault, then act against the victim as necessary, if necessary.
To simply bung up a photo-booth doesnt save lives, it just takes pictures.
Stop trains as well as they have already killed.
Stop planes as well as they have already killed.
Stop trees as well as they have already killed.
Stop bees as well as they have already killed.
FFS
Why not ban everything, as everything has the potential to kill.
Here's what I submitted to them....
"Why, oh why, do you continue to spread this rhetoric about speed cameras.
What are you going to do when everyone drives at 10mph and the fatalities are still there?
Are you going to campaign against trains, planes, sponges - as they all have the potential to kill (and in fact all have).
Are you going to campaign against other things that have not yet killed, but have the potential to - JUST IN CASE?
And yes, I have been the victim of the consequences a fatal road accident - my grandfather was knocked down and killed while crossing a dark street on his way home from the pub. I bear no more malice to the car driver that to my grandad or the road planners, because if my grandad had not been wearing all black clothes and had not been drinking, and had the road planners actually put a crossing and some more lighting on the street, then my grandad may still be alive. How would a speed camera have prevented that accident? Come on, let me know!
How about having crossings for pedestrians that are actually used by pedestrians rather than pedestrians crossing where they like - surely the pedestrian is at fault then, not the driver doing 5, 10, 50% over the speed limit!
Would you blame an armed policeman on a firing range when someone runs across it and gets shot?"
>> Edited by m-five on Friday 30th July 14:46
Stop planes as well as they have already killed.
Stop trees as well as they have already killed.
Stop bees as well as they have already killed.
FFS
Why not ban everything, as everything has the potential to kill.
Here's what I submitted to them....
"Why, oh why, do you continue to spread this rhetoric about speed cameras.
What are you going to do when everyone drives at 10mph and the fatalities are still there?
Are you going to campaign against trains, planes, sponges - as they all have the potential to kill (and in fact all have).
Are you going to campaign against other things that have not yet killed, but have the potential to - JUST IN CASE?
And yes, I have been the victim of the consequences a fatal road accident - my grandfather was knocked down and killed while crossing a dark street on his way home from the pub. I bear no more malice to the car driver that to my grandad or the road planners, because if my grandad had not been wearing all black clothes and had not been drinking, and had the road planners actually put a crossing and some more lighting on the street, then my grandad may still be alive. How would a speed camera have prevented that accident? Come on, let me know!
How about having crossings for pedestrians that are actually used by pedestrians rather than pedestrians crossing where they like - surely the pedestrian is at fault then, not the driver doing 5, 10, 50% over the speed limit!
Would you blame an armed policeman on a firing range when someone runs across it and gets shot?"
>> Edited by m-five on Friday 30th July 14:46
quote m-five"How about having crossings for pedestrians that are actually used by pedestrians rather than pedestrians crossing where they like - surely the pedestrian is at fault then, not the driver doing 5, 10, 50% over the speed limit!
Would you blame an armed policeman on a firing range when someone runs across it and gets shot?"
Or blame a train driver for someone walking across the train tracks. People (pedestrians) have to take responsibility for their own actions. 70kg/s of water and mush verses 1500kg/s of metal. You work out your chances, and then be carefull.
Why not shut down the NHS, as it kills on a daily basis.
The roads are congested=too many people. Easy solution is get rid of a few.
I'm all for reducing safety in every aspect of our lives, and let natural selection sort it out.
>> Edited by wilkos on Friday 30th July 15:04
>> Edited by wilkos on Friday 30th July 15:08
Would you blame an armed policeman on a firing range when someone runs across it and gets shot?"
Or blame a train driver for someone walking across the train tracks. People (pedestrians) have to take responsibility for their own actions. 70kg/s of water and mush verses 1500kg/s of metal. You work out your chances, and then be carefull.
Why not shut down the NHS, as it kills on a daily basis.
The roads are congested=too many people. Easy solution is get rid of a few.
I'm all for reducing safety in every aspect of our lives, and let natural selection sort it out.
>> Edited by wilkos on Friday 30th July 15:04
>> Edited by wilkos on Friday 30th July 15:08
Where are these demo's? I might fancy a day out!
The problem with the statistics approach taken by the government is that it is based on attrition, but of money and driving licences, rather than 'lives saved'.
Scameras do not save lives. If they did they would be equipped with sensors to detect a pedestrian and car on a collision course and stop them both. That is 'saving a life'. Taking a photo of a car does not involve saving a life.
The inneffect of 'safety' cameras can be seen in the calls to ban camera detectors. Surely something that tells a driver to slow down means the policy works, so banning it means that the person still speeds, but, crucially, it means the government has some more money and another citizen a few steps closer to having his or her movement controlled.
You want to reduce road casualties? Keep the driver's attention on the road. Get rid of all the humps and slaloms and pointless one-ways, review speed limits sensibly and put the emphasis on avoiding an accident, rather than staring at your speedometer.
Scameras do not save lives. If they did they would be equipped with sensors to detect a pedestrian and car on a collision course and stop them both. That is 'saving a life'. Taking a photo of a car does not involve saving a life.
The inneffect of 'safety' cameras can be seen in the calls to ban camera detectors. Surely something that tells a driver to slow down means the policy works, so banning it means that the person still speeds, but, crucially, it means the government has some more money and another citizen a few steps closer to having his or her movement controlled.
You want to reduce road casualties? Keep the driver's attention on the road. Get rid of all the humps and slaloms and pointless one-ways, review speed limits sensibly and put the emphasis on avoiding an accident, rather than staring at your speedometer.
Isnt all road furniture calculated against fatal accidents? The spend has to be justified somehow.
I remember being told that doing RoSPA training by a retired traffic officer.
So are they proposing to remove all signage as that is a memoriam to death?
Its all very odd this lowest common denominator legislation, all very odd indeed...
I remember being told that doing RoSPA training by a retired traffic officer.
So are they proposing to remove all signage as that is a memoriam to death?
Its all very odd this lowest common denominator legislation, all very odd indeed...
grahambell said:
Yet another bunch of tossers who see speed cameras as the be all and end all of road safety.
Yes, and while they're focussing so intently on the speed factor and seemingly little else, they are a serious distraction from measures that might actually yield a significant reduction in the accident rate.
I very much want to see better road safety, but their approach will be unable to provide it.
Best wishes all,
Dave.
"If someone was killed at a factory because a guard was missing from a machine, the Government wouldn't wait for three more people to die before installing it"
Nope - they would have made sure that only properly trained and experienced operators were using the machine in the first place.
I have said this before, but I believe that many more deaths and injuries would be avoided if all drivers were subject to assessment on a regular (say, 5 yearly) basis.
Should they fail to meet the required level, then retraining would be compulsary followed by further assessment within one year.
Further failure to meet requirements would result in withdrawal of the licence.
Too radical?
Maybe not a vote winner, but then, neither is increased speed cameras or tolls.
At least it would be doing something positive to increase driver's skill.
Nope - they would have made sure that only properly trained and experienced operators were using the machine in the first place.
I have said this before, but I believe that many more deaths and injuries would be avoided if all drivers were subject to assessment on a regular (say, 5 yearly) basis.
Should they fail to meet the required level, then retraining would be compulsary followed by further assessment within one year.
Further failure to meet requirements would result in withdrawal of the licence.
Too radical?
Maybe not a vote winner, but then, neither is increased speed cameras or tolls.
At least it would be doing something positive to increase driver's skill.
wolosp said:
"If someone was killed at a factory because a guard was missing from a machine, the Government wouldn't wait for three more people to die before installing it"
Nope - they would have made sure that only properly trained and experienced operators were using the machine in the first place.
I have said this before, but I believe that many more deaths and injuries would be avoided if all drivers were subject to assessment on a regular (say, 5 yearly) basis.
Should they fail to meet the required level, then retraining would be compulsary followed by further assessment within one year.
Further failure to meet requirements would result in withdrawal of the licence.
Too radical?
Maybe not a vote winner, but then, neither is increased speed cameras or tolls.
At least it would be doing something positive to increase driver's skill.
Yes, I really do think that is the best way of tackling our road safety problems, and I'd like to see that happening. I wouldn't mind being re-tested but I would like some reward for a successful pass, and there are no prizes for guessing what form of reward I would like.
Re-testing might well prove quite unpopular so some worthwhile incentive needs to be given. There is also the practical problem of actually carrying out all the testing though, is there not?
Nevertheless we ought to be trying to find ways of making it work rather than dismissing it too readily and simply claiming it can't be done. An approach like that would surely be very rewarding I think.
Best wishes all,
Dave.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff