Speed cameras fail to cut accident rate
Discussion
Speed cameras fail to cut accident rate
SPEED cameras have failed to stop or even cut the number of accidents at more than half of the camera sites in the Wycombe area.
Figures from Thames Valley Safer Roads Partnership show, at eight out of 18 camera sites in the area, the number of people killed or seriously injured rose despite cameras being installed.
At another five sites the number killed or seriously injured showed no change.
Only at five sites did the numbers of accidents fall.
Where one camera is situated, on the A40 West Wycombe Road, figures showed seven people had been killed or seriously injured from 2000 to 2003.
In the three years prior to the camera's establishment, figures showed there were no serious accidents.
Dan Campsell, of Thames Valley Safer Roads Partnership, said: "The reality is that this camera is not particularly favourable. In the three years since the camera went in there have been 16 personal injury collisions."
The cameras were introduced in 1997 and chiefs installed the system in West Wycombe Road because people were concerned about speeding and pedestrians crossing the road.
They also pointed to the high number of the lesser type of accidents, known as personal injury collisions, as a reason for the speed camera.
Chris Scroxton, project manager at Thames Valley Safer Roads Partnership, said: "The safer roads partnership has a history removing cameras that are longer the most appropriate measure for maintaining safety.
He added: "However we will only act to remove sites where we are convinced that public safety is not compromised by doing so."
www.bucksfreepress.co.uk/news/localnews/display.var.522448.0.speed_cameras_fail_to_cut_accident_rate.php
SPEED cameras have failed to stop or even cut the number of accidents at more than half of the camera sites in the Wycombe area.
Figures from Thames Valley Safer Roads Partnership show, at eight out of 18 camera sites in the area, the number of people killed or seriously injured rose despite cameras being installed.
At another five sites the number killed or seriously injured showed no change.
Only at five sites did the numbers of accidents fall.
Where one camera is situated, on the A40 West Wycombe Road, figures showed seven people had been killed or seriously injured from 2000 to 2003.
In the three years prior to the camera's establishment, figures showed there were no serious accidents.
Dan Campsell, of Thames Valley Safer Roads Partnership, said: "The reality is that this camera is not particularly favourable. In the three years since the camera went in there have been 16 personal injury collisions."
The cameras were introduced in 1997 and chiefs installed the system in West Wycombe Road because people were concerned about speeding and pedestrians crossing the road.
They also pointed to the high number of the lesser type of accidents, known as personal injury collisions, as a reason for the speed camera.
Chris Scroxton, project manager at Thames Valley Safer Roads Partnership, said: "The safer roads partnership has a history removing cameras that are longer the most appropriate measure for maintaining safety.
He added: "However we will only act to remove sites where we are convinced that public safety is not compromised by doing so."
www.bucksfreepress.co.uk/news/localnews/display.var.522448.0.speed_cameras_fail_to_cut_accident_rate.php
The problem is, if they move the cameras there will be more accidents as people 'discover' the new locations. At least people know where they are now (well locals do). Of course removing the sodding things is the real solution - even putting up those annoying '142 deaths in past 3 years on next 1/2 mile' signs is probably going to help more than scameras.
Mon Ami Mate said:
"The safer roads partnership has a history removing cameras that are longer the most appropriate measure for maintaining safety.
Astonishing, and how do they reach such a conclusion?
Mon Ami Mate said:
He added: "However we will only act to remove sites where we are convinced that public safety is not compromised by doing so."
Once again, against what do they measure this, if deaths are going up then scameras do not work.........is it likely to be more effective somewhere else? Actually in a skip might be the answer to that
>> Edited by Apache on Saturday 28th August 15:24
So lets get this right when accidents at camera sites rise we use the numbers from the county as a whole to show the total has decreased.
When the accidents at camera sites has fallen only use the data from camera sites even when the county as a whole has had more accidents
Lies, damned lies, and statistics
When the accidents at camera sites has fallen only use the data from camera sites even when the county as a whole has had more accidents
Lies, damned lies, and statistics
Now let's get this right, Mon Ami Mate, Sorry, I DON'T know the road or area BUT if it has frequent accidents, there must be a reason.
That tells me, and I'm only a thicko! (leaving myself wi..ide open here aren't I). that something is wrong with the road engineering OR signing!
Sticking a camera in a grey OR yellow box only photographs the incident, it does NOT prevent it! As I'm sure you will agree.
When will these people realise like us that a "Kodak on a stick" does nothing! only the ones (i.e. local drivers) that know it's there slow down. There is NO sign which tells the stranger of any inherent local danger or "Blackspot", so is it a surprise that strangers continue to have accidents?. NO! Stick up a Camera that'll do it! DON'T think so do you?
Best yet though! came home from Europe recently via NE section of M25 anticlockwise, Bright late afternoon sunshine with signs displaying "FOG"! Is it any wonder that we tend to ignore the bloody things!
That tells me, and I'm only a thicko! (leaving myself wi..ide open here aren't I). that something is wrong with the road engineering OR signing!
Sticking a camera in a grey OR yellow box only photographs the incident, it does NOT prevent it! As I'm sure you will agree.
When will these people realise like us that a "Kodak on a stick" does nothing! only the ones (i.e. local drivers) that know it's there slow down. There is NO sign which tells the stranger of any inherent local danger or "Blackspot", so is it a surprise that strangers continue to have accidents?. NO! Stick up a Camera that'll do it! DON'T think so do you?
Best yet though! came home from Europe recently via NE section of M25 anticlockwise, Bright late afternoon sunshine with signs displaying "FOG"! Is it any wonder that we tend to ignore the bloody things!
Bucks Free Press said:
Figures from Thames Valley Safer Roads Partnership show, at eight out of 18 camera sites in the area, the number of people killed or seriously injured rose despite cameras being installed.
At another five sites the number killed or seriously injured showed no change.
Only at five sites did the numbers of accidents fall.
I'm not an expert statistician, but IMHO these figures are essentially random. They demonstrate that overall the cameras are having no effect.
On the other hand, let's assume the figures are not random. It's possible that the 5 "good" sites demonstrate cameras were effective, while the 8 "bad" sites show they were detrimental. In this case there's some research needed to understand the circumstances in which cameras cause more accidents. When will that happen? My guess is never, because it would be an admission that cameras are not a panacea and would generate huge negative publicity. We can't have that, can we?
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff