Crashes up at camera sites (again)
Discussion
[url]www.magentanews.com/cache.asp?n=245164[/url]
ACCIDENTS UP AT CAMERA SITES
NEW figures reveal that accidents and injuries at speed camera sites in Sunderland have INCREASED in recent years.
Instead of falling, the number of people hurt at fixed and mobile camera sites in the city has gone up, along with the number of bumps, scrapes and crashes.
Drivers and motoring organisations today said the figures show cameras in the city are "nothing but a fix" designed to feed a "revenue-raising bottomless pit".
But Safe Speed for Life - responsible for siting cameras in Sunderland - hit back, claiming it is too early to draw any firm conclusions.
The number of casualties at camera sites in the city rocketed from 65 in 1999-2000 to 103 in 2003-04.
The most startling increase came in the number of minor injuries, rising from 55 to 96.
Anti-camera campaigners say the figures show what motorists have been saying all along, that speed cameras in Sunderland don't stop accidents.
Joyce Brown, 77, of Seaburn, snapped speeding three times on Whitburn Bents Road in less than 30 minutes, says she is not surprised by the findings.
Mrs Brown, who had a clean driving licence for 40 years, said: "People are so busy looking at their speedometers that they're probably not paying much attention to the road."
Nigel Humphries, from the Association of British Drivers, said: " Instead of placing speed cameras in areas with safety issues, they are being put where speed limits are low, thereby criminalising normal progress along the road. "
Bosses at Safe Speed for Life say the number, and severity, of collisions is influenced by a wide range of factors, only one of which is the presence of road safety cameras.
A spokeswoman for the organisation said: " We will be testing how effective the cameras have been against previous years' data.
"Our aim is to prevent all collisions and injuries. The figures are still too high and we will not become complacent."
Not sure if this has been aired before but here it is.
How many more times do we have to read this stuff before these empire builders lose their jobs? After 'Speed Cameras are Effective Despite Increase in Deaths' from the Lancs SCAMP we now have this from Sunderland. The part that really takes the p155 is the bit about 'it's too early'... they stopped the original cash-for-cameras trials after one year, supposedly because the results were so good that the programme had to be implemented elsewhere straight away, but in reality it was because regression to the mean would result in more crashes injuries and deaths the next year just as it was responsible for the drop they claimed as due to the cameras.
And that's exactly what happened.
>>> Edited by turbobloke on Friday 3rd September 09:29
ACCIDENTS UP AT CAMERA SITES
NEW figures reveal that accidents and injuries at speed camera sites in Sunderland have INCREASED in recent years.
Instead of falling, the number of people hurt at fixed and mobile camera sites in the city has gone up, along with the number of bumps, scrapes and crashes.
Drivers and motoring organisations today said the figures show cameras in the city are "nothing but a fix" designed to feed a "revenue-raising bottomless pit".
But Safe Speed for Life - responsible for siting cameras in Sunderland - hit back, claiming it is too early to draw any firm conclusions.
The number of casualties at camera sites in the city rocketed from 65 in 1999-2000 to 103 in 2003-04.
The most startling increase came in the number of minor injuries, rising from 55 to 96.
Anti-camera campaigners say the figures show what motorists have been saying all along, that speed cameras in Sunderland don't stop accidents.
Joyce Brown, 77, of Seaburn, snapped speeding three times on Whitburn Bents Road in less than 30 minutes, says she is not surprised by the findings.
Mrs Brown, who had a clean driving licence for 40 years, said: "People are so busy looking at their speedometers that they're probably not paying much attention to the road."
Nigel Humphries, from the Association of British Drivers, said: " Instead of placing speed cameras in areas with safety issues, they are being put where speed limits are low, thereby criminalising normal progress along the road. "
Bosses at Safe Speed for Life say the number, and severity, of collisions is influenced by a wide range of factors, only one of which is the presence of road safety cameras.
A spokeswoman for the organisation said: " We will be testing how effective the cameras have been against previous years' data.
"Our aim is to prevent all collisions and injuries. The figures are still too high and we will not become complacent."
Not sure if this has been aired before but here it is.
How many more times do we have to read this stuff before these empire builders lose their jobs? After 'Speed Cameras are Effective Despite Increase in Deaths' from the Lancs SCAMP we now have this from Sunderland. The part that really takes the p155 is the bit about 'it's too early'... they stopped the original cash-for-cameras trials after one year, supposedly because the results were so good that the programme had to be implemented elsewhere straight away, but in reality it was because regression to the mean would result in more crashes injuries and deaths the next year just as it was responsible for the drop they claimed as due to the cameras.
And that's exactly what happened.
>>> Edited by turbobloke on Friday 3rd September 09:29
Seems to me the scammerati are making the rules up as they go along. When it suits them, a tiny RTTM fall in accidents is the best news since the coming of the Messiah, and when there's a rise it's not their fault. Quite incredible.
Down here in Poxgatsfordshire the LA are planning on a whole load of new 50 limits - despite the fact that accidents went UP on a significant number of roads where they've already lowered the limit.
The only road where there was a major decrease in accidents was the A44. Strangely, no-one seemed to have thought that opening the M40 and the subsequent tumbling traffic volumes on the A44 had anything to do with the accident reductions...
What makes me soooo mad is we have to make sure our stats are completely and utterly watertight when we oppose anything a the scamerati do - but they can pull numbers out of the air and hide behind rice-paper excuses whenever they like...
Down here in Poxgatsfordshire the LA are planning on a whole load of new 50 limits - despite the fact that accidents went UP on a significant number of roads where they've already lowered the limit.
The only road where there was a major decrease in accidents was the A44. Strangely, no-one seemed to have thought that opening the M40 and the subsequent tumbling traffic volumes on the A44 had anything to do with the accident reductions...
What makes me soooo mad is we have to make sure our stats are completely and utterly watertight when we oppose anything a the scamerati do - but they can pull numbers out of the air and hide behind rice-paper excuses whenever they like...
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff