Blackpool council review of speed cameras
Discussion
This from todays local paper
www.blackpooltoday.co.uk/ViewArticle2.aspx?SectionID=62&ArticleID=887624
[quote]
'Speed traps failing to cut accidents on road'
BLACKPOOL'S speed cameras are failing to cut the number of accidents, a damning report has said.
Crash figures at 11 of the resort's 50 camera sites have risen in the last 12 months and most cameras are in areas where speeding is not a problem.
That is the conclusion of a report into the roadside traps which claims safety chiefs have been "selective" in deciding which Government guidelines to follow when deciding their location.
Coun Mary Smith, who helped compile the report, said: "We have to be honest and some people are not going to like it. The number of accidents at some speed cameras has risen – and that is fact."
The report, drafted following an in-depth scrutiny of camera locations in Blackpool by a council committee, calls for a review of all fixed camera sites in Blackpool.
Coun Smith, chairman of the committee, said: "We promised an open and transparent scrutiny and that is what we have done. We can only make recommendations – we cannot force the powers-that-be to make changes but they have to contend with public opinion.
"Where the number of accidents have risen, I don't think we can make them take the cameras out – and I don't think they have any intention to do so – but there are other
options.
"A lot of the accidents are caused by carelessness. Many of them have nothing to do with speed."
The report was commissioned by the council after Blackpool was dubbed the speed camera capital of Lancashire because it has more Gatsos than the county rest of the country.
The initial findings of the review will be reported to councillors and the public for the next week.
The report says:
• Speed cameras are in locations where there is a history of accidents – but the vast
majority of those were NOT speed-related
• There has been a reduction in the number of casualties but there is NO hard evidence to link this reduction to the introduction of speed cameras
• More "credible" and "user friendly" ways of tackling speed should be used such as vehicle-activated signs.
A copy of the report, which also confirms the council's belief that cameras are not used as revenue generating devices, has been passed to John Davies, project manager of the Lancashire Partnership for Road Safety.
He said:"There has been a reduction in the number of casualties in Blackpool and this is down to a number of road safety measures we have put into place over the last few years.
"We have never claimed cameras are the sole reason for this reduction, but they do play a part in changing driver behaviour."
12 November 2004
[/quote]
Latest accident at camera site was a suspected drunk driver hitting a couple on a zebra crossing about 20metres in front of a camera on Tuesday evening. Both suffered serious leg injuries.
I'll keep an eye out for the report next week.
Russ
www.blackpooltoday.co.uk/ViewArticle2.aspx?SectionID=62&ArticleID=887624
[quote]
'Speed traps failing to cut accidents on road'
BLACKPOOL'S speed cameras are failing to cut the number of accidents, a damning report has said.
Crash figures at 11 of the resort's 50 camera sites have risen in the last 12 months and most cameras are in areas where speeding is not a problem.
That is the conclusion of a report into the roadside traps which claims safety chiefs have been "selective" in deciding which Government guidelines to follow when deciding their location.
Coun Mary Smith, who helped compile the report, said: "We have to be honest and some people are not going to like it. The number of accidents at some speed cameras has risen – and that is fact."
The report, drafted following an in-depth scrutiny of camera locations in Blackpool by a council committee, calls for a review of all fixed camera sites in Blackpool.
Coun Smith, chairman of the committee, said: "We promised an open and transparent scrutiny and that is what we have done. We can only make recommendations – we cannot force the powers-that-be to make changes but they have to contend with public opinion.
"Where the number of accidents have risen, I don't think we can make them take the cameras out – and I don't think they have any intention to do so – but there are other
options.
"A lot of the accidents are caused by carelessness. Many of them have nothing to do with speed."
The report was commissioned by the council after Blackpool was dubbed the speed camera capital of Lancashire because it has more Gatsos than the county rest of the country.
The initial findings of the review will be reported to councillors and the public for the next week.
The report says:
• Speed cameras are in locations where there is a history of accidents – but the vast
majority of those were NOT speed-related
• There has been a reduction in the number of casualties but there is NO hard evidence to link this reduction to the introduction of speed cameras
• More "credible" and "user friendly" ways of tackling speed should be used such as vehicle-activated signs.
A copy of the report, which also confirms the council's belief that cameras are not used as revenue generating devices, has been passed to John Davies, project manager of the Lancashire Partnership for Road Safety.
He said:"There has been a reduction in the number of casualties in Blackpool and this is down to a number of road safety measures we have put into place over the last few years.
"We have never claimed cameras are the sole reason for this reduction, but they do play a part in changing driver behaviour."
12 November 2004
[/quote]
Latest accident at camera site was a suspected drunk driver hitting a couple on a zebra crossing about 20metres in front of a camera on Tuesday evening. Both suffered serious leg injuries.
I'll keep an eye out for the report next week.
Russ
I would put it to you that this should be seen as very significant you know.
This is a council wholeheartedly admitting and stating quite frankly that speed cameras do not work; they have failed to do what they were installed for.
They further submit that speeding is NOT the main cause of accidents in that area.
That takes a lot of courage for someone in a council position to do and this lady should be admired for it, simply because it goes against the tide of public opinion at the moment.
If this can be resiprocated in other councils it will be a step in the right direction.
This is a council wholeheartedly admitting and stating quite frankly that speed cameras do not work; they have failed to do what they were installed for.
They further submit that speeding is NOT the main cause of accidents in that area.
That takes a lot of courage for someone in a council position to do and this lady should be admired for it, simply because it goes against the tide of public opinion at the moment.
If this can be resiprocated in other councils it will be a step in the right direction.
Cynical me is thinking that they're really worried about the loss of visitors due to the policy of excessive cameras. 
But there again, good news all the same.
My view about accidents in built up areas like Blackpool is to use the system that the Dutch employ.
i.e. The "one level" approach of paving, usually block paved throughout (pavement and road), much more sensible IMO, no hated cameras needed! But of course it costs money to implement! but very effective and is not confrontational against the motorist.
But there again, good news all the same. My view about accidents in built up areas like Blackpool is to use the system that the Dutch employ.
i.e. The "one level" approach of paving, usually block paved throughout (pavement and road), much more sensible IMO, no hated cameras needed! But of course it costs money to implement!
but very effective and is not confrontational against the motorist.IOLAIRE said:
I would put it to you that this should be seen as very significant you know.
This is a council wholeheartedly admitting and stating quite frankly that speed cameras do not work; they have failed to do what they were installed for.
They further submit that speeding is NOT the main cause of accidents in that area.
That takes a lot of courage for someone in a council position to do and this lady should be admired for it, simply because it goes against the tide of public opinion at the moment.
If this can be resiprocated in other councils it will be a step in the right direction.
Hmmmm we are heaping praise on some good people here. It still remains a fact however, that an increase in accidents and deaths leads to the conclusion that Cameras kill. Not, cameras do not save lives, cameras kill.
Now, if a company experiences a unique 1 time unforseeable accident then the HSE will let them off and decalare the accident as such. If, however it happens again even in a different company then you get your head nailed on. Once one council has declared these cameras killers then every road death outside that area where a camera is near is gonna leave the town open to legal action surely?
The ABD should now focus on pedestrian victims and try to persuade the families to sue for compensation. Nothing will get rid of cameras quicker than them not making a profit. The camera murder partnershits are so grossly inefficient that it will not take much to turn this particular act of criminal genious into a chancellor angering loss maker, thus putting the last nail in its very desirable coffin.
nonegreen said:
Hmmmm we are heaping praise on some good people here. It still remains a fact however, that an increase in accidents and deaths leads to the conclusion that Cameras kill. Not, cameras do not save lives, cameras kill.
It's far more resaonable to suggest that cameras do not work than to suggest they kill (for waterver reason). A rise in accidents could well be a statistical anomaly (regression to the norm) which is what SafeSpeed uses to argue that the stats showing they do work are wrong.
This report should be welcomed as it shows that 'safety' cameras are just speed cameras and not about safety at all. This may pave the way for a re-focusiing on the real causes of accidents (poor road user training, mechanical defects, poor road engineering)...
Iain
iaint said:
Hmmmm we are heaping praise on some good people here. It still remains a fact however, that an increase in accidents and deaths leads to the conclusion that Cameras kill. Not, cameras do not save lives, cameras kill.
It's far more resaonable to suggest that cameras do not work than to suggest they kill (for waterver reason). A rise in accidents could well be a statistical anomaly (regression to the norm) which is what SafeSpeed uses to argue that the stats showing they do work are wrong.
This report should be welcomed as it shows that 'safety' cameras are just speed cameras and not about safety at all. This may pave the way for a re-focusiing on the real causes of accidents (poor road user training, mechanical defects, poor road engineering)...
Iain
Thing is, cameras have been touted by various "road safety" groups as THE best way to deal with what they percieve as being the "biggest" killer on the roads.
Pointless to get into their policies as we all know its based on bollox "science".
The point im trying to make is that if cameras arent saving the lives theyre meant to save, then just what the heck ARE they doing to those lives?
They sure as heck aint saving them!
And finally we have a council that appears to be making noises that support that view, and i might add, about time too.
Show me a "life saving speed camera" and ill show you some self levitating swine.....
This will either form the first crack in the ice and lead to greater road safety, or Bliar and the Brunstromfuhrer will just march straight in and cover it up.
I'd love to see proper scamera reviews of the whole country, ESPECIALLY Brainstorm's patch, to see if it's made any difference to genuine road safety, or just to his wallet.
I'd love to see proper scamera reviews of the whole country, ESPECIALLY Brainstorm's patch, to see if it's made any difference to genuine road safety, or just to his wallet.
iaint said:
Hmmmm we are heaping praise on some good people here. It still remains a fact however, that an increase in accidents and deaths leads to the conclusion that Cameras kill. Not, cameras do not save lives, cameras kill.
It's far more resaonable to suggest that cameras do not work than to suggest they kill (for waterver reason). A rise in accidents could well be a statistical anomaly (regression to the norm) which is what SafeSpeed uses to argue that the stats showing they do work are wrong.
This report should be welcomed as it shows that 'safety' cameras are just speed cameras and not about safety at all. This may pave the way for a re-focusiing on the real causes of accidents (poor road user training, mechanical defects, poor road engineering)...
Iain
On the technical level this is perfectly fine logic. You must understand though that the stalinist scum who champion cameras are not interested in the facts merely the destruction of everything they hate and that is symbolised by the car. As a consequence the spin associated with death cameras is presented as emotive and manipulating.
All I am advocating is the use of the same tools to fight this evil. Hence why say cameras are not working when we can say they are killing people? Once we use their language we can follow up with their questions. A typical survey question could now say.
"As speed cameras have now been proven to kill people do you think they should be removed? Result 80% say death cameras must go.
If on the other hand you ask "As cameras are proved to not work should they be removed?
Result 50% say safety cameras must stay.
It is the use of emotive terms that will ultimately win this war.
A bit more in tonights paper (the web site is not updated with Saturdays edition, so no link).
It identifies the 11 cameras and gives a table with with 'Accidents per annum' before and after cameras.
site - Before - After - Rough idea of location
1 - 4.3 - 5.3
2 - 4.0 - 5.1 - A583 - used to be 40mph -now 30mph
3 - 0.7 - 1.7 - A583 - used to be 40mph -now 30mph
4 - 4.7 - 6.0
5 - 4.7 - 6.0 - Stanly Park / Zoo area
6 - 4.3 - 4.8
7 - 4.3 - 5.0 - Prom - near Imperial hotel
8 - 3.7 - 4.0
9 - 1.3 - 2.0 - Prom - outside Pleasure Beach
10 - 3.7 - 4.0
11 - 3.7 - 4.0
the only actual mention of number of injuries is for site 5 which has gone from average of 6 casualities to 13 (site 3 has a similar percentage increase)
It identifies the 11 cameras and gives a table with with 'Accidents per annum' before and after cameras.
site - Before - After - Rough idea of location
1 - 4.3 - 5.3
2 - 4.0 - 5.1 - A583 - used to be 40mph -now 30mph
3 - 0.7 - 1.7 - A583 - used to be 40mph -now 30mph
4 - 4.7 - 6.0
5 - 4.7 - 6.0 - Stanly Park / Zoo area
6 - 4.3 - 4.8
7 - 4.3 - 5.0 - Prom - near Imperial hotel
8 - 3.7 - 4.0
9 - 1.3 - 2.0 - Prom - outside Pleasure Beach
10 - 3.7 - 4.0
11 - 3.7 - 4.0
the only actual mention of number of injuries is for site 5 which has gone from average of 6 casualities to 13 (site 3 has a similar percentage increase)
v8thunder said:
Part of it, I'm sure, is the daft new speed limits. Drivers see the new limit, see the scamera, drive along staring at their speedometer, then *bump* WTF was that?
spot on And remember this is the chump scamp that proudly proclaimed on its website that 'speed cameras are effective despite increase in road deaths'
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff