RE: Digital speed cameras hit London
Thursday 25th November 2004
Digital speed cameras hit London
SPECs revenue-earners targeted at capital's speeders
If you drive in London, expect to be targeted by stealth cameras --yes, even more cameras. Seven hundred cameras already 'patrol' the streets of the capital, catching 500,000 motorists annually and raising £10m in fines.
From Monday though, digital speed cameras come online, working on the same principle as the infamous SPECs cameras (right) on the M6 and elsewhere which measure speed between two fixed points by calculating how long it took to cover the distance. They don't flash, and you won't know you've been caught until the NIP (Notice of Intent to Prosecute) plops on the doormat.
There's more here: www.thisislondon.co.uk/news/articles/14950169?source=Evening%20Standard
Discussion
article said:they have to net loads, these cameras are damned expensive (£300k each)!
They are expected to dramatically increase the number of motorists caught breaking the law
I keep repeating this, but I feel it's important for people to know where their hard earned tax is going
Is the 20MPH limit really justified?
People can RUN faster than that (let alone cycle)!piccy mate said:
Quote
A Transport for London spokesman said: "Research proves that a 1mph reduction in average speed results in a reduction of six per cent in the number of collisions."
So set the speed limit on motorways to 100mph for a year. When everyone is used to driving at that speed, reduce it to 80mph and get a 120% reduction in collisions!
piccy mate said:
Quote
A Transport for London spokesman said: "Research proves that a 1mph reduction in average speed results in a reduction of six per cent in the number of collisions."
Unquote
Oh Yeah? So if we reduce the the speed enough - we'll be owed collisions?
Piccy
Dead right as since the average speed in central London is only about 15mph, by the time we reach 0 mph, we'll still be having 10% of current collisions. Difficult as no one will be moving !
Well obviously - that'll be the pedestrians who will still insist on crossing the road where they're not supposed to and crashing into all the parked cars!
Still be the motorist's fault though!!
Piccy
>> Edited by piccy mate on Thursday 25th November 11:44
Still be the motorist's fault though!!
Piccy
scotti said:
Dead right as since the average speed in central London is only about 15mph, by the time we reach 0 mph, we'll still be having 10% of current collisions. Difficult as no one will be moving !
>> Edited by piccy mate on Thursday 25th November 11:44
I think the actual cost of a camera is £30k not £300K but even that multiplied by the 700 in london alone cost £21 million against a total income of £10 million. I wonder how much they cost to support and administer as well. The Government should publish a coomprehensive study into their value in terms of cost and saftey I suspect the case for either doesn't stack up.
"Message signs will alert drivers if they travel over the speed limit so they can reduce their speed before reaching the zone. Our primary aim is reduce speed-related collisions."
So they are using cameras to police a 20 zone set up to protect a workforce during major roadworks. Big deal.
I can't actually see what people are griping about with the possible exception that :
"experts say that, if they are successful, they are bound to spread throughout the capital."
Surely until they actually do "spread throughout the capital" as the "experts" predict you can't really object to policing the roadworks?
Better to use this technology to protect vulnerable locations like roadworks and residential areas than on trunk roads and motorways. Maybe, just maybe, this indicates that they are at last getting the point...
So they are using cameras to police a 20 zone set up to protect a workforce during major roadworks. Big deal.
I can't actually see what people are griping about with the possible exception that :
"experts say that, if they are successful, they are bound to spread throughout the capital."
Surely until they actually do "spread throughout the capital" as the "experts" predict you can't really object to policing the roadworks?
Better to use this technology to protect vulnerable locations like roadworks and residential areas than on trunk roads and motorways. Maybe, just maybe, this indicates that they are at last getting the point...
hartge bob said:
"We want to encourage drivers and riders to keep within the reduced speed limit."
Riders?
That'll be the motorbikes, scooters and pushbikes that have no numberplates on the front then will it?
What's more dangerous to other road users? 30mph in a car or 20mph on a horse. Speed doesn't always kill.
piccy mate said:
A Transport for London spokesman said: "Research proves that a 1mph reduction in average speed results in a reduction of six per cent in the number of collisions."
These numbers come from a report that came out years ago, which wasn't worth the paper it was written on. They compared accident figures from several small studies taken on different types of road in different countries many years apart, and concluded that the results from slower roads showed fewer accidents. This has been quoted time and again to 'prove' that slowing traffic down by 1% will reduce accidents by 6%. Of course, the report doesn't show anything of the sort.
custardtart said:
I think the actual cost of a camera is £30k not £300K.....
Ahem...
www.fleetnewsnet.co.uk/news/view_article.asp?art_ID=35517
custardtart said:The current policy does not stack up! I EXPECT a near 100% reduction of accidents/fatalities at scamera sites, but it is only 40%. IMO, this is even worse than 'regression to mean' would suggest. This would be why we've never seen such a study!
......The Government should publish a coomprehensive study into their value in terms of cost and saftey I suspect the case for either doesn't stack up.
GreenV8S said:
A Transport for London spokesman said: "Research proves that a 1mph reduction in average speed results in a reduction of six per cent in the number of collisions."
These numbers come from a report that came out years ago, which wasn't worth the paper it was written on. They compared accident figures from several small studies taken on different types of road in different countries many years apart, and concluded that the results from slower roads showed fewer accidents. This has been quoted time and again to 'prove' that slowing traffic down by 1% will reduce accidents by 6%. Of course, the report doesn't show anything of the sort.
I'm afraid it's even worse than that. The report you're talking about is "Finch, 1994". But we also now have TRL421 and TRL511. In fact the 6% figures comes from TRL421. They are works of fiction and proved to be so by built in logical fallacies. Have a look at:
www.safespeed.org.uk/trl421.html
www.safespeed.org.uk/trl.html
If anyone needs MORE damning evidence of the flaws in those reports I have more.
It's REALLY annoying to see the lie repeated again and again. If anyone has any ideas about how to stop it I'm all ears.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff