Surrey Scamera Partnership website

[apprentice]

Was browsing the new SCP website and noted that the partnership now lists sites of cameras that are to be removed in 2005.... not seen that before.

[url]http://www.surrey-safecam.org/fe/default.asp?n1=1&n2=44[/url]

apprentice

[RedLCRB0b]

It's hilarious looking at the stats for some of those cameras:
A322 Bagshot By-Pass Jct. New Road, Bagshot,
Fatal or serious collisions before camera: 0
After camera: 4
Casualities before: 0
After: 5

Camera should be kept because 'Without the camera there would be a strong likelihood of an increase in casualties associated with red light violations'

WTF ?

There are quite a few other cameras with similar figures, how on earth they can claim that they make the roads safer is beyond me.

Bob

[james_j]

It's almost comical...

They say "...The vast majority of Surrey's road users do drive safely and contribute significantly to the UK's good road safety record...one of the safest in the world...but there is still work to be done to further reduce the number of unnecessary injuries and fatalities on Surrey's roads..."

They're trying to establish a link, without actually saying it directly, between control of speed and reduction in accidents.

Perhaps they don't actually make the claim because they themselves know it's a load of balls.

They must be a bit dim, it hasn't worked yet and it won't suddenly start working. This is surely job creation and preservation on a grand scale.

[john57]

I looked at the stats for two cameras near me ...... the number of fatal collisions has doubled since the cameras were installed ! Great........

[Gren]

Bagshot camera above is a red light one. They have though just reduced the limit there from 70 to 50.

That'll sort it out then!

[MilnerR]

john57 said:

I looked at the stats for two cameras near me ...... the number of fatal collisions has doubled since the cameras were installed ! Great........

As far as the SCPs are concerned regression to the mean only exists when fatalities increase! When they decrease, its a direct result of the speed camera!

[KB_S1]

Reading through some of those PDF's is surreal.

If it wasn't so serious it would be hilarious. Some of the sights have seen a twofold increase in fatality rate and yet they still claim success and necessity of scameras. How about doing something that actually makes it safer for once.

[jacobyte]

SCP said:

...reduce the number of unnecessary injuries...

[rodney59]

Some of these are a joke if it weren't for the fact that people had die.

And statements like
"Collisions have been spread between various locations along this length of road rather then being clustered in the vicinity of the camera.
"
rubbish of the claim that a camera is effective for xyz metres

I also get the feeling that some of the range of months could be working to their advantage. Why are nearly all the "after" figures longer than 36 months? to make the figures even better?

[rodney59]

And even here they claim sucess?!?

-----Collisions----------Casualties
-----Before----After-----Before----After

From July 1993 July 1996 July 1993 July 1996

TO-----June 1996 Sep 2004June 1996 Sep 2004

Months-36------98--------36--------98
KSI----0-------3---------0---------3
KSI/yr-0-------0.36------0---------0.36
ALL----13------26--------17--------33
All/yr-4.33----4.04------5.67------4.04

See what I mean about longer after periods? If the period was shorter would be per year figures look so good?

[james_j]

I very much like to hear any comments from camera representatives. We know you're there, watching, noting, waiting...