Deaths & speed cameras
Discussion
Is it true that road deaths have actually gone up since the invasion of scameras, if so could any officer of the lew enlighten us on why. The chap who runs the welsh police force did not seem to have any idea why its more but still maintains these cameras are for safety. IMHO all that happens is drivers slow down at camera sites then speed up between which usually means higer inconsistent driving.
Untill these death toll figures drop these cameras are only serving one purpose REVENUE.
Thankyou...
>>> Edited by YI8TVR on Wednesday 19th November 10:29
Untill these death toll figures drop these cameras are only serving one purpose REVENUE.
Thankyou...
>>> Edited by YI8TVR on Wednesday 19th November 10:29
Yes - cameras arrived in early 1990s - and deaths started going up instead of following the constant downward trend.
www.abd.org.uk/road_fatalities.htm
www.abd.org.uk/road_fatalities.htm
My personal opinion is that it's partly because we're so restricted now, we're going further afield, to unfamiliar (and maybe unsuitable) roads and driving faster there, because it's the only place we feel we can...
Also a lot of casualty figures are based on pure s
y luck. You might have less fatacs but more deaths because of the number of people in the cars. It's one of those see-saw figures you can make fit both arguements...
Also a lot of casualty figures are based on pure s
y luck. You might have less fatacs but more deaths because of the number of people in the cars. It's one of those see-saw figures you can make fit both arguements...madant69 said:
Also a lot of casualty figures are based on pure s
If only the "safety" partnerships would realise that. Often wondered that about KSI figures actually. It's all very well saying x number of injuries/deaths per year, but that is open to all sorts of distortion. What's the indicator of a dangerous road - six different cars having six seperate injury/death accidents over the course of a year, or one car full of lads crashing and killing the lot of them? You know which will grab all the "Think of the Children" headlines.
Personally, I think accident stats should just report VEHICLES involved, with number of occupants being a secondary consideration, rather than using injury/death to individuals. After all, whether four up or lone driver, it's still only one accident.
Apologies for the long post but I think cams are very wrong.
Not a police officer but I believe cameras themselves cause panic braking, traffic to travel closer together and frustration amongst drivers.
Claims for camera 'success' are often extremely flawed. If you have 2 cars in a freak accident one year you could have say 6 deaths in one year. Next year a camera is put in no deaths 'we are great' say the camera partnership. However if no camera was put there they could well still have been no deaths the freak accident has moved elsewhere.
The other aspect is the the camera partnership will nearly always state 'KSI' but who sets the definition of a serious accident - is it someone in a coma? someone who needs stitches? - someone who goes to hospital for a checkover and released as fine?
The long trend in road deaths has levelled off or increased over the 'speed kills' camera period despite increasing car safety and medical advances - at least partly responsable for previous year on year falls.
The speed kills policy is filtering through too the average driver as stick to the limits and we are safe good drivers - doesn't matter if we have our brains completely switched off because we are being safe.
I think that is the problem drive at the limit for long periods in a modern car and the brain wanders.
The other problem is cameras can only affect accidents due to excess speed above the speed limit. Most genuine figures put excess speed accidents (including those within the speed limit - excess speed for conditions) at around 7% I believe around 3.5% are above the limit so speed cameras can if they are perfect stop approx. 126 deaths a year. However within those 126 there are deaths by 'joyriders' and unregistered drivers who don't care about cameras and police chasing them who also will not be slowed by cameras.
They do however make a lot of money and will reduce the driving population (an aim of the current government)
In my opinion Humans need risk to be alert and responsive.
Tony
Not a police officer but I believe cameras themselves cause panic braking, traffic to travel closer together and frustration amongst drivers.
Claims for camera 'success' are often extremely flawed. If you have 2 cars in a freak accident one year you could have say 6 deaths in one year. Next year a camera is put in no deaths 'we are great' say the camera partnership. However if no camera was put there they could well still have been no deaths the freak accident has moved elsewhere.
The other aspect is the the camera partnership will nearly always state 'KSI' but who sets the definition of a serious accident - is it someone in a coma? someone who needs stitches? - someone who goes to hospital for a checkover and released as fine?
The long trend in road deaths has levelled off or increased over the 'speed kills' camera period despite increasing car safety and medical advances - at least partly responsable for previous year on year falls.
The speed kills policy is filtering through too the average driver as stick to the limits and we are safe good drivers - doesn't matter if we have our brains completely switched off because we are being safe.
I think that is the problem drive at the limit for long periods in a modern car and the brain wanders.
The other problem is cameras can only affect accidents due to excess speed above the speed limit. Most genuine figures put excess speed accidents (including those within the speed limit - excess speed for conditions) at around 7% I believe around 3.5% are above the limit so speed cameras can if they are perfect stop approx. 126 deaths a year. However within those 126 there are deaths by 'joyriders' and unregistered drivers who don't care about cameras and police chasing them who also will not be slowed by cameras.
They do however make a lot of money and will reduce the driving population (an aim of the current government)
In my opinion Humans need risk to be alert and responsive.
Tony
In the style of Jerry Springer I have a final thought
Camera partnerships are a business (look at the running costs) some of the staff are well paid and need to justify that existense. To do so they will fight and twist the statistics as far as possible - If they admit cameras don't work they are out of a job.
Tony
Camera partnerships are a business (look at the running costs) some of the staff are well paid and need to justify that existense. To do so they will fight and twist the statistics as far as possible - If they admit cameras don't work they are out of a job.
Tony
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff