Serious Question about Cameras - Answers Please
Discussion
I can't believe that they cause more collisions then they prevent - the stats are probably correct that accidents are down in their locations, but they do seriously affect driver behaviour in the local areas.
Of prime note (as I've often published) is the camera outside B&Q on the A40 (Tony, you'll know it well).
This camera - without doubt - must cause accidents, and certainly causes congestion on a dailly basis.
Of prime note (as I've often published) is the camera outside B&Q on the A40 (Tony, you'll know it well).
This camera - without doubt - must cause accidents, and certainly causes congestion on a dailly basis.
I would say that the sight of a 'safety camera' has 90% of drivers hitting the brakes, especially when on an unfamiliar road.
Even if you're under the posted limit, it's become a 2nd nature reaction to give the pedal a prod.
Now you might argue that if a subsequent collision occurs, then it's because the following car was going too fast to stop (excessive speed?) BUT, having seen many camera site with nice black strips of used rubber right by them. Throw in some wet/icy weather and you have a recipe for self induced disaster too.
I, like many others on here, don't have a problem with speed 'reinforcement' WHERE APPROPRIATE. But there's just too many cases of cameras situated beside roads purely to generate ticketing revenue. The Talivans are much worse offenders for this IMHO.
The other thing is that local councils seem to have been on a mission in recent years to reduce speed limits to 30 where it's completely unnecessary. I've travelled the same route to Henley for about 20 years and in all that time, have seen/heard of about 4 accidents. This was NSL all the way.
Ironically, two of these accidents happened in the last two years, AFTER it was reduced to 30mph.
It's tough to argue against the rationale 'for' the cameras. But I think far more lives can be saved and casualties reduced by teaching people how to actually drive properly and safely, focussing on their awareness of the potential dangers around them.
Unfortunately, the reality for most people is that they only realise WHY they've had an accident after they've had it
Even if you're under the posted limit, it's become a 2nd nature reaction to give the pedal a prod.
Now you might argue that if a subsequent collision occurs, then it's because the following car was going too fast to stop (excessive speed?) BUT, having seen many camera site with nice black strips of used rubber right by them. Throw in some wet/icy weather and you have a recipe for self induced disaster too.
I, like many others on here, don't have a problem with speed 'reinforcement' WHERE APPROPRIATE. But there's just too many cases of cameras situated beside roads purely to generate ticketing revenue. The Talivans are much worse offenders for this IMHO.
The other thing is that local councils seem to have been on a mission in recent years to reduce speed limits to 30 where it's completely unnecessary. I've travelled the same route to Henley for about 20 years and in all that time, have seen/heard of about 4 accidents. This was NSL all the way.
Ironically, two of these accidents happened in the last two years, AFTER it was reduced to 30mph.
It's tough to argue against the rationale 'for' the cameras. But I think far more lives can be saved and casualties reduced by teaching people how to actually drive properly and safely, focussing on their awareness of the potential dangers around them.
Unfortunately, the reality for most people is that they only realise WHY they've had an accident after they've had it
This is a dificult one. We are not in possesion of the information to be able to make a valid judgement as the powers that be only hand out the generalisations.
My feeling (as you may have gathered form the other post) is that too many distractions make driving difficult and can lead to accidents. It is imposible to attribute this to a single cause in all cases.
This is why we need more openness about the statistics so that each accident can be put down as more than just "speed related".
By the way, would the camera accident be attributable to speed just because it involved a speed camera
So in summary, can I sit on the fence and say that they may cause an increase in cetain circumstances.
My feeling (as you may have gathered form the other post) is that too many distractions make driving difficult and can lead to accidents. It is imposible to attribute this to a single cause in all cases.
This is why we need more openness about the statistics so that each accident can be put down as more than just "speed related".
By the way, would the camera accident be attributable to speed just because it involved a speed camera
So in summary, can I sit on the fence and say that they may cause an increase in cetain circumstances.
puggit said:
the stats are probably correct that accidents are down in their locations, but they do seriously affect driver behaviour in the local areas.
.
The stats are probably skewed because they are collated by people with a political ideology to fulfill.
Driver behaviour is certainly affected, that is why the hotelliers in N Wales are ready to lynch the idiot Brunstrom because while all other places in the UK have had a bumper summer N Wales has lost 20% of its turnover. Therefore I conclude that in general if people see loads of daft interference like scameras and bumps they find an alternative route. As a consequence the crashes are transferred from safe main roads to little rat runs where the number of hazards is increased. The result is Deaths remain the same overall. More importantly the reduction in crashes in scamera locations is due to a reduction in traffic not the scameras.
I've seen a lot of potentially dangerous violent braking. I know the scameras have modified my driving behaviour for the worse. I am now scanning for scameras, and due to the way the scameraships are driving a coach and horses through the ACPO guidelines I am looking at my speedo more frequently. Both these activities take my attention from looking for true hazards. The penalties are so draconian with no leeway I am forced to adopt this defensive mode.
tonyrec said:
How many people think, (honestly believe), that Speed Cameras actually cause more Collisions than they prevent and why?
It's not a matter of quantity.
The important point is that cameras have caused collisions.
Remember the bikers in London a couple of years ago? Car braked for camera, two following bikers went down. One died.
Regardless of fault, if the camera had not been there, that lad would still have been alive.
If the presence of anything at the roadside presents a hazard, does the local authority or Highways Agency not have a duty of care to remove it?
>> Edited by mybrainhurts on Wednesday 17th December 18:52
tonyrec said:
How many people think, (honestly believe), that Speed Cameras actually cause more Collisions than they prevent and why?
Obviously see the Safe Speed web site, especially these pages:
www.safespeed.org.uk/effects.html
www.safespeed.org.uk/dangers.html
www.safespeed.org.uk/tiger.html
And don't forget that the national fatality rate is screaming to us that something went badly wrong in about 1993.
www.safespeed.org.uk/fatality.html
www.safespeed.org.uk/factors.html
www.safespeed.org.uk/5500.xls
Best Regards,
Paul Smith
Safe Speed
www.safespeed.org.uk
Good question Tonyrec.
My personal view is that culturally we have never been trained as drivers to keep a constant eye on the speedo, we typically drove taking into account conditions (which is why the 85th percentile guide makes sense) and as a result all of us strayed a 'little' over the limits, good old trafpol were around to educate and punish (quite rightly) if the 'little' became taking the p*ss and this would usually have the desired effect (certainly for a period of time).
Due to the mass introduction of non discretionary technology, I now spend considerably more time looking at the speedo, with all three mirrors requiring attention it occupies a great deal of time in the cockpit and means my eyes are not as often on the road ahead.
Whereas before the introduction of scamera’s, I took pride in reading the road (I believe reasonably successfully) my attention has been drawn to the side of the road for speed limits and my speedo to ensure I am within limits (there is no common sense associated with road types any longer) , logic would indicate that this must impact road safety but I would seek an expert opinion (yours) as to whether in your experience this is true.
My personal view is that culturally we have never been trained as drivers to keep a constant eye on the speedo, we typically drove taking into account conditions (which is why the 85th percentile guide makes sense) and as a result all of us strayed a 'little' over the limits, good old trafpol were around to educate and punish (quite rightly) if the 'little' became taking the p*ss and this would usually have the desired effect (certainly for a period of time).
Due to the mass introduction of non discretionary technology, I now spend considerably more time looking at the speedo, with all three mirrors requiring attention it occupies a great deal of time in the cockpit and means my eyes are not as often on the road ahead.
Whereas before the introduction of scamera’s, I took pride in reading the road (I believe reasonably successfully) my attention has been drawn to the side of the road for speed limits and my speedo to ensure I am within limits (there is no common sense associated with road types any longer) , logic would indicate that this must impact road safety but I would seek an expert opinion (yours) as to whether in your experience this is true.
Having read the safespeed articles - and I admit I am relying on Paul having done the right job (and with him being so open regards the stats I have no reason (nor the intelligence) to doubt his analysis) I would say it certainly appears that the overall number of collisions is on the increase.
My personal feeling is a combination of relience on cameras and the reduction in trafpol is causing the reversal of the downturn seen until 1993 and if you assume that the long downward trend in collisions had continued then you have to say yes - IMO The Camera Policy is killing members of the British public.
Cheers
Paul
My personal feeling is a combination of relience on cameras and the reduction in trafpol is causing the reversal of the downturn seen until 1993 and if you assume that the long downward trend in collisions had continued then you have to say yes - IMO The Camera Policy is killing members of the British public.
Cheers
Paul
I dont think the fixed cameras are causing accidents, because local people know they are there and are at the correct speed as they go through, non-local motorists cant really fail to notice them either if they are painted yellow and there are advance warning signs. If you get nipped by one of these you probably deserve it for not seeing it as I reckon that kind of inattention is as bad as being over the limit, no matter how safe your speed was.
If the fixed camera only becomes apparent at the last moment due to its position and being a bit hidden or obscured then yes I think it can be causing a problem with sudden and often violent braking. Obvious really.
I find the mobile cameras a particular hazard for the same reasons as above, you dont often get much warning and many times I have been at either end of, or in the middle of a domino braking effect and have actually witnessed some crunches as a result.
In 30 zones I always stay well within the limit, so it isnt a problem for me, but then you tend not to get cameras in 30 zones or outside schools anyway. I find most town ringroads are also a worry as I try to keep to the 40 limit, but often the natural traffic flow speed is higher, especially if it is a dual carriageway. Under these conditions I am paranoid about my speed and am always fixed on the speedo. On the Derby ringroad for example I have to check my speed too often as you tend to go with the flow which is usually higher, controlling even a 1-5 mph transgression means I have not been paying full attention to the road ahead as a result. I often start to think I have missed something important because of my focus on the speedo.
Every now and then I come across a camera and I am within the limit and I think to myself, if anyone gets nicked by that, just here, they deserve it, it would just be nuts to be going too fast here. But on the whole whenever I see a camera I think, aha, I know why they are here, money, coz its safe to go a bit quicker, everyone does it here, its the natural flow, and they know it, this is not about safety.
Edited to add: I have six points on my licence, three points for doing 93mph on the M1 in the lefthand lane at 6.12am on a bright clear dry summers Sunday morning when there was no other traffic at all except for me and the blue Volvo police car about a mile or two behind me. 93mph is illegal, I buy that, but unsafe under the conditions? tell the Germans. The other three points was an education for me, mobile camera van, everybody and their dog being really good and extra smug doing EXACTLY forty, because we could all see the van and motorists coming the other way were flashing us a warning. But it was a 30 zone! I never knew, been living there for years too.
>> Edited by Balmoral Green on Wednesday 17th December 19:38
If the fixed camera only becomes apparent at the last moment due to its position and being a bit hidden or obscured then yes I think it can be causing a problem with sudden and often violent braking. Obvious really.
I find the mobile cameras a particular hazard for the same reasons as above, you dont often get much warning and many times I have been at either end of, or in the middle of a domino braking effect and have actually witnessed some crunches as a result.
In 30 zones I always stay well within the limit, so it isnt a problem for me, but then you tend not to get cameras in 30 zones or outside schools anyway. I find most town ringroads are also a worry as I try to keep to the 40 limit, but often the natural traffic flow speed is higher, especially if it is a dual carriageway. Under these conditions I am paranoid about my speed and am always fixed on the speedo. On the Derby ringroad for example I have to check my speed too often as you tend to go with the flow which is usually higher, controlling even a 1-5 mph transgression means I have not been paying full attention to the road ahead as a result. I often start to think I have missed something important because of my focus on the speedo.
Every now and then I come across a camera and I am within the limit and I think to myself, if anyone gets nicked by that, just here, they deserve it, it would just be nuts to be going too fast here. But on the whole whenever I see a camera I think, aha, I know why they are here, money, coz its safe to go a bit quicker, everyone does it here, its the natural flow, and they know it, this is not about safety.
Edited to add: I have six points on my licence, three points for doing 93mph on the M1 in the lefthand lane at 6.12am on a bright clear dry summers Sunday morning when there was no other traffic at all except for me and the blue Volvo police car about a mile or two behind me. 93mph is illegal, I buy that, but unsafe under the conditions? tell the Germans. The other three points was an education for me, mobile camera van, everybody and their dog being really good and extra smug doing EXACTLY forty, because we could all see the van and motorists coming the other way were flashing us a warning. But it was a 30 zone! I never knew, been living there for years too.
>> Edited by Balmoral Green on Wednesday 17th December 19:38
My driving has changed arround Cameras, I spend more time watching the Speedo. Also I am more aware of what is going on arround me because If I slow down then I want to know that the cars behind me have too.
Regarding the SCam by B&Q, I would imagine it has just moved the tyre marks from lane 1 to lane 3 as that junction is very short there and means the traffic turning has to slow down a lot. I would think this would have a knock on effect as cars would be going doubble the speed. It must have been worse when that streatch was NSL!
As for SCam's saving lives/causing crashes ....? Dunno but I think there is a much greater risk due to everyone slowing down and watching the clocks.
I wonder how much wasted energy they cause? Just think of the amount of wasted tyre tread/brake pads/petrol involved with millions of cars slowing down and then speading up. What about the Enviroment?
Regarding the SCam by B&Q, I would imagine it has just moved the tyre marks from lane 1 to lane 3 as that junction is very short there and means the traffic turning has to slow down a lot. I would think this would have a knock on effect as cars would be going doubble the speed. It must have been worse when that streatch was NSL!
As for SCam's saving lives/causing crashes ....? Dunno but I think there is a much greater risk due to everyone slowing down and watching the clocks.
I wonder how much wasted energy they cause? Just think of the amount of wasted tyre tread/brake pads/petrol involved with millions of cars slowing down and then speading up. What about the Enviroment?
Obviously doens't really apply to cameras on safe roads, since the increased risk still isn't likely to result in an accident...
Where they are in dangerous places, I suspect that the improvements are matched by the risks. The population might be more aware of localised risk, or slower, but the variation in reaction to the camera will cause a significant unpredictability.
The real problem is not that the camera locations are more dangerous, it is that we are training drivers not to be able to assess risks themselves. More enforcement doesn't just change drivers behaviour where they know there is a fixed camera, it also teaches them that if they drive at 2mph below the number on a stick, they can't have an accident. This is why overall accident figures are important!
Sean
Where they are in dangerous places, I suspect that the improvements are matched by the risks. The population might be more aware of localised risk, or slower, but the variation in reaction to the camera will cause a significant unpredictability.
The real problem is not that the camera locations are more dangerous, it is that we are training drivers not to be able to assess risks themselves. More enforcement doesn't just change drivers behaviour where they know there is a fixed camera, it also teaches them that if they drive at 2mph below the number on a stick, they can't have an accident. This is why overall accident figures are important!
Sean
Don't know the answer to that Tony but I can say that nearly everytime I pass a speed camera and their is a car in front of me then that car brakes, even if they are already traveling at less than the speed limit. I have even caught myself doing it if I felt I was abit too close to the limit.
This cannot be healthy and I know everyone must do an immediate speedo check if they spot a camera which means they MUST take their eyes off the road at an "ACCIDENT BLACKSPOT" (if you believe that is where cameras are placed). If this is not creating an extra risk then I don't know what is.
Signs saying "Accident Blackspot Please Drive EXTRA Carefully" would have less effect on people taking their eyes off the road and might just concentrate the minds better than a box on a stick that may cost your your license.
This cannot be healthy and I know everyone must do an immediate speedo check if they spot a camera which means they MUST take their eyes off the road at an "ACCIDENT BLACKSPOT" (if you believe that is where cameras are placed). If this is not creating an extra risk then I don't know what is.
Signs saying "Accident Blackspot Please Drive EXTRA Carefully" would have less effect on people taking their eyes off the road and might just concentrate the minds better than a box on a stick that may cost your your license.
What's the actual question? Less collisions or less serious accidents. The local Tesco car park is full of collisions and look how slow people drive. I don't think the camera supporters ever claim their cameras reduce collisions.
A recent poll suggested 75% of people supported speed cameras. OK we all know the wording was probably, "In principle, do you support the use of SAFETY cameras on roads with high accident rates?" And that was Joe Public, not just motorists.
Now, this means we should focus on what the real issue is. Namely the unfairness of speed cameras. In other words the mobile camera on the 30mph dual carriageway that last year was a 50mph limit and suchlike.
I'd like to bet that the reduction on casualties where a camera exist is greatest in the 30mph urban roads, and least reduction (maybe increase) on the dual carriageways and motorways.
A recent poll suggested 75% of people supported speed cameras. OK we all know the wording was probably, "In principle, do you support the use of SAFETY cameras on roads with high accident rates?" And that was Joe Public, not just motorists.
Now, this means we should focus on what the real issue is. Namely the unfairness of speed cameras. In other words the mobile camera on the 30mph dual carriageway that last year was a 50mph limit and suchlike.
I'd like to bet that the reduction on casualties where a camera exist is greatest in the 30mph urban roads, and least reduction (maybe increase) on the dual carriageways and motorways.
Godfrey H said:
I've seen a lot of potentially dangerous violent braking. I know the scameras have modified my driving behaviour for the worse. I am now scanning for scameras, and due to the way the scameraships are driving a coach and horses through the ACPO guidelines I am looking at my speedo more frequently. Both these activities take my attention from looking for true hazards. The penalties are so draconian with no leeway I am forced to adopt this defensive mode.
I agree totally with Godfrey H.
Not only do speed traps divert attention from the road ahead by causing us to look inside our cars at the speedo, but by sticking to limits which are often too low, I have seen many more instances of agressive overtaking, usually acompanied by angry looks or temple tapping.
If we drove at the 85th percentile, regardless of a number on a stick, we would be much safer, as the Montana "Reasonable and Prudent" laws showed.
oyster said:
What's the actual question? Less collisions or less serious accidents. The local Tesco car park is full of collisions and look how slow people drive. I don't think the camera supporters ever claim their cameras reduce collisions.
A recent poll suggested 75% of people supported speed cameras. OK we all know the wording was probably, "In principle, do you support the use of SAFETY cameras on roads with high accident rates?" And that was Joe Public, not just motorists.
Now, this means we should focus on what the real issue is. Namely the unfairness of speed cameras. In other words the mobile camera on the 30mph dual carriageway that last year was a 50mph limit and suchlike.
I'd like to bet that the reduction on casualties where a camera exist is greatest in the 30mph urban roads, and least reduction (maybe increase) on the dual carriageways and motorways.
>I don't think the camera supporters ever claim their cameras reduce collisions. <
Arrive Alive in North Wales have done just that.
They began by saying speed cameras save lives, then it was changed to Speed cameras reduce KSI and now it is speed cameras reduce collisions.
I know of one 50m before a crossroads on a single carriagway section the A303.
As a user of this juntion I would estimate that 70-80% of the drivers are looking at the camera or are looking in their rear view mirror. NOT AT THE JUNCTION OR IT'S HAZARDS. I know that eye contact with another driver is paramount to knowing they have seen you, this does not happen at this junction.
In fact I was seriously tempted to go down one day with a camera & take some pics, then post them off to the local coucil & newspaper.
This one is definately creating a hazard, depsite the fact that it's slowing down the traffic at a dangerous juntion.
The Gatso is not highlighting the very hazard that it's there to reduce the accident stats of - simple.
As a user of this juntion I would estimate that 70-80% of the drivers are looking at the camera or are looking in their rear view mirror. NOT AT THE JUNCTION OR IT'S HAZARDS. I know that eye contact with another driver is paramount to knowing they have seen you, this does not happen at this junction.
In fact I was seriously tempted to go down one day with a camera & take some pics, then post them off to the local coucil & newspaper.
This one is definately creating a hazard, depsite the fact that it's slowing down the traffic at a dangerous juntion.
The Gatso is not highlighting the very hazard that it's there to reduce the accident stats of - simple.
I don't have an answer as I suspect some cameras may reduce the accident rate in their vicinity, and some may increase it due to extra hard braking eg traffic light cameras.
However I do firmly believe that overall risks have been increased on some NSL undivided carriageways.
This is because many people appear to have modified their overtaking technique from "welly it with as short a time on the wrong side as possible" to "creep past at the limit or maybe a little bit over" thus being exposed for longer.
[edited to add]
Of course this effect applies on all roads and not just where static cameras are located or the vans lurk.
[end edit]
Could be talking total cobblers but that is my opinion FWIW.
FiF
>> Edited by Flat in Fifth on Wednesday 17th December 20:45
However I do firmly believe that overall risks have been increased on some NSL undivided carriageways.
This is because many people appear to have modified their overtaking technique from "welly it with as short a time on the wrong side as possible" to "creep past at the limit or maybe a little bit over" thus being exposed for longer.
[edited to add]
Of course this effect applies on all roads and not just where static cameras are located or the vans lurk.
[end edit]
Could be talking total cobblers but that is my opinion FWIW.
FiF
>> Edited by Flat in Fifth on Wednesday 17th December 20:45
I have certainly had to brake hard to slow from 80ish to 70ish on the A1 and A14 when I have spotted a camera a bit late. I don't suppose that the car behind appreciates the manouvre, and it is certainly more dangerous than continuing to drive at a steady 80ish. More worrying, I have also started to brake hard whenever I spot a white van in a layby or stationary on a motorway bridge, it cannot be safe to encourage apparently random acts of heavy braking on high speed but ordinarily safe A roads or motorways.
So yes, I would expect accident rates to increase especially as more drivers become aware of the potential danger of suspicious stationary vans to ones license.
So yes, I would expect accident rates to increase especially as more drivers become aware of the potential danger of suspicious stationary vans to ones license.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff