Why speed cameras must stay
Discussion
From:
http://w3.cambridge-news.co.uk/motors/roadwise.asp
Why speed cameras must stay
Published on 20 February 2004
THE safety camera debate continues with a survey published this week showing that that many people now see the value of cameras in their street to reduce vehicle speeds.
It would appear that demand for a camera is outstripping supply by five to one, with some camera partnerships having up to 10,000 requests for the little yellow boxes.
To qualify for a camera to be sited at any location the site must meet the criteria set by the Government.
A site is considered as a collision "hot spot" if there has been four killed or seriously injured per kilometre on that road over the last three-year period.
Further monitoring of traffic speed is undertaken in order to evaluate the best solution to the problem.
Solutions will be looked in the first instance through engineering, then education and lastly through enforcement. If enforcement of the speed limit is considered as an option, then a decision is made as to whether the site should have a fixed camera or be a mobile site.
I should say at this point that I do not intend to enter the debate about the rights and wrongs of safety cameras. I do, however, wish to challenge the actions of a minority of drivers who obviously do not consider the possible implications of their actions by taking a "snapshot" of one particular "hotspot" site in our county.
Over the past five years there have been ten fatal and twenty-eight serious injury collisions on the A1307 between the junction with the A11 (right) and the Suffolk border.
Three fatalities and serious injury collisions have occurred at or on the approach to the crossroads where the West Wratting and Bartlow roads cross the A1307.The road layout at this point is a dual carriageway road with a maximum permitted speed limit of 70mph.
Monitoring of traffic speed at this location for the fiveday period from the third to the eighth of February this year revealed some worrying data. Out of a total of 37,019 vehicles recorded travelling on the eastbound carriageway, 37 per cent were driven in excess of the speed limit with the highest speed recorded at 123mph.
The recorded speeds occurred at all times of the day as well as during the evening and night.
Bearing in mind the collision history and the layout of the road at this location why are drivers in such large numbers continuing to drive at these crazy inappropriate speeds?
Just think for a moment what would happen if you needed to brake suddenly when travelling at 70mph.
Your braking distance, on a dry road, would be 315 feet or 24 car lengths. So what would the stopping distance be for a car travelling at 100 or 120mph? It would take 600 feet or 45 car lengths to stop at 100mph and at 120mph it would be 840 feet or 64 car lengths.
The whole purpose of safety cameras is to reduce the average speed of traffic on the road.
These, in turn will not only have the effect of reducing the potential of a collision occurring at high speed but also ultimately, if a collision should occur, the likelihood of serious injuries will be significantly reduced.
We hear a lot of whinging about camera enforcement from a minority of drivers who appear to be only thinking of their own rights when it would appear that the quieter majority can see the real-life saving benefits to a wider community.
The challenge for drivers and motorcyclists is to prove that there is no need to have safety cameras because they are adjusting their speed to suit the prevailing conditions and keeping within the speed limit for the road.
The evidence so far does not inspire confidence.
http://w3.cambridge-news.co.uk/motors/roadwise.asp
Why speed cameras must stay
Published on 20 February 2004
THE safety camera debate continues with a survey published this week showing that that many people now see the value of cameras in their street to reduce vehicle speeds.
It would appear that demand for a camera is outstripping supply by five to one, with some camera partnerships having up to 10,000 requests for the little yellow boxes.
To qualify for a camera to be sited at any location the site must meet the criteria set by the Government.
A site is considered as a collision "hot spot" if there has been four killed or seriously injured per kilometre on that road over the last three-year period.
Further monitoring of traffic speed is undertaken in order to evaluate the best solution to the problem.
Solutions will be looked in the first instance through engineering, then education and lastly through enforcement. If enforcement of the speed limit is considered as an option, then a decision is made as to whether the site should have a fixed camera or be a mobile site.
I should say at this point that I do not intend to enter the debate about the rights and wrongs of safety cameras. I do, however, wish to challenge the actions of a minority of drivers who obviously do not consider the possible implications of their actions by taking a "snapshot" of one particular "hotspot" site in our county.
Over the past five years there have been ten fatal and twenty-eight serious injury collisions on the A1307 between the junction with the A11 (right) and the Suffolk border.
Three fatalities and serious injury collisions have occurred at or on the approach to the crossroads where the West Wratting and Bartlow roads cross the A1307.The road layout at this point is a dual carriageway road with a maximum permitted speed limit of 70mph.
Monitoring of traffic speed at this location for the fiveday period from the third to the eighth of February this year revealed some worrying data. Out of a total of 37,019 vehicles recorded travelling on the eastbound carriageway, 37 per cent were driven in excess of the speed limit with the highest speed recorded at 123mph.
The recorded speeds occurred at all times of the day as well as during the evening and night.
Bearing in mind the collision history and the layout of the road at this location why are drivers in such large numbers continuing to drive at these crazy inappropriate speeds?
Just think for a moment what would happen if you needed to brake suddenly when travelling at 70mph.
Your braking distance, on a dry road, would be 315 feet or 24 car lengths. So what would the stopping distance be for a car travelling at 100 or 120mph? It would take 600 feet or 45 car lengths to stop at 100mph and at 120mph it would be 840 feet or 64 car lengths.
The whole purpose of safety cameras is to reduce the average speed of traffic on the road.
These, in turn will not only have the effect of reducing the potential of a collision occurring at high speed but also ultimately, if a collision should occur, the likelihood of serious injuries will be significantly reduced.
We hear a lot of whinging about camera enforcement from a minority of drivers who appear to be only thinking of their own rights when it would appear that the quieter majority can see the real-life saving benefits to a wider community.
The challenge for drivers and motorcyclists is to prove that there is no need to have safety cameras because they are adjusting their speed to suit the prevailing conditions and keeping within the speed limit for the road.
The evidence so far does not inspire confidence.
cazzo said:
The challenge for drivers and motorcyclists is to prove that there is no need to have safety cameras because they are adjusting their speed to suit the prevailing conditions and keeping within the speed limit for the road.
The evidence so far does not inspire confidence.
Cazzo, IMHO I don't think you'll get a lot of agreement with what you say here, except perhaps for this quote. The problem is that drivers have been brainwashed into thinking that driving at the speed limit is safe so they don't need to adjust their speed.
While I agree that there are some who drive too fast and that this may be above the speed limit, these are actually two different things. What we need is driver training until people can tell the difference.
Peter, I totally agree with you (I didn't write the article - just passing it on). 
I think it's a load of bollox, particularly the bit
"Solutions will be looked in the first instance through engineering, then education and lastly through enforcement"
Aah the good old '3 E's' have, I fear, gone the same way as the '85th' percentile rule.
I think it's a load of bollox, particularly the bit
"Solutions will be looked in the first instance through engineering, then education and lastly through enforcement"
Aah the good old '3 E's' have, I fear, gone the same way as the '85th' percentile rule.
LLOX!Cazzo.
I think that at the junction you mention perhaps a different solution could be used. People speed there because they feel safe while doing so. Perhaps, rather than putting up cameras to earn money, sorry...slow down traffic, the limit signs could be reduced to 60 and chuffing great ' Accident Black Spot ' signs could be errected first. Only if that had no effect then cameras should be considered.
I think that at the junction you mention perhaps a different solution could be used. People speed there because they feel safe while doing so. Perhaps, rather than putting up cameras to earn money, sorry...slow down traffic, the limit signs could be reduced to 60 and chuffing great ' Accident Black Spot ' signs could be errected first. Only if that had no effect then cameras should be considered.
cazzo said:I seem to recall that this was only one SCP, not "some". Also, the reports of this always state "requests". I have not seen a statement that these are from 10,000 discrete individuals. For all we know they could all be from Brundersturmfurher or from BRAKE, or from any other lobby group.
[ ... ]
It would appear that demand for a camera is outstripping supply by five to one, with some camera partnerships having up to 10,000 requests for the little yellow boxes.
A suggestion, when we see statistics like this, we should each send 10,000 e-mails to the organisation demanding an end to speed cameras ... then see what they report. And we can all guess that our requests will be ignored in the counting.
Of course, we would probably fall foul of the new "Anti-spam" regulations that came in on 11 December 2003
or be classed as terrorists. Streaky
PetrolTed said:
Someone made the startlingly obvious observation to me this week. If people are getting flashed by big yellow cameras then they're lacking the necessary observation skills to be driving on our roads.
With the exception of Talivans, that seemed like a fair point to me.
It IS a fair point. But not all cameras are big and yellow. And some may be yellow but are behind large items of street furniture.
To be honest I can see how Speed Enforcement Cameras CAN be used effectively to save lives.
An example: lets say we have an extremely tight right hand hairpin corner and just around it the road narrows to a single lane hump back bridge. Its an NSL. Lets say nutters have been overtaking (because the road is windy and frustration has built up) and having head ons with cars coming in the opposite direction as they are in the middle of the road having crossed the bridge. Lets imagine the bridge is historic and we don't want to build a better one or change the path of the road.
OK. HUGE sign saying "Speed Limit 20mph - Camera Enforced." Just prior to the corner we place the camera.
Now cars slow prior to the corner and do not attempt overtakes too late before the bend as they know they will be caught. The crashes stop. Lives are saved.
Not a penny would be made by the camera however.
Now lets imagine what an SCP would really do. They stick the camera just around the blind corner so that although its very visible you get little warning. Although responsible drivers wil already have scrubbed off the speed the nutters recieve no warning and continue to do what they do. They get caught, when they do not crash, and the SCP enjoys the revenue. But the crashes do not stop.
I have come to the realisation that nearly all the cameras I have seen are placed not for safety but for revenue. This disgusts me.
The public are also, largely, of this opinion. And, by now, I feel that the Government and SCPs have already lost the battle for public goodwill towards the damn things and it is becoming a political problem for them.
I have noticed that all sorts of positive advertising and journalism has been going on lately attempting to put the case for cameras. But the same journos a week or two later will get off their high horses and write about how they copped three points and aren't happy about it. The papers are filled with editorial about how the people most important to the media - the media - are getting cheesed off.
This echoes the public mood, I feel.
PetrolTed said:
Someone made the startlingly obvious observation to me this week. If people are getting flashed by big yellow cameras then they're lacking the necessary observation skills to be driving on our roads.
With the exception of Talivans, that seemed like a fair point to me.
I'd sooner devote my obs to looking out for hazards. If your beemer has cruise set it at 30 and prepare to be amazed, no longer do you have to keep one eye on the speedo and the other looking out for cyclists, kids and other dangers. On an open motorway then, yes, that's a fair comment, provided they are yellow and not hidden behind traffic furniture and trees
I think perhaps some cameras are badly placed because of the visibility rules (yes I know a lot are deliberately hidden, but stick with me a minute).
On the A439 between the A46 dual carriageway and Stratford on Avon there's a nasty double-kink on a steep hill. At the top of the hill there's a cross-roads. I've seen many motorcyclists who have come off the road on the hill here, generally only hurting themselves, and a few cars as well. There is of course little warning of the potential dangers -- no "danger" signs, etc, just the normal chevrons. It's generally safe at NSL but in slippery conditions or at busy periods a lower speed is appropriate.
About 1/2 mile north of this bit I see a gatso location is being built. My guess is that it's there because of the accidents on the dangerous bit. Of course where it is being placed is not dangerous and is irrelevant to the safety of the dangerous part of the road.
So why place it there and not on the more dangerous part of the road? My guess is because of visibility requirements. I think it has to be 100m on NSL roads? Therefore it can't be placed where it's needed, so it's put somewhere irrelvant "to be seen to be doing something".
Of course it would be much better to have "accident blackspot" or similar signs erected (though it's years since I've seen one). The road could be re-engineered but this would cost a lot and not generate revenue. So in today's world the only solution is a badly placed camera because a logically placed camera is not allowed.
On the A439 between the A46 dual carriageway and Stratford on Avon there's a nasty double-kink on a steep hill. At the top of the hill there's a cross-roads. I've seen many motorcyclists who have come off the road on the hill here, generally only hurting themselves, and a few cars as well. There is of course little warning of the potential dangers -- no "danger" signs, etc, just the normal chevrons. It's generally safe at NSL but in slippery conditions or at busy periods a lower speed is appropriate.
About 1/2 mile north of this bit I see a gatso location is being built. My guess is that it's there because of the accidents on the dangerous bit. Of course where it is being placed is not dangerous and is irrelevant to the safety of the dangerous part of the road.
So why place it there and not on the more dangerous part of the road? My guess is because of visibility requirements. I think it has to be 100m on NSL roads? Therefore it can't be placed where it's needed, so it's put somewhere irrelvant "to be seen to be doing something".
Of course it would be much better to have "accident blackspot" or similar signs erected (though it's years since I've seen one). The road could be re-engineered but this would cost a lot and not generate revenue. So in today's world the only solution is a badly placed camera because a logically placed camera is not allowed.
Going home from the West Mids meet last week, along the A45, just before the NEC roundabout, Speed Camera on the Birmingham bound side, hidden by enormous road sign. Camera not visible until within about 30 metres from the nearside lane. Obviously there to slow people down (on a dual carriageway, just before the off-ramp sliproad).
apache said:
PetrolTed said:
Someone made the startlingly obvious observation to me this week. If people are getting flashed by big yellow cameras then they're lacking the necessary observation skills to be driving on our roads.
With the exception of Talivans, that seemed like a fair point to me.
I'd sooner devote my obs to looking out for hazards. If your beemer has cruise set it at 30 and prepare to be amazed, no longer do you have to keep one eye on the speedo and the other looking out for cyclists, kids and other dangers. On an open motorway then, yes, that's a fair comment, provided they are yellow and not hidden behind traffic furniture and trees
Jeep cruise control starts at 35mph, Tiv has none. I guess that the majority of cars on our roads today do not have cruise control. So we'll all staring at the speedo, not looking at the road (
) - Streaky >> Edited by streaky on Monday 23 February 07:31
cazzo said:
From:
http://w3.cambridge-news.co.uk/motors/roadwise.asp
To qualify for a camera to be sited at any location the site must meet the criteria set by the Government.
A site is considered as a collision "hot spot" if there has been four killed or seriously injured per kilometre on that road over the last three-year period.
Is that an absolute figure? Because if it is, then if there's one nasty hairpin, which has caused 100% of the KSI's, along a 10-mile stretch of otherwise perfectly straight road, then the authority is allowed to put as many cameras on that road as they like, and wherever they like?! Is that how it works?
PetrolTed said:
Someone made the startlingly obvious observation to me this week. If people are getting flashed by big yellow cameras then they're lacking the necessary observation skills to be driving on our roads.
With the exception of Talivans, that seemed like a fair point to me.
I've thought long and hard about this claim. I've heard it made frequently by Police officers. I've come to the conclusion that it's quite quite wrong. Here's why:
1) The process of becoming an experienced driver is largely one of knowing where the safety risks might come from and focusing your attention on precisely those safety risks. As far as I can determine, no genuine safety risk involves anything comparable to floating yellow boxes, 10 feet above the ground. We therefore SHOULD NOT be focusing our attention on speed cameras, and if we miss seeing one, that may well mean that we were paying proper attention to real road risks. (That said, I've never missed seeing one - does that mean my visual search has been compromised by the the threat to my licence of a camera? It might. And that would be bad for safety.)
2) If we have drivers of limited observation - and we obvioulsy do - then it's a bloody daft idea to force them to direct some of their limited attention towards speed cameras that offer no direct safety benefit.
3) On occasion fixed camera are positions on overtaking straights. It's quite possible to position right for a good overtaking view of a large vehicle and have the view of the camera obscured by the overtakee. One might then find oneself confronted by the option of braking during overtaking to avoid the camera.
4) It's not just the camera itself that demands extra attention from drivers. The fact that there might be a camera forces drivers to pay unnecessary attention to speedo, speed limit, and any part o the scenery that might hide a camera. I sometimes find myself scanning distant motorway bridges rather than the road ahead. None of this is good for safety.
5) Anyway if recognising roadside static objects was a measure of good driving, I'm sure we could devise better observation tests.
6) If you want a real test of adequate observation skills, let's fit counters to vehicles that record emergency brake applications. Then we'd REALLY find the folk who were not observing properly.
Observation test? I should coco.
Best Regards,
Paul Smith
Safe Speed
www.safespeed.org.uk
safespeed said:Paul, do you really think that you pay any more attention to speedo and speed limit than you did 15 years ago? I know I don't.
The fact that there might be a camera forces drivers to pay unnecessary attention to speedo, speed limit, and any part o the scenery that might hide a camera.
andrew54 said:
The fact that there might be a camera forces drivers to pay unnecessary attention to speedo, speed limit, and any part o the scenery that might hide a camera.
Paul, do you really think that you pay any more attention to speedo and speed limit than you did 15 years ago? I know I don't.
Then the speed cameras theyve trumpeted as "altering driver behaviour" for the better have failed..... You just proved it.
deltaf said:I have always been against cameras. And possibly cameras have not improved any driver behaviour. But I certainly have proved nothing! The fact that Paul and I may have both been good drivers before and after cameras has no bearing on what is likely to improve the driving of the motoring masses.
safespeed said:
The fact that there might be a camera forces drivers to pay unnecessary attention to speedo, speed limit, and any part o the scenery that might hide a camera.
Paul, do you really think that you pay any more attention to speedo and speed limit than you did 15 years ago? I know I don't.
Then the speed cameras theyve trumpeted as "altering driver behaviour" for the better have failed..... You just proved it.
andrew54 said:
The fact that there might be a camera forces drivers to pay unnecessary attention to speedo, speed limit, and any part o the scenery that might hide a camera.
Paul, do you really think that you pay any more attention to speedo and speed limit than you did 15 years ago? I know I don't.
Hell yes. I gave a closely related example in the same paragraph that you snipped out for some reason.
Best Regards,
Paul Smith
Safe Speed
www.safespeed.org.uk
Andrew, if the powers that be introduced speed cameras with a view to changing drivers behaviour for the better(in their eyes slowing them down) and you just acknowledged you hadnt changed yours, then surely thats proof enough of a failure?
If it didnt change your behaviour by slowing you down(they havent slowed me down) then theyve failed.
It cant be claimed to be a "success" otherwise how to explain all the extra drivers being fined?
If theyre "working", less not more drivers nicked would be expected?
If thats not proof, i dunno what is.
Just in my humble opinion.
If it didnt change your behaviour by slowing you down(they havent slowed me down) then theyve failed.
It cant be claimed to be a "success" otherwise how to explain all the extra drivers being fined?
If theyre "working", less not more drivers nicked would be expected?
If thats not proof, i dunno what is.
Just in my humble opinion.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff