Times: Camera-shy drivers to face mobile traps
Discussion
From today's times here: http://driving.timesonline.co.uk/tol/
Times said:
Ben Webster, Transport Correspondent
Speed cameras are to be deployed randomly to catch drivers who slow down at camera sites before speeding up again.
Cumbria will become the first county to take advantage of a relaxation in the rules governing the positioning of cameras on June 1. Mobile camera teams will be able to operate on any road and will sometimes work in pairs, with camera vans placed a mile or two apart, to catch drivers who accelerate back over the limit.
Several other partnerships are watching Cumbria’s initiative closely and are expected to adopt a similar approach if it improves road safety.
Until last month, police and local authority partnerships were obliged to focus almost all their enforcement on roads where there had been at least three crashes resulting in death or serious injury in the preceding three years. But new guidance from the Department for Transport gives the partnerships much greater discretion over how they use cameras.
Cumbria Safety Cameras, the local partnership, said that it was seeking “to create uncertainty in the driver’s mind about where cameras will be”.
The partnership has cut deaths and serious injuries by 70 per cent at its 50 fixed camera sites but has found that serious crashes have risen elsewhere. There were 59 deaths last year, up from 45 in 2005.
A spokesman said: “We need to tackle the behaviour of drivers who attempt to manipulate the system. The random element will mean drivers can never be sure that they will not come across a camera on a particular road. If they pass one camera van, they will have to think twice about putting their foot down because there could be another van down the road.”
He said that Cumbria was adopting the new policy after studying research from Queensland, Australia, which showed that random camera deployment was twice as effective at reducing crashes as focusing on well-known sites.
A growing number of drivers have satellite positioning systems, which alert them when they are approaching cameras. Cumbria’s random approach means that these systems will no longer be as effective.
Cumbria carried out its own research into how drivers responded to cameras and found that 15 per cent slowed down only briefly at a camera site on a 40mph road. This group approached the site at a speed of at least 48mph, slowed down to just under the speed limit for 300 metres, then accelerated to at least 52mph.
The Parliamentary Advisory Council for Transport Safety said: “Other authorities will be under pressure to follow Cumbria’s lead if the policy works.”
Speed cameras are to be deployed randomly to catch drivers who slow down at camera sites before speeding up again.
Cumbria will become the first county to take advantage of a relaxation in the rules governing the positioning of cameras on June 1. Mobile camera teams will be able to operate on any road and will sometimes work in pairs, with camera vans placed a mile or two apart, to catch drivers who accelerate back over the limit.
Several other partnerships are watching Cumbria’s initiative closely and are expected to adopt a similar approach if it improves road safety.
Until last month, police and local authority partnerships were obliged to focus almost all their enforcement on roads where there had been at least three crashes resulting in death or serious injury in the preceding three years. But new guidance from the Department for Transport gives the partnerships much greater discretion over how they use cameras.
Cumbria Safety Cameras, the local partnership, said that it was seeking “to create uncertainty in the driver’s mind about where cameras will be”.
The partnership has cut deaths and serious injuries by 70 per cent at its 50 fixed camera sites but has found that serious crashes have risen elsewhere. There were 59 deaths last year, up from 45 in 2005.
A spokesman said: “We need to tackle the behaviour of drivers who attempt to manipulate the system. The random element will mean drivers can never be sure that they will not come across a camera on a particular road. If they pass one camera van, they will have to think twice about putting their foot down because there could be another van down the road.”
He said that Cumbria was adopting the new policy after studying research from Queensland, Australia, which showed that random camera deployment was twice as effective at reducing crashes as focusing on well-known sites.
A growing number of drivers have satellite positioning systems, which alert them when they are approaching cameras. Cumbria’s random approach means that these systems will no longer be as effective.
Cumbria carried out its own research into how drivers responded to cameras and found that 15 per cent slowed down only briefly at a camera site on a 40mph road. This group approached the site at a speed of at least 48mph, slowed down to just under the speed limit for 300 metres, then accelerated to at least 52mph.
The Parliamentary Advisory Council for Transport Safety said: “Other authorities will be under pressure to follow Cumbria’s lead if the policy works.”
Times said:
The Parliamentary Advisory Council for Transport Safety said: “Other authorities will be under pressure to follow Cumbria’s lead if the policy works.”
Is that works as in brings a load of money in or works as in stops people speeding?
Just when I thought no more resources could be shoehorned into such a waste of time they manage to prove me wrong.
Times said:
Ben Webster, Transport Correspondent
Cumbria carried out its own research into how drivers responded to cameras and found that 15 per cent slowed down only briefly at a camera site on a 40mph road. This group approached the site at a speed of at least 48mph, slowed down to just under the speed limit for 300 metres, then accelerated to at least 52mph.
]
Cumbria carried out its own research into how drivers responded to cameras and found that 15 per cent slowed down only briefly at a camera site on a 40mph road. This group approached the site at a speed of at least 48mph, slowed down to just under the speed limit for 300 metres, then accelerated to at least 52mph.
]
So 15 cars out of 100 approach at 48mph and then when passed the camera go to 52mph. Thus if no camera was there cars would continue on at 48mph in a 40.
What did the other 85% do?
superlightr said:
Times said:
Ben Webster, Transport Correspondent
Cumbria carried out its own research into how drivers responded to cameras and found that 15 per cent slowed down only briefly at a camera site on a 40mph road. This group approached the site at a speed of at least 48mph, slowed down to just under the speed limit for 300 metres, then accelerated to at least 52mph.
]
Cumbria carried out its own research into how drivers responded to cameras and found that 15 per cent slowed down only briefly at a camera site on a 40mph road. This group approached the site at a speed of at least 48mph, slowed down to just under the speed limit for 300 metres, then accelerated to at least 52mph.
]
So 15 cars out of 100 approach at 48mph and then when passed the camera go to 52mph. Thus if no camera was there cars would continue on at 48mph in a 40.
What did the other 85% do?
Didn't see the camera because they were too close to the vehicle in front?
jaykaybi said:
Times said:
The partnership has cut deaths and serious injuries by 70 per cent at its 50 fixed camera sites but has found that serious crashes have risen elsewhere. There were 59 deaths last year, up from 45 in 2005.
Really? 70% decrease in KSI is pretty good...
Not if the 70% decrease AT THE CAMERA SITES are just the figures reverting back to the mean!
Ill explain (example figures):
1990-1995 3 deaths
1995-2000 10 deaths (SCPs are allowed to put cameras in, and of course put them where accidents have INCREASED over the preceding years)
2000- Cameras put in at numerous sites where the accidents were in 1995-2000
2000-2005 3 deaths
Voila! Our cameras have reduced deaths from 10 to 3, thats a drop of 70%! Arn't we brilliant!
Ohh hold on a sec...
"The partnership has cut deaths and serious injuries by 70 per cent at its 50 fixed camera sites but has found that serious crashes have risen elsewhere. There were 59 deaths last year, up from 45 in 2005."
Sh**... so serious crashes overall actually INCREASED BY 30%!!??
Hmmm, so perhaps the camera policy doesnt work after all... but... but... that means we wont have a job...
Hold on... Lets have more cameras!!! Quick! Call the press!
Edited by justinp1 on Thursday 17th May 10:12
justinp1 said:
jaykaybi said:
Times said:
The partnership has cut deaths and serious injuries by 70 per cent at its 50 fixed camera sites but has found that serious crashes have risen elsewhere. There were 59 deaths last year, up from 45 in 2005.
Really? 70% decrease in KSI is pretty good...
Not if the 70% decrease AT THE CAMERA SITES are just the figures reverting back to the mean!
Ill explain (example figures):
1990-1995 3 deaths
1995-2000 10 deaths (SCPs are allowed to put cameras in, and of course put them where accidents have INCREASED over the preceding years)
2000- Cameras put in at numerous sites where the accidents were in 1995-2000
2000-2005 3 deaths
Voila! Our cameras have reduced deaths from 10 to 3, thats a drop of 70%! Arn't we brilliant!
Ohh hold on a sec...
"The partnership has cut deaths and serious injuries by 70 per cent at its 50 fixed camera sites but has found that serious crashes have risen elsewhere. There were 59 deaths last year, up from 45 in 2005."
Sh**... so serious crashes overall actually INCREASED BY 30%!!??
Hmmm, so perhaps the camera policy doesnt work after all... but... but... that means we wont have a job...
Hold on... Lets have more cameras!!! Quick! Call the press!
Edited by justinp1 on Thursday 17th May 10:12
I think this is the logical conclusion of a policy based on cameras. I won't say "I told you so" because I wasn't the only one, but....
If KSIs go down at camera sites, then have more camera sites. Simple.
What happens if KSIs also go down at these new sites, but up elsewhere? Take more of the same medicine.
Penultimate Partnership response: make all roads a camera site, eg. with speed governors, SPECS, cats-eye cameras, or whatever it takes to ensure that every inch of road is covered.
Penultimate driver behaviour: move onto B and then C roads as the policy bites (no doubt leading to more KSIs away from camera sites as traffic deserts the safer roads in droves)
Ultimate Partnership response: give up? or close C roads? or put SPECS on these too? or what? They must have some idea of the effects of what they're doing? Or perhaps retirement looms and they just need to look good for another couple of years.
MK4 Slowride said:
The fact they said cameras can operate on any road is worrying as my understanding of it was that they had to have a scamera sign up to warn you your about to get fisted. So now they don't, licence to print money I think despite what they claim their overheads are.
Its actually a bit worse than that because what they dont realise is that their science is so flawed.
What will probably happen now is that the possible particularly bad year for deaths in Cumbria will revert back to the norm this year, or even be higher than what it was in 2005.
They could have a 10% drop in KSI figures, yet still be higher than the 2005 figure and they will put the 'saving' in lives down to this new tactic, which is 'evidence' that it works and should be policy.
All they are doing is taking statistics year on year and taking out the 'random' element and putting all the changes down to the few little cameras or vans they have. When they predict right, they proclaim themselves saviours. When they predict wrong they blame drivers and claim more powers!
I know a dog who knows which hand a treat is in 50% of the time...
But... the dog is not so stupid to believe that he can actually affect or predict it!
What astonishes me is that I cannot work out whether the SCP is really trying to cover up what they really know to save their asses, or if they really have that little understanding of science and statistics.
If a GCSE student came to the same scientific statistic as they have from the statistics, they would fail. It really is rudimentary and is a crying shame that lives are lost without the government stepping back in to take back control with some common sense.
justinp1 said:
MK4 Slowride said:
The fact they said cameras can operate on any road is worrying as my understanding of it was that they had to have a scamera sign up to warn you your about to get fisted. So now they don't, licence to print money I think despite what they claim their overheads are.
Its actually a bit worse than that because what they dont realise is that their science is so flawed.
What will probably happen now is that the possible particularly bad year for deaths in Cumbria will revert back to the norm this year, or even be higher than what it was in 2005.
They could have a 10% drop in KSI figures, yet still be higher than the 2005 figure and they will put the 'saving' in lives down to this new tactic, which is 'evidence' that it works and should be policy.
All they are doing is taking statistics year on year and taking out the 'random' element and putting all the changes down to the few little cameras or vans they have. When they predict right, they proclaim themselves saviours. When they predict wrong they blame drivers and claim more powers!
I know a dog who knows which hand a treat is in 50% of the time...
But... the dog is not so stupid to believe that he can actually affect or predict it!
What astonishes me is that I cannot work out whether the SCP is really trying to cover up what they really know to save their asses, or if they really have that little understanding of science and statistics.
If a GCSE student came to the same scientific statistic as they have from the statistics, they would fail. It really is rudimentary and is a crying shame that lives are lost without the government stepping back in to take back control with some common sense.
I was with you right up to the point when you said "...government stepping back in to take back control with some common sense."
herewego said:
I don't see anything new here. Don't all areas have mobile camera vans that can operate anytime anywhere?
He heee...
It would seem that way!
At the moment, they can only make a site where there have been X amounts (3 I think) of serious injuries in the last X years.
However, there is no stipulation that any of the accidents have to have anything to do with speeding, and indeed the 'enforcement site' can be anywhere within a certain radius, and *doesnt even have to be on the same road*.
Particular examples of this is an enforcement site which had its figures 'tipped over' by someone committing suicide off a bridge over the road.
Other examples are (particularly one in North Wales) where there have been a number of accidents on a windy 'B road'. However, this passes over a roman road straight dual carriageway where an operator can see a mile down the road. Guess where they set up!?
herewego said:
I don't see anything new here. Don't all areas have mobile camera vans that can operate anytime anywhere?
Thames Valley Police have a Talivan which quite often sits about 1/4 mile beyond a Gatso just around a bend on the dual carriageway into Maidenhead, been doing it for at least a couple of years now.
justinp1 said:
herewego said:
I don't see anything new here. Don't all areas have mobile camera vans that can operate anytime anywhere?
At the moment, they can only make a site where there have been X amounts (3 I think) of serious injuries in the last X years.
I got caught in Cheshire on a brand-new road (the A500 Nantwich to M6 link) so no KSI history there, by a mobile unit on a bridge. He was standing to the side and with the operators back to the sun and wearing dark clothes so he was all but invisible.
None of this is fair, and I was bowling along perfectly happily at 85, but what's the point of complaining. Now I always drive that road at 70 (so you could say it worked) but I get in everybody else way as 85 seems a reasonable speed along there.
justinp1 said:
jaykaybi said:
Times said:
The partnership has cut deaths and serious injuries by 70 per cent at its 50 fixed camera sites but has found that serious crashes have risen elsewhere. There were 59 deaths last year, up from 45 in 2005.
Really? 70% decrease in KSI is pretty good...
Not if the 70% decrease AT THE CAMERA SITES are just the figures reverting back to the mean!
Indeed!
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/SafeSpe
www.safespeed.org.uk/rttm.html
This is exactly what was simple to predict would happen with only being allowed to use GPS-based camera position warning systems and why the revenue-obsessed camera businesses hate camera detectors so much.
The glee with which the sad elements of our society engage in the trapping of drivers for harmless driving sickens me. I mean, what a way to earn a living. The rise in pointless jobs under this government has been incredible and is the only reason unemployment is not even higher. Would it not be better (and cheaper) for the quality of life for the majority of decent people in this country if such people were just paid dole money? (Or nothing at all.)
The glee with which the sad elements of our society engage in the trapping of drivers for harmless driving sickens me. I mean, what a way to earn a living. The rise in pointless jobs under this government has been incredible and is the only reason unemployment is not even higher. Would it not be better (and cheaper) for the quality of life for the majority of decent people in this country if such people were just paid dole money? (Or nothing at all.)
Forums | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff