Speed Cameras Watch As Accidents Increase
New stats reveal accident rates up at some speed camera sites; Association of British Drivers not impressed
Three speed cameras in Preston that pulled in £18,000-worth of fines in 2010 actually bore witness to an increase in the number of accidents since they were installed.
This revelation, uncovered by the Lancashire Evening Post following new government rules requiring speed camera statistics to be published, has already precipitated a review of speed camera sites in Lancashire.
The Association of British Drivers says the figures, released last week, do not prove that cameras are the key factor in reducing the number of accidents at camera sites, since the accident rate has fallen countrywide in recent years.
The ABD goes even further, calling for heads to roll on the subject: "Not only is it scandalous that cameras where casualties have increased have been kept in operation for many years, it is even more disturbing that the authorities have hidden this data and authorised continued operation whilst being in possession of this knowledge," says ABD chairman Brian Gregory. "The government should get a grip and insist that those responsible for such malpractice in all regions are removed from public service with immediate effect."
For a long time every one i know are positive they cause more accidents than prevent.
Time to call them what they are. "Revenue generation cameras" NOT "Safety cameras"
As usual, everyone was closely bunched and a mass collision was narrowly avoided.
The irony is nobody was doing more than 70.
As usual, everyone was closely bunched and a mass collision was narrowly avoided.
The irony is nobody was doing more than 70.
The truth is that it's all about money. I find that cameras are placed on wide open roads with good visibility where its safe to speed because they can catch as many people as they can. I haven't heard of an accident in my village in 25 years but the mobile camera van keeps coming back because theres a long straight 30 zone where it's perfectly safe to do 35-40 = £££.
Why else were all the councils banging on about saving childrens lives until the point when it was decided camera revenues should go to central government, then suddenly childrens lives not quite so important any more and many sites were shut down
Speed cameras have never had anything to do with road safety. They owe their existence to politics and bureaucrats defending their own empires.
The whole road safety issue is the same as the energy policy - there are many much better, effective alternatives to the present methods but they are ignored following pressure from vested interests.
One can only depend on the ordinary people rumbling the deception and asking for change.
In the meantime, expect much sabre-rattling from the people in power.
How can watching the speedo promote safe driving? Road conditions are greater factor to road safety, I was well impressed when I drove through France and noticed, during a spot of bad weather, the signs came on stating a reduced speed limit. Absolute Genius.
Think they should paint the GATSO's green and truly come clean on them being nothing more than cash generators for councils who were daft enough to gamble rate payers money in Iceland.
Grrr!
As usual, everyone was closely bunched and a mass collision was narrowly avoided.
The irony is nobody was doing more than 70.
I've done this although not in my own car (mostly roughly aware of my speed in my own cars), but in a van I lent to move furniture. Saw a camera, slammed on the brakes, the van almost went sideways (wet). Then looked at the speedo and was 10mph under the limit
On another note, was on the bike behind a car approaching a well known fixed camera spot, limit 75, which we were both about doing, then he was "surprised" by the camera, slammed the brakes to 50mph (prob not knowing the exact allowed speed there). I almost rear ended him :s on the bike, at over 60mph.
If a camera is put in at a site where there has been a "high" number of accidents recently, higher than the recent mean for a year, the number in the next year or two may well appear to fall, simply being lower than the blip, maintaining the mean. Then, with the camera in place, the number may go up in a given year. Just stats. A simple change in a number proves nothing.
The article does not report the actual numbers of accidents at the sites (6 instead of 5? 15 instead of 14? 221 instead of 220?), so it's very hard to get a view of what's really going on. It's just sensationalism (it only says: "The Evening Post has found three speed cameras in Preston alone where the number of accidents and casualties has increased since the cameras were installed.").
If a camera is put in at a site where there has been a "high" number of accidents recently, higher than the recent mean for a year, the number in the next year or two may well appear to fall, simply being lower than the blip, maintaining the mean. Then, with the camera in place, the number may go up in a given year. Just stats. A simple change in a number proves nothing.
...
Hit the brakes hard and slow to 40 in very short space. ABS is good!
Never get a ticket?
Biker friend of mine said he ALWAYS stopped completely when he saw these vans!
They often hide these vans as the road crests and on the Hogs Back A13 London bound seem to like early Saturday morning as their revenue raising time.
Why early Saturday Morning?
Less Traffic of course!
Monday to Friday mornings its hard to actually maintain the 60 limit, when "Being Visible" could actually be a deterrent and improve safety.
If the gov wants to keep speed down, use average speed checks so you can at least concentrate on the road instead of the bloddy speedo.
If a camera is put in at a site where there has been a "high" number of accidents recently, higher than the recent mean for a year, the number in the next year or two may well appear to fall, simply being lower than the blip, maintaining the mean. Then, with the camera in place, the number may go up in a given year. Just stats. A simple change in a number proves nothing.
The article does not report the actual numbers of accidents at the sites (6 instead of 5? 15 instead of 14? 221 instead of 220?), so it's very hard to get a view of what's really going on. It's just sensationalism (it only says: "The Evening Post has found three speed cameras in Preston alone where the number of accidents and casualties has increased since the cameras were installed.").
"The Evening Post has found three speed cameras in Preston alone where the number of accidents and casualties has increased since the cameras were installed."
And a dozen others where accident rates have gone down. But we won't mention them, will we?
I've never understood the argument about people watching their speedo being dangerous. How long does it take you to check your speed?! Half a second, maybe one second at the most. It's not hard to judge your speed while looking at the road, and you don't need to check your speed every five yards. It's such a feeble argument.
Gassing Station | Motoring News | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff