Effectiveness of Cameras.
Discussion
In an article in today's Sunday Times, the minister (Darling) says that he is calling for a review of camera positions and their effectiveness. I have a major problem with this since it all appears to be based on KSI.
Take a road that has no remarkable accident record. One day (let's say Jan 2003) a drunken chav and his three chav passengers leave the road. Result 2xK,2xSI.
The road now qualifies for a camera since the investigator held that speed was a contributing factor.
The road returns to its normal peaceful history and in 2004 the local Safety partnership claim a victory for cameras. None K'd or SI'd just as it had been for the past eighty years. In 2005 the same claim is made since it continues to be based on this non-typical incident. I must assume that the camera will never be removed since it is claimed to be doing its job. In fact the same road because of poor design may have a longstanding history of persistant damage only accidents. These accidents may have actually increased following the installation of the camera, but nobody would say that the camera contributed to an increase in accidents because nobody would know. I slight realignment of the road or change of camber may have defused this accident spot.
Finally to illustrate how these blasted cameras have burnt into drivers' conscience. Last summer at about 10 pm I was travelling along a long rambling road (40mph limit) which has 2 cameras on it about three miles apart. I was behind a saloon doing 30-32 mph. There was no oncoming traffic (I was in a Range Rover and could look well beyond the saloon) and I decided to overtake. Just as I accelerated and started to pull out, the saloon slammed on his breaks and came to a dead stop. I nearly ploughed into his rear put managed to pass.
Why the stupid action by the saloon driver? Well it had just started to rain and he clearly mistook a bright lightning strike as a camera flash!
Take a road that has no remarkable accident record. One day (let's say Jan 2003) a drunken chav and his three chav passengers leave the road. Result 2xK,2xSI.
The road now qualifies for a camera since the investigator held that speed was a contributing factor.
The road returns to its normal peaceful history and in 2004 the local Safety partnership claim a victory for cameras. None K'd or SI'd just as it had been for the past eighty years. In 2005 the same claim is made since it continues to be based on this non-typical incident. I must assume that the camera will never be removed since it is claimed to be doing its job. In fact the same road because of poor design may have a longstanding history of persistant damage only accidents. These accidents may have actually increased following the installation of the camera, but nobody would say that the camera contributed to an increase in accidents because nobody would know. I slight realignment of the road or change of camber may have defused this accident spot.
Finally to illustrate how these blasted cameras have burnt into drivers' conscience. Last summer at about 10 pm I was travelling along a long rambling road (40mph limit) which has 2 cameras on it about three miles apart. I was behind a saloon doing 30-32 mph. There was no oncoming traffic (I was in a Range Rover and could look well beyond the saloon) and I decided to overtake. Just as I accelerated and started to pull out, the saloon slammed on his breaks and came to a dead stop. I nearly ploughed into his rear put managed to pass.
Why the stupid action by the saloon driver? Well it had just started to rain and he clearly mistook a bright lightning strike as a camera flash!
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff