Cameras reduce death rate - more government claims
Discussion
Spotted this in a couple of the papers this morning as well as on the Sky News site
www.sky.com/skynews/article/0,,30000-13129415,00.html
Usual stuff about the reduction in deaths and accidents from cameras, along with the cliam that 79% of the public support the use of cameras to reduce accidents, etc, etc.
Look forward to Safe Speeds reply to this one.
www.sky.com/skynews/article/0,,30000-13129415,00.html
Usual stuff about the reduction in deaths and accidents from cameras, along with the cliam that 79% of the public support the use of cameras to reduce accidents, etc, etc.
Look forward to Safe Speeds reply to this one.
Yes but how do we know they saved lives?
Do people have accidents, survive them and then say I was only doing 30mph because I knew there was a camera. Does someone then say if you were doing 35mph you would have been killed hence the camera saved your life?
I don't understand how one camera can do this???
Do people have accidents, survive them and then say I was only doing 30mph because I knew there was a camera. Does someone then say if you were doing 35mph you would have been killed hence the camera saved your life?
I don't understand how one camera can do this???
Tonyrec said:
As much as i dont agree with Cameras, some of them must have saved lives.
The Government claim that they save 100 per year. Lets be honest here, even if it was one life saved and it was a member of your family then im sure that you would think it was worth it.
Tony, I doubt very much that anyone could claim that a life saved is not a good thing.
The issue is the manner in which this has been achieved. Considering the expense and general bad will that these mechanisms are creating one is left to wonder how many more lives could be saved with a few extra thousand of your goodselves out on our roads.
Unfortunately speed camera don't educate drivers or pedestrians and that is what is really required.
best
Ex
Tonyrec said:
As much as i dont agree with Cameras, some of them must have saved lives.
The Government claim that they save 100 per year. Lets be honest here, even if it was one life saved and it was a member of your family then im sure that you would think it was worth it.
I don't disagree that cameras have the potential to save lives, but they also have the potential to raise huge sums of money.
Get them located where they are needed (how many do you see outside schools, etc) and don't rely on them as the principal means of policing traffic.
One life saved by a camera is indead worthwhile, but what about the deaths caused by drunk/drug driving, dangerous driving, use of mobiles, etc.
Cameras can not pick this up and with the current reliance on cameras at the expense of traffic officers; then the number of lives saved by cameras (which is a subject of debate, i.e. have they saved lives) with be overshadowed by the number of deaths that result from other areas.
Agreed, cameras have saved lives. But if the overall death rate is staying the same then we have to question whether they are the most effective means of achieving reduction in death on our roads. Even if we accept the cameras currently in existance it means that deaths are going UP elsewhere and that's a great cause for concern given the downward trend in the last 50 years.
supraman2954 said:
hey, I was before you...
www.pistonheads.com/gassing/topic.asp?f=23&h=&t=105871
Doh, sorry 'bout that. Did have a quick look, but I guess the coffee hadn't done its job by then.
Hmmm!
The government says .... government says....
Please - please can we have a look at the latest B&Q till receipt....
...... the one with the special purchase for ....
WHITEWASH!
Cos - funny - my cousin works as consultant in A&E in London area, my husband is consultant up North, my brother is consultant in Cambridgeshire, my cousin is consultant in Brunstromia ...and we have lots of friends who work in hospitals around the country and strangest thing is ....
... they have not seen that much reduction overall in the numbers of incoming Brought in Deads, Brought in Injured from RTAs (old fashioned lot - our mob - we spell it out for what it is - no dodgy
whitewash is ever on our shopping lists!)
The government says .... government says....
Please - please can we have a look at the latest B&Q till receipt....
...... the one with the special purchase for ....
WHITEWASH!
Cos - funny - my cousin works as consultant in A&E in London area, my husband is consultant up North, my brother is consultant in Cambridgeshire, my cousin is consultant in Brunstromia ...and we have lots of friends who work in hospitals around the country and strangest thing is ....
... they have not seen that much reduction overall in the numbers of incoming Brought in Deads, Brought in Injured from RTAs (old fashioned lot - our mob - we spell it out for what it is - no dodgy
whitewash is ever on our shopping lists!) Tonyrec said:
Scrap the cameras and 'buy' more Police, that will sort it out.
I don't think you would get a single person on here disagreeing with that one. Unfortunately as you say the powers that be (for the time being at least) are steadfast in their stubborness, lets hope that soon public opinion will actually count for something.
Tonyrec said:
As much as i dont agree with Cameras, some of them must have saved lives.
The Government claim that they save 100 per year. Lets be honest here, even if it was one life saved and it was a member of your family then im sure that you would think it was worth it.
Oh but it were that simple!
If you study this announcement carefully, the actual claim was that accidents had reduced by 40% at camera sites, and that this equated to 100 lives saved.
This presupposes that the reduction in accidents at camera sites was due to the cameras, but there is no proof that it was, indeed it seems very unlikely.
If you monitor any site with a bad recent collision history, then it is likely that it will show an improvement as it returns to its normal value, the process called "Regression to the Mean", or "bias by selection".
The DfT know full well about this effect but choose to apply no correction for its effects. Indeed, the rules for the placement of cameras actually maximise this illusory reduction in accidents - as has been cynically pointed out elsewhere, in reality you'd get the same effect by erecting a garden gnome at any site that has suffered an abnormally high number of recent accidents.
This explains why we keep getting these conflicting claims of reduction at camera sites, yet no improvement whatsoever in national fatality statistics. This also explains why the same Scamera Partnerships can keep shuffling cameras around and claiming 30-40% improvement every year!
Tonyrec said:
A great number of Fatals/Serious PI's etc that we deal with involve drivers with No Licences/Provisionals etc etc.
This is now quickly becoming a trend and not purely a coincidence.
Scrap the cameras and 'buy' more Police, that will sort it out.
Sadly tho, it falls on deaf ears!
On this we all agree! You lot - much better than a cam! Recall days in 80s/early 90s when you were patrolling as routine - as in Germany and Switzerland. Driving standards overall were better for that presence on the road.
Despite the "Starsky & Hutch" posers on "Traffic Cops on Sunday (cannot get over that fake tan and the use of peroxide and those sunglasses
) - the prog does seem to show that most of the pulls on here reveal striking number of unlicenced, untaxed, uninsured and drunk chancers (Sunday's one was pure comedy!)WildCat said:
Despite the "Starsky & Hutch" posers on "Traffic Cops on Sunday (cannot get over that fake tan and the use of peroxide and those sunglasses
Yeah, I bet the producer couldn't believe his luck when they came across "blondie"! Mark my words, with proper grooming he'll be the Police Forces equivalent of "Jeremy" from Airport within 6 months....
But yes, seeing the number of "proper" illegalities they nabbed merely as a result of their patrols was amazing, and a better justification for ditching the cameras would be hard to find.
BlackStuff said:
in reality you'd get the same effect by erecting a garden gnome at any site that has suffered an abnormally high number of recent accidents.
I'd like a national newspaper to do an experiment with gnomes. This might make quite a good article to show the public how the government bend their statistics.
News flash: casualties reduced by 40% at gnome sites
So, the numbers are something like this, I guess.
100 lives saved by the cameras against 3500 lives lost. That's a 2.87% saving in fatals from cameras. But, there must be some element of 'regression to the mean', so lets say that the cameras are saving 2%. That's 98% they are not saving.
If all the resource used in the cameras schemes were re-deployed onto proper road safety what would the saving be then? A bloody sight more than 2%, I'll wager.
Now watch the cash-collectors use this 100 saving as the excuse for a further 5000 cameras.
100 lives saved by the cameras against 3500 lives lost. That's a 2.87% saving in fatals from cameras. But, there must be some element of 'regression to the mean', so lets say that the cameras are saving 2%. That's 98% they are not saving.
If all the resource used in the cameras schemes were re-deployed onto proper road safety what would the saving be then? A bloody sight more than 2%, I'll wager.
Now watch the cash-collectors use this 100 saving as the excuse for a further 5000 cameras.
See Darling is trotting out the same old "the best camera is one that doesn't catch anyone" nonsense. In that case, Mr Darling, how would said camera be funded? There's just a teensy conflict of interest isn't there. We all know that if the nice visible Gatso isn't bringing in the cash they'll park a mobile unit behind the nearest hedge instead. Not that I'm cynical...
I don't doubt that on a site by site basis cameras can have a positive effect, but the effect is purely local. What use is it reducing deaths at site 1 if deaths at site 2 go up? You can claim cameras reduce deaths as much as you want, but if people are dying elsewhere and the overall fatality figures don't change, what's the point? All they're doing is alienating vast swathes of the population, eroding trust in the police and, perhaps worst of all, insulting the memory of people killed away from cameras.
Oh yeah...love the idea that research done by T2000 is "independent". Like they've got no axe to grind...
I don't doubt that on a site by site basis cameras can have a positive effect, but the effect is purely local. What use is it reducing deaths at site 1 if deaths at site 2 go up? You can claim cameras reduce deaths as much as you want, but if people are dying elsewhere and the overall fatality figures don't change, what's the point? All they're doing is alienating vast swathes of the population, eroding trust in the police and, perhaps worst of all, insulting the memory of people killed away from cameras.
Oh yeah...love the idea that research done by T2000 is "independent". Like they've got no axe to grind...
hornet said:The problem with this fact is that it can be used as an arguement for more cameras. If they reduce the casualties where they're sited, then bung down more of them and make other bits of the road safer...
I don't doubt that on a site by site basis cameras can have a positive effect, but the effect is purely local. What use is it reducing deaths at site 1 if deaths at site 2 go up?
Taken to it's logical extreme, a perfectly safe road would be one with speed cams ever 50m or so. Depressing, but if cameras were free, I don't doubt someone would suggest it.
Dan
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff