RE: Road Peace calls for More Cameras
Friday 30th July 2004
Road Peace calls for More Cameras
Don't wait for four people to die says road safety charity
A charity for road traffic victims was today preparing for the launch of National Road Victim Month and a campaign to end the "body count" approach to siting speed cameras.
RoadPeace, which organises the awareness month every August, will this year call on the Government to axe its speed camera policy which allows cameras to be erected only on roads where at least four people have been killed or seriously injured.
The National Secretary of RoadPeace commented: "It is outrageous to wait for human sacrifice before a very successful life-saving device is installed.
"If someone was killed at a factory because a guard was missing from a machine, the Government wouldn't wait for three more people to die before installing it. Every speed camera in this country is effectively a memorial for at least four road crash victims and this is not right."
"We are now calling on the Government to drop the body count policy so a great number of road deaths can be prevented in the future."
August was chosen as National Road Victim Month seven years ago to commemorate the deaths of two well-known road crash victims - Bridget Driscoll, the first ever car victim, and Diana, Princess of Wales.
Throughout the month RoadPeace will be hosting a series of events and exhibitions to raise awareness.
Discussion
Here's an idea.
Let's drop the national speed limit on all roads to 25 mph.
Then let's raise it by 1 mph per week until someone gets killed on any particular stretch of road.
Then drop the limit on that bit of road by 1 mph (1/2 mile each direction).
But keep raising the speed of all other roads by 1mph per week until they have all had someone killed on them.
After a couple of years we should have a good number of roads with a 129 mph limit on them, we can stick with that.
Stupid idea?
Not as stupid as some.
Let's drop the national speed limit on all roads to 25 mph.
Then let's raise it by 1 mph per week until someone gets killed on any particular stretch of road.
Then drop the limit on that bit of road by 1 mph (1/2 mile each direction).
But keep raising the speed of all other roads by 1mph per week until they have all had someone killed on them.
After a couple of years we should have a good number of roads with a 129 mph limit on them, we can stick with that.
Stupid idea?
Not as stupid as some.
"It is outrageous to wait for human sacrifice before a very successful life-saving device is installed"
Indeed it is. Not sure how this is relevant to speed cameras though....
If anyone from Roadpeace is reading, please go back and take a critical look at the facts and figures re cameras rather than just latching on to the latest SCP spin and lies. The SCPs don't want reduced accidents, they just want to meet their business targets. Reduced road deaths will put them out of business...do you really think they are going to work to achieve a target that makes their jobs redundant? Would you? You've only got to look at some of the stuff Steve Callaghan has posted here to see how detatched from reality these people are. Any figures that disprove their argument are disregarded. Anyone who produces evidence to the contrary is either ignored or smeared, labelled a speedophile and a child killer. The use of children in pro camera campaigns (and news reports) is reprehensible emotional blackmail. It's insane.
From memory, the DfT camera survey covered about 1800 cameras, of which 245 were deemed not to have worked and approx 700 had shown increases but "hadn't been in operation long enough", so were ignored. That leaves roughly 900 cameras that seem to have worked, yet no mention is made of traffic volumes, other road improvements, regression to the mean or anything else! Any accident reduction is automatically deemed to be camera induced whilst increases are blamed on anything BUT cameras. You can't have it both ways. If cameras work, they surely should work EVERYWHERE. The fact that the results show so many locations where things have either remained constant or increased surely indicates to anyone with half a brain that cameras are not the answer.
Indeed it is. Not sure how this is relevant to speed cameras though....
If anyone from Roadpeace is reading, please go back and take a critical look at the facts and figures re cameras rather than just latching on to the latest SCP spin and lies. The SCPs don't want reduced accidents, they just want to meet their business targets. Reduced road deaths will put them out of business...do you really think they are going to work to achieve a target that makes their jobs redundant? Would you? You've only got to look at some of the stuff Steve Callaghan has posted here to see how detatched from reality these people are. Any figures that disprove their argument are disregarded. Anyone who produces evidence to the contrary is either ignored or smeared, labelled a speedophile and a child killer. The use of children in pro camera campaigns (and news reports) is reprehensible emotional blackmail. It's insane.
From memory, the DfT camera survey covered about 1800 cameras, of which 245 were deemed not to have worked and approx 700 had shown increases but "hadn't been in operation long enough", so were ignored. That leaves roughly 900 cameras that seem to have worked, yet no mention is made of traffic volumes, other road improvements, regression to the mean or anything else! Any accident reduction is automatically deemed to be camera induced whilst increases are blamed on anything BUT cameras. You can't have it both ways. If cameras work, they surely should work EVERYWHERE. The fact that the results show so many locations where things have either remained constant or increased surely indicates to anyone with half a brain that cameras are not the answer.
hornet said:
"It is outrageous to wait for human sacrifice before a very successful life-saving device is installed"
Indeed it is. Not sure how this is relevant to speed cameras though....
Improve driving test? Suggest ways of improving driver standards without costing fortune and imlementable within reasonable time..decent adverts ... nowt happens!
And you tell them about a dodgy road which needs resurfacing? Nowt happens!
Nails over a carriageway? Nowt happens!
Safety devices in trains ---- they are too expensive - so not installed!
Proper cleaning staff in our hospitals? Er? In the meantime - MRSA gets hold, lot die! (but my husband keeps telling me - - NOT IN HIS HOSPITAL!)
hornet said:
If anyone from Roadpeace is reading, please go back and take a critical look at the facts and figures re cameras rather than just latching on to the latest SCP spin and lies. The SCPs don't want reduced accidents, they just want to meet their business targets. Reduced road deaths will put them out of business...do you really think they are going to work to achieve a target that makes their jobs redundant?
Given that they are unemployable elsewhere - and who would employ them after dissolution of pratnerships having suffered at their hands ..... think they need to keep their jobs going as long as possible!
hornet said:
Would you? You've only got to look at some of the stuff Steve Callaghan has posted here to see how detatched from reality these people are.
And on his own site too!
Beggars belief his take on scamera siting thread and the form opinion of speed - not to mention the the overtaking gems! And his advert on the back of a bus! About same lines as road peace - "Don't let your driving say it with flowers!" Actually Steve - my Will says I want no flowers - I want MONEY! To the fund for deprived families - who will include your victims out of work through your practices! Some members of this family tried to tell you that your practice at these sites - trap not far from speed limit change would not be allowed back in their place of residence - Germany! (I do not post on there myself - I leave that to those more detached and remote as I would lose my temper very quickly on that site!) Besides - as you know - I spend far too much time on here!
I browse there to find out where he is going to site those blinkin' traps of his! 
Not that I charge around the area anyway as we have people on walking hols 365 days a year! hornet said:
Any figures that disprove their argument are disregarded. Anyone who produces evidence to the contrary is either ignored or smeared, labelled a speedophile and a child killer. The use of children in pro camera campaigns (and news reports) is reprehensible emotional blackmail. It's insane.
And come up with bizarre items such as 2 year olds playing out and being run over, people running into road way in pure fear of being bitten by insect, dog whatever. To those allergic to insects, fearful of insect - there are some very good repellent products around!
My firm makes and sells them and they do indeed work very efficiently. As for the do phobia - should they ( the phobic) be out without a leash! And with regard to children - ever heard of quaint old fashioned concept of parenting?
hornet said:
From memory, the DfT camera survey covered about 1800 cameras, of which 245 were deemed not to have worked and approx 700 had shown increases but "hadn't been in operation long enough", so were ignored. That leaves roughly 900 cameras that seem to have worked, yet no mention is made of traffic volumes, other road improvements, regression to the mean or anything else!
We do not need more. We have more than anyone else anyway in this country. Elsewhere is combining use of cops with more intelligent use of them. But then - main aim is not one of pure greed and revenue raising! And job protections!
hornet said:
Any accident reduction is automatically deemed to be camera induced whilst increases are blamed on anything BUT cameras. You can't have it both ways. If cameras work, they surely should work EVERYWHERE. The fact that the results show so many locations where things have either remained constant or increased surely indicates to anyone with half a brain that cameras are not the answer.
Better education and incentives, adverts pointing out the key issues of safe driving - thaat is right answer. Scams should be at true danger sites - and there should be plenty of warning about hazard stretch - Smiley Sids --- but I have said this before and so have a lot of other people!
And as for choosing August as Victim Awareness month because of the late Princess of Wales dying in car crash. Perhaps they should re-read the reports of that crash and what led up to it, and what the driver is alleged to have been doing before he drove the car! The speed was not the reason for the crash, and I can tell anyone who has not driven at Pont Alma, Paris, that you would not come off very well if you hit anything on approach to the piece of road concerned.
Amazing, do they never give up? can they read? do they actually research anything?
The 'Road to Hell' or the A14 as it's more commonly known has had 344 reported crashes since 1999, 9 deaths and 70 seriously injured and there is more cameras on it than anywhere I've seen, it is also very unlikely that you could exceed 75mph, the majority also involve trucks.
Speed kills? more cameras? these people are so dumb they shouldn't be allowed out
The 'Road to Hell' or the A14 as it's more commonly known has had 344 reported crashes since 1999, 9 deaths and 70 seriously injured and there is more cameras on it than anywhere I've seen, it is also very unlikely that you could exceed 75mph, the majority also involve trucks.
Speed kills? more cameras? these people are so dumb they shouldn't be allowed out
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff