MOTORISTS back safety cameras..
Discussion
Partnership News
Motorists back safety cameras
Motorists have given overwhelming backing to the use of safety cameras to curb speeding on local roads.
A survey of over 1,000 drivers carried out by the Police Authority revealed significant support for the safety camera campaign.
Eighty-seven per cent of the drivers taking part in the Police Talk survey thought there were likely to be fewer accidents on roads covered by safety cameras. And 73 per cent thought that the main aim of the cameras was to save lives.
Significantly, 81 per cent of motorists believed that the cameras were meant to encourage people to stick to the speed limit – not punish them.
The findings have been welcomed by the Safety Camera Partnership, which is responsible for the network of roadside and static cameras on the country’s road network.
“It is very heartening to hear that most drivers believe we want to make our roads safer – not that we are simply out to make money,” said the partnership’s national communications manager.
“The fact is that we are not allowed to make a profit. All we want to do is make our roads safer by encouraging drivers to consider their speed and stay within the legal limits.”
The study found that a majority of drivers - 66 per cent – believed that speed was a key factor in a majority of accidents. And 75 per cent of drivers thought that safety cameras should be supported as a way of reducing casualties.
Sixty two per cent thought that dangerous drivers were more likely to be caught because of cameras. And a majority of all respondents felt that catching speeding drivers should be a medium or high priority.
Eighty-seven per cent thought that cameras should be highly visible – in line with the policy of the Safety Camera Partnerships.
The high-profile campaign uses bright yellow camera housings and publishes a list of active camera locations on the internet to avoid any suggestion of underhand tactics.
The SCP also added: “We want to make speeding as socially unacceptable as drink-driving. If the support revealed by this survey continues, there is every chance that we can achieve that goal.”
A recent national independent study found that 79 per cent of people asked supported the use of cameras to reduce casualties - and that the benefit to society through reduced casualties is about £221 million per year.
I support em too, I know where they are, the local radio tells me where the van scum are so I can drive with impunity, like a twat in fact. Thank god there aren't too many plod around any more.
In short a big thumbs up from me to the Partnerships
>> Edited by apache on Sunday 6th February 14:23
In short a big thumbs up from me to the Partnerships
>> Edited by apache on Sunday 6th February 14:23
'King Deadly said:
I wonder what an unbiased, independant survey would have shown, though? You know, one where the questions weren't biased to produce the answer they wanted.
Must admit...when I've worked a 'fetes' etc...on the police stand/display...
The majority of people asked are in favour of cameras....with suggestions as to where "We'd make a fortune" etc..
Of course those people would also be NIMBY's if they were later caught..
Tuesday 23 March 2004
Telegraph Network
Cameras catch four drivers per minute
By Paul Marston, Transport Correspondent
(Filed: 23/03/2004)
The spread of speed cameras has reached the point when a driver is caught every 15 seconds, a survey said yesterday. It estimated that the number of fines issued last year exceeded two million, equating to an average rate of four per minute. The report, based on interviews with 1,000 motorists, found that a third thought the prime purpose of cameras was to raise revenue. A slightly higher figure, 36 per cent, thought that the role of cameras was the prevention of speeding, although only 23 per cent believed that they prevented accidents or saved lives.
Ronan Hart, the marketing manager of Autonational Rescue, which compiled the report, said the results showed that drivers were sceptical of Government claims that the 5,500 cameras across the country were placed at proven high-risk accident sites. "Things seem to have gone too far and many speed cameras have been sited in places that bear no relation to road safety," Mr Hart said. "That is why so many drivers feel that cameras are simply there to raise revenue."
Don't know what the date of your survey is, Street, but I guess it's more recent than the one above. It's good to see that since this Telegraph survey (above), evil drivers have realised the error of their ways and that, like turkeys, they've started to vote for Christmas.
Telegraph Network
Cameras catch four drivers per minute
By Paul Marston, Transport Correspondent
(Filed: 23/03/2004)
The spread of speed cameras has reached the point when a driver is caught every 15 seconds, a survey said yesterday. It estimated that the number of fines issued last year exceeded two million, equating to an average rate of four per minute. The report, based on interviews with 1,000 motorists, found that a third thought the prime purpose of cameras was to raise revenue. A slightly higher figure, 36 per cent, thought that the role of cameras was the prevention of speeding, although only 23 per cent believed that they prevented accidents or saved lives.
Ronan Hart, the marketing manager of Autonational Rescue, which compiled the report, said the results showed that drivers were sceptical of Government claims that the 5,500 cameras across the country were placed at proven high-risk accident sites. "Things seem to have gone too far and many speed cameras have been sited in places that bear no relation to road safety," Mr Hart said. "That is why so many drivers feel that cameras are simply there to raise revenue."
Don't know what the date of your survey is, Street, but I guess it's more recent than the one above. It's good to see that since this Telegraph survey (above), evil drivers have realised the error of their ways and that, like turkeys, they've started to vote for Christmas.
'King Deadly said:
I wonder what an unbiased, independant survey would have shown, though? You know, one where the questions weren't biased to produce the answer they wanted.
The famous PSmith once posted or linked to a survey sample ; it's real "do you support speed cameras or would you prefer to be a child murderer" stuff.
It's odd ; there's supposed to be this mass support, but the only support I can find is pressure groups, the scamera mob themselves. I have never met personally anyone who likes them. A few people on forums (who usually are totally anti-car anyway).
People *are* quite happy with Scameras at blackspots and outside schools - but they also think they're placed to make money, and saving lives is a side issue.
It'd be interesting to see the survey.
From the few surveys I've seen, they're normally worded in a way that supports the use and most people would put a tick in the "yes" box. E.g. "Do you support the use of cameras", most people will agree.
It'd be interesting to see how many people would tick a
"Do you think that cameras are placed in the correct areas" box.
if it ever existed
From the few surveys I've seen, they're normally worded in a way that supports the use and most people would put a tick in the "yes" box. E.g. "Do you support the use of cameras", most people will agree.
It'd be interesting to see how many people would tick a
"Do you think that cameras are placed in the correct areas" box.
if it ever existed
from aol news today (http://channels.aolsvc.co.uk/news/article.adp?id=20050206054709990007). they also have a vote on speed cameras, which currently stands at
Do you resent speed cameras?
Yes
11032
83%
No
2265
17%
Total Votes:
13297
Not so many turkeys voting here it seems...
>> Edited by MMC on Sunday 6th February 14:55
Do you resent speed cameras?
Yes
11032
83%
No
2265
17%
Total Votes:
13297
Not so many turkeys voting here it seems...
>> Edited by MMC on Sunday 6th February 14:55
Streetcop said:
I wonder what an unbiased, independant survey would have shown, though? You know, one where the questions weren't biased to produce the answer they wanted.
Must admit...when I've worked a 'fetes' etc...on the police stand/display...
The majority of people asked are in favour of cameras....with suggestions as to where "We'd make a fortune"
To be honest, though, that's not really an unbiased survey either, is it, if it was uniformed plod asking the question?
In this day and age, most people would probably be afraid that if they gave the "wrong" answer, they'd be slapped in handcuffs, and off to the nearest nick on a charge of "Obstructing the opinion of a police officer", or something.
Thing is, I reckon this is unfortunately the truth - the majority of motorists out there are utter numpties who've swallowed all the scamera propaganda ande have got into thinking that safe=speed limit 
Some kind of pro-car education springs to mind. All the road safety messages we get are anti-car.
Some kind of pro-car education springs to mind. All the road safety messages we get are anti-car.
'King Deadly said:
In this day and age, most people would probably be afraid that if they gave the "wrong" answer, they'd be slapped in handcuffs, and off to the nearest nick on a charge of "Obstructing the opinion of a police officer", or something.
While I can imagine why you might think that way..
'In this day and age'????????????????
The public have NEVER behaved SO badly as they do today..
It depends on how questions are phrased and, as mentioned above, who is asking the questions!
Also, this quote "...Sixty two per cent thought that dangerous drivers were more likely to be caught because of cameras. And a majority of all respondents felt that catching speeding drivers should be a medium or high priority..."
If those questioned were told the truth first (and then asked the question), i.e. the truth being that by far the majority of those caught are accident-free and that it is the statistically more dangerous drivers who are not getting caught, their answers may be different.
It's no good saying that "...n% drivers thought..." They can think what they like, it doesn't make it true!
How can a policy be based on incorrect assumptions made by people not aware of the facts?
...when you want to twist it to give the results you want, that's how!
>> Edited by james_j on Sunday 6th February 15:29
>> Edited by james_j on Sunday 6th February 15:29
Also, this quote "...Sixty two per cent thought that dangerous drivers were more likely to be caught because of cameras. And a majority of all respondents felt that catching speeding drivers should be a medium or high priority..."
If those questioned were told the truth first (and then asked the question), i.e. the truth being that by far the majority of those caught are accident-free and that it is the statistically more dangerous drivers who are not getting caught, their answers may be different.
It's no good saying that "...n% drivers thought..." They can think what they like, it doesn't make it true!
How can a policy be based on incorrect assumptions made by people not aware of the facts?
...when you want to twist it to give the results you want, that's how!
>> Edited by james_j on Sunday 6th February 15:29
>> Edited by james_j on Sunday 6th February 15:29
Streetcop said:
Motorists have given overwhelming backing to the use of safety cameras to curb speeding on local roads.
A survey of over 1,000 drivers carried out by the Police Authority revealed significant support for the safety camera campaign.
I expect to get their 1000 sample they either a) asked all their mates at other speed camera offices or b) had to reject thousands
Local roads. Notice the context here. Local roads are perfect for speed sensitive traffic lights that prevent ALL speeding, they were probably not an alternative in this survey that looked at a system that FAILS to stop all speeding.
Question for scamera (maybe SC has an opinion here?):
In supporting speed cameras and therefore accepting that people will still speed and kill little children, how did you decide that this was better than speed sensitive traffic lights that would have saved their lives?
Two million fines a year, representing at least 120 million quid and maybe a lot more. How many lives saved? Hard to say given that the accident rate seems to be going up as a result, but can it possibly be more than a few hundred? Given all the other things that kill people, this hardly seems like good value for money.
Sometimes they just cheat.
Rather infamously our local lot touted the reduction in accidents at the Ketteringham junction on the A11 as one of the two big plus points of the Scamera partnership's fixed cameras. Accidents have dropped substantially, apparently.
There's just one problemo.
There is no fixed camera at the junction. Nor is there one anywhere near. There's no such camera according to their own site, and there isn't one anyway (I looked
), nor has there ever been one.
They occasionally have a van at the nearest bridge. A mile away. Oh, and they forgot to mention that one of the two exits on the junction has been closed off.
Rather infamously our local lot touted the reduction in accidents at the Ketteringham junction on the A11 as one of the two big plus points of the Scamera partnership's fixed cameras. Accidents have dropped substantially, apparently.
There's just one problemo.
There is no fixed camera at the junction. Nor is there one anywhere near. There's no such camera according to their own site, and there isn't one anyway (I looked
), nor has there ever been one. They occasionally have a van at the nearest bridge. A mile away. Oh, and they forgot to mention that one of the two exits on the junction has been closed off.
Streetcop said:
In this day and age, most people would probably be afraid that if they gave the "wrong" answer, they'd be slapped in handcuffs, and off to the nearest nick on a charge of "Obstructing the opinion of a police officer", or something.
While I can imagine why you might think that way..
'In this day and age'????????????????
The public have NEVER behaved SO badly as they do today..
That is the most crap you have ever come out with. In victorian England the public were almost all criminals of one sort or another. In comparison to the population crime was 10 times what it is now. Most towns once had areas where the police did not go or went in very large numbers if they had to. I am sure some sorts of crime are increasing but for the population at large there has NEVER been a larger percentage of us law abiding.
Streetcop said:
That is the most crap you have ever come out with.
You're so very kind. mental note to self...must abuse more members personally as it seems to be the right course of action on PH
OK...perhaps in the last 50 years then!...
come on smile ya miserable bugger I support you when you talk sense.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff