London Speed Camera Statistics
Discussion
Just been reading the article about London speed cameras on the thisislondon.co.uk website. The last paragraph of the article caught my eye
About one million of the 26 million motorists on British roads are prosecuted for speeding each year, but police chiefs expect that figure to more than treble to 3.5 million by April next year as speed cameras proliferate. Revenue will easily top £100 million by the end of next year.
So thats 4% of the motoring populous being fined at least £60 once a year and the target is to get that to 14% by the end of next year.
I do wonder how many reported crimes are solved. How many stolen goods as a percentage of reported thefts get returned to their owners? To use a topical argument whats the percentage of mobile phone thefts/stabbings/shootings that get reported get returned to their owners?
I would bet that those figures are no where near 14% but the motorist is still worth harrasing.
Nice to see the government can actually say something and stick to it for once, however misguided that sentiment may be.
Although, judging by the transport ministers current Walter Kronkite like stance on all things factual, the entire article is probably b0ll0cks!
Matt.
About one million of the 26 million motorists on British roads are prosecuted for speeding each year, but police chiefs expect that figure to more than treble to 3.5 million by April next year as speed cameras proliferate. Revenue will easily top £100 million by the end of next year.
So thats 4% of the motoring populous being fined at least £60 once a year and the target is to get that to 14% by the end of next year.
I do wonder how many reported crimes are solved. How many stolen goods as a percentage of reported thefts get returned to their owners? To use a topical argument whats the percentage of mobile phone thefts/stabbings/shootings that get reported get returned to their owners?
I would bet that those figures are no where near 14% but the motorist is still worth harrasing.
Nice to see the government can actually say something and stick to it for once, however misguided that sentiment may be.
Although, judging by the transport ministers current Walter Kronkite like stance on all things factual, the entire article is probably b0ll0cks!
Matt.
I refered to this article in another thread.. it merely demonstrates the stupidity of 'safety campaigners' - thus:
Notice the "357 deaths on London's roads last year compared to 284 the year before" and then:
>> Edited by CarZee on Monday 4th March 15:00
quote:These are the same poeple that a month ago were screaming about car jackings and mobile phone thefts and caused the coppers to be pulled from traffic duty to arrest black people or something.. now they've realised that London Motorists must have been living the life of Riley in the last month, so they've decided muggers are okay again, but speeders must be stopped..
The number of prosecutions for more serious speeding offences which were dealt with at magistrates courts rose from 2,983 to 5,522 over the same period - an increase of 118 per cent.
In 1999 there were 13,048 fixed penalty fines and 6,982 prosecutions.
The three-year rise is revealed in the wake of provisional new figures from Scotland Yard showing that there were 357 deaths on London's roads last year compared to 284 the year before. Officers are now being sent back to traffic duty following pressure from road safety campaigners.
Notice the "357 deaths on London's roads last year compared to 284 the year before" and then:
quote:
But today's figures were welcomed by safety campaigners. Amy Aeron of road crash victim charity Road-Peace said: "Clearly, where there are cameras, fewer people are being killed and injured. There should be more cameras to reduce the leading cause of death and injuries on the roads - excessive speed."
>> Edited by CarZee on Monday 4th March 15:00
quote:
But today's figures were welcomed by safety campaigners. Amy Aeron of road crash victim charity Road-Peace said: "Clearly, where there are cameras, fewer people are being killed and injured. There should be more cameras to reduce the leading cause of death and injuries on the roads - excessive speed."
Oh FFS!!!
Yeah well, I'm just going to go around posting notes everywhere that the moon is made of green cheese.
If you keep saying it often enough everyone seems to believe it's true - even if you can prove that it's total bollocks with five minutes research.
I've asked this before but why the hell do so many people, general public and so-called "authorities", prattle on about reducing speed when it clearly isn't the way to make the roads safer? They cook the figures, mislead people, lie, distort the facts and I simply can't understand why.
I want to make the roads safer as much as they do but anyone with an IQ of greater than four can see that speed is insignificant compared with the real problems
I am in serious danger of losing it here. JHK - administer a pie immediately, please !
If you keep saying it often enough everyone seems to believe it's true - even if you can prove that it's total bollocks with five minutes research.
I've asked this before but why the hell do so many people, general public and so-called "authorities", prattle on about reducing speed when it clearly isn't the way to make the roads safer? They cook the figures, mislead people, lie, distort the facts and I simply can't understand why.
I want to make the roads safer as much as they do but anyone with an IQ of greater than four can see that speed is insignificant compared with the real problems
I am in serious danger of losing it here. JHK - administer a pie immediately, please !
As a former Police Officer (NOT Traffic) I am of the firm opinion that speed does not kill. It is when the speed used does not match the road conditions and driver ability that problems occur. I saw on the news recently the plans afoot for new drivers. Namely; start learning at 16.5 years, a one year "learning" period before a full licence can be obtained, use of 'P' plates, and possible restrictions on speed, and/or vehicle size/power etc... One statistic which I feel is true is that young/new drivers account for far more accidents/injuries/fatalities than they should, so perhaps such suggestions are a way forward. Any views?
I personally would welcome driver training starting earlier. We should adopt a similar stance to that of the US. With our public transport system being in the state that it is, and the fact that for certain people in more rural communities public transport just isnt an option then I believe that we should introduce driver training as part of the national curriculum. From the ages of 16.5 - 17 pupils should be instructed how to drive on private land so when they have their first lesson on a public road its not overly daunting, they know all about the clutch and the power train etc etc etc and can concentrate on getting the safety aspect of driving first and foremost and not be worrying about clutch control etc. Surely actual 'live' driving lessons should from moment one concentrate on safety and everything we can do to instill that would surely be a step forward.
Also in the US there was a system that Corvette I believe had on their cars where there were two keys, one key would only allow the vehicle to go to a certain limit and the second key would be the governor override.
I think P-Plates do have use, but I also think that the max power crowd sometimes see these as a red reg to a bull, it can be in certain scenario's almost like a target.
On the whole I believe the test should be more car control oriented rather than rules and regulations parrot fashion and this should go hand in hand with improvements to the road itself, signage and educating other road users.
Matt.
Also in the US there was a system that Corvette I believe had on their cars where there were two keys, one key would only allow the vehicle to go to a certain limit and the second key would be the governor override.
I think P-Plates do have use, but I also think that the max power crowd sometimes see these as a red reg to a bull, it can be in certain scenario's almost like a target.
On the whole I believe the test should be more car control oriented rather than rules and regulations parrot fashion and this should go hand in hand with improvements to the road itself, signage and educating other road users.
Matt.
quote:
the target is to get that to 14% by the end of next year.
Brilliant, this means you have a one in 7.1 chance of being nicked for a motoring offence in a given year. As the points now remain on your licence for 5 years is London now removing congestion by banning all the drivers to the 'totting up' of points?
God damn. We've got to stop these people with their blanket tactics. Driver education - If the money for all the speed cameras in the country were piled into a concerted driver education campaign I think you'd find the road stats would improve dramatically.
Bloody hell... this sort of thing drives me mad!
Points count for 5 years now ?? When did that happen ?
I know they remain printed on your license for 5 years, because insurance companies want to know if you've had any points in the last 5 years, but I was under the impression that the points no longer count towards totting up after 3 or 4 years...
At the end of the day, by the time there are a couple of million people all concurrently banned by thus bullshit, there will be a bit of a backlash - you cannot expect the economy to survive 2 million people having their mobility removed.. previously law-abiding people will start to drive without license or insurance and speed cameras will start to take the sort of physical abuse that is long overdue to them
Well, we live in hope anyway..
Also, there's an argument that goes as follows:
People each have their individual level of 'acceptable risk' built in. Trying to reduce the risk in an environment (the road for example) will be balanced out by people's 'risk thermostat' reaqcting such that the overall risk is about the same.
This argument is seen in relation to safety features on cars and roads - how many times have you heard "seatbelts make people complacent" or "people don't care if they hit stuff when their car has airbags"? By trying to reduce the risk by compulsion to use seatbelts, people respond by driving faster or reducing their level of awareness so that the actual level of risk to which they expose themselves hasn't changed.
It is therefore possible to conclude that no amount of signage, training or safety features will improve our road accident statistics.
The only thing that will improve road safety is to cull morons. Pass me scythe...
I know they remain printed on your license for 5 years, because insurance companies want to know if you've had any points in the last 5 years, but I was under the impression that the points no longer count towards totting up after 3 or 4 years...
At the end of the day, by the time there are a couple of million people all concurrently banned by thus bullshit, there will be a bit of a backlash - you cannot expect the economy to survive 2 million people having their mobility removed.. previously law-abiding people will start to drive without license or insurance and speed cameras will start to take the sort of physical abuse that is long overdue to them
Well, we live in hope anyway.. Also, there's an argument that goes as follows:
People each have their individual level of 'acceptable risk' built in. Trying to reduce the risk in an environment (the road for example) will be balanced out by people's 'risk thermostat' reaqcting such that the overall risk is about the same.
This argument is seen in relation to safety features on cars and roads - how many times have you heard "seatbelts make people complacent" or "people don't care if they hit stuff when their car has airbags"? By trying to reduce the risk by compulsion to use seatbelts, people respond by driving faster or reducing their level of awareness so that the actual level of risk to which they expose themselves hasn't changed.
It is therefore possible to conclude that no amount of signage, training or safety features will improve our road accident statistics.
The only thing that will improve road safety is to cull morons. Pass me scythe...
Thats it then - bring back non-collapsable steering columns and ban seat belts/air bags/side intrusion bars. Make everyone feel vunerable.
A little more seriously - I wonder if a lot of drivers actually appreciate how much even a low speed car accident HURTS?
Some sort of simulation might make them think about their standard of driving (not JUST there speed, obviously). Again it comes down to driver training/awareness...
Cheers, Phil
A little more seriously - I wonder if a lot of drivers actually appreciate how much even a low speed car accident HURTS?
Some sort of simulation might make them think about their standard of driving (not JUST there speed, obviously). Again it comes down to driver training/awareness...
Cheers, Phil
quote:
People each have their individual level of 'acceptable risk' built in. Trying to reduce the risk in an environment (the road for example) will be balanced out by people's 'risk thermostat' reaqcting such that the overall risk is about the same.
I think this is spot on. I remember reading about a safety campaign in Canada or one of the Nortern US states where they tried to stop people being killed at level crossings. Apparently they have lots of ungated crossings, trains that take ten miles to stop and people were racing trains to the crossing and losing fairly regularly. So they re routed a lot of the approaches, cut down nearby vegetation and so on so the car drivers could see the train in plenty of time to stop. Made no difference at all. The drivers still saw the train two miles away, thought they would probably be able to beat it, and got mowed down.
Cheers,
Peter Humphries (and a green V8S)
quote:
Thats it then - bring back non-collapsable steering columns and ban seat belts/air bags/side intrusion bars. Make everyone feel vunerable.
Nope, just replace the airbag with a boxing glove
But seriously, removing the multitude of idiot protectors in a car would certainly make people drive more carefully, and would therefore make the roads safer. IIRC the number of accidents increased after seat belts were made compulsory...
quote:I was going to say that! There was a good program about the subject on TV ages ago. Featured that place, and investigated the effect of traffic calming measures (such as putting extra twists in the road). Conclusion was that people try to maintain a specific level of perceived risk (which may be different from person to person).
I remember reading about a safety campaign in Canada or one of the Nortern US states where they tried to stop people being killed at level crossings. Apparently they have lots of ungated crossings, trains that take ten miles to stop and people were racing trains to the crossing and losing fairly regularly. So they re routed a lot of the approaches, cut down nearby vegetation and so on so the car drivers could see the train in plenty of time to stop. Made no difference at all. The drivers still saw the train two miles away, thought they would probably be able to beat it, and got mowed down.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff