Figures on speed camera deaths to be published
Discussion
From today's Times Online:
www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2-1017347,00.html
"MOTORISTS will be able to look up the crash history of every speed camera under government plans to silence claims that it is profiting from enforcing speed limits.
"Police and local authorities will publish the number of casualties at every site before and after a camera was installed, allowing drivers to assess their impact on safety. Ministers believe this will help to persuade people that the 5,000 cameras are helping to save lives, not simply raising revenue."
It includes a great quote from the AA, which of course is in favour:
"Paul Watters, head of roads policy at the AA, said: “This kind of transparency is excellent news for motorists. As well as showing where cameras are working, it will also show where they are failing. It may be that other engineering measures are needed instead of cameras, such as improvements to junctions, better sight lines and converting crossroads to roundabouts.” "
Surely "other ... measures" would be taken BEFORE a speed camera is installed, and cameras are the last resort? Oh no, of course not, how silly of me.
There is a sting in the tail as well. Labour is now considering raising motorway speed limits to 80, no doubt to take the wind out of the Tory sails once more. But the article says "this will be strictly enforced by cameras". Therefore, we might get the limit raised, but it will then be carte blanche to have Gatsos on motorways for the first time -- and when the limit comes down again "because of the unacceptable increase in carnage in the first 3 months that cannot be allowed to continue" the 70 (or 60?) limit will then be enforced by cameras from then on.
www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2-1017347,00.html
"MOTORISTS will be able to look up the crash history of every speed camera under government plans to silence claims that it is profiting from enforcing speed limits.
"Police and local authorities will publish the number of casualties at every site before and after a camera was installed, allowing drivers to assess their impact on safety. Ministers believe this will help to persuade people that the 5,000 cameras are helping to save lives, not simply raising revenue."
It includes a great quote from the AA, which of course is in favour:
"Paul Watters, head of roads policy at the AA, said: “This kind of transparency is excellent news for motorists. As well as showing where cameras are working, it will also show where they are failing. It may be that other engineering measures are needed instead of cameras, such as improvements to junctions, better sight lines and converting crossroads to roundabouts.” "
Surely "other ... measures" would be taken BEFORE a speed camera is installed, and cameras are the last resort? Oh no, of course not, how silly of me.
There is a sting in the tail as well. Labour is now considering raising motorway speed limits to 80, no doubt to take the wind out of the Tory sails once more. But the article says "this will be strictly enforced by cameras". Therefore, we might get the limit raised, but it will then be carte blanche to have Gatsos on motorways for the first time -- and when the limit comes down again "because of the unacceptable increase in carnage in the first 3 months that cannot be allowed to continue" the 70 (or 60?) limit will then be enforced by cameras from then on.
I can only assume that they genuinely believe their own propaganda, and that they feel that if only they could get their message over more effectively then we'd believe it too.
This is of course the prerequisite for further widening the use of cameras, which will generate the revenue to pay for the additional bureaucrats. Without significant rises in public sector employment we'd be in recession now, and using fines to pay for even more employment can only be a good thing. After all, this is a victimless tax because it's only the criminals who suffer.
This is of course the prerequisite for further widening the use of cameras, which will generate the revenue to pay for the additional bureaucrats. Without significant rises in public sector employment we'd be in recession now, and using fines to pay for even more employment can only be a good thing. After all, this is a victimless tax because it's only the criminals who suffer.
Spacey said:
Whats the bet that the KSI stats before the camera will be for the whole stretch of the road, and the KSI stats after will be for the 200m that is under the influence of the camera?
Surely stats for the whole area before and after would be more useful?
Agreed, but I think we know the answer to that question. At best there's little change otherwise the countrywide KSI figures would be going down by the "up to 35%" we're told that cameras achieve.
Peter Ward said:
Agreed, but I think we know the answer to that question. At best there's little change otherwise the countrywide KSI figures would be going down by the "up to 35%" we're told that cameras achieve.
exactly, unfortuntely most people won't realise this, and will just except them as proof the cameras do work.
just more propaganda
>> Edited by Spacey on Friday 27th February 15:14
totally agree, the whole area (say a 5 mile radius at least) need to be shown.
of course the 200m stretch will have decreased, but cars etc can crash and kill occupants ANYWHERE, not just the same place as th last cars did.
At least the backlash against cameras is actually having an effect and getting government panicing, and worried over tory policy.
(stooz
3 speeding offences
0 deaths)
of course the 200m stretch will have decreased, but cars etc can crash and kill occupants ANYWHERE, not just the same place as th last cars did.
At least the backlash against cameras is actually having an effect and getting government panicing, and worried over tory policy.
(stooz
3 speeding offences
0 deaths)
PetrolTed said:
More money being wasted on bureacracy then instead of being channeled into reducing deaths and injuries.
How about the bureaucrats are sacked and police and advanced driving instructors are employed instead
This government has created over 100,000 public sector jobs in the last 12 months alone - I guess they've got to be seen to be doing something - so why not make matters worse - the public sector seems unable to change the habit of a lifetime.
PetrolTed said:
More money being wasted on bureacracy then instead of being channeled into reducing deaths and injuries.
How about the bureaucrats are sacked and police and advanced driving instructors are employed instead
See:
www.nottinghameveningpost.co.uk/displayNode.jsp?nodeId=102864&command=displayContent&sourceNode=65571&contentPK=8965824
And if you want to write in response:
www.nottinghameveningpost.co.uk/displayNode.jsp?nodeId=102863&command=newModule&sourceNode=102864
hornet said:
How could they justify enforcing any raised motorway limit by camera if the road doesn't have the requisite KSI figures to begin with? Doesn't make sense to enfore our safest roads unless you're the SCP accountant....
Easy. They'll change the law so that KSI requirements don't apply on motorways (or anywhere...). After all, when 101% of the population think that speeding drivers are worse than paedophiles and want more cameras everywhere, there'll be plenty of numpty public support to clamp down on the "roadhogs".
james_j said:
PetrolTed said:
More money being wasted on bureacracy then instead of being channeled into reducing deaths and injuries.
How about the bureaucrats are sacked and police and advanced driving instructors are employed instead
This government has created over 100,000 public sector jobs in the last 12 months alone - I guess they've got to be seen to be doing something - so why not make matters worse - the public sector seems unable to change the habit of a lifetime.
Pre-requisite/employee requirements of said new government public sector job:
1. Ability to manipulate figures.
2. Ability to fudge figures to something meaningless, such as showing that 101% approve of talivans and scams:
3. Ability to spin opinion polls so that they skew to required result.
4. Ability to lie convincingly to the public at large.
5. Ability to claim they only want to save lives, whilst cutting back on gritters and the "right kind of grit" (Funny how Austria, Switzerland, France & Germany manage to buy the right stuff each winter!
) 6. Ability to claim they only want to save lives- sticking firmly to the unshakeable belief- that a camera and only a camera can do this, and cutting down on trafpols and anything else more relevant to road safety. But then those things do not make money - do they?
>> Edited by WildCat on Friday 27th February 23:11
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff