Cameras Put The Brake On Deaths?!
Discussion
Is it me?
Or am I right in thinking that there is not one single mention of the actual fatality figures anywhere in this article entitled:
Cameras put the brakes on deaths
Published on 31 March 2004
SPEED cameras have helped halve the number of people killed and seriously injured at accident blackspots in Cambridgeshire.
A News investigation has revealed that the average number of deaths and serious injuries at all fixed camera sites across the county, has fallen from 44 a year to 22, since their introduction.
The total number of casualties at speed camera sites has also fallen from an average of 295 a year before their installation, to 224.
Stuart Clarkson, Cambridgeshire Safety Camera Partnership's public relations manager, said:
"We are trying to reduce the numbers of people killed and seriously injured on our roads, and are trying to do that by slowing people down. The number of fatal and serious road accidents is at its lowest point since 1990. We are not claiming responsibility for that just through safety cameras; our partners at the county's highways authority, drink-drive campaigns and seatbelt campaigns played significant roles and helped to contribute to this."
Currently there are 64 fixed cameras in Cambridgeshire and Peterborough, 14 of which have been installed since the partnership was launched in 2001.
For a site to be considered by the partnership, there must have been four collisions resulting in deaths or serious injuries over a three-year period.
Before it was launched, the county council decided which sites were suitable. It looked for a pattern of speed-related collisions.
The partnership and the council stressed that figures used to identify a blackspot were not necessarily those for the three years before a camera was installed.
Notable successes include the westbound A14 at Lolworth (camera number 28), which saw five people killed or seriously injured in the three years before a camera was installed. That figure dropped to zero in the three years after the camera went up.
On the A142 at Iretons Way, Chatteris, 10 people were killed or seriously injured in the three years before a speed camera (number 23). The figure dropped to one in the three years thereafter.
And the camera at Victoria Avenue, Cambridge (number 1), cut deaths and serious injuries from six to three and the total casualties from 46 to 13.
But in High Street, Trumpington, the site (number10) saw two serious injuries or deaths in the period before the camera was installed, but that figure rose to seven after it went up.
Mr Clarkson said: "An increase in casualties does not necessarily mean an increase in collisions.
One collision could result in two people sustaining injuries one year but the following year one collision could result in injuries being suffered by six people."
Between April 2001 and March 2002, 5,689 notices of £60 fines were sent out. That increased to 14,405 between April 2002 and March 2003.
That means a leap from £340,000 to £860,000 in Government revenue, if all fines were collected or enforced.
Mr Clarkson said: "This increase reflects the extra resources put into detecting speeding offences.
"It doesn't necessarily mean more people are breaking the speed limit, but it highlights the fact that if you do break the law, you're more likely to be caught."
The AA praised the News for obtaining the speed camera figures.
Spokesman Richard Freeman said he believed they showed positive results for drivers. However, he encouraged the partnership to examine closely the cameras which did not appear to have reduced accidents and consider removing them.
"These figures should be in the public domain," he said. "Overall, they tell us what we already knew - that cameras work. A good example is the camera on the Chatteris bypass which has helped bring deaths and serious injuries down from 10 to one.
"But I have concerns about the setup in High Street, Trumpington. The partnership needs to look at it because clearly it has not worked. Maybe it should be moved to a location where the camera would be more effective."
Mr Freeman said there was no doubt cameras had saved lives in Cambridgeshire, but added they only work in certain places and the partnership must resist the urge to use them to make money.
"Our concern is that there can only be a certain number of sites where cameras are effective," he said. "The question is where does it stop? How many more cameras are going to be put in place and will they just keep putting them up to cover costs?"
The partnership, which currently has a bid for around five more cameras with the Department for Transport, would not reveal which sites it plans to target.
But Mr Clarkson said: "It depends on whether people slow down. If there are no accident blackspots in the county, there will be no more cameras."
He added: "Some people think cameras are there as a stealth tax. You have to pay council tax and income tax; you don't have to pay a speeding fine.
There's a simple alternative, don't break the speed limit."
* The average figures were calculated by adding up the total number of casualties and dividing it by the total number of years.
This is because while the 'before' figures are for three years, the 'after' figures vary from one to three years.
From:
http://w3.cambridge-news.co.uk/news/huntingdon/story.asp?StoryID=51877
And what, exactly, is the AA spokesman rabbitting on about?
Or am I right in thinking that there is not one single mention of the actual fatality figures anywhere in this article entitled:
Cameras put the brakes on deaths
Published on 31 March 2004
SPEED cameras have helped halve the number of people killed and seriously injured at accident blackspots in Cambridgeshire.
A News investigation has revealed that the average number of deaths and serious injuries at all fixed camera sites across the county, has fallen from 44 a year to 22, since their introduction.
The total number of casualties at speed camera sites has also fallen from an average of 295 a year before their installation, to 224.
Stuart Clarkson, Cambridgeshire Safety Camera Partnership's public relations manager, said:
"We are trying to reduce the numbers of people killed and seriously injured on our roads, and are trying to do that by slowing people down. The number of fatal and serious road accidents is at its lowest point since 1990. We are not claiming responsibility for that just through safety cameras; our partners at the county's highways authority, drink-drive campaigns and seatbelt campaigns played significant roles and helped to contribute to this."
Currently there are 64 fixed cameras in Cambridgeshire and Peterborough, 14 of which have been installed since the partnership was launched in 2001.
For a site to be considered by the partnership, there must have been four collisions resulting in deaths or serious injuries over a three-year period.
Before it was launched, the county council decided which sites were suitable. It looked for a pattern of speed-related collisions.
The partnership and the council stressed that figures used to identify a blackspot were not necessarily those for the three years before a camera was installed.
Notable successes include the westbound A14 at Lolworth (camera number 28), which saw five people killed or seriously injured in the three years before a camera was installed. That figure dropped to zero in the three years after the camera went up.
On the A142 at Iretons Way, Chatteris, 10 people were killed or seriously injured in the three years before a speed camera (number 23). The figure dropped to one in the three years thereafter.
And the camera at Victoria Avenue, Cambridge (number 1), cut deaths and serious injuries from six to three and the total casualties from 46 to 13.
But in High Street, Trumpington, the site (number10) saw two serious injuries or deaths in the period before the camera was installed, but that figure rose to seven after it went up.
Mr Clarkson said: "An increase in casualties does not necessarily mean an increase in collisions.
One collision could result in two people sustaining injuries one year but the following year one collision could result in injuries being suffered by six people."
Between April 2001 and March 2002, 5,689 notices of £60 fines were sent out. That increased to 14,405 between April 2002 and March 2003.
That means a leap from £340,000 to £860,000 in Government revenue, if all fines were collected or enforced.
Mr Clarkson said: "This increase reflects the extra resources put into detecting speeding offences.
"It doesn't necessarily mean more people are breaking the speed limit, but it highlights the fact that if you do break the law, you're more likely to be caught."
The AA praised the News for obtaining the speed camera figures.
Spokesman Richard Freeman said he believed they showed positive results for drivers. However, he encouraged the partnership to examine closely the cameras which did not appear to have reduced accidents and consider removing them.
"These figures should be in the public domain," he said. "Overall, they tell us what we already knew - that cameras work. A good example is the camera on the Chatteris bypass which has helped bring deaths and serious injuries down from 10 to one.
"But I have concerns about the setup in High Street, Trumpington. The partnership needs to look at it because clearly it has not worked. Maybe it should be moved to a location where the camera would be more effective."
Mr Freeman said there was no doubt cameras had saved lives in Cambridgeshire, but added they only work in certain places and the partnership must resist the urge to use them to make money.
"Our concern is that there can only be a certain number of sites where cameras are effective," he said. "The question is where does it stop? How many more cameras are going to be put in place and will they just keep putting them up to cover costs?"
The partnership, which currently has a bid for around five more cameras with the Department for Transport, would not reveal which sites it plans to target.
But Mr Clarkson said: "It depends on whether people slow down. If there are no accident blackspots in the county, there will be no more cameras."
He added: "Some people think cameras are there as a stealth tax. You have to pay council tax and income tax; you don't have to pay a speeding fine.
There's a simple alternative, don't break the speed limit."
* The average figures were calculated by adding up the total number of casualties and dividing it by the total number of years.
This is because while the 'before' figures are for three years, the 'after' figures vary from one to three years.
From:
http://w3.cambridge-news.co.uk/news/huntingdon/story.asp?StoryID=51877
And what, exactly, is the AA spokesman rabbitting on about?
the story said:
But in High Street, Trumpington, the site (number10) saw two serious injuries or deaths in the period before the camera was installed, but that figure rose to seven after it went up.
Mr Clarkson said: "An increase in casualties does not necessarily mean an increase in collisions.
One collision could result in two people sustaining injuries one year but the following year one collision could result in injuries being suffered by six people."
Oh thats okay then, glad speed cameras are not just about taxing the motorist.
Malc
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff