I'd say eyes shut, personally.
Or maybe both.
|
|
Call-out headline in The Independent's motoring supplement today: "Cameras have reduced deaths and near-fatal accidents by 35 per cent". No source for this number is quoted in the article. Fact or irresponsible journalism? Discuss.
|
Cut them where? when? what sort? Defined how?
On second thoughts, no I can't be bothered, frankly.
No source for this number is quoted in the article.
Nuff said.
|
|
|
Call-out headline in The Independent's motoring supplement today: "Cameras have reduced deaths and near-fatal accidents by 35 per cent". No source for this number is quoted in the article. Fact or irresponsible journalism?
Fact: UCL study for the DfT, see www.dft.gov.uk/stellent/groups/dft_rdsafety/docume...p
pity the article doesn't cite the source, but not many newspaper articles are footnoted :(
|
its not the number of cameras that concern me but the ridculously low speed limits that they enforce compared to european roads (excluding germany) the limit are set for m/wys at 80mph with limitations when travelling through junction areas down to 60/70mph which works and reduces the accident ratio quite well. and then of course theres germany which has a mavelous system of no limit (advisory max limit of 80mph) down to 60 junction ares with cameras to support this and the fines are much simpler too for instance:
up to 15mph over = 20 euro
over 15 up to 30 = 100 euro
double limit = 200 euro + 3 month ban or higher fine on aplication
3 times limit = 1000 euro + and 1 year ban
a much sipler system i think.
sorry for the long post
|
|
|
|
Thanks, NoWheels. I now discover that the report is 15 months old and the data between 50 and 26 months old, which the article also failed to mention.
|
There is also regression to the mean effect (which can explain substantial variations) and whether other measures were added at camera sites, eg road layout changes. You would have to see the accident rate per vehicle km travelled on that stretch and compare before and after over a number of years to get a truer idea of whether the camera was working.
teabelly
|
There is also regression to the mean effect (which can explain substantial variations) and whether other measures were added at camera sites, eg road layout changes.
I'm sure that most such studies have some flaws, somewhere.
I was particularly impressed by the effect on a road near me, where the installation of cameras reduced fatalities from about 10 in two years to zero over the first 18 months of camera operation, with a huge decline in injuries too. That was accompanied by a cut in the limit from 40 down to 30, so maybe some of the camera-haters will argue that we shoulkd just have lower speed limits without the cameras :)
We could alawys argue that a study doesn't demonstrate precisely how a pacakge of safety improvements worked, but all the studies show that they did work.
So here's a challenge: can anyone find a study which shows that installing cameras on a stretch of road was not followed by a drop in the number and/or severity of accidents?
|
I've said this a number of times, but just for the sake of it....
I fail to see the problem with speed cameras. There is a law, and they enforce the law. There is no problem that I can see. I don't see why it matters if the cameras are hidden, why it matters what colour they are, or anything else.
And the old trollop about "I can't drive safely and watch my speed" is just that, trollop.
Arguing that cameras are wrong because they catch people speeding is simply ludicrous - that is what they are supposed to do.
The problem is in no way related to the cameras.
There *are* two problems however;
1) believing that cameras will replace policemen. We need more police, not less. And certainly more of them floating around the highways. Cameras should be in addition to the police, not instead of.
2) the speed limits enforced are frequently unrealistic and frequently plain dumb. 30mph on a dual carriageway for example.
So;
We need more policemen.
We need realistic, appropriate and practical speed limits.
If we had those two things, then where is the problem with cameras ?
Of course, its not fashionable to argue against speed limits, but it is fashionable to hate speed cameras - which is pretty much what its all about.
|
Can't argue with that. Lord knows I hate speed cameras but if there were more Police and more realistic speed limits then my view may be swayed.
|
Mark, I agree with most of what you say -- esp "can't watch my speed" is silly, more traffic police muchly needed.
But some apparently low limits serve a purpose which may not be immediately apparent, e.g. 30mph on a dual carriageway can sometimes be appropriate to smooth traffic flows when the road reverts to single lane: in many such cases it doesn't reduce journey times, just reduces stress etc of the accelerate-then-brake cycle. The limit may also have other functions, such as reducing traffic noise
|
>>But some apparently low limits serve a purpose which may not be immediately apparent,
The relevant word being "some".
|
I only dislike speed cameras because they replace traffic police and they do naff all to catch the illegal drivers that are on the roads. They do nothing for inappropriate speed either.
Agreed about the realistic limits. It is interesting to note that 40 mph limits are adhered to much more than 30mph or 70 mph zones and that the 60 mph limit is adhered to most of all with just 9% of vehicles exceeding it. Oddly the accident rate in 60s is high but it is very low in 40 mph areas where there is similar levels of law abiding-ness.
It would be an interesting experiment to see whether people drove more or less safely without a working speedometer. Would it lead to people driving around at the same speed everywhere or would they make more value judgements rather than just matching the number on the road sign to the number on their speedo?
I wonder why it was perfectly acceptable 30 odd years ago to drive at 100 mph down the motorway, it being perfectly legal then and yet today when cars are much better at speed it is an instant ban?
teabelly
|
"I wonder why it was perfectly acceptable 30 odd years ago to drive at 100 mph down the motorway, it being perfectly legal then and yet today when cars are much better at speed it is an instant ban?"
There's far more traffic now, and while cars are better at speed, the drivers aren't necessarily so!
|
Nicely put, Mark.
Speed cameras also attract flak because they are the visible part of a system that is perceived to be untruthful. Speed cameras are, we are told, there to aid safety. Our experience sometimes suggests that they are sited to maximise revenue, but this is flatly denied. Statistics are published which show that they reduce KSI rates; queries are raised as to the accuracy and validity of the statistics but no defence is offered.
For example, the A404 from Wycombe to Amersham has just been plastered with big yellow signs telling us just how many deaths there have been at each junction. This is good, but the thoguht that keeps coming to mind is why there are no speed cameras? This road seems to fit the safety argument for them perfectly, so where are they?
Many cynical explanations spring to mind, of course.
|
Doesn't this exactly fit the situation that campaigners always tell us about - that if better warnings and explanations of speed limits were given there would be no need for cameras?
Why should we have to spend another £20,000 of taxpayers money (at each junction?)for a device that stops them speeding for 50 yards but gives them freedom to do so on the rest of the road?
I assume they will now all be sticking to the limit.....
|
My point is that all the arguments for speed cameras point to them being used on that road.
But they are not, informative signs are being used instead.
So, either the arguments in favour of speed cameras are flawed, or I am being placed at unnecessary risk when I use that road. Either way, it doesn't stack up.
|
Statistics are published which show that they reduce KSI rates; queries are raised as to the accuracy and validity of the statistics but no defence is offered.
Actually, the DfT website has plenty of stuff explaining the stats, but not everyone reads it :(
The interesting thing about this debate, though, is that ppl who dislike cameras try to find flaws in the studies which show how cameras reduce the number and severity of accidents where they are installed ... but they cannot point to any studies which fail to show such a reduction.
The best that anyone has come up with is a claim that they simply displace accidents to elsewhere, which (if true, and I doubt it) sounds like a compelling argument for zillions of extra cameras.
This road seems to fit the safety argument for them perfectly, so where are they?
I'm sure if you ask loudly and persitently enough, they could be installed! :)
|
The interesting thing about this debate, though, is that ppl who dislike cameras try to find flaws in the studies which show how cameras reduce the number and severity of accidents where they are installed ... but they cannot point to any studies which fail to show such a reduction.
Err, yes, but....
The only people who have full access to the raw data and who are able to demand that it is collected in the way they ask are HMG. So it's not surprising that HMG are the only ones that can carry out major studies. So those that disagree with HMG have little option but to look at the official studies and ask whether the data justifies the conclusions reached.
There are two main things that make me sad:
- first that major changes have been made to our system of road policing, but our roads as a whole seem no safer and the death rates back this up
- second that those who query current speed camera policy are often automatically regarded as being in favour of speeding and against enforcement of any description. Not so!
|
|
"I was particularly impressed by the effect on a road near me, where the installation of cameras reduced fatalities from about 10 in two years to zero over the first 18 months of camera operation, with a huge decline in injuries too. That was accompanied by a cut in the limit from 40 down to 30, so maybe some of the camera-haters will argue that we should just have lower speed limits without the cameras :)"
Similar situation locally, camera installed, new bypass opened and speed limit on old road reduced.
Ergo: reduction in accidents immediately proclaimed as being wholly due to the speed camera.
|
Similar situation locally, camera installed, new bypass opened and speed limit on old road reduced.
the road I described wasn't bypassed or anything, just slowed and camera-ed. It's the main artery into the city from this side of town, no real alternative route available.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
