Safe Speed Forums

The campaign for genuine road safety
It is currently Mon Oct 22, 2018 03:17

All times are UTC [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 9 posts ] 
Author Message
PostPosted: Sat Feb 05, 2011 00:53 
Offline
Friend of Safe Speed
Friend of Safe Speed
User avatar

Joined: Tue Mar 09, 2004 23:09
Posts: 6734
Location: Stockport, Cheshire
Daily Mail

Quote:
Road deaths dropped 14 per cent in three months while speed cameras were being axed or switched off.

Fatalities over a year fell 21 per cent to a record low, Department for Transport figures show.

But more than half of Britain’s 6,000 speed cameras are now switched off at any one time as councils try to save money.

Road safety experts say this shows that more than two decades of obsession with the devices has been misplaced.

Even the former police chief turned road safety expert who installed Britain’s first speed camera nearly 20 years ago said the figures showed there had been an ‘over-emphasis’ on cameras.

There were 510 road deaths between July and September 2010, compared with 596 in the same period in 2009 – a fall of 14 per cent.

The number killed or seriously injured fell by 5 per cent, from 7,115 to 6,740. But traffic volume fell by only 1.3 per cent.

During the last year to September, fatalities fell below 2,000 for the first time since records began. There were 1,900, compared with 2,402 in the year to September 2009.

Total road casualties are down 3 per cent while the number killed or seriously injured is down 8 per cent over the same time.

The figures were seized on by road safety campaigners who believe that the boom in cameras over the past decade has had little to do with life-saving and more to do with fund-raising.

Speed cameras are being removed or turned off because of funding changes and spending cuts, the Daily Mail revealed last week. More than half – 44.7 per cent – are now switched off.

Claire Armstrong, of the anti-camera group Safespeed, said: ‘When we have a recession we expect the fatalities to fall because people travel less and are therefore exposed to less danger. Any benefit is nothing to do with cameras.’

AA president Edmund King said: ‘We need more traffic police who can stop a drunk or drugged driver, a dangerous or reckless driver, and someone tailgating.

The figures on the DfT website are here:

http://www.dft.gov.uk/pgr/statistics/datatablespublications/accidents/rrcgbq32010

Unless there's a massive blip in the fourth quarter, we're going to see annual fatalities fall below 2,000 in 2010 :D

_________________
"Show me someone who says that they have never exceeded a speed limit, and I'll show you a liar, or a menace." (Austin Williams - Director, Transport Research Group)

Any views expressed in this post are personal opinions and may not represent the views of Safe Speed


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Feb 05, 2011 07:13 
Offline
User
User avatar

Joined: Tue Feb 15, 2005 00:15
Posts: 5232
Location: Windermere
Not in Cumbria we wont!

Fatals UP in 2010.

_________________
Time to take responsibility for our actions.. and don't be afraid of speaking out!


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Feb 05, 2011 12:58 
Offline
Life Member
Life Member

Joined: Sat Mar 27, 2004 13:50
Posts: 2643
Ernest Marsh wrote:
Not in Cumbria we wont!

Fatals UP in 2010.


Aren't they still using cameras up there? :scratchchin:

_________________
Only when ideology, prejudice and dogma are set aside does the truth emerge - Kepler


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Feb 06, 2011 00:11 
Offline
Member
Member

Joined: Wed Feb 16, 2005 18:54
Posts: 4036
Location: Cumbria
A decent and balanced article, I thought. Unfortunately, we now know that the last quarter had some pretty awful weather in it. If KSIs went up, it will "obviously" :wink: be because of the freak weather. If they go down, it will be because everyone satyed at home. As Ernest says, we saw the first of those two scenarios happen in Cumbria.

Claire, I'm a bit curious as to why you took that line? It almost seems as if we're arguing against ourselves now? I'd have thought it might have been more along the lines of "...Claire Armstrong, of the anti-camera group Safespeed, said: ‘I BLOODY TOLD YOU SO!!!!!' "

The article even takes the drop in travelling into account (1.3%). Clearly, people do obviously travel less, but the stats fell faster tha the travelling! BEsides, I think the lack of maintenance in a recession and the lower rate of replacement of the national fleet probably offset the lower distances travelled don't they?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Feb 06, 2011 00:15 
Offline
Gold Member
Gold Member

Joined: Fri Sep 24, 2004 23:26
Posts: 9246
Location: Treacletown ( just north of M6 J3),A MILE OR TWO PAST BEDROCK
And it might e useful if we had data on those SCP where camera activities are now zero - e.g - I suspect that Warks have almost ceased activities - but no proof .
Perhaps we need a joint FIO to all SCP on the extent of their activities .
I'd do it as an individual,but I'd suspect that an organisation asking might wake then up from the bed of lies . Then if that fails - we can fall back on local bum kicking via county councillors .

_________________
lets bring sanity back to speed limits.
Drivers are like donkeys -they respond best to a carrot, not a stick .Road safety experts are like Asses - best kept covered up ,or sat on


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Feb 06, 2011 00:25 
Offline
Friend of Safe Speed
Friend of Safe Speed
User avatar

Joined: Tue Mar 09, 2004 23:09
Posts: 6734
Location: Stockport, Cheshire
Mole wrote:
Claire, I'm a bit curious as to why you took that line? It almost seems as if we're arguing against ourselves now? I'd have thought it might have been more along the lines of "...Claire Armstrong, of the anti-camera group Safespeed, said: ‘I BLOODY TOLD YOU SO!!!!!' "

Coming across as the "voice of reason" in a debate has huge benefits.

Mole wrote:
The article even takes the drop in travelling into account (1.3%). Clearly, people do obviously travel less, but the stats fell faster tha the travelling! BEsides, I think the lack of maintenance in a recession and the lower rate of replacement of the national fleet probably offset the lower distances travelled don't they?

There's a well-established link between recession, lower mileages and lower fatalities, although, as you say, in this case (and the previous year) fatalities have fallen much faster than road traffic.

The key thing is that it in a sense proves a negative - turning cameras off demonstrably does NOT lead to an increase in casualties.

_________________
"Show me someone who says that they have never exceeded a speed limit, and I'll show you a liar, or a menace." (Austin Williams - Director, Transport Research Group)

Any views expressed in this post are personal opinions and may not represent the views of Safe Speed


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Feb 10, 2011 14:04 
Offline
User

Joined: Wed Jan 10, 2007 16:04
Posts: 816
Could the poor state of the roads following two consecutive cold winters be a factor? More people watching the roads for new crevasses instead of watching their speedos? :bunker:


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Feb 10, 2011 22:41 
Offline
Member
Member

Joined: Wed Feb 16, 2005 18:54
Posts: 4036
Location: Cumbria
I'm sure there are lots of contributory factors. But hey, if they had gone up, there would only have been one possible explanation! :wink:


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Feb 11, 2011 03:25 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Tue Oct 12, 2004 02:17
Posts: 7354
Location: Highlands
Mole wrote:
Claire, I'm a bit curious as to why you took that line? It almost seems as if we're arguing against ourselves now? I'd have thought it might have been more along the lines of "...Claire Armstrong, of the anti-camera group Safespeed, said: ‘I BLOODY TOLD YOU SO!!!!!' "

The article even takes the drop in travelling into account (1.3%). Clearly, people do obviously travel less, but the stats fell faster tha the travelling! BEsides, I think the lack of maintenance in a recession and the lower rate of replacement of the national fleet probably offset the lower distances travelled don't they?

:) Yep but they forget what I said a little while back ! I need as much as possible for each word to count.
Lack of traffic volume over a road helps to keep people safer. Overall too, they may also pass less cameras.
During the last recessions in the late 70's, 80's 90's and now also 00's we see that fatalities go down.
We also know that when we are out of a recession the deaths are highly likely to rise. We have to show the true reason for what is happening overall and not get dragged into a discussion about a camera when it is not the case.
The original that I provided to the Telegraph was already short, and keeping it brief helps the whole point carry across when 'pinched' by other media sources. It is an involved subject as I am sure you know, so with space being short and often time too it helps to show what is truly happening.
We also drive more defensively too which also helps to keep us safer during a recession. We tend to concentrate a little better (overall).
Also with so much news about Gatso's remaining in place that will still have a road user negative 'effect', as we slowly climb out of recession and deaths rise some may then try to state that the rise is due to the cameras being off, which would also be wrong.
I agree too completely that money spent on higher fuel cost helps to prevent people spend properly on maintenance, or stretch the maintenance. Also maintenance will be farther apart as the vehicle is doing less miles, as shorter runs become more common. They travel less, far less often, and it is how they do that with more concentration that has to be factored in too.
This is a Global finding too - by Al Gullon.
To quote Al Gullon 'it is the happy thought that may kill you'. (I can explain that more fully if it is not 'clear'?)

_________________
Safe Speed for Intelligent Road Safety through proper research, experience & guidance.


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 9 posts ] 

All times are UTC [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
cron
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group
[ Time : 0.234s | 13 Queries | GZIP : Off ]