Safe Speed Forums

The campaign for genuine road safety
It is currently Thu Apr 25, 2024 19:06

All times are UTC [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 5 posts ] 
Author Message
PostPosted: Mon Jun 27, 2011 01:29 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Tue Oct 12, 2004 02:17
Posts: 7355
Location: Highlands
I have placed this as a separate thread from the other similar story as they are dealing with the issue from different aspects.
Daily Mail Online here
Daily Mail - Kirsty Walker wrote:
'Cash cow' speed cameras will be named for the first time in transparency drive
By Kirsty Walker - Last updated at 4:16 PM on 26th June 2011

Britain's most lucrative speed cameras will be named for the first time, under a new transparency drive launched by ministers today.
Motorists will be given access to previously hidden statistics showing the number of speeding prosecutions and accidents at camera sites.

The information will enable drivers to build up a 'league table' of Britain's busiest speed cameras as well as judging their effectiveness in saving lives.
Gatso speed camera on the M11 southbound between junctions 5 and 4 in Essex where there has been an increase in accidents

Up until now, authorities have been reluctant to publish admit which cameras were the biggest money spinners, with details having to be prised out of them using Freedom of Information laws.
There has been mounting criticism that the cameras - also known as gatsos - are being used to raise revenue rather than save lives.

One camera at the southern end of the M11 in Essex, which raises over £1million-a-year in fines, has been found to have increased the numbers of crashes and injuries at its site.
Accidents have doubled since the machine was installed on the M11 at its junction with the North Circular A406 near Woodford, Essex.
Police said crashes happened because motorists slowed down ahead of the camera and then speeded up once they were clear of it.

Another traffic camera at a yellow box junction on Battersea Bridge Road in South London has been dubbed 'money box' after fining 2,000 drivers a month - raising over £1million a year.
Critics have pointed out that bad congestion caused by engineering works meant that many unsuspecting drivers found themselves trapped in the box.
Anyone who stopped in the box for longer than five seconds was issued with a fine of £60 - which could double if not paid immediately.

Now, however, local authorities will have to publish the numbers of accidents and casualties at camera sites - both before and after they were installed - within weeks.
Mike Penning MP said the government don't want information about speed cameras to be hidden any more
Mike Penning, the Road Safety Minister, will order police and local authorities to stop treating drivers like 'cash cows'.
Mr Penning said: 'We want to stop motorists being used as cash cows. For too long information about speed cameras has been hidden in the shadows.
'This new data will end that by clearly showing whether a camera is saving lives or just making money.'
The information on collisions and casualties which local authorities will have to provide will date back to 1990.
The number of cameras on Britain's road started to mushroom in the early 1990s. By 2010, they were understood to have generated more than £100million in fines.

Research has suggested that speed cameras have triggered at least 28,000 crashes since 2001.

The devices are found to have caused motorists to drive erratically, to not concentrate on the road and to brake suddenly when one comes into sight.

More than 80 per cent of drivers say they look at their speedometers rather than the cars in front when they approach a speed camera.
The new information will add to already-growing pressure for many cameras to be scrapped.
Although minister fear the move could lead to a wave of vandalism targeting the motorist's nemesis.

Mr Penning said: 'This will expose where cameras are and are not doing their job. It is all about empowerment. We can only do what we do with road safety if people believe it isn't just about raising money but is about saving lives.
'What this will show is where there weren't any accidents before, and accidents afterwards are minimal, or may even have gone up because people have reacted differently. But it will also expose where accidents have dropped.
'The police are concerned that certain cameras may be vandalised more than they are now, but that's not a reason not to do it.'

Peter Roberts, of the Drivers' Alliance, said: 'Speed cameras don't improve the safety of our roads. They're often placed to generate the maximum revenue.
'Speed is to blame for only 4.7 per cent of accidents.'
If people recognise that genuine interest is being shown to properly identify if cameras are good or bad and the evidence has been around for many years that they are not about road safety then why would people want to risk a Court prosecution when a speed camera is likely to be scrapped very soon !
I think heads should roll for the needless deaths and injuries that have arisen from the dogged pursuit of the use of speed cameras. I am pleased that the stats will be shown, but we must know the volume of traffic also ... prior to the scams and afterwards ...

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


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
PostPosted: Thu Jul 21, 2011 18:08 
Offline
User
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jul 20, 2011 11:07
Posts: 248
Seems a step in the right direction. Interesting that any government would seek to suppress information on speed cameras or the revenue generated. Wonder why that is? :scratchchin:


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
PostPosted: Fri Jul 22, 2011 08:24 
Offline
Gold Member
Gold Member
User avatar

Joined: Wed Dec 08, 2004 14:26
Posts: 4364
Location: Hampshire/Wiltshire Border
Actually, the reason why these figures were kept secret is not about the high revenue earners. Most fixed camera boxes are, in fact, empty and the small number of cameras are swapped around between the housings. The SCPs probably identify low earning sites (i.e. few speeding motorists) and never install the camera in the housing at these locations. If they revealed the number of "nicks" for each location, this would be obvious.

Laughably, this type of logic is used to justify the fact that fixed cameras are almost never located near schools to "save the life of a child". This is because almost nobody would be caught.

_________________
Malcolm W.
The views expressed in this post are personal opinions and do not represent the views of Safespeed.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
PostPosted: Fri Jul 22, 2011 08:46 
Offline
Member
Member

Joined: Fri Oct 26, 2007 19:08
Posts: 3434
Quote:
The SCPs probably identify low earning sites (i.e. few speeding motorists) and never install the camera in the housing at these locations.


This is very true. I used to have a camera detector which would only bleep if the camera was live. There were certain cameras in Telford which never bleeped and some (busy roads) where they were always live. Strangely enough?, ones near schools and colleges were never/rarely live.

_________________
My views do not represent Safespeed but those of a driver who has driven for 39 yrs, in all conditions, at all times of the day & night on every type of road and covered well over a million miles, so knows a bit about what makes for safety on the road,what is really dangerous and needs to be observed when driving and quite frankly, the speedo is way down on my list of things to observe to negotiate Britain's roads safely, but I don't expect some fool who sits behind a desk all day to appreciate that.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
PostPosted: Fri Jul 22, 2011 12:48 
Offline
User
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jul 20, 2011 11:07
Posts: 248
That seems crazy. All you hear about from these type of people is the impact cameras have saving the lives of children - or similar rhetoric. If Brake or similar such groups want people to pay attention they will bang on about children. as far as I know, we have all these 20mph zones because of children. You hit one at 20mph, he/she is more likely to survive - how about not hitting them in the first place? Don't get me wrong, I would never want to hit a child, but what happened to the green cross code etc.? A lot of these 20mph zones are lunacy - many are big, wide roads that I have never seen a child anywhere near. Anyway, it seems to suggest yet again that local authorities are more interested in 'high earning' camera sites and revenue and that their road safety policy bears little relation to saving lives. Cameras should surely only be used, if at all, in sites that would prove beneficial or have the potential to save lives not make a profit.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 5 posts ] 

All times are UTC [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 13 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 can post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group
[ Time : 0.015s | 13 Queries | GZIP : Off ]