Safe Speed Forums

The campaign for genuine road safety
It is currently Wed Oct 17, 2018 09:23

All times are UTC [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 5 posts ] 
Author Message
PostPosted: Sun Sep 11, 2011 01:48 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Tue Oct 12, 2004 02:17
Posts: 7354
Location: Highlands
The Reading Chronicle here
The Reading Chronicle - Lottie Gross wrote:
Rise in accidents at camera sites
Lottie Gross • Published 4 Sep 2011 05:00

ACCIDENTS increased at blackspots across the Reading area after speed cameras were installed.

But road safety experts say it would be wrong to simply scrap the cameras and are calling for "healthy public debate" to ensure they are used more effectively.

The Department of Transport has published speed camera statistics from 75 local authorities in response to ministers' concerns that thousands have been installed nationally to make money rather than improve safety.

Safer Roads, which works with Berkshire's six unitary authorities and Thames Valley Police, says that of the 90 cameras installed across the county, 66 sites showed a decrease in accidents and at 12 places they increased. Across the Reading area there are 21 camera sites and at four of them accidents have risen, while 14 showed a decrease and three remained unchanged.

A camera was installed in Silverdale Road, Earley, in 1995 at a spot where there had been no accidents in the previous three years. There were four in the next three years, and another two in the period between 2007 and 2009.

One of the worst sites was in Reading's Tilehurst Road where there were 18 collisions during the three years before the cameras' installation in 1995, and that rose to 29 in the following three years. The figure did drop between 2007 and 2009 but still stood at 21.

The cameras themselves are largely funded by fees from errant motorists taking speed awareness courses. But Thames Valley Police are expected to comply by the end of September with a DoT request to reveal the fines revenue from each camera.

Chief Inspector Gill Wootton, head of the force roads policing department, warned that looking at statistics for individual camera sites in isolation could not prove or disprove their effectiveness, and she added: "Speed cameras are used across the country to help in the reduction of collisions and in lessening the impact of collisions when they occur."

Richard Owen, Safer Roads operations manager, said cameras cost around £20,000 each to install but said that in Berkshire they are only loaded with film one day out of 10.
He added: "I would encourage people to talk about the speed cameras in healthy public debate, and to discuss where they are and where they could be more effective, because they may be moved if necessary."

FACTBOX:
Berekely Avenue/A4 (30mph) - 14 collisions in three years prior to cameras being there, 19 in the three years after and 16 between 2007-09
Tilehurst Road (30mph) - 18 collisions in three years prior to the cameras being there, 29 in the three years after and 21 between 2007-09
Woodcote Road/A4074 (30mph) - 2 collisions in the three years prior to cameras being there, 8 in the three years after and 7 between 2007-09
Where is a debate when all they are planning to discuss is where the speed camera is located - that is a joke ! A realy good debate is one where all the facts are clearly presented so that people may try to make informed decisions. But where are the engineers, since when are we to reduce road safety to a few local people who have little time or understanding about what makes a good road, the physics of accidents, the prevention of accidents, the facilities available to resolve the accidents through psychology, physics, traffic management and road design, and all the statistics and a good understanding of all that too ! Therefor this will be no debate but a whitewash. :(

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


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Sep 11, 2011 15:14 
Offline
Friend of Safe Speed
Friend of Safe Speed
User avatar

Joined: Sun Sep 25, 2005 10:16
Posts: 7986
Location: Moved to London
Be sure to know the distinction between "accidents/collisions" and KSI accidents.



Quote:
Chief Inspector Gill Wootton, head of the force roads policing department, warned that looking at statistics for individual camera sites in isolation could not prove or disprove their effectiveness...

And that's even before we consider confounding factors such as RTTM (which still plays a part in how speed camera effectiveness are perceived) as well as Bias On Selection.

Quote:
Richard Owen, Safer Roads operations manager, said cameras cost around £20,000 each to install but said that in Berkshire they are only loaded with film one day out of 10.
He added: "I would encourage people to talk about the speed cameras in healthy public debate, and to discuss where they are and where they could be more effective, because they may be moved if necessary."

So you can capitalise on the illusion resulting from RTTM ? Where have I seen this tactic before?

So no chance of a speed camera manager considering the possibility that the road safety budget would be better spent instead on real safety measures!

_________________
Views expressed are personal opinions and are not necessarily shared by the Safe Speed campaign


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Sep 12, 2011 00:45 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Tue Oct 12, 2004 02:17
Posts: 7354
Location: Highlands
Steve wrote:
Be sure to know the distinction between "accidents/collisions" and KSI accidents.
Well one could say (& some like to) that there is no such thing as 'an accident'. That all traffic collisions are incidents.
There is also the distinction that there are many incidents which are never reported and there are Police reported (within the confines of their processing (checking boxes)). Then there are those where there is 'damage only' incidents. Is that what you were driving at ?
Perhaps what I said was not clear (enough) ?
Steve wrote:
The Reading Chronicle - Lottie Gross wrote: wrote:
Chief Inspector Gill Wootton, head of the force roads policing department, warned that looking at statistics for individual camera sites in isolation could not prove or disprove their effectiveness...
And that's even before we consider confounding factors such as RTTM (which still plays a part in how speed camera effectiveness are perceived) as well as Bias On Selection.
Exactly. If Ci Gill Wootton can recognise that it fails to prove or disprove the 'effectiveness' then why can she not question their supposed 'benefit'?!
Steve wrote:
The Reading Chronicle - Lottie Gross wrote: wrote:
Richard Owen, Safer Roads operations manager, said cameras cost around £20,000 each to install but said that in Berkshire they are only loaded with film one day out of 10.
He added: "I would encourage people to talk about the speed cameras in healthy public debate, and to discuss where they are and where they could be more effective, because they may be moved if necessary."

So you can capitalise on the illusion resulting from RTTM ? Where have I seen this tactic before?
20K to install plus the 30K to buy them too ! We know that around 53% were not 'working' too so they have made a great deal of money from just a few cameras which show just how many people are totally ignoring the speed limit signs in some places. Agreed, totally with the RTTM & BoS.
They fail to appreciate what truly helps someone slow/ or drive more carefully, because of perceived hazards (inc a speed camera of all types). Plus why make someone slow (talking within limits here), when perhaps no danger threatens at that moment in time ?
If drivers only ever slowed whenever a speed camera was present then how have we managed to have the safest roads in the World for many decades prior to this era of SCAMS ?
Steve wrote:
So no chance of a speed camera manager considering the possibility that the road safety budget would be better spent instead on real safety measures!
Since they don't get how to make people slow, other than with a big sticks, it is no wonder that they cannot understand true road safety, never mind how to apply it - they are totally unfit for purpose.

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


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Sep 12, 2011 19:45 
Offline
Friend of Safe Speed
Friend of Safe Speed
User avatar

Joined: Sun Sep 25, 2005 10:16
Posts: 7986
Location: Moved to London
SafeSpeedv2 wrote:
Steve wrote:
Be sure to know the distinction between "accidents/collisions" and KSI accidents.
Well one could say (& some like to) that there is no such thing as 'an accident'. That all traffic collisions are incidents.
There is also the distinction that there are many incidents which are never reported and there are Police reported (within the confines of their processing (checking boxes)). Then there are those where there is 'damage only' incidents. Is that what you were driving at ?
Perhaps what I said was not clear (enough) ?

My comment was not spurned on by any of yours.

Instead I was alluding to the fact that the SCP's standard measure of camera 'performance' is based on KSI accidents, whereas the article was describing accidents/collisions. The two are not comparable.

If the wording of the article is as I suspect, it is possible that the partnerships could still trot out the RTTM-esqe "average KSI reduction of 40-70% at camera sites" for those same camera sites.

_________________
Views expressed are personal opinions and are not necessarily shared by the Safe Speed campaign


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Sep 12, 2011 20:29 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Tue Oct 12, 2004 02:17
Posts: 7354
Location: Highlands
Ahha fair enough - yes, agreed.

_________________
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  [ 5 posts ] 

All times are UTC [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Exabot [Bot] 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:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group
[ Time : 0.194s | 14 Queries | GZIP : Off ]