Safe Speed Forums

The campaign for genuine road safety
It is currently Fri Nov 14, 2025 16:34

All times are UTC [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 8 posts ] 
Author Message
PostPosted: Tue Aug 19, 2008 10:53 
Offline
Life Member
Life Member
User avatar

Joined: Sat Apr 30, 2005 22:02
Posts: 3266
http://www.expressandstar.com/2008/08/1 ... -overhaul/

Quote:
Two speed cameras have been axed in Walsall as part of a major overhaul that could see every camera in the borough removed.

The speed traps in Chester Road have been taken down as a year-long review was launched in the borough to ensure they are not simply money-making machines.

It comes after the Express & Star revealed earlier this month that more than £2.6million was collected in a single year across the region from speeding fines – up from £375,000 in 1997.

Councillor Anthony Harris, Walsall Council cabinet member for transport, said more would be taken down if he did not think they were helping to cut accidents.

“Well placed cameras can save lives and reduce accidents, there is no doubt about that,” he said.

“What worries me is that many people believe there are some cameras across Britain that are only there to make money.

“I personally will not tolerate this practice in Walsall. :clap:

“I have already sanctioned the removal of two camera housings which were no longer needed on the Chester Road,” he added.

Across Walsall there are 47 fixed cameras, and the thorough review may take up to 12 months to complete.

:drink:

_________________
Speed limit sign radio interview. TV Snap Unhappy
“It has never been the rule in this country – I hope it never will be - that suspected criminal offences must automatically be the subject of prosecution” He added that there should be a prosecution: “wherever it appears that the offence or the circumstances of its commission is or are of such a character that a prosecution in respect thereof is required in the public interest”
This approach has been endorsed by Attorney General ever since 1951. CPS Code


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
PostPosted: Tue Aug 19, 2008 12:54 
Offline
Member
Member

Joined: Wed Feb 16, 2005 18:54
Posts: 4036
Location: Cumbria
Oooo this will be interesting!

We're very used to them conveniently "overlooking" the "reduction-to-the-mean" argument so far. I wonder whether it will start to feature more highly in their arguments if there are no KSIs on that stretch in the year AFTER the cameras are removed?!

Of course, it's also putting our heads on the block too. I just hope that after a highly publicised removal of a camera, there isn't a public free-for-all where people drive dangerously (as well as exceed the posted limit) just because there are no cameras looking!


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
PostPosted: Sun Aug 24, 2008 09:08 
Offline
Friend of Safe Speed
Friend of Safe Speed

Joined: Sat Mar 06, 2004 12:01
Posts: 4813
Location: Essex
Mole wrote:
Oooo this will be interesting!

We're very used to them conveniently "overlooking" the "reduction-to-the-mean" argument so far. I wonder whether it will start to feature more highly in their arguments if there are no KSIs on that stretch in the year AFTER the cameras are removed?!

Of course, it's also putting our heads on the block too. I just hope that after a highly publicised removal of a camera, there isn't a public free-for-all where people drive dangerously (as well as exceed the posted limit) just because there are no cameras looking!

This is a transient risk, but a very real one.

When cameras were first erected and became the norm, a trend of people driving as if plod was watching developed for a while. It could be that the proverbial end of school cap-throwing exists for a while, but hopefully not. Hopefully the camera removal will be adjunctive to a few ploice patrols.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: This is VERY dangerous!
PostPosted: Mon Aug 25, 2008 10:04 
Offline
User

Joined: Sat Dec 08, 2007 17:19
Posts: 31
This is VERY dangerous!

Remember that RTM (Regression To the Mean) is the major reason that speed cameras appear to reduce crashes, and it can work BOTH ways.

If cameras are chosen to be removed at sites that have an unusually LOW number of crashes, then we will expect the number of crashes to INCREASE. And if crashes increase after cameras are removed then the same people that are fooled by the current Labour governments statistics on speed cameras, will have their misperceptions stengthened.

This is why cameras must be removed from sites AT RANDOM in a carefully controlled

RANDOMISED CONTROL TRIAL.



Be careful what you wish for! :twisted:


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
PostPosted: Mon Aug 25, 2008 23:45 
Offline
Member
Member

Joined: Wed Feb 16, 2005 18:54
Posts: 4036
Location: Cumbria
Yes, that's the point I was trying to make!


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
PostPosted: Sun Aug 31, 2008 03:40 
Offline
User

Joined: Tue Aug 09, 2005 01:16
Posts: 917
Location: Northern England
Is it not because Councils are begining to realise that the outlay on their hired camera scam is exceeding their ill gotten income?...


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
PostPosted: Sun Aug 31, 2008 17:19 
Offline
Friend of Safe Speed
Friend of Safe Speed
User avatar

Joined: Tue Mar 09, 2004 23:09
Posts: 6737
Location: Stockport, Cheshire
Roger wrote:
When cameras were first erected and became the norm, a trend of people driving as if plod was watching developed for a while.

I'm not sure the non-yellow cameras were ever sufficiently numerous for that to happen, although I accept the effect may have been different in different areas of the country.

Roger wrote:
It could be that the proverbial end of school cap-throwing exists for a while, but hopefully not. Hopefully the camera removal will be adjunctive to a few ploice patrols.

I suspect camera retrenchment will be so gradual and subtle that few people will really notice.

I have also seen a noticeable absence of Talivans from their usual haunts in recent months.

_________________
"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 Send private message  
 
PostPosted: Mon Sep 01, 2008 20:49 
Offline
Gold Member
Gold Member

Joined: Fri Sep 24, 2004 23:26
Posts: 9268
Location: Treacletown ( just north of M6 J3),A MILE OR TWO PAST BEDROCK
Draco wrote:
Is it not because Councils are begining to realise that the outlay on their hired camera scam is exceeding their ill gotten income?...


OR -is it the "Swindon " syndrom(as Draco says) - where the cost to the councils is more than that provided by central govt ??(or the ecomomics of negative road safety bowing before the real effects of public pressure via the ballot box -i.e - local councilors/county councillors have decided that their careers are in jeopardy and are looking to save face )

_________________
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 Send private message  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 8 posts ] 

All times are UTC [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 9 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:  
cron
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group
[ Time : 0.014s | 12 Queries | GZIP : Off ]