Safe Speed Forums

The campaign for genuine road safety
It is currently Fri Nov 06, 2026 21:22

All times are UTC [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 9 posts ] 
Author Message
PostPosted: Wed Dec 22, 2010 02:19 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Tue Oct 12, 2004 02:17
Posts: 7357
Location: Highlands
Manchester Evening News - Advertiser, here
Manchester Evening News - Advertiser - Jessica Beckett wrote:
Town's top speed cameras rake in £180,000
Jessica Beckett - December 21, 2010

Oldham's top 10 speed camera hotspots have raked in almost £180,000 from fines.
A total of 11,500 offences were recorded in these areas between August 2009 and August 2010 bringing in £177,420 – an average of £486 per day.
The figures were revealed following a freedom of information request made by the Advertiser.

It showed that 2,957 fines were issued while 3,212 drivers were sent on speed awareness courses. There are 20 fixed cameras in the borough and an additional 11 locations for mobile speed camera enforcement. The top earning camera is on Manchester Road in Chadderton. It captured 3,802 speeding drivers.
Nearly 900 of these were dealt with by a fixed penalty notice – a fine of £60 or more – meaning the camera raked in at least £53,000 in 12 months. Speeding drivers also receive penalty points on their driving licence with money from the fines sent to central government.

Any surplus cash is given in the form of a grant to Drivesafe, which operates, installs and monitors speed cameras across Greater Manchester.

But the Department for Transport has cut its national road safety budget by £38m and ended funding for new cameras.
Despite the cutbacks, Oldham's speed cameras will not be switched off.
Coun Jack Hulme, Oldham Conservative group leader, said: "There are other ways of making the roads safer."
"The road surface at the top of Ripponden Road is a clear example that road surfacing can be more important than the provision of speed cameras.
"In Chadderton we have recently implemented a school safety zone using a series of measures including vehicle activated signs which have been very successful.
"Research also shows that speed cameras can cause accidents as drivers get distracted by them.
"I am happy for the cameras in Oldham to stay switched on but I would oppose the provision of any new ones."

Karen Delaney, communications officer at DriveSafe, said: "DriveSafe would like to confirm there are currently no plans to switch off any of the safety cameras in Oldham.
"As a partnership we have received strong public support for our safety cameras.
"Since the partnership’s inception, safety cameras have been instrumental in helping to reduce the number of casualties on our roads.
"While a 27 per cent reduction in specific road safety revenue grant support has been imposed on road safety partnerships across the country, we are working to accommodate this cut without compromising on any road safety intervention within Greater Manchester."

Top 10 speed cameras:
* Chadderton, A62, Manchester Road, North of Drury Lane, 3,802 offences (889 fixed penalty notice, 1,206 speed awareness course)
* Coldhurst, A6048 Featherstall Road, near Westhulme Street, 2,085 offences(531 FPN, 654 SAC)
* Town centre, A62 Oldham Road, near Queen Street, 1,752 offences (338 FPN, 391 SAC)
* Werneth, A62 Manchester Road, near Derby Street, 1,719 offences (578 FPN, 526 SAC)
* Failsworth, A663 Broadway, near Oldham Road, 760 offences (281 FPN, 196 SAC)
* Royton, A671 Rochdale Road, near Thorncliffe Park, 470 offences (112 FPN, 47 SAC)
* Chadderton, A627 Chadderton Way, near Burnley Lane, 380 offences (133 FPN, 105 SAC)
* Werneth, A62 Oldham Road, near Derby Street, 187 offences (34 FPN, 38 SAC)
* Higginshaw, B6194 Higginshaw Lane, North of Milne Street, 177 offences (37 FPN, 46 SAC)
* Chadderton, A669 Middleton Road, West of Packwood Chase, 168 offences (24 FPN, 3 SAC)

How can they possibly justify this as 'road safety intervention' - unless perhaps in the prevention road safety perhaps ! They need to recognise that a measurement of safety is not done by mph alone !

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


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
PostPosted: Wed Dec 22, 2010 21:55 
Offline
User

Joined: Sun Dec 07, 2008 19:11
Posts: 172
Location: Southampton
With all these "speeding drivers", and as we are told speed is so dangerous, one would expect the accident rate to have sored . Did it? I am sure if it had they would be advertising the fact. It is exactly the same in Oxfordshire, we kept hearing of speeding motorists but no mention was made of an increase in accidents, so one can only assume accidents did not increase, but to mention that would show what a whole sham speed cameras really are.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
PostPosted: Fri Dec 24, 2010 02:09 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Tue Oct 12, 2004 02:17
Posts: 7357
Location: Highlands
Since Safe Speed knows that speed cameras are not solving any problem it is not surprising that they are not effecting the figures. We do still need to consider effects of bias on selection and RTTM of course.

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


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
PostPosted: Fri Dec 24, 2010 11:57 
Offline
Life Member
Life Member

Joined: Sat Mar 27, 2004 13:50
Posts: 2643
whynot wrote:
With all these "speeding drivers", and as we are told speed is so dangerous, one would expect the accident rate to have sored . Did it? I am sure if it had they would be advertising the fact. It is exactly the same in Oxfordshire, we kept hearing of speeding motorists but no mention was made of an increase in accidents, so one can only assume accidents did not increase, but to mention that would show what a whole sham speed cameras really are.


Given the relative paucity of accidents per million vehicle miles, the very much greater paucity of accidents at camera sites, and the confounding factors which affect the figures hugely more, you would probably need several thousand years worth of before and after data in order to discern any statistically significant trend, or lack of, which could reliably be attributed to cameras.

So, in a few thousand years time, people still won't know whether or not the cameras have had any effect, because of the complete lack of several thousand years worth of 'before' data.
In the meantime, the figures will keep on bobbing up, down and around as they do. RTTM and selection bias will probably ensure that the short-term results look promising for the cameras, but that won't last long. Then again, it might. We just don't know. Any trends we see in the next few years, decades or even centuries, are likely to be no more than statistical artefacts.

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


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
PostPosted: Fri Dec 24, 2010 12:28 
Offline
Life Member
Life Member

Joined: Sat Mar 27, 2004 13:50
Posts: 2643
Looking at some of those Top 10 camera sites in Google StreetView, it's not hard to see why they're such effective revenue collectors.
No mention of the number of accidents prevented, I see :roll:

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


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
PostPosted: Fri Dec 24, 2010 13:01 
Offline
User

Joined: Sun Dec 07, 2008 19:11
Posts: 172
Location: Southampton
Pete317 wrote:
Looking at some of those Top 10 camera sites in Google StreetView, it's not hard to see why they're such effective revenue collectors.
No mention of the number of accidents prevented, I see :roll:


This is the whole point; the only interest is how much money can be made. The effect on accidents doesn't even come into the equation. It seems beyond the authorities’ comprehension to consider that if they are getting a high incidence of speeding but without the corresponding increase in accidents then the speed limit could possibly be wrong for the road.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
PostPosted: Fri Dec 24, 2010 18:06 
Offline
Supporter
Supporter
User avatar

Joined: Thu Oct 16, 2008 13:45
Posts: 4042
Location: Near Buxton, Derbyshire
whynot wrote:
This is the whole point; the only interest is how much money can be made..


Without expressing any sympathy at all with the scamera lobby I have to profoundly disagree with that statement. Just as there are people who think that magnetic bracelets will improve their health; people who think that drinking extremely dilute poison will cure disease; people who think they can foretell the future by looking at their natal star alignment; there are people who believe that reducing vehicle speed is as certain way of preventing accidents.

It is a very deeply held belief - it should probably be called a faith - and like other merchants of woo these beliefs cannot be changed by demonstrating mere facts to them.

_________________
When I see an adult on a bicycle, I do not despair for the future of the human race. H.G. Wells
When I see a youth in a motor car I do d.c.brown


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
PostPosted: Fri Dec 24, 2010 18:54 
Offline
User

Joined: Sun Dec 07, 2008 19:11
Posts: 172
Location: Southampton
dcbwhaley wrote:
whynot wrote:
This is the whole point; the only interest is how much money can be made..


Without expressing any sympathy at all with the scamera lobby I have to profoundly disagree with that statement. Just as there are people who think that magnetic bracelets will improve their health; people who think that drinking extremely dilute poison will cure disease; people who think they can foretell the future by looking at their natal star alignment; there are people who believe that reducing vehicle speed is as certain way of preventing accidents.

It is a very deeply held belief - it should probably be called a faith - and like other merchants of woo these beliefs cannot be changed by demonstrating mere facts to them.


Well, if you look at the report the only subject discusssed is how much money each camera is bringing in.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
PostPosted: Fri Dec 24, 2010 19:48 
Offline
Friend of Safe Speed
Friend of Safe Speed
User avatar

Joined: Tue Mar 09, 2004 23:09
Posts: 6737
Location: Stockport, Cheshire
Manchester Evening News - Advertiser - Jessica Beckett wrote:
* Chadderton, A62, Manchester Road, North of Drury Lane, 3,802 offences (889 fixed penalty notice, 1,206 speed awareness course)

So what happened to the other 1,707 offences? Were they recorded by untraceable vehicles?

Manchester Evening News - Advertiser - Jessica Beckett wrote:
* Coldhurst, A6048 Featherstall Road, near Westhulme Street, 2,085 offences(531 FPN, 654 SAC)

This is a notorious one on a shortish stretch of :30: dual carriageway coming off a roundabout where two other duals are a :50: and a :40:. Were it longer it would certainly justify a :40:.

_________________
"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  
 
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 24 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 : 0.020s | 13 Queries | GZIP : Off ]