Safe Speed Forums

The campaign for genuine road safety
It is currently Thu Jun 20, 2019 09:10

All times are UTC [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 10 posts ] 
Author Message
PostPosted: Wed Dec 28, 2011 14:53 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Tue Oct 12, 2004 02:17
Posts: 7355
Location: Highlands
Get Wokingham here
Get Wokingham - By Victoria Smith wrote:
Number of speeding fines doubles
By Victoria Smith - December 28, 2011

The number of speeding fines issued in Wokingham last year nearly doubled, with cameras raking in more than £175,500 from drivers.

A Freedom of Information request to Thames Valley Police has revealed the number of fines increased from 1,536 in 2009 to 2,926 in 2010.

Fines issued to speeding drivers are typically £60, so in 2009 the cameras will have made more than £92,000 from fines.

Wokingham’s most prolific speed camera, in Barkham Road, made more than £40,000 in fines last year, nabbing 680 drivers. In 2009 it caught just 91 drivers speeding.

Also proving a speed hotspot was Finchampstead Road’s cameras, where 573 people were caught speeding last year, generating £34,000.

More drivers appear to be taking note of the limit in Silverdale Road in Earley, where the camera caught four cars in 2009 and eight in 2010 going over the speed limit – the lowest number of fines for all cameras in the borough.

Only one in 10 of the speed cameras in the Thames Valley are operational at any one time.

Dan Campsall from Safer Roads, a partnership between organisations such as Wokingham Borough Council and road safety experts, said he could not explain why the figures were so different and it did not appear any more cameras had been switched off during this period.

A spokesman for Thames Valley Police said speed camera sites are regularly assessed.
He said: “If Thames Valley Police believe a camera site is no longer justified then we will stop enforcement. The camera housing itself belongs to the local authority and it is their decision whether to keep the housing in place or move it to a new location.”

Last year responsibility for operation of speed cameras in Wokingham passed from Safer Roads to Thames Valley Police following budget cuts from councils such as Wokingham to the Safer Roads partnership.

The police spokesman continued: “Speed cameras are used across the country to help in the reduction of collisions and in lessening the impact of collisions when they occur.
“Thames Valley Police is committed to making our roads safer for our communities and for the many road users travelling through our force area and see speed cameras as one amongst a number of important tools available to us to allow us to do this.
“Speed cameras are just one of way to tackle speed and reduce casualties in the Thames Valley area where speeding is a concern for many of our communities.
Fixed cameras are subject to regular review to ascertain continued justification.”
Cameras cannot 'lessen the impact' of a collision as the incident may have no bearing on speed whatsoever.

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


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Dec 28, 2011 15:05 
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:
Cameras cannot 'lessen the impact' of a collision as the incident may have no bearing on speed whatsoever.

Isn't their point 'speed management will mitigate the outcome' ?

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


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Dec 28, 2011 17:01 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Tue Oct 12, 2004 02:17
Posts: 7355
Location: Highlands
Yes but it isn't valid - they cannot prove that any speed 'management' will prevent nor reduce an accident. Speed being a contributory factor not a cause.
:)
Speed cameras might at most, only ever 'effect' the outcome, but never prevent an accident.

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


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Dec 28, 2011 19:44 
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:
Yes but it isn't valid - they cannot prove that any speed 'management' will prevent nor reduce an accident. Speed being a contributory factor not a cause.
:)

I think there has been some crossed wires somewhere.

SafeSpeedv2 wrote:
Speed cameras might at most, only ever 'effect' the outcome, ...

Is this the same as: 'lessen the impact' of a collision? Is that in turn the same as "lessening the impact of collisions when they occur" ?
If not, what is the difference?

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


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Dec 28, 2011 20:57 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Tue Oct 12, 2004 02:17
Posts: 7355
Location: Highlands
Steve wrote:
SafeSpeedv2 wrote:
Yes but it isn't valid - they cannot prove that any speed 'management' will prevent nor reduce an accident. Speed being a contributory factor not a cause.
:)

I think there has been some crossed wires somewhere.
Possibly. I wasn't trying to argue your point, merely commenting upon their implications of phrases. I was not very clear.

I take it to mean that they believe that their whole 'speed management program', e.g speed cameras will help to lessen the severity of an impact.
Whilst speed cameras might at some moments force motorists to slow at certain points on the road, it does not guarantee that they will crash at a slower speed and so make the impact less sever. The effect of speed cameras on the whole motoring community has many negative side effects as we have well documented.
This drop in 'speed' they believe happens, doesn't. We know motorists are ignoring speeds that are well below the 85th%ile and by the continuing numbers of motorists still caught in spite of various assistance measure available.
Reducing a speed has not 'helped' to do anything positive for road safety - that we can find anyway.
Even the 'better observance' has become a negative as people take their eyes off the road area to look up towards speed / CCTV/ ANPR cameras and potential cameras or vans.
In the rare occurrence where accidents occur at speed camera locations, they may happen for various reasons including the fact that the speed camera presence may cause the accident too, and we know people have died at speed camera locations so the reduced speed didn't even 'help'.
Where accidents happen elsewhere, out of the range of a speed cameras, they are trying to claim a benefit as motorists are going more slowly, because of their speed management, but I see no evidence of this.
When is speed ever anything other than a factor in an accident, it is never a cause of one.
Steve wrote:
SafeSpeedv2 wrote:
Speed cameras might at most, only ever 'effect' the outcome, ...

Is this the same as: 'lessen the impact' of a collision? Is that in turn the same as "lessening the impact of collisions when they occur" ?
If not, what is the difference?
Interesting and something that I have been pondering.
I think they have heard me when I have stated how a speed camera will never address the cause of an accident and only ever effect the severity. This bothers me because, it is reducing 'effect' into an attempted benefit, than the 'effect of' because of the existence of the speed camera. (Do you see what I mean?)
Lessening the effect of the impact speed an accident, (severity) which can never be 'guaranteed' nor 'expected' either, for all incidents.
They are trying to make it sound that by reducing the accident severity (as if it is a 100% 'given') they are benefiting road safety, which whilst holds some element of truth to it, it fails to ever properly or fully ever address the real causes of accidents, so they are left to continue unabated. The roads allowing to continue to cause real problems and ongoing accidents. The funds are wasted on this waste of time 'management system' and not on better and proper science and engineering.
I hope that explains what I mean & meant !? :)

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


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Dec 30, 2011 20:28 
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:
Whilst speed cameras might at some moments force motorists to slow at certain points on the road, it does not guarantee that they will crash at a slower speed and so make the impact less severe.

This is a very good point, and is worth explaining. If I may expand:

The distinction between "free travelling speed " and "impact speed" is an important one. The presence of a speed camera is likely to cause a distraction (speedo gazing) such that the reaction time to an impending hazard could be greatly increased. Hence the subsequent impact speed would actually be higher than if the camera wasn't there, even though the free travelling speed would have been lower.

SafeSpeedv2 wrote:
This drop in 'speed' they believe happens, doesn't.
We know motorists are ignoring speeds that are well below the 85th%ile ...

I believe there is a drop in the free travelling speed at camera locations. Yes many motorists may well ignore badly set limits, but the great majority soon comply when in an enforcement zone.

SafeSpeedv2 wrote:
... and by the continuing numbers of motorists still caught in spite of various assistance measure available.

That doesn't mean anything. It could be (and likely is) that motorists always slowed for cameras.

SafeSpeedv2 wrote:
Reducing a speed has not 'helped' to do anything positive for road safety - that we can find anyway.

In terms enforcement, particularly for a limit that is needlessly low, I can't help but agree.

SafeSpeedv2 wrote:
Where accidents happen elsewhere, out of the range of a speed cameras, they are trying to claim a benefit as motorists are going more slowly, because of their speed management, but I see no evidence of this.

Again I agree. Those who make these claims dismiss causality, particularly when it comes to RTTM.

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


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Dec 30, 2011 23:19 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Tue Oct 12, 2004 02:17
Posts: 7355
Location: Highlands
Steve wrote:
SafeSpeedv2 wrote:
Whilst speed cameras might at some moments force motorists to slow at certain points on the road, it does not guarantee that they will crash at a slower speed and so make the impact less severe.
This is a very good point, and is worth explaining. If I may expand:
The distinction between "free travelling speed " and "impact speed" is an important one. The presence of a speed camera is likely to cause a distraction (speedo gazing) such that the reaction time to an impending hazard could be greatly increased. Hence the subsequent impact speed would actually be higher than if the camera wasn't there, even though the free travelling speed would have been lower.
Good phrase speedo gazing! or couple them both into 'speedocam gazing ? is that even better ? Certainly sums it up very well.
I think I'll add that the freetravelling speed is temporarily lower.
Steve wrote:
SafeSpeedv2 wrote:
This drop in 'speed' they believe happens, doesn't.
We know motorists are ignoring speeds that are well below the 85th%ile ...
I believe there is a drop in the free travelling speed at camera locations. Yes many motorists may well ignore badly set limits, but the great majority soon comply when in an enforcement zone.
and hence why so many are still receiving tickets for speeding, as for whatever reason they have failed to observe the camera or the correct limit, or been unaware of the limit, perhaps it has changed or badly or incorrectly signed.
Steve wrote:
SafeSpeedv2 wrote:
... and by the continuing numbers of motorists still caught in spite of various assistance measure available.
That doesn't mean anything. It could be (and likely is) that motorists always slowed for cameras.
Yes it does, I just didn't phrase it very well, sorry. (Should have been 'measures' or better 'devices'.) My point is that in spite of SatNavs and all other devices, making many motorist aware of the impending locations of potential speed enforcement, people are still being caught over the speed limits. Much of this is due to bad speed limit setting (below the 85th%ile), non-predictable speed limits, bad signing, bad or hidden locations of the enforcement, other hazards or developing one's that properly distract the motorists and so thus miss the speed camera, locations of enforcement that deliberately target easy targets (like just over a hill as over-run of speed from many vehicles is more likely, but is very temporary), and so on.

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


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Jan 08, 2012 18:00 
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:
SafeSpeedv2 wrote:
This drop in 'speed' they believe happens, doesn't.
We know motorists are ignoring speeds that are well below the 85th%ile ...
I believe there is a drop in the free travelling speed at camera locations. Yes many motorists may well ignore badly set limits, but the great majority soon comply when in an enforcement zone.
and hence why so many are still receiving tickets for speeding, as for whatever reason they have failed to observe the camera or the correct limit, or been unaware of the limit, perhaps it has changed or badly or incorrectly signed.
Steve wrote:
SafeSpeedv2 wrote:
... and by the continuing numbers of motorists still caught in spite of various assistance measure available.
That doesn't mean anything. It could be (and likely is) that motorists always slowed for cameras.
Yes it does, I just didn't phrase it very well, sorry. (Should have been 'measures' or better 'devices'.) My point is that in spite of SatNavs and all other devices, making many motorist aware of the impending locations of potential speed enforcement, people are still being caught over the speed limits. Much of this is due to bad speed limit setting (below the 85th%ile), non-predictable speed limits, bad signing, bad or hidden locations of the enforcement, other hazards or developing one's that properly distract the motorists and so thus miss the speed camera, locations of enforcement that deliberately target easy targets (like just over a hill as over-run of speed from many vehicles is more likely, but is very temporary), and so on.

It's not impossible we have different interpretation of the same wording.

To try to resolve this: are you saying you don't believe there is any drop in travelling speed at camera locations (which I would dispute), or that there is a drop in travelling speed but not by as much as has been reported by the authorities or camera spokespeople ?

Going back to this:
SafeSpeedv2 wrote:
I think they have heard me when I have stated how a speed camera will never address the cause of an accident and only ever effect the severity. This bothers me because, it is reducing 'effect' into an attempted benefit, than the 'effect of' because of the existence of the speed camera. (Do you see what I mean?)
Lessening the effect of the impact speed an accident, (severity) which can never be 'guaranteed' nor 'expected' either, for all incidents.
They are trying to make it sound that by reducing the accident severity (as if it is a 100% 'given') they are benefiting road safety, which whilst holds some element of truth to it, it fails to ever properly or fully ever address the real causes of accidents, so they are left to continue unabated. The roads allowing to continue to cause real problems and ongoing accidents. The funds are wasted on this waste of time 'management system' and not on better and proper science and engineering.
I hope that explains what I mean & meant !? :)

Again I find myself struggling to understand this.
Of course reducing the impact speed for any accident doesn't "100% guarantee" a reduction of the subsequent severity, but I think it is safe to say that statistically (on average) a lower impact speed will usually result with reduced severity.

Of course, this is different to 'travelling speed' which is the speed that cameras affect, so this could end up being a moot point.

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


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Jan 08, 2012 21:24 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Tue Oct 12, 2004 02:17
Posts: 7355
Location: Highlands
Steve wrote:
...are you saying you don't believe there is any drop in travelling speed at camera locations ...
no - I agree with you that at speed camera sites there is a drop in speed.
People seem to slow (unless in queue already travelling near or under the speed limit) to preserve their licences, (when travelling above the speed limit) and to comply with the limit that they have risen above.
(When going slower, while passing a speed camera they cannot any longer be said to be 'under' the 'free travelling speed'.)

Steve wrote:
or that there is a drop in travelling speed but not by as much as has been reported by the authorities or camera spokespeople ?
Yes, at speed camera sites. Yes, the speed has not reduced by as much as the camera spokespeople would have us 'believe'.
It also depends on where, how and when any surveys to check for the 'free travelling speed' are taken inc time of year, location etc. I know that one Chief of Police was very concerned as he felt that it is hard to know where to go to check the FTS. Are they using speed cameras to gain this information. There was a mention a while back that said that they did, but a speed camera presence will make a motorists react in a certain way and it cannot be used to gain the FTS.

Steve wrote:
Again I find myself struggling to understand this.
Of course reducing the impact speed for any accident doesn't "100% guarantee" a reduction of the subsequent severity, but I think it is safe to say that statistically (on average) a lower impact speed will usually result with reduced severity.
Yes the impact can be less severe, if the (physical) impact speed is lower.

The motorists recognition of the developing hazard is important to road safety.
The free travelling speed that applies to the remainder of the road, is taken at a speed appropriate to the conditions which is likely to be below and above, the posted limit.

Steve wrote:
Of course, this is different to 'travelling speed' which is the speed that cameras affect, so this could end up being a moot point.
I agree that the travelling speed at a camera site is reduced when vehicles pass by a speed camera, unless for whatever reason someone doesn't care (drunk, TWOC etc) or is unaware of the speed camera.
Re-edited. Mon 9.1.12 14:20

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


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Jan 09, 2012 17:56 
Offline
Friend of Safe Speed
Friend of Safe Speed
User avatar

Joined: Thu Mar 11, 2004 11:19
Posts: 1795
Steve wrote:
SafeSpeedv2 wrote:
Cameras cannot 'lessen the impact' of a collision as the incident may have no bearing on speed whatsoever.

Isn't their point 'speed management will mitigate the outcome' ?


That's always their argument. I think there definitely needs to be a good rebuttal of it. It's the intractable dilemma of no accident or less severe accidents.


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 10 posts ] 

All times are UTC [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot] and 1 guest


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 : 0.238s | 14 Queries | GZIP : Off ]