Safe Speed Forums

I thought it would be funny to look at one of the early 'justifications' for cameras. we can see they have failed in every possible way.

http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/prgpdf ... peeding%22

Here is some highlights:

- Avg cost of a camera were expected to be <12k per year - some forces now spend 100k
- No validation was done on the before an after data (p25)
- cameras were expected to reduce the cost of road accidents by 3/4bn per year - even using their numbers this was out by a factor of 10.
- the objective was to increase prosecutions and reduce police costs
- p45 questioned if drivers actually behaved differently but the perception was that they did so don't worry about the facts.
- they honestly expected fatalites to reduce by 1/3rd.

In fact almost every benefit has not been delivered - a commercial project that failed to deliver against its business case is usually scrapped.

It's highly profitable to the operators though.

_________________
Peter Humphries (and a green V8S)

Not just the operators...

_________________
Paul Smith
Our scrap speed cameras petition got over 28,000 sigs
The Safe Speed campaign demands a return to intelligent road safety

That's excellent , there's no copy rights on that is there?

_________________
Useless laws weaken necessary laws.

Copyright Safe Speed 2003. Feel free to use anywhere with source acknowleged as per 'image courtesy www.safespeed.org.uk'

I commissioned it for page: http://www.safespeed.org.uk/hypothecation.html

_________________
Paul Smith
Our scrap speed cameras petition got over 28,000 sigs
The Safe Speed campaign demands a return to intelligent road safety