Safe Speed Forums

Cameras are saving lives on our roads

THE deep loathing expressed in some quarters for speed cameras is, these folk would have us believe, a fair reflection of public opinion in this country.

They portray cameras as rapacious cash cows preying on long-suffering motorists, highlighting the vast sums being generated by these little yellow boxes.

The cameras, the argument goes, don't actually stop motorists from speeding. Drivers just speed up as soon as they have passed the cameras anyway.

continued...
What cannot be argued with, however, is the fall in the number of accidents along those stretches of road that have seen cameras installed.

New figures from West Mercia Safety Camera Partnership show that accidents involving death and serious injuries have been reduced by 66 per cent on sites that have had a camera installed.

The relationship between speed and road crashes is straightforward - as speeds go up, the likelihood of crashes goes up. The reason is simple - increased speeds are not accompanied by increased thinking and reacting speeds. Because of this, the distance needed for responding and braking increases with speed.

Across the whole of the UK last year, the road toll was half the number of children killed or seriously injured back in 1987. Why? Because, since then, cameras have taught us to slow down and respect the speed limits on our roads. Or we have to face the consequences.


--------

What can you say?

link to article

A***holes in charge of the typewriter?

No, the reason is that far fewer children now are on the roads walking to school due to the rise, for whatever reasons, of doing the school run by car.

Apart from this incorrect assertion most of the rest is ill informed rubbish.

_________________
Malcolm W.
The views expressed in this post are personal opinions and do not represent the views of Safespeed.

It's a leap of faith to assume that speed cameras as responsible for that change.

The answer is a speed camera, now what's the question?

_________________
Peter Humphries (and a green V8S)

Its also because of the misleading nature of KSI stats, lumping the subjective definition of SI with the objective definition of K. The recent BMJ article on rta hospital admissions proved the above.

Have the number of child deaths actually reduced?

Orange, you poor sap - you really have swallowed the Scamera propaganda booklet havent you....

After the Titanic disaster, survivors threw a wreath into the sea at the spot where she hit the iceberg.
Since that time, NO ship has struck an iceberg in that location, nor has any life been lost - if only they had thrown the wreath in BEFORE the tragedy, thousands of lives could have been saved in 1912.

Similarly, speed cameras are put at sites where accidents have occured, then no matter how many people are killed elsewhere, they can sit back and claim that accidents fell where they put the cameras!

It's called Return to the Mean - and it's a gift to any partnership hoping to divert attention away from the real problem of deaths not going down.

_________________
Time to take responsibility for our actions.. and don't be afraid of speaking out!

orange,

Like it as not, road deaths in this country have not reduced in the last 10 years despite the huge increase in the number of speed cameras.

So tell me.

What is the solution? Because it sure as hell aint "speeding".....

_________________
Simon

Erm, orange was quoting the article...

A possible letter in response? - I don't live in the area

Dear Sir,

I was extremely pleased to read your article (date) detailing the new success of the west mercia speed camera partnership. I’ve long held the view that speed cameras are focusing 95% of enforcement on 5% of the problem and are little more than a speeding tax. From reading your article I’ve clearly been mislead. Or have I? Following 10 minutes research using official figures obtained from the department for transport and those published by the west mercia speed camera partnership, I was surprised to read that Fatal road casualties have actually increased 10% from 87 to 95 from 2004 to 2005 in the west mercia area. How can this be true – if the speed camera partnership is doing such a wonderful job?

In addition looking at the data comparisons for each of the West Mercia areas, we see that avg. speeds at camera sites have hardly been affected at all – is this proof that speeding doesn’t kill? We also see that there may well have been some double-quadruple counting of KSI’s at camera site? Has 1 KSI been represented as 8 in 2002 and 3 as 24 in 2003. If so this will amplify the alleged net benefit of cameras for the area by more than 50%. Finally there has been a massive increase in KSI’s at camera sites in the Solihull area – again, if cameras are saving lives how can this be explained?

Until we see a sustained and significant reduction of fatal accidents on a regional and national level, over what we should be seeing through improved vehicle design, I’m afraid I wont be convinced that speed cameras are anything more than a speed tax.

Regards,


Refs:

[url=http://www.wmsafetycameras.co.uk/foi/pdf/brum0104.pdf]
approx. > 2% reduction in speed - proof that speed doesn't kill?[/url]

[url=http://www.wmsafetycameras.co.uk/foi/pdf/sol0104.pdf]
Solihull had a massive increase in KSI's at camera sites[/url]

[url=http://www.wmsafetycameras.co.uk/foi/pdf/wal0104.pdf]
Looks like some double counting in 2003 on the A5 watling street?[/url]

DFT national Stats:
2004

2005[/url]

I'd say that was excellent DIY, and if I was Orange I'd be sending that off

_________________
Useless laws weaken necessary laws.

What article, where?
Is this a split thread from somewhere?

_________________
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

It's from the "Worcester News" (or something like that... There's a link to it at the foot of the posting. And if you follow it up you'll find a couple of quite vitriolic comments appended..

_________________
"Politicians are the same the world over... We build bridges where there aren't any rivers." - Nikita Kruschev

Really? It cant be right to denegrate somebody's carefully crafted propaganda! Who wrote it them then?

DIY, you can write your own response - you simply need to register when you get here:
http://www.worcesternews.co.uk/display.var.926067.0.cameras_are_saving_lives_on_our_roads.php

_________________
Time to take responsibility for our actions.. and don't be afraid of speaking out!