Safe Speed Forums

Tell me about it....
Goodnight.

As Peter has touched on, your raw numbers are pretty meaningless on their own. "In 1A.D. absolutely no-one was killed by automatic rifles, therefore crucifixion is clearly the best way to prevent automatic rifle related deaths."

How many user-miles were completed on each of the forms of transport listed in each of the comparison years?

For about the distance of the camera only


Quite possible to be fatally injured at any speed .. even if two running pedestrians collide and one hits a head or is perhaps not as robust as one might think.

You cannot then pretend a camera will solve all problems.

Besides all roads have different speed limits up to 70 mph.

We also have kids jumping onto moving trains for a thrill as lads will be lads ..






He is also perhaps the most stressed with a timetable to adhere to - which could account for part of this anomaly for the van drivers. Another aspect of how the speed cam is not addressing the problems of fatigue and pressures out there. To give Brake their dues .. they do skate surface on this at least.





The only people likely to pinged on residentials are the residents themselves


How about spending the cash on better comprehensive road sense training - including that old fashioned concept of parental control and decent park play areas for kids?


Whacking up speed cams and reducing a speed limit just does not work as you correctly say here.



The stats remain at 10 per day officially. Unofficially they are actually higher... so no.. they do not save lives.

Wild claims have been made in the past. The best one we saw was on the Cambs Prat site when they claimed a mobile at one spot because 400 died on that day in March over the past 5 years. Since our entire large family drive on that road on that particular day to celebrate a family occasion and never been held up or seen any incidents or any medic present at this "do" been called to assist on what would be a "red major" - was bunkum. They must have read our comments on here and mailed to them directly as they have since removed this daft claim.




Of course they are hampering casualty reduction. I would say the proposed tightened L test is a step forwards but 500 hours of tuition is unrealistic given not everyone learns to drive at age 17 in actual reality . because of the expense and need to save up for lessons for many .




Said it before .. we need s like Ian/Stephen/IG et al.




We do not really have a big problem with 20 mph on residentials. But other roads should be audited to reflect their true safe speed potential and this can mean INCREASING a speed limit. Europe manages pretty darned well with higher motorway speed limits after all



We have to lobby for common sense.. otherwise Nanny will just continue to whack us with her handbag.

Common sense means removing speed cams from revenue raising spots.. spending cash on decent roads, well repaired roads, decent cycle routes which go somewhere other than off the edge of the cliff, police.. teachers.. nurses.. junior medics.. and decent hospitals and school buildings.. and.. so on.. the normal requirements. .. ..

_________________
If you want to get to heaven - you have to raise a little hell!

Smilies are contagious
They are just like the flu
We use our smilies on YOU today
Now Good Causes are smiling too!

KEEP SMILING
It makes folk wonder just what you REALLY got up to last night!

Smily to penny.. penny to pound
safespeed prospers-smiles all round! !
But the real message? SMILE.. GO ON ! DO IT! and the world will smile with you!
Enjoy life! You only have the one bite at it.

But initially there were very very few speed cameras, yet overall fatalities still dropped to 3621 by 1995.

I don't think I ever saw a speed camera until 1995.

It's hard to say exactly what caused that huge improvement, but it is certainly dishonest to attribute all or most of it to speed cameras.

_________________
"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

Can I ask why you believe that?
Have you considered other safety measures employed at camera sites?

Likewise.. I seem to recall the debates hotting up in 2001.

But each year still fluctuates. Durham had a "bad" year for them in 2002 .. still below the national average ,. but they had a rise from 2001 which they said reflected the rise in traffic volumes after the dip in traffic from FMD in 2001.

Since then they have maintained steady reduction per their stats whilst other areas fluctuate upwards, downwards with some even remaining static.


However, it is when you compare these stats to the hospital versions that you realise something is being "massaged". Are they talking of incidents in the vicinity of cams alone or the region as a whole .. or are some of them not including some incidents involving substances or simply falling asleep?


But it is misleading the public if that is the case... and we want and need police and not cams to keep it safe.

As for speed cams saving lives.. Pennington passed comment that data collation was non-standardised and thus flawed all research in 2004/2005

_________________
If you want to get to heaven - you have to raise a little hell!

Smilies are contagious
They are just like the flu
We use our smilies on YOU today
Now Good Causes are smiling too!

KEEP SMILING
It makes folk wonder just what you REALLY got up to last night!

Smily to penny.. penny to pound
safespeed prospers-smiles all round! !
But the real message? SMILE.. GO ON ! DO IT! and the world will smile with you!
Enjoy life! You only have the one bite at it.

1992 was merely the West London Speed Camera Demonstration Project. Speed camera numbers and subsequent prosecutions had been rising exponentially until the last couple of years. The Camera Partnerships started coming online in 2000, there were very few before then.

Taking 1992 for the baseline for camera effectiveness is greatly flawed.

Sorry, I don't agree with that. When was the last time you saw a speed camera on a crowded high street, or a narrow twisty village road where only a madman would speed? I've never seen a camera on what you'd call a main shopping street (say shops on both sides of the road for at least 50m), and I very rarely if ever walk past any camera anywhere. On the other hand, when was the last time you saw a camera on a dual carriageway with a speed limit that was clearly too low (and few if any pedestrians)? In my experience such roads are usually covered with the infernal things.

And my experience tallies with the rules for camera placement. Cameras are invariably put where it's safe to exceed the speed limit. Hence they are unlikely to appear in highly pedestrianised areas, because in those areas the 85th percentile speed (i.e. that of the statistically safest drivers) is unlikely to be above the ACPO enforcement threshold. Not only should we not have cameras at all, they're all in the worst places possible. The rule should be the other way round if we've got to have cameras. The reason it's the way it is is quite clearly to ensure that each camera is "economical". Safety has nothing to do with it. Each camera is purposely placed to criminalise the safest drivers. The wider effects of such lunacy have clearly not been considered properly.


I believe you, and it's a breath of fresh air to have someone who doesn't really seem to agree with the SS position, but still argues intelligently and answers points properly. Others should take note.

_________________
Paul Smith: a legend.

"The freedom provided by the motor vehicle is not universally applauded, however: there are those who resent the loss of state control over individual choice that the car represents. Such people rarely admit their prejudices openly; instead, they make false or exaggerated claims about the adverse effects of road transport in order to justify calls for higher taxation or restrictions on mobility." (Conservative Way Forward: Stop The War Against Drivers)

I have to agree. I am unclear as to the logic of arguments being advanced by Mr Heavey.

I also agree with Bombus that it is totally untrue that cameras have been placed at points of high interaction between pedestrians and traffic. I can't think of one outside a school, for example.

RTTM can't be "obsolete" as it's a function of the any system used for monitoring very rare events. The effect can't disappear.


Not a lot of point in engaging in discussion then.

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

The greatest problem with speed cameras is that they do work. All of the evidence from governmental and independent sources confirms this.
Me telling you, that speed cameras work is as futile as you telling the government that they don't. Just as you won't listen to me, neither will the government listen to you. The game has reached stalemate, but the government are the ones in control of the speed cameras, and they are the ones who believe they work.
The government sadly lack imagination when it comes to road safety and as a result, their dependence on the speed camera to produce results is growing. If they install more speed cameras they will realise a reduction in casualties and their case gets stronger and yours weaker. This is what I mean when I say that the problem with speed cameras is that they work.
The downside is that it is the motorist, who has to suffer loss of freedom, loss of livelihood and loss of the motoring experience.
Yes speed cameras work, they save lives but a massive expansion of speed cameras is a road on which I do not wish to travel. Enough is enough.

There is only on way to bring down the rule of the speed camera and thats to prevent people from getting killed and injured.
It does not mean more traffic police nor making the driving test any harder, the answer is in education. You need to improve the driving standard of a nation to bring casualty rates down which is the only way to stop the speed camera. However we live in a nation where 80% of our motorists believe they are above average, so how do you convince someone to improve when they already believe (and probably wrongly) that they are one of the best.

Malcolm is right, I didn't come here to discuss whether speed cameras work or not. I have no desire to trudge over all the old ground like RTTM, the 85th percentile etc. If you truly have a desire to see the end of the speed camera then we need a change of attitudes and beliefs on a truly national level. We can massively reduce casualties without afecting any speed limits, infact there could also be a case to raise the speed limkits in certain areas.
If you ever feel ready for it, I'll tell you how to do it.

If not, then just lay a few more critisisms down and we'll call it a day.

Hang on, that's contradictory.

Surely the way to give responsibility back to the driver is not to monitor them so closely?

You obviously feel that you have an answer. Why assume that we don't want to hear it? Why not propose your solution and we can discuss it. So far I have seen nothing from you which hasn't been argued on this forum before.

_________________
Prepare to be Judged

If speed cameras work then how do you explain the TRL's research which showed they increased accident rates in motorway roadworks? Research by another well known academic was altered when she showed cameras didn't work either by comparing similar sites and accounting for traffic level changes and other effects which had been left out of all the governmental reports. Her report was watered down and the final version was nothing like the original.

Pedestrian deaths have fallen because more people travel by car than walk than ever before. School route deaths have fallen because more children travel by car.

The biggest killer is bad driving and cameras only encourage mindless driving rather than people concentrating on driving at an appropriate speed for the conditions rather than blindly adhering to the limit. Inappropriate speed is far more deadly but completely ignored as all the pro camera people focus on blind compliance with limits rather than thoughtful compliance of intelligent limits.

Average speeds on roads have fallen, yet deaths still rise there fore once can conclude easily that average speed doesn't necessarily relate to accident risk. I also notice from previous stats the death rate on 40mph roads with an average speed of 37 or so mph is lower than those on 30mph roads with a lower speed and 60mph roads with hardly much difference in average speeds. What actually need to be done is to raise the limit for HGVs to 50mph on NSL roads. This would reduce overtaking accidents overnight and improve journey times (the longer you are on the road the greater your exposure to danger) and further reduce frustration amongst drivers.

Congestion also increases the likelihood of accidents as there is less room and less tolerance of a drivers mistakes. There is also more frustration and impatience which also increase risk taking and therefore probability of accident. Making an enemy of the motorist has made the roads far more dangerous and I think that is one of the single biggest factors in why even with improving car safety, road engineering, obsessive enforcement and better hospital treatment road deaths are falling slower than they ever have before. Hospital admission data also shows a disparity with govt ksi figures and real injury figures. Injury rates haven't reduce has hospital admissions per unit of population haven't fallen in the same way govt figures suggest they ought to.

I would be interested to hear this.

However I have to take issue with your apparent stance, which is "Cameras reduce casualties, but I want them to be removed because they take away the freedoms of the motorist". That to me is almost as bad as the stance of many camera supporters (e.g. Cycling+ trolls), which is "Cameras don't reduce casualties, in fact they make things worse, but I want them to stay because they take away the freedoms of the motorist" (of course, none of them admit to thinking that, being liars, but it's crystal clear from the way that they "discuss" the issue). The only reason it's not as bad is that at least you happen to be lobbying for the right thing, even if it is for completely the wrong reason.

Both points of view are in effect saying "It's more important to make things easier/harder [delete as appropriate] for the motorist than it is to save lives". I think that's terrible TBH. Nothing is more important than saving lives. Very few if any SS supporters would be against cameras if they really did work. Sure, people wouldn't like getting fined, but if they worked then we would not only accept them, we would applaud them. Honestly.

But they absolutely do not work, they make things worse. The argument has been won. This is not a debate where no-one really knows the answer, we have all the information we need to show conclusively that cameras aren't working, and that's why we're so desperate to get rid of them. It would be a bonus that getting rid of them made driving more pleasant and meant that people's careers were no longer being jeopardised, certainly, but that's all. It's not the main issue. Our wish to reduce casualties is not just a "front" to the campaign because we "want to be able to go as fast as we like" (in the words of countless boring lying halfwits), it is the campaign. We want to save lives, as should everyone, and that's what has made us so angry and determined to uproot every last camera.

_________________
Paul Smith: a legend.

"The freedom provided by the motor vehicle is not universally applauded, however: there are those who resent the loss of state control over individual choice that the car represents. Such people rarely admit their prejudices openly; instead, they make false or exaggerated claims about the adverse effects of road transport in order to justify calls for higher taxation or restrictions on mobility." (Conservative Way Forward: Stop The War Against Drivers)

I say Tom, this enlightenment you keep dangling in front of us, you're not going to tell us that the answer lies in buying a copy of your book are you?

Sorry Tom, I’m probably speaking for myself but I simply can't take you seriously.

You start with what you obviously feel is the most significant point:

...but then end with:


I just don't see that you can possibly justify your opinion without application of a level of blind prejudice or external influence.

This is a serious question: given the above, can you really expect us to take your opinions seriously? I say that to prompt, not offend.

No - they're a tax on people who exceed a speed limit at a given place, whether safely or not...

TrafPol used to be the one's to catch bad driving.

_________________
Pecunia Prius Equitas et Salus

Remind anyone of a certain environmental report?

_________________
Prepare to be Judged

This is an extraordinarily bold assertion. Are you trying to say, without qualification, that there is a directly proportionate relationship between average vehicle speeds and casualty rates?

(Frankly, if you are, I can't see the point in debating with you.)