kev wrote:
It's a funny one in that again you say there are people out there who lack basic skills in driving, yet a common argument in the posts on this site is that no-one admits to being one of those!
...but another common theme seems to be that the contributors on here have taken part in advanced training. Perhaps it is simply that the people who are passionately interested in driving seek to be better at it. The impression I've received on this forum (mostly) is of responsible people actively trying to analyse the process of driving with a view to improving it.
But this is only an impression. Perhaps a better barometer might be to assess people's driving by how regularly they have own-fault accidents. A good one for a poll?
Actually, I think this is an interesting point in itself. The popular view is that the majority of drivers are reckless and irresponsible with little regard for their own safety, therefore justifying draconian policing rather than an educational approach to road policing. My opinion is that the reckless element is probably < 10% and the rest would learn more from the carrot than the stick. What do you think?
Quote:
As I said in another post, surely speed management has got to play a role in generally slowing the traffic down whilst we simultaneously improve driver skill somehow (and again if the government did introduce a recurring test - say every 5-10 years - you could bet your bottom dollar that almost everyone would argue that it's a waste of time and it shouldn't apply to them as they are a "good" driver!). This means that people who are more prone to mistakes are doing it at lower speeds and therefore have more time to react and in the worst case will collide at a lower speed, thereby reducing the probability of injury.
That's a very nice simple theory, but I'd rather we based our policing initiatives on scientific analysis of accident causation. The bald fact is that whilst excessive speed may well play a significant part in accident causation, the only cases that a speed camera can affect are those where a limit is being exceeded, and by the best measurement available that seems to be around 3% of accidents. It simply doesn't warrant the attention.
And that 3% is the
best we can hope for in terms of accident reduction. How many of those can a camera actually prevent? 10% of them? If so then that is 0.3% of accidents reduced, which equates to about 10 fatalities per year in the UK! Even if my maths is out by a factor of ten then that's still only an improvement of 100.
But offset against that the negative aspects. I was just doing some analysis about this earlier, and it's scary, because of course the negative aspects of cameras affect everyone, not just the speeders. Slowing people where there is no good reason merely reduces their attention levels, increases journey times and therefore fatigue. Fear of cameras leads to illogical driving responses such as panic braking, and of course the distraction of additional speedo checking. However small these effects may be, they all add up, and they affect
all drivers.
I am particularly worried about the distraction side of it. Ok, an experienced alert driver should be capable of monitoring his speed and not having to continually re-check his speedo when he sees a speed camera, which is all well and good. But it's not these drivers that are the problem to start with. It is, after all, the inattentive, careless drivers that we need to worry about, and they are the very ones who are most likely to spot cameras late, panic brake and disregard everything else while they check their speedos. It's barmy!
What is even more barmy is that no real research seems to have been done into all these (and other) negative effects of cameras, yet it is a mathematical certainty that they exist. If the Camera Partnerships were saying "oh yes, we've analysed those problems and the effects are x,y,z - here is the independent verified report" then it would be one thing, but all the approaches so far seem to have met with a total denial that any of these negative effects even exist. Is it any wonder that fatalities are rising when nobody is bothering to research basic stuff like this? Nobody can honestly say how much harm cameras are doing - the best data we have is Paul's analysis, and he seems to be hamstrung by the official policy of keeping all the data secret.
It's like Russian Roullette!
Yes, in an ideal World people would follow the Highway Code to the letter, and those that didn't would deserve everything they got.
But we live in a real World, and that is what policy should reflect. If 80% of people panic brake when they see a speed camera that may be an incorrect reaction, but it should still be taken on board when deciding whether a camera is a sensible idea.
No, we need to get rid of them. All of them. As long as they remain the Dft can convince themselves that they represent an effective policy, and can therefore duck out of tackling the real issues. We need to tackle the real issues and we need to do it quickly, not after some mythical interim period that "safety" cameras are somehow filling in.
Now I'm going for a lie down...
Login
Register
FAQ
Search
Members
Conclusion: they're making them up to justify themselves as no real way of checking the accuracy of these figures! 
and stops wasting all this money. It costs around 150 million a year to keep this scam cams going. My county council can't repair the Disney world roller coaster ride they call our roads for the want of just £ 3.5 million. These bad roads will kill more people than excessive speed.. Will they get a £60.00 fine and three points for leaving roads in a dangerous condition ?
)
