Speed Camera switch off sees fewer accidents

A._Badger

treliac wrote: »

I think we need more evidence than one 9 month trial.




DH and I have had personal involvement with Brake. The organisation is rooted in the founder's personal loss of life due to road accident. I think your comment is irrational and irresponsible.

I, too, have lost people in road acidents. However, it is the founder of Brake's attitude that is irrational.

People tend to become detached from an objective appreciation of risk when they have been personally affected and have been unable to step back and assess the wider picture.

It is utterly absurd to concentrate on speed as the single most important factor in RTAs. It is even worse to behave as if it were almost the sole one.

The problem is bad driving - and cameras do nothing to mitigate that.

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

treliac wrote: »

I think we need more evidence than one 9 month trial.

And we'll be getting it, as much larger areas are now reducing or eliminating scameras.

DH and I have had personal involvement with Brake. The organisation is rooted in the founder's personal loss of a loved one's life due to road accident. I think your comment is irrational and irresponsible.

Brake are a bunch of safety zealots, who wrongly percieve speed as being a causal factor in a far bigger percentage of accidents than it is.

Road deaths are tragic, but inevitable.

As a society, we maintain a balance between risk and reward.....

For example, if you reduced the speed limit to 20 mph and made it compulsory for pedestrians to wear protective clothing and helmets, you could reduce road deaths to zero, saving around 3000 lives a year.

Of course, you would also reduce the productivity of the economy by hundreds of billions of pounds, and reduce quality of life of the majority to an intolerable level.

It is understandable that the tiny minority impacted by road deaths should have an irrational and emotional urge to rebalance the risk levels accepted by society, but they have no right to impose their irrationality on the rest of us.

MegaMiniMouse

I think that the 'Speed Kills' message was beginning to get through to people, just like smoking and alcohol.

I am a bit gutted if speed cameras stop working, because it puts motorists under pressure from the guy in the rear view mirror.

MMM

treliac

A._Badger wrote: »

I, too, have lost people in road acidents. However, it is the founder of Brake's attitude that is irrational.

People tend to become detached from an objective appreciation of risk when they have been personally affected and have been unable to step back and assess the wider picture.

It is utterly absurd to concentrate on speed as the single most important factor in RTAs. It is even worse to behave as if it were almost the sole one.

The problem is bad driving - and cameras do nothing to mitigate that.

The bad driving I mostly see is dangerous overtaking done at speed in order to get past the perceived 'obstruction' infront of the overtaker. It's almost mandatory for some drivers behind an 'L' driver however fast the learner is going.

Speed is relevant as an impact at high speed is more likely to have serious consequences than one at low speed.

treliac

MegaMiniMouse wrote: »

I think that the 'Speed Kills' message was beginning to get through to people, just like smoking and alcohol.

I am a bit gutted if speed cameras stop working, because it puts motorists under pressure from the guy in the rear view mirror.

MMM

I am mixed in my opinion, mainly because I am not convinced that road safety was the prime factor behind them. But, again, if fatalities increase significantly I will be persuaded.

Let's face it, it's probably physically impossible to stick to the speed limit at all times.

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

MegaMiniMouse wrote: »

I think that the 'Speed Kills' message was beginning to get through to people, just like smoking and alcohol.

Except of course, that "speed kills", and all the associated government propaganda, like speed being responsible for 33% of accidents, was a total lie.

Not only did it cite excessive speed as the "definite"' cause in only 4.5 per cent of accidents, but it found that speed was a "probable" or "possible contributory factor" in only 8.2 per cent more. Not only was the government thus bending the truth; it had brought pressure on the TRL to give a wholly misleading picture of its own findings.

http://www.grumpyoldsod.com/speed%20dont%20kill.asp

markharding557

I think speed cameras have their place but they should be made as visable as possible and never hidden as has been the case.
Near where i live there is a speed camera installed just before a school and this does reduce the traffic speed to 30mph so they can work when used properly.
This one is painted bright yellow

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

markharding557 wrote: »

I think speed cameras have their place

As do I..... Outside schools, near old peoples homes, etc. I have no problem with them there.

Nor do I have a problem with lower speed limits where an expert police driver or the like feels there is a genuine safety risk, ie, a farm entrance on a blind bend.

But such places should be minimal, and the presumption should always be for a higher speed limit unless a genuine safety risk exists.

StevieJ

Speed cameras cause accidents, local people know where they are and see it as a license to speed when they are past them, If they are to be any use at all they need to be mobile and hidden like the old police speed traps, I miss those kind main beamers

Ron2256

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

And we'll be getting it, as much larger areas are now reducing or eliminating scameras.




Brake are a bunch of safety zealots, who wrongly percieve speed as being a causal factor in a far bigger percentage of accidents than it is.

Road deaths are tragic, but inevitable.

As a society, we maintain a balance between risk and reward.....

For example, if you reduced the speed limit to 20 mph and made it compulsory for pedestrians to wear protective clothing and helmets, you could reduce road deaths to zero, saving around 3000 lives a year.
Of course, you would also reduce the productivity of the economy by hundreds of billions of pounds, and reduce quality of life of the majority to an intolerable level.

It is understandable that the tiny minority impacted by road deaths should have an irrational and emotional urge to rebalance the risk levels accepted by society, but they have no right to impose their irrationality on the rest of us.

I've found your point of view quite interesting which is why i've thanked your post. It gives some kind of insight in your way of thinking.
In your view, 3000 lives a year is a price well worth paying for the good of the economy and the "quality of life of the majority".
I believe you have a partner in your life. So how do you think your point of view would be if your partner had an accident where speed was a crontibutory factor. Would you still think that higher speed is a price well worth paying for the good of the economy and the majority?
You seems to have a complete inability to put yourself in the shoes of the more unfortunate people who lost close relatives in rta.
You are taking the .iss out of Brake but if you lost a loved one, you would understand their point of view.
It is true that speed camera are a cash cow but I am sure that if there was no speed camera, speed on the road would be much higher and there would be much more fatal accident on the road.
As much as I hate speed camera, they do work. They make me slow down every time I see one. More importantly they make me think about my speed.
If there was no limit or way to enforce the limit, you would have more TRA.You can't argue with that surely, or can you?