Speed Camera switch off sees fewer accidents

impy78

It always makes me laugh when some motorists get all uppity about getting points and fines for speeding:

"It's just to make money for the government!"

They cry!

Well maybe it is. But you were aware of this when you chose to exceed the speed limit. Regardless of whether it has to do with safety, if you are dumb enough to break the laws of the land, you get punished.

I can imagine that the same motorists' reaction if a burglar came up with the victimisation argument against their prosecution via CCTV evidence.

If you don't want a fine, don't do the crime. And if you're too thick to equate your own actions with getting a fine, you really shouldn't be allowed out at all, in a car or otherwise.

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

Ron2256 wrote: »

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".

What I have said is that reducing speed limits to 20mph and making it compulsory for every pedestrian to wear padded clothing and a helmet would reduce deaths to effectively zero.

But as a society, we do not believe those levels of restriction are practical, or tolerable.

Yet if we enacted them, we would save 3000 lives a year.....

So why don't you explain why we don't?

By the way, if you made swimming illegal, most drownings wouldn't happen. If you made cycling and skiing illegal, many more people would be alive today.

If flying was banned, a number of the worlds music stars would still be strumming their guitars today.

Ban unhealthy food, drinking, smoking, and people live longer.

Yet we allow all those activities, because life would be intolerable without them.

As a society, we balance risk versus reward. Duration of life versus quality of it. Safety versus practicality.

Safety zealots like Brake wish to change that balance. I maintain that society as a whole would be worse off if they do.

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?

My partner has been in a serious accident where speed was a contributing factor. Well, speed and the fact that the other driver was blind drunk.

But of course, it wasn't the speeding that caused the accident..... It was the fact that the idiot behind the wheel was three times over the legal drink driving limit.

And if less money was spent on speed cameras, and more on actual policing, then that accident may not have happened.

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.

I understand their point of view now. I just also realise that it is irrational and emotional, and that the evidence does not support most of their claims and agenda.

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.

Swindons results prove the opposite, so far. We shall see if the much larger areas, like oxfordshire where the cameras are now switched off, prove the same.

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.

And for other people they make them brake suddenly, take their eyes off the road to check their speed, etc etc etc.

If there was no limit or way to enforce the limit, you would have more TRA.

I've never claimed there should be no limit, or way to enforce it. I just think the limit should be higher in some places, and enforced by Police, not scameras.

You can't argue with that surely, or can you?

This is me we're talking about......

nembot

MegaMiniMouse wrote: »

Where is the arithmetic?

Speed cameras are 'Cash Cows' - yeah?

So how does the government benefit from their abolition?

Not in direct response to your query, but the Gatso's were priced at 100k each if I remember correctly, compared to internet capable HiDef video option by a competitor for 20k per camera.

However, as the manufacturer of Gatso's were a friend of the Labour Party, history shows who's technically inferior product was implemented, thus screwing the tax payer out of yet more money!

This is a two fingers up at the Labour Party and rightly so, as the f00kwits made a right mess of the economy and people's expectations.

I sincerely hope many other borough's follow their example.

Spartacus_Mills

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 a loved one's life due to road accident. I think your comment is irrational and irresponsible.

That is a shame for the founder, one sympathises with their personal loss but Hamish's comment is spot on. They are fruitcakes.

chris_m

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

But of course, it wasn't the speeding that caused the accident..... It was the fact that the idiot behind the wheel was three times over the legal drink driving limit.
And if less money was spent on speed cameras, and more on actual policing, then that accident may not have happened.

Spot on - as I emailed one idiot Transport Secretary who insisted on calling the things "Safety Cameras" they are far from it.
All they can detect is is a vehicle is travelling faster than a prescribed speed - they cannot detect one that is below that speed whether or not it's travelling forwards, backwards, sideways or upside down. They cannot detect if the vehicle is dangerously overloaded to the point of being unstable nor if it is in such a bad condition that it shouldn't even be on the road. They cannot detect if it is weaving all over the road because the driver is incapable through drink, drugs or due to a medical condition, nor can they detect if the driver shouldn't even be driving, eg a kid that's nicked the car. They cannot detect if a car is being driven right up the back bumper of the one in front or if it's overtaking other vehicles in unsafe locations or an unsafe manner. Oh no, speed is all that matters - yeah right. Properly trained and equipped police patrols would be able to pick up the dangerous drivers and cars, irrespective of their speed. Don't get me wrong, cameras do have their place - but only as part of a balanced road policing strategy, not as a "cheapest option".

Needless to say, I received no reply nor, even, an acknowledgement. The idiot even got promoted.

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

The thing is, there are many actions we could take to significantly reduce road deaths, but speed enforcement should be bottom of that list as it is the least effective.

But because the other actions involve immense cost in re-engineering roads, replacing old safety barriers, installing new design streetlights and road sign poles, removing telephone poles from A-Road verges, etc, the government chooses not to do them.

Groups like brake should be focusing on these issues, that would save far more lives than speed cameras ever will. But they don't....... They just continue to demonise motorists and speed, even though the evidence shows speed is the causal factor in a vanishingly small number of road accidents.

One can therefore only assume that their motivation in campaigning against speed has less to do with saving lives and more to do with a desire to "punish" motorists. An understandable reaction to the death of a loved on in a road traffic accident perhaps, but ultimately it's poor and ineffective policy driven by emotion and revenge, rather than science and evidence.

Sibley

I'd like to just say a few words of thanks to Captain Gatso.No doubt without his efforts the speed cameras would still be with us. It's good blokes like him and his mates blowing the damn things up that have got these switched off.

Anyone who wants to keep them must want their heads tested. Why give the government more money?

A good driver doing 60mph in a 30 zone is safer than some old boy doing 25mph in a 30 zone.

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

Sibley wrote: »

A good driver doing 60mph in a 30 zone is safer than some old boy doing 25mph in a 30 zone.

:rotfl:

I swear your wind up's make me look like an amateur.

Top thread bombing Sibbers.....

JWF

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

The thing is, there are many actions we could take to significantly reduce road deaths, but speed enforcement should be bottom of that list as it is the least effective.

But because the other actions involve immense cost in re-engineering roads, replacing old safety barriers, installing new design streetlights and road sign poles, removing telephone poles from A-Road verges, etc, the government chooses not to do them.

Groups like brake should be focusing on these issues, that would save far more lives than speed cameras ever will. But they don't....... They just continue to demonise motorists and speed, even though the evidence shows speed is the causal factor in a vanishingly small number of road accidents.

One can therefore only assume that their motivation in campaigning against speed has less to do with saving lives and more to do with a desire to "punish" motorists. An understandable reaction to the death of a loved on in a road traffic accident perhaps, but ultimately it's poor and ineffective policy driven by emotion and revenge, rather than science and evidence.

I love it - first it's all about balance of cost and impact (lives lost) and then you say they've got it wrong because they should focus on an incredibly high cost solution of hard engineering fixes - which in reality may make reductions in the impact but history shows that the safer you make people feel the more risks they take.

Yawn.

I think a good roadside bollocking from a proper traffic cop (not one of the charisma free nobs off the Police Camera Action type programmes on the telly), not necessarily involving any formal action, would have a far bigger impact on how people drive.

Cameras have a place but they are not the solution. But nor is simply removing them without replacing them with anything else. Swindon's experience over 9 months is irrelevant - we'll need to wait at least another year and over a much bigger area before the statistics become significant.

Graham_Devon

Speed Camera's have never stopped accidents.

All they do do is take a picture of you speeding and let you on your merry way, still, possibly speeding.

So it's no surprise that taking cameras away does not see an increase in accidents / injuries / fatalities. I don't think the reduction part is anything more than coincidence.

Speed cameras, and vans have always been located in the same place. The fastest, safest part of the road, and outside of schools.

Outside of schools, they should stay. Simply to fine the driver for being such a pleb.

Otherwise, speed cameras have been placed ON the road with blackspots, but not in the blackspots. They place them on the fastest part of the road...often the safest part of the road. The twists and turns, where you naturally slow down, and where the accidents are....nothing.

And why, are speed cameras always located OUTSIDE the village, just as you enter, going from a 60mph limit to a 30mph limit. Why not put the cameras IN the village, where the people are.

It's all been revenue making. Accidents won't neccesarily go up considerably, and neither will they fall significantly....because speed cameras only took a picture of you speeding, probability being on the safest part of the road. They did absolutely nothing to prevent anyone having an accident.

There was a piece on pepipoo about drivers and points. It was no surpise that research saw those who spend lots of time on motorways (reps and such) having the largest amount of points. Again, safest fastest roads. so vans sit on bridges.

The biggest indication that they are not really about safety, is this story. Money is reduced....suddenly they shut them down. If you ever wanted an indication that it was more about money than safety, you got it.