One thing I expect to see is bereaved relatives of particular motor accidents being given a high exposure by certain sections of the media and campaign groups: "The Local Council murdered my husband by removing local speed camera!"
That always annoys me when speeding or speed cameras are discussed on any current affairs TV programme. There will usually be someone from a car-focussed group, someone from BRAKE or somesuch, but always the grieving mother of a child who was killed by a speeding car, that very morning!
Whilst its very tragic for the people involved, it rarely adds to the debate "Are you against speeding, seeing as how your son was killed, this morning, by 26 speeding drivers, in your front garden?"
|
|
In a few years time the statistics will almost certainly be inconclusive, because you can usually make the statistics prove whatever you like. The numbers of deaths / seriously injured will vary slightly from year to year even if everything is exactly the same. But traffic volumes and patterns change significantly for a variety of reasons, which have can confuse the picture further, so both sides will claim conclusive victory. Watch this space.
|
|
I know there have been arguments to the contrary but I suppose its inevitable the cameras will show a net reduction in accidents in their locality, but what annoys me is that there is no allowance for common sense, prevailing road conditions and such, they assume everyone is an idiot.
It constantly annoys me that the Cardiff/Newport bit of the M4 is fixed at 50mph regardless of time of day, traffic conditions etc, but I bet that accidents are down. I still don’t see why that section can’t be 60mph though!
FTF
|
|
"assume everyone is an idiot."
Sounds reasonable enough.
|
|
You including yourself in that generalisation?
|
|
Speed cameras across Oxfordshire have been switched back on eight months after they were turned off.
Data released by Thames Valley Police revealed in the six months after they were switched off there were 70 slight injuries, 13 serious injuries and no fatalities from a total of 62 accidents at fixed camera sites.
In the same period the year before [August 2009 to January 2010] there were 55 slight injuries, 13 serious injuries and no fatalities from a total of 60 accidents.
Away from camera sites there were 867 collisions with 982 slight injuries, 179 serious injuries and 18 deaths during the period the cameras were turned off.
In the same period the year before there were 885 collisions with 999 slight injuries, 160 serious injuries and 12 deaths.
Supt Rob Povey said speed enforcement worked as a deterrent to motorists.
"We think this is important because we know that speed kills and speed is dangerous," he said.
"We have shown in Oxfordshire that speed has increased through monitoring limits and we have noticed an increase in fatalities and the number of people seriously injured in 2010.
|
|
The Oxfordshire statistics bear out what I thought would happen - that the removal of speed cameras would lead to a rise in the accident rate.
The message given to the great motoring unwashed by turning off the cameras was: "we lost, you won, we don't really care if you drive too fast" sort of thing.
What I've noticed in Somerset is that where the cameras used to be, where drivers slowed down to the speed limit, they don't any more.
Most of the speed cameras in our area were in 30 mph limits. Lots of drivers disbey the 30 limits, and whatever petrolheads might think about speed limits out on the open road, nobody should be disregarding 30 limits in towns and villages.
Edited by Sofa Spud on 02/04/2011 at 00:23
|
|
I think you will find that the accident rate here in Oxfordshire where I live has increased more due to the worst winter in thirty years than speeding. During the time the cameras were switched off, they were not removed or covered over. Many motorists never even realised that they were switched off and all the drivers that I saw on my daily commute, still slowed right down when passing the Gatso's.
The fatalities on Oxfordshire's roads since cameras were introduced are
1999- 57 deaths
2000- 63
2001- 49
2002-37
2003- 64
2004- 33
2005-40
2006- 68
2007-34
2008- 42
2009-30
August 2009- to date (cameras off)- 18 deaths.
Make what you want of these figures, I don't think there is clear evidence and I certainly don't believe the BS that our Chief Police officer stated. Interestingly the police won't say how many accidents there were at speed camera sites.Down the road in Swindon their "statistics" show no increase in ccidents where their cameras have been switched off far longer.
I have no problem with cameras, in the right locations( ie nera every School, town and known accident black spots- real ones not concocted ones to suit cash raising).
One of the problems i see on some of the rural routes I commute on daily is a blanket imposition of too low a speed limit. Some roads would easily be ok with a national limit but are restricted to 50 or 40.this leads to conflict with drivers who do and don't stick to the speed limit andsome drivers will take risky over taking manouveuers.
I believe that the majority of fatalities in Oxfordshire occur on the M40 motorway.
|
|
I have a particular aversion to the selective use of statistics, some of it gained by reading the excellent Ben Goldacre Bad Science column every saturday in the Guardian (and online).
He writes mostly about medical and related matters, but his comments and observations are just as relevant here.
The problem with much of the statistics being quoted here is that there are many variables at work and the cameras being turned off cannot be isolated alone.
As others have commentated, the weather plays a very large part in accidents and certainly the very bad weather last winter would have played its part.
The other main factor would be traffic volumes. Given the recession, I believe these are down, but are they down during rush hour times, and when do most of the accidents happen?
The bad weather cut traffic volume as well.
Because the camera boxes were still there and not covered and because they would probably still be on Sat Navs, perhaps drivers were still slowing down for them.
From the post by Mike Torque (see above), at the camera sites there were 62 accidents after turn off and 60 before in the same 6 month period of August to Jan.
Both had 13 serious injuries.
There were 70 slight injuries after turn off and 55 slight injuries before however.
Anyone noticed the rise in injury claims via insurance for road accidents lately?
I'd leave it to qualified statisticians to confirm, but I'd suggest that the differences quoted above are not statistically relevant anyway.
Maybe the accident figures would have been even higher had speed cameras been turned on, who really knows?
Googling the Oxford stats gave me headlines such as 'deaths up by 50%' during time cameras were off, an apparant quote from Thames Valley Police.
The actual stats show this to be the case AWAY from the camera sites, so appear to be infering that cameras slow everyone down everywhere.
(With no figures or details given, the Thames Valley Police quote does indeed say that speeds increased after turn off).
My informed opinion therefore on the effectiveness of speed cameras is that I don't have one and I won't until proper tests are done.
As a result of cameras, I do drive slower, but also I do spend more time watching the speedo and limit signs than I'd like to, so do cameras do more harm than good, I don't know!
|
|
Sounds like you have your head screwed on right to me.
There are way too many variables involved to know if just changing the cameras from on to off actually did anything at all either way.
It isn't like we can run exactly the same scenarios and accidents with the cameras "on".
The Police, BRAKE and anyone else who has a vested interest one way or the other will manipulate numbers to make them show whatever they want / need them to show to support their argument.
Without a scientific "control" you are left with Lies, Damn Lies & Statistics.
|
|
What annoys me is selective statistic using. Its all well and good saying "there were more deaths with the camera's turned off" but that doesnt tell the whole story. Nowhere in those statistics does it dare to tell us how many of those accidents were put down to speeding. What if one of them was a drunk running into the road and was hit by a car doing 28mph?
What would be really interesting is if a county somewhere, or several, made an announcement that the camera's were being turned off, made it very public knowledge, but kept them on anyway. Not give out fines or anything but keep them active and monitor speeding trends.
Edited by jamie745 on 14/04/2011 at 14:17
|
|
Yup. See my post from last September. I have a crystal ball.
|
Yup. See my post from last September. I have a crystal ball.
I believe this is a known medical condition and treatment is usually successful
|
mickeybay said:
I have a particular aversion to the selective use of statistics,
[snip]
My informed opinion therefore on the effectiveness of speed cameras is that I don't have one and I won't until proper tests are done.
Well said. It does worry me when police chiefs make statements based on misinterpretation of statistics. For example, there was a significant increase in the number of fatailities AWAY from camera sites. Were these near camera sites (within 200m say) or on other roads. If the latter, than clearly they were unrelated to the camera sites. That sort of basic information is needed before we can start to draw conclusions. It is obvious that this police chief has decided for himself that cameras work, and hence he does not see the need to understand the statistics.
And I agree with mickeybay, I do not know if cameras work. I suspect some do, but a lot do not, but I do not have evidence for that statement, so it is mere supposition.
|
|
I can think of on stretch of road where the introduction of speed cameras would definitely contribute to safety.
It's rural crossroads on a single-carriageway A road, with limited visibility. There's a 40 mph speed limit.
When turning right onto this main road, one has go when the road looks clear and hope nothing's appoaching at speed, just out of view. If people keep to 40, the problem isn't too bad but some drivers do 60 or more - even if the road is clear when you pull out,. you can straighten up to see White Van Man bearing down on you, lights flashing and horn hooting. A camera or two would prevent this sort of thing.
Edited by Sofa Spud on 15/04/2011 at 15:38
|
A camera or two would prevent this sort of thing.
I don't disagree that in such a location a camera could well be incredibly useful, if only to stop near misses if not worse. But many cameras do not seem to be in accident blackspots. As I said, it would be nice to know the truth.
|
I do not know if cameras work
You have to define their objectives in order to determine if they work or not.
If you mean do they prevent accidents / injuries / deaths at particular locations, you are correct; you don't know, I don't know & neither does anyone else.
If on the other hand you take the view as I do, that all they do is efficiently & effectively catch people who break the law, then they most certainly do.
And I believe that most drivers will not respond to anything other than harsh penalties, so cameras are the best way to reduce speeding
|
|
Four mistakes and you can lose your licence.
Particular locations I can understand .but how many of these cash cows are standing in positions to make money I am thinking of the safety?speed camara van brigade.
|
|
|
