DanTheMan

So as the use of "safety camera's" increase so do road deaths, I see they don't broadcast this news quite as much as the spin doctored figures that were out a few days ago.

Neanderthal

iTrader: (6)

We obviously need far more scamera's then!

imlach

I imagine that the number of journeys is also up by more than 2% in the same period though?

DanTheMan

I would imagine that congestion is up more than 2% also, which = lower speeds

imlach

Congestion normally doesn't make up 100% of a journey though
Anyway, if congestion is up, does it make people travel more quickly on the non-congested portion of their journey??

DanTheMan

congestion takes up 100% of my journey through Surrey & south London, I can't remember the last time I had a clear road.

If congestion makes you speed up afterwards then shouldnt they concentrate on reducing congestion.

imlach

We're talking about UK statistics are we not? Not the SE corner

imlach

Anyway, 2% is neither here nor there....since when were car accidents predictable? I'm sure this is an allowable variance....driving standards are down a LOT - no amount of cameras can stop that...

Faire D'Income

But this is the cornerstone of the Government's position on 'Safety Cameras' as they supposedly save lives by reducing the amount of accidents.

Since the introduction of cameras total accident figures have flat lined at best despite the dramatic increase in prosecutions - far more than a 2% increase in speeding fines.

DanTheMan

that was exactly the point I was making, as well as the fact that they "forgot" to mention these figures when they hailed the recent sucess of the "safety" cameras in making the roads safer.

fast bloke

we had 3 static sameras introduced in Belfast last year in July - Last January (before the cameras) there as a bad crash in which 3 joyriders and 1 innocent bystander died (about 3 miles away from the camera)

This January one pedestrian got killed at crossing lights


PSNI announced that the introduction of the camera had reduced road deaths by 75%

hedgehog

Road traffic levels were 1% higher than in 2002.

In truth the fact that cameras killed people last year is probably less significant than the fact that in recent years they have reversed the downward trend in road fatalities which had been happening since the end of the second world war. When you look at the long term trends the effect is more marked and more shocking.

There is no question that the short term event that we are discussing is important but what is much more important is the fact that it is part of a multi-year trend that began when the cameras started to be introduced.

This reversal, by the cameras, of a 50 year trend has resulted in the death of over 5000 people. The report last week that wrongly claimed that cameras saved 100 lives in 2003 made the headlines, what you didn't hear so much of was that accidents increased at 743 camera sites.

In truth the police, the councils and the government are willing to kill us on the roads for their own ends. The next time you drive past a copper manning his scamera van just remember that he isn't just an annoyance that is likely to land you with a £60 fine; he is taking an average of £5000 per year in overtime to eat donuts and kill you.

The next time you see some "head of traffic policing" on the TV telling you of the awful accidents he has seen on the roads and how speed causes them and that we need more cameras think of how much cash he has put in his pocket to cause more of the awful accidents of which he was speaking. Think of how his TV appearance has just improved his chances of getting that promotion to move the next step up the ladder.

ajm

Is that all??!? That's nothing! A quick look on the national statistics site reveals more people die of rectal cancer!!

Makes you wonder how justified the priority given to road safety really is!

SJ_Skyline

PMSL

Neil Smalley

AJM,

More people die falling down stairs than on the roads too. Regrettably, but logically there has to be a point where road deaths plateau out(assuming no huge tech or engineering breakthrus like indestructable cars etc) and we get into the realms of diminishing returns. Although it is of no comfort to people who have lost loved ones due to a road accident, i'm afraid that such deaths are inevitable and compared the the number of miles driven by fairly untrained humans it's remarkably low

SJ_Skyline

Neil, more people die in their beds every year - maybe there should be government legislation against beds?

Abdabz

Or a government legislation about using a hairdryer in the shower?

Ah - maybe there arent that many people that do that..hmm I'll get my coat...

P

ajm

Good idea! It would have to be enforced by fines though to make up for the shortfall in "road safety" scamera fines! £60 and 3 points on your bedpost!

hedgehog

Many of the above points are very true, about 4000 people die each year in accidents in their own home. Now, not everyone drives, so we can't say it is more dangerous to sit home than it is to drive on the roads but that is a lot closer to the truth than the green nutters would like us to think.

I think it would be somewhat short sighted of us to assume that the persecution that motorists are seeing is purely down to revenue generation. The revenue that is being generated is being used to put civil servants in place to regulate personal mobility. Some of the camera partnerships are spending literally millions on new offices, this infrastructure isn't going to go away. Today it is based upon the "speed kills" myth to get us used to the concept and to get us to finance our own downfall. Tomorrow they will not only be telling you how fast you can drive but also what car you can own, (Scoobies will be right out, believe me) when you can drive it, where you can drive it and the limited groups of people who will be allowed to drive at all. The infrastructure is nearly there with congestion charges, ANPR, cameras that photograph your face, toll roads, parking enforcement, micro-chips in your number plates etc.

On a group such as this one, where everyone could be expected to have some interest in cars, driving and their right to be allowed to drive it is interesting to observe the general apathy towards this removal of your rights. In a very short time this forum might consist mostly of posts that start "Do you remember when the general public used to be allowed to drive..."

boomer

Have a read of the West Midlands Casualty Reduction Partnership FAQ and see whether these people are fit to enforce our traffic laws

Their very first FAQ says:

Well that is totally wrong for a start!!!

It should have said:
All roads are subject to the National Speed Limit (60mph, or 70mph on motorways and dual carriageways) unless they are "restricted" roads (street lamps not more than 200 yards apart, although an error of 12 yards between two lamps in a system of 24 does not prevent the road being restricted), or have a lower posted limit.

I can't see plod being very happy if you pootled along the A1 at 29mph

Oh, and don't even get me started on their response to the "One Third Lie" - saying that "following too close" is due to speeding (and not the prat driving along the A1 at 29mph after being told so by the "partnership"!!)

These guys should be fired

mb