ricardo

I've just read the samples of contributions to the poll currently running on http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/talking_point/3530438.stm
and I'm fuming...... !

The poll is as follows:
"Would something as simple and obvious as removing speed cameras change your vote to Conservative?"

Although there are some sensible posts the 'speed kills' sheep are out in force. Read it and weep.... !

Nick

I believe it's a serious issue & we need to support the driver's case in these polls. The current blinkered "speed kills" sound bite totally ignores the real cause of accidents, which is inattention, bad driving & inappropriate speed. If the government truely wanted to save lives, then they would require every driver on the road to take the Advanced Driving test & to continue education for ALL road users. Instead we see the scamera partnerships fleecing motorists for their own financial gain.

"Exceeding the speed limit related to just 60 collisions per year out of a total of 1,900 collisions in the Durham area — that’s about 3%."
Paul Garvin, Chief Constable, Durham Constabulary
Sunday Times 2003-11-23"

Check out http://www.abd.org.uk/ & http://www.safespeed.org.uk/

Tiggs

"Although there are some sensible posts the 'speed kills' sheep are out in force. Read it and weep.... "

it seems well balanced in my opinion. i dont see why someone is a sheep for disagreeing with you?

there is a fair split between pro and anti.

personally, you could double the number of cameras and i wouldnt give a toss

OllyK

Why is that Tiggs?

Personally I'd be far happier with otherwise legal people doing a few mph over the posted speed limit if the conditions were safe to allow it next to me on the road than having somebody doing 2 mph under the limit that has sunk 8 pints. The cameras will catch the first group but not the second.

scoobynutta555

The proposed 80 mph limit on motorways is quite strange IMHO. The majority of people feel quite comfortable over this proposed speed.

hedgehog

Since cameras have been introduced the year on year reduction in fatalities has reduced from previous levels until, last year, the number of fatalities on our roads actually increased. Cameras cause people to die on the roads and yet people on this group are saying that they wouldn't mind more of them? Methinks it must be a troll, or Tiggs is a plant from the "institute of cyclists and blokes in flat caps that never exceed 30mph because they once read that it sucks all the oxygen from your lungs."

As for the press release by the Tories yesterday:

Well, it mentions a review of cameras. Now, we have just had a review of cameras and all were deemed to be correctly sited and, that I am aware of, not one was removed. So, that is a promise worth nothing. My bet is that for political reasons, to be seen to comply with their "promise," they decide a few are badly sited and relocate them to the new 20mph limits.

A slight increase in the limit on SOME motorways. Most people already drive at 80mph and I bet such an increase is matched with a removal of the 10% + 2mph guideline which, in effect, made 80mph nearly legal. So, in the end this is a promise that is going to result in traffic enforcement speeds staying the same on SOME motorways and actually reducing on the majority of motorways. We lose.

Lower limits at schools and hospitals. Probably enforced by the repositioned cameras that were deemed incorrectly sited and the 20mph limits will probably be declared a success within months and extended to cover other areas, such as straight sections of dual carriageway with cameras on them. Remember, due to the time the average motorist spends looking at the speedo when a camera is present outside a school or hospital is precisely the most dangerous place to put a camera.

There was also a hint that the partnerships might be put under the control of the police and that would also work against us in these post-scamera days. Lets face it with GPS based Intelligent Speed Adaptation and number plate tags coming the police will want access to all that information and it will be impossible to exceed the limit anyhow due to the ISA systems so the cameras will be redundant. The police will want control over our mobility.

In truth all the Tories have offered us is a blueprint for even more control over our personal mobility in the format of a media friendly press release.

OllyK

Hmm IIRC the last "review" involved writing to all the SCAMERA partnerships and asking "Are you happy with the location of all your cameras". The partnerships of course replied "Yes", review complete.

The trouble is the Yes = Yes we are prosecuting far more motorists, generating huge revenues and doing nothing to reduce road fatalities.

Nick

Road safety group, the Association of British Drivers, today called for an independent investigation into the UK's 43 speed camera Partnerships. This comes as Norfolk's speed camera chief, Barry Parnell, resigned after apparently being shown a highly confidential report raising doubts about the placement of cameras in Norfolk.

According to media sources, the data used to justify some Norfolk cameras was "questionable and, in some cases, unavailable."

The ABD has, for some time, had serious concerns about the placement of many of the UK's speed cameras, and even greater concerns about their effectiveness in reducing crashes. This comes at a time when the number of road fatalities has increased by 2%, yet nearly 2.5 million speeding tickets have been issued generating £120 million in fines. One in every 5 drivers has been fined for speeding since 1996.

Mark McArthur-Christie, the ABD's Road Safety Spokesman, commentedAs a consequence, the ABD has called for an independent audit into all the UK's speed camera Partnerships, the placement of their cameras, partnership finances, and camera effectiveness. ABD Chairman Brian Gregory comments

Tiggs

its because i rarely go above the limit enough to get caught and if i did it would only be by a "3 point" amount hence i have to do it 4 times to be banned.....hence i would be a retard and deserve it.

i also try not to link things that should be unconnected. i dont belive in the "cameras mean drinkers dont get caught" stuff..........i belive there should be LOADS more police on the road to deal with that. its just a different point.

looking at cameras in isolation, i dont have a problem with them.

T

unclebuck

Not all sheep by any means -

"Some people will say that this is Tory opportunism. Maybe it is but Labour provided them with the case. After almost a decade of a government that refuses to listen one that shows that it might pay attention to people rather than pander to special interest groups sounds pretty reasonable. Hope it catches on.
Rick, UK"

Couldn't agree more.

UB

scoobynutta555

"After almost a decade of a government that refuses to listen"

Well why haven't they been voted in if they refuse to listen to everyone? In a decade there will have been at least 2 elections.

A government is elected by the people, and it can be assumed that the policies they have put forward connect in some way to the general public, if they didnt they wouldnt be elected.

You will have your next say at the next general election.

OllyK

We seem to agree on the "Loads more Police" part. However, the buget is limited and the speed cameras generate far more cash than a guy in patrol car.

The whole point of this (saving lives) seems to have got lost along the way. So I'd rather see the money being spent on Police, better road engineering, better driver training etc etc than electonic devices that seem to be making the roads more dangerous.

Izzy

I totally agree with Nick.

Cameras are not the answer to road safety. There is no evidence, other than circumstantial, that accidents, injuries & fatalities have reduced at camera locations. Which ever political party is spouting the pros or cons of the camera, it is just "spin doctoring"... What is clear though, is that otherwise law-biding people are being forced to contribute large sums of money to the government each year for having their photo taken at a couple of mph over the limit. What is needed is a reduction in the number of distracting cameras, an increase in the number of human police on the road to deter & catch dangerous, drunk, uninsured drivers, car thieves & unroadworthy cars (none of which are "caught" by the cameras) and more appropriate, time specific, speed limits.

scoobynutta555

Only time a camera will stop a drink driver is when the drunkard hits it.

Tiggs

"Only time a camera will stop a drink driver is when the drunkard hits it."

Only time a waste bin in a bank will stop it getting robbed is if the baddie trips on it.

speed cameras are not designed to stop drunks.

davyboy

Can I give you an example:

If you lived near a road that had climed lives and seen a lot of accidents, and a Camera had been installed there (in Northampton they are only allowed to put camera's in places with death or serious injury)

In 5 years the deaths and serious injuries had fallen to an acceptable level. Would you want the Camera removing?

OllyK

They are "Safety" cameras not "Speed" cameras. The BRAKE crew and government keep saying they are not speed cameras to try and make them more acceptable as safety devices. Sadly as saftey devices they are about as much use as welding goggles when sawing trees down with a chain saw.

OllyK

No it would be fine, as long as you can show that the reduction is a genuine one and due to a regression to the mean effect.

By that I mean, show me a road that has say 3 or more deaths a year, every year for 5 consecutive years all within the same 500 yard stretch (more than the effective zone of anything other than SPECS anyway). Put a camera on that road and show me that for the next 5 years the deaths are 1 or less every year and I'll accept the camera worked in that location.

The trouble is they can pick and choose the time period used to measure the before for the justifcation for the siting of a camera. In general if you get a peak year where there are 6 deaths at a location, there is a very good chance that if you do nothing at all there will be far less deaths the next year as that 1 year was a peak. This is called regression to the mean and something that the government reports do NOT ake in to account. There are not control groups for comparision. So they take exceptionally bad blip years to justify the case, and then claim it is all down to cameras when the next year the figures are lower.

Sadly when you look at the national fataility figures for the country as a whole, they do not tell the same story. We are in general seeing the same number of road deaths now as we were 10 years ago. Prior to that we had been seeing a steady decline year on year. Car safety improvements should be helping to reduce deaths (and they may well be, but something else is compensating and increasing deaths at the same reate). We need to get the Police back out there to deal with the other (bigger) problems. Tackling speeding is not having an effect. Now if exceeding the speed limit (remember that's what a camera picks up, not driving at a safe speed for the conditions) really did account for 33% of the KSI figures on the roads, don't you think we would be seeing significant reductions in those killed? Most non government sources, including Durham Police etc, put the figure at more like 3%. So in relaity a huge effort is going in to something that is going to have little or no effect on the figures even if they could completely stop speeding. So maybe we need to look at some of the other causes of accidents and road death and tackle those if we want to stop fleecing motorists and actually save some lives.

Tiggs

"They are "Safety" cameras not "Speed" cameras."

no they are speed cameras.......calling them saftey cameras is a nice way to keep morons happy that dont have a brain cell let alone a car.

assuming you are no moron i think we can all agree they only detect speed....as such they are not able to detect drunks- hence the need for more police. they can detect speed though and can carry on detecting it as far as i care.

T

ps- a hamburger has no ham in it either.

davyboy

http://www.northants.police.uk/rrcsi...ault.asp?id=95

scoobynutta555

Who said they were. The rise in cameras has gone hand in hand with the drop in traffic police numbers. By targeting one element, speed, all the other elements of accidents are being downgraded, yet speeding alone contributes to 11% of accidents.

Therefore, why specifically target speeding when other factors are being, what looks like, downgraded.

Simply making the point that recklass driving cannot be detected by a gatso unless the person is speeding at the time.

Waste paper bin analogy is pretty pointless as it has nothing to do with the security of a bank.

OllyK

They are called "Safety Cameras", just check out the Safety Camera Partnership websites or the markings on the mbile vans - now I know that is a con, so do you, but the people at BRAKE and the like seem to be quite happy to accept that because they are called "Safety Cameras" they actually do have an effect on safety (they do but sadly a negative one)

I know that, as stated above and in my previous post, I was trying to point out yet more spin doctoring going on that's all!

My bigger issue is that while people think they work, they will put more and more up and will focus less and less on what we need i.e. more Coppers on the roads.

Well of course not, just because a word can be broken down in to smaller words does not mean there is any connection between those smaller words and the orginal

The word hamburger probably existed by the end of the Middle Ages. In 1802 the Oxford English Dictionary defined "Hamburg steak" as salt beef. Referring to ground beef as "hamburger" dates to the invention of the mechanical meat grinder during the 1860s. "Filet de boeuf a la Hambourgeoise,"

tiggers

Thank Goodness it's not just me who can see the Tories latest attempt to 'buy votes' for what it is.

tiggers.

OllyK

And your point is what?? Please note that the government has mixed the Killed Figures in with the Seriously Injured (but still alive). The latter group is a much larger one, so while decreases in the this groups are obviously good, this maks the fact that those being killed is not actually decreasing.

Note how they keep using the trem "KSI casualties" i.e. the Seriously Injured element of the figure rather than the figure as a whole or those that have actually died. It is a cracking bit of spin, munge the figures, pick out the bits that make your case and gloss over the rest and with a bit of luck most people will accept it without asking too many questions.

Try asking Northants Police for the Killed figures on thier own for each year without the "SI" part and see how far you get

MattW

TBH I don't mind fixed cameras at accident blackspots. My Road Angel tells me they are there, I make sure I am under the limit and everyone is happy.

What I object to is the stealth Talivan, parked 200 yrds over the brow of a hill, blocking the pavement or in some other stupid place.

Nick

"This is called regression to the mean and something that the government reports do NOT ake in to account"

Olly has a good point. So one year, 3 drunks kill themselves by hitting a tree. Up goes a camera even though the fatalities were not exceeding the speed limit. The next year there is a reduction in fatalities & the $aftey $camera partnerships claim success. They are SUPPOSED to take regression to the mean into account, but they usually do not.

From the Safe Speed web site:



For over three years Safe Speed has been working tirelessly to analyse the road safety trends in speed camera era. And the trends have been truly awful.

For example:

• National annual road deaths fell more in EACH of the three years before speed cameras than they have in the TEN years since.

• The most important road safety indicator of all, the fatal accident rate (i.e. the number of road deaths per billion vehicle kilometres), gradually slowed during the speed camera decade, and finally in 2003 went into reverse. This follows a former trend spanning at least 50 years during which the fatal accident rate fell by between 5% and 7% per annum with clockwork reliability.

• In 2003 the fatal accident rate rose by 1.3%. This is thought to be the first genuine rise in the history of UK motoring.

• Britain is now the slowest improving country in Europe in terms of roads fatalities according to the Department for Transport's preferred indicator.

• If the former trend (1978 to 1993) in the fatality rate had continued, over 6,800 people who have died on British roads would still be alive, and annual road deaths would be down to about 2,200 (not 3,500 and rising)

• The difference between the expected and actual trends has been termed "the fatality gap". The fatality gap now represents over a third of annual road deaths.

• At the same time that the trends have gone so badly wrong we have seen an explosion of speed camera fines. In fact speed camera fines are presently doubling every three years.

• After over 5,000 man-hours of effort on the subject Safe Speed believes that the loss of trend, and the 6,800 extra deaths have been caused by bad road safety policy, and that the bad policy has been founded on speed cameras.

• It is absurd and fraudulent to claim that speed camera saves lives when the trends have been so bad.

• We know that vehicle safety, road engineering and post accident paramedic care are improving and are making similar crashes significantly more survivable each year. And we know that these effects are much greater than the annual growth of traffic.

Official Lies

Safe Speed has uncovered and exposed a series of official lies forming the very foundations of speed camera policy.

• It isn't true that we have many crashes caused by otherwise responsible motorists exceeding a speed limit.

• The claims of speed camera effectiveness entirely depend on a well understood statistical artefact known as "regression to the mean". This has been pointed out to the main authors of the recent DfT report, yet still they persist in the deception.

• It isn't true that a 1mph reduction in average traffic speed will lead to a 5% reduction in accidents. This too has been pointed out, yet the deception continues.

• It IS true that pedestrians are much more likely to die as impact speed increases from about 20mph to 40mph. But in the real world the proportion of pedestrians dying in injury accidents with motor vehicles points to an average impact speed of just 11mph.

Paul Smith, founder of the Safe Speed road safety campaign said: "It is absolutely outrageous that modern road safety policy is founded on nothing more than oversimplified beliefs and bad science. It is even more outrageous that the government and the camera partnerships are trying to gloss over the abject failure and convince the public that their policies are working. False road safety information is extremely dangerous and is very likely to cause loss of life because the wrong policies are followed."

Paul continues, "The speed camera fiasco amounts nothing less than the great speed camera con trick. Every motorist should write to their MP right now demanding proper answers to the following two questions:In a recent report for the BBC Radio "Today Programme", Professor Emeritus Mervyn Stone said (regarding the partnership based speed camera programme): "The emphasis on political acceptability has led the program down a cul de sac in which essential public trust has been lost. The mistakes already made should be openly recognised, and the program should be subjected to a root and branch rethink."


It should came as no surprise that Safe Speed says: "Let's make speed cameras as unacceptable as drink driving." See the Safe Speed web site for further information:
http://www.safespeed.org.uk

OllyK

The problem is, the RA Blackspots are ones that RA get from the local councils, who designate it a black spot becuase the previous year there was an blip in the accident record. So unless the accident was caused by something of a permenant nature (i.e. they re-designed the road badly at that point), in reality you are probably safer at that blackspot this year than on many other parts of the road network that are not considered blackspots.

In reality there is no substitute for driver awareness and looking to see what hazards are about and adjusting the speed of the vehicle to match.