warrenm2

http://www.safespeed.org.uk/trl595.html and here


"TRL report number 595, commissioned by the Highways Agency and delivered in early 2004, looked at motorway road works crashes and evaluated the effects of various safety treatments. Safe Speed obtained a full copy and found the following information:

* Where fixed speed cameras were installed at road works the risk of personal injury crashes was increased by 55%.

* Where fixed speed cameras were installed on open motorways the risk of
injury crashes was increased by 31%.

* Average speed cameras also increased the risk of crashes by 4.5% at
roadworks and 6.7% elsewhere.

* Conventional Police patrols reduced the risk of crashes by 27% at road works and 10% elsewhere.

* Speed cameras were associated with an increase in crash severity with fatal and serious crashes being 32% more likely where speed cameras were operated.

* Motorway road works are no more dangerous than open motorways.

In the executive summary, the seriously damaging information presented in the report isn't calculated out - except as an aggregate with Police patrols
included. The police patrols showed a positive benefit while the speed cameras showed a negative effect. These two were allowed to cancel out to show zero as a net benefit.

It is outrageous that this sort of information has been hidden from the
public. We all need the best information to help us to drive as safely as
possible. Whenever we are driving we have to manage risk - and the more we understand the real risks the better we manage them."

We have all seen strange driver behaviour where fixed speed cameras operate. This report highlights the dangers. We're not surprised to see this
information - we have know for years that speed cameras were the wrong road safety strategy, and it's a huge relief to see the truth coming out so
clearly.

It has often been argued that digital speed cameras (which measure average speed between two points) lack the 'obvious' problems of single location speed cameras - for example you cannot defeat the camera by slowing briefly - but this information shows that digital speed cameras also make the roads more dangerous.

After thousands of hours of research it became obvious to me that speed
cameras were having a negative effect on road safety. The evidence used to support the speed camera programme has been weak and inadequate - often based on nothing more than false assumptions. Now the truth is emerging, I'm hoping for an immediate return to former road safety policies - policies that delivered the safest roads in the world. Road safety isn't founded in 'simple' things like vehicle speeds - instead it is founded in complex and subtle human behaviours - we have to help drivers to make fewer mistakes, not force them to pay too much attention to one minor safety factor.

Many motorists won't be surprised by the news - they have always harboured deep suspicions about the speed camera programme - and will be relieved to learn that they were right all along.

We must get these dangerous cameras off our motorways RIGHT NOW!

The Highways Agency have reported an increase in road worker deaths in the first half of 2005. They should read their own research and get rid of the dangerous distracting speed cameras."

Pootle

[QUOTE=warrenm2]
* Motorway road works are no more dangerous than open motorways.
QUOTE]

"Lane coned-off to protect workforce" and there's never a bleedin' one of them to be seen within a five mile radius..!

Always makes me ask why we have to go to the ridiculous lengths we do in this country for "Health and Safety". Have you ever seen the way other EU countries handle their roadworks? In Spain I've seen half a dozen guys in high-vis waving flags - and that was on a busy main road equivalent to the A1

A million cones to protect a road-worker's bacon-buttie, but "Safety" Partnership vans parked on the M4 causing emergency braking in the outside lane for the sake of a few quid in revenue

This county's gone and got it's priorities all wrong!

Brendan Hughes

And those half a dozen guys cost less to employ per day than the Brit's bacon butty. And chances are they're African immigrants anyway so no-one GAS if they get hit.

unclebuck

Dream on. This is loopy New Labour we are talking about here. The surveillence project will never be reversed. That it costs lives is simply a fact that needs to be covered up.

Wurzel

iTrader: (1)

Autobahn works here are done in a few ways either cone off a section, or have a maintenence vehicle with huge flashing orange lights on it parked up infornt of the workers, or line up huge concrete/steel things so that cars can't get to the workers etc.

But the funny thing is that they will divert traffic onto the opposite side of the road with nowt else between the two oncoming cars other than an orange cone or a strip of yellow paint depending on what mood they are in. Sometimes they will seperate the traffic with the concrete/steel dividers but usually only rumble strips or paint. Funny how we seem to have far less accidents on our Autobahns than you lot do on you pissy motorways. But we do have some spectacular crashes when they do happen

richs2891

You are forgetting the obvious here, Proper driver training costs money, Police Officers whilst proven to be more effective, cost money and speed camera whilst probably costing simlair salary to a Motorway patrol Officer (not sure on actual costs), generate a lot of cash for the goverment coffers.
Being cynical but I'm pretty sure I'm right !
Richard

Brendan Hughes

That's brutally cynical when you consider that injured or dead people also cost money via NHS or lost tax revenue, increase in disability benefits etc.

ALi-B

iTrader: (1)

Most other countries do this too. They've been doing some subsidance works on the autovia I regulary use in Spain. Thing is, people do slow right down when they hit the contraflow (probably because of the extremely tight unlit chicane ). Although on a few very early morning starts the separating cones are all over the place after a sleepy trucker has ran the over and sent them flying in all directions

I think accidents at UK roadworks - especially at night are also partly due to the masses of high power yellow flashing strobes and beacons...its like driving through a rave party. Having done many late night/small hours driving in the dark, the most eye straining hazard is the multitude of high intensity flashing beacons and strobes which every single works vehicle on the night shift insists on using. If its raining, this obviously makes it worse as the light refracts off the water on the windscreen.

The problem with UK works is they fart about so much - especially with basic resurfacing. They work patches or sections. Whereas other countries use "rolling re-surfacing" techniques which works like a production line...up front they remove the tarmac, repair the surface and they are immediately followed by the fresh tarmac and rollers...all travelling at 1-2mph...on 24hour works they re-surface over 24miles of road in a day...whereas in the UK...erm, they've only just about managed to strip off the old surface

Brendan Hughes

There's a mini-scandal here in Portugal kicked up by the ACP (Portuguese RAC) as one of the toll motorways close to Lisbon has taken about 6 mths to be widened, and during that time the accident figures for that part of the motorway have gone up by 50%! They are also saying it's disgusting that users have to continue paying the same toll (price) for a vastly reduced level of service, as it's frequently been down to one lane with 3-mile tailbacks.

Leslie

We have to remember that the ultimate priority is to screw as much money as possible out of the motorist. Road casualties are of no significant interest to this lot.

I don't care if you do say that I am cynical!

Les

The Zohan

Not cynical - more realistic IMHO

New_scooby_04

iTrader: (4)

No problem, they'll just any losses there -and they're likely to be small in the grand scheme of things I'd guess, by raising a bit more revenue by increasing tax on petrol, ciggies or alcohol!

NS04

Iain Young

I know camera aren't the answer, but I was wondering what you lot would put in instead?

They're doing roadworks on the M4 at the moment, and there's a 50mph limit (with occaisional mobile cameras on the bridges) which I drive through every day. There are frequently people working at the side of the road etc, and it wouldn't take much for an out of control car to kill one of them. Pretty scary job (I wouldn't want it).

Weird thing is that whilst I'm tootling along at the requested 50mph, I'm being passed over and over again as though I'm standing still (other cars have got to be doing 70 or more). So do you lot think this is acceptable?

I agree that the limit is probably too low in normal motorway situations, (should probably be 80), but I see no problem with enforcing a lower limit through a hazardous area. After all it's only a few miles, and it helps to safeguard the lives of the people working on the road.

CLSII

Iain,

As mentioned above police vehicles have a dramatic and positive effect on safety.

The UK used to have some of the safest roads in the world. Police are expensive and being done away with, revenue generating cameras are on the increase as are the accident statistics.

Don't forget SPEED KILLS not bad driving, panic braking when spotting a scamera or being so preoccupied with looking at the speedo in your car rather than observing what is going on around you for fear of a ticket.

Oh and by the way if the worst does happen it is statistically proven that awhilst police officers can help in the event of an accident a speed camera has never saved anyones life