|
Do speed cameras shift accidents elsewhere...?
From BTST newsletter...
Research into whether speed cameras shift accidents elsewhere was cancelled by Government, it emerged on Tuesday. The Government were due to research the side effects of speed cameras -- in other words they were going to tell us whether cameras simply change the landscape of road safety, by shifting accidents elsewhere, as many BTST members have been saying for ages. What I'm talking about here is the dramatic braking caused by speed cameras, the lack of traffic officers looking out for other motoring offences such as drink or drug driving, as well as other indirect consequences. The Government were going to do this investigation, but now they’re not. The admission came in response to an enquiry made by us under the terms of the Freedom of Information Act. One BTST campaigner said... “It is grossly irresponsible that the DfT has cancelled the important ‘side effects’ speed camera research. I can only conclude that they were scared about the likely results and would rather save face than save lives.” Research indicates that at best, speed cameras save about 25 lives a year. That's obviously a very good thing ...except ... If the side effects cause MORE than this number of fatalities, then the cameras are actually killing more people than they’re saving. The fact is that we don't know for sure (although I am sure you will probably have an opinion on this one, X ?) There have been accusations of a cover-up. Imagine... if it turned out that speed cameras do not actually save lives -- and even COST lives, that's hardly the stuff the DfT would be wanting to crow about. And while this possible conspiracy is going on, more and more speed cameras and mobile locations are being set up all over the UK. Mick |
Its been known for sometime that Speed Cameras are counter productive. Any research that is going to show that is obviously not going to be funded by the government and will be cancelled. Only research that shows the outcome that the government wants will be allowed.
Its also hard for third parties to get the data they need to do their own research as the "Safety" Camera Partnerships try to charge a fee for each piece of separate data you want. Eg, you want to know where the last 100,000 speed fines were issued, they request £10 per piece of info. Makes it all rather expensive to prove them wrong :mad: |
Course they do. But while speed cameras earn money it's in the government's interest to keep them going. They millions they rake in for the treasury is worth a few people's lives as far as they're concerned.
And before anyone is shocked by that and doesn't really think that our goverment would be that avaricious and arrogant, look at how many people die of smoking against the huge revenue gained from taxing tobacco. If they really were that bothered about keeping British citizens alive, they'd ban the sale of cigarettes immediately and damn the consequences. But the fact is the treasury can rake in the cigarette and speed camera revenue and who cares if in the end it's hospitals that pick up the tab - that's someone else's department. So yes, Mick, it is a cause for concern and thanks for posting it up. |
Yeah, good points there silent.
I would also add that if they really were that bothered about keeping us alive they would also ban the sale of alcohol and damn the consequences of doing that . Of course a counter argument is that people should have the right to do as they wish so long as it does not harm others. Public smoking ban is a good example of that liberty. You can kill yourself in your own home with your own smoke, but you will not be allowed to kill others through them passive smoking your fumes. |
Originally Posted by Luminous
(Post 6815378)
Of course a counter argument is that people should have the right to do as they wish so long as it does not harm others. Public smoking ban is a good example of that liberty. You can kill yourself in your own home with your own smoke, but you will not be allowed to kill others through them passive smoking your fumes.
There will come a time when the only pubs left allowed to trade will only be allowed to sell locally sourced organic strawberry smoothies. Drink up before curfew time as well. Sounds an exciting life doesn't it. |
There is a difference between an activity that is normally safe, compared to one that is proved not to be.
Excessive drink causes issues, but in moderation the only person it may hurt is yourself. Therefore public drinking is fine, and so are pubs. Police powers to close places down and to send people home when things are going wrong as also OK. Its a fine line, always is. After all organic strawberries are harmful to some ppl. Just imagine a pub served one and someone had a fit when they ate one, then landed on a baby crushing it :( Cigarettes are always harmful to those around them, its just a question of how harmful. |
Originally Posted by Luminous
(Post 6815646)
There is a difference between an activity that is normally safe, compared to one that is proved not to be.
|
I don't personally have an issue with enforcement of speeding laws. Like it or not, those are the laws we all must keep to if we are to retain the right to drive on the public roads...even though occasionally we might break those laws and can expect a punishment if we get caught. What I DO have an issue with is when it changes from enforcement to revenue-raising.
If I see a light-up '50' sign coming into a village I'll slow down for it and keep my eyes open for hazards then gradually speed up again once out on the open road. If I see a speed camera I'll slow down as much as I need to then floor it straight afterwards. |
Greed Cameras have possibly alienated PLOD with the general public, more than anything else I can think of.
Your getting Mothers (natural instinct is to protect young) taking their kids to School being hit with "Zero Tolerance" 2 mph over & getting points. What about "Zero Tolerance" for Drug Dealers, People with Knives, Burglars, etc etc? Alan MaC |
Around Suffolk where I live we have two main "A" roads,(not forgetting the A14) The A12 and the A140 both are arterial routes from Ipswich, the A140 to Norwich and the A12 to Lowerstoft, Both routes are Speed camera hotspots, and only the really stupid or "out of towners" would exceed the speed limit on either road in fact it's not uncommon to see a camera van parked up and then to see a traffic patrol with a lazer gun a few hundred yards down the road waiting for the brave who think they can speed up coz they have got away with it! The worst part of this is the A140 has a maximum of 50 mph all through suffolk and this has an awful side affect, and I include myself in this, But now nearly all local drivers going to or from Ipswich use the country roads, Which have a national speed limit and as of yet NO speed cameras!, This has in my opionion made the country roads a much more dangerous place, Not through the speed of the traffic but the large number of trucks that now use these narrow roads, I myself have seen a number of accidents on these roads I'm sure as a result of the extra traffic..........................
|
If they wanted to stop speeding they would fit limiters to every vehicle on the road. If they can be fitted to trucks they can be fitted to cars.
Would stop it overnight. |
Only stops people going over the 70 limit not doing 70 in a 30 limit!
They just want to make driving unattractive hence all the cameras and new petty rules with big fines. |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 09:24 AM. |
© 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands