Paul P

According to the teletext this morning, speed cameras have reduced accidents by 28%. I believe Northamptonshire police have come up with those figures. So it looks like the general public are going to be educated by the government with the message that all these speed cameras are there to reduce accidents and they have the statistics to prove it!!
Obviously this county must have put every speed camera they have on their most dangerous roads, this has had the effect of slowing everyone down when they see the cameras and hence less accidents. However if this is the case, they will not be handing out speeding fines and hence not getting much money back!!
And I thought speed cameras were placed at spots where the most motorists could be caught and hence more income for the police?!?

Anyone live in this county and would care to comment?

chiark

I too heard this on the radio this morning, and thought, "oh God".

If you're cynical, the police would have an interest in being allowed to keep the money from speeding fines so would say that this is a good thing... It's hardly independent verification.

I have no problems with cameras, providing their primary purpose is to highlight accident blackspots. As such, they should all be highly visible. Some councils are now doing this, and should be praised.

This is kickstarting me into action. Watch this space.

Stuart H

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:<HR>Originally posted by chiark:
<B>If you're cynical, the police would have an interest in being allowed to keep the money from speeding fines so would say that this is a good thing...[/quote]

<B>BUT</B> they only get to keep what is necessary to maintain the cameras and the van. Any "profit" goes straight to the Treasury, so its not as if there's any incentive for NG to keep issuing tickets as they don't make any financial gains.

Reductions in injury accidents can only be a good thing IMHO, NG's fatality rate was getting very bad when I lived there a few years back. But you have to balance this with a responsible use of the technology....this is where the Highways Depts (who stick the FIP's up) are falling down.

(PS - Nick, I got your e-mail, sorry I haven't replied yet, will do it when I get in tonight )



[This message has been edited by Stuart H (edited 07 February 2001).]

Mikeyboy

The only speed cameras that I have seen on any of my commutes to work are there for one reason only - to earn cash, with little or no concern for safety (quite the opposite in fact).

On the North Circular Westbound, one is hidden to the side of an exit from a tunnel - you will never see it until it gets you.

On the A10 Southbound in Enfield there is one hidden right behind a tree - same problem.

A really annoying one? Coming off the North Circular Eastbound onto the M11. Currently there are roadworks here with a 30 mph limit. The camera sits right next to the limit sign - ie. to get you if you have not yet fully slowed down to 30 BEFORE the limit sign. Yes I know that this is how we should drive in the eyes of the police, but honestly - how **** is it to place a camera here? It does not punish those drivers who are really speeding throughout the limited section, but rather everyone who does not follow the limit to the ....... er limit. Indiscriminate punishing of an error that most human police would put on hold until if they saw the driver was slowing down 30. Safety my ****.

Personally I think the things are bloody dangerous and make people drive erratically.

Rant over.

James Douglas

If they think that motorist "seeing" the traps slow down, and this reduces fatalities, then why dont they paint the Cameras bright yellow so you can see them. If all they are interested in is slowing you down, then surely that makes sense. But they hide the damn things and then make out they are there to save lives!!!!

ndouglass

They say that most of the cameras are installed in accident black spots, people approaching see them and brake to get their speed down. If the person following isn't watching the road they'd be in your boot, almost happened to me.

One road I can mention, the A1 heading north from Newcastle to Edinburgh. All the speed cameras are place on straight stretches of road which are the safest place for overtaking. Now you get eveyrone trying to overtake on dangerous parts of the road, good sense placing th cameras on the straights ???
I'm all for the upholding of the law and safer driving but I think that you should have to resit a driving test every 5/10 years. The standard of driving on the roads is abismal, you pass your test and that's it. New drivers have a 2 year probation period, if thet total 6 points within that period they have to resit their exam again to get their license back.

Difficult one which ever way you look at it.

Neil

ndouglass

They say that most of the cameras are installed in accident black spots, people approaching see them and brake to get their speed down. If the person following isn't watching the road they'd be in your boot, almost happened to me.

One road I can mention, the A1 heading north from Newcastle to Edinburgh. All the speed cameras are placed on straight stretches of road which are the safest place for overtaking. Now you get eveyrone trying to overtake on dangerous parts of the road, good sense in placing the cameras on the straights ???
I'm all for the upholding of the law and safer driving but I think that you should have to resit a driving test every 5/10 years.
The standard of driving on the roads is abismal, you pass your test and that's it. New drivers have a 2 year probation period, if they total 6 points within that period they have to resit their exam & test again to get their license back.

Difficult one which ever way you look at it.

Neil

Podger

It's not speed that kills it's bad drivers, instead of putting up more Gatso's ,investement by the powers that be into compulsory driver training would be a better long term solution.This country has been turning in into a nanny state under this Government ,now we are turning it into a police state.

I also am very cynical of the analysis, and it the words of Mandy R- D "they would say that wouldn't they"

chiark

Stuart, are there any other circumstances that you know that could have contributed to this?

Have NG started stopping more motorists, or put a push on bad drivers, drink drivers and generally toughening the stance on driving standards?

Have any other influencing factors been identified, such as road closures, etc? Is this a county-wide reduction, or a hotspot reduction on one road?

I can only agree that reducing road deaths is an excellent thing, but can't help feeling that a "28% reduction due to more cameras" is a rather sensationalist headline.

It would be interesting to know if these were reductions in 30mph limits, or country lanes, or across the board.

I'd like to get to the bottom of the statistics to satisfy myself as to the relevance of the claim. Is the raw data available anywhere?

ca

Paul P,

A classic example of statistical shananagins if ever I've seen it.

In Northamptonshire, there were 76 fatalities in 1999 and 55 fatalities in 2000.

The average over the last five years has been 56 deaths. Therefore the reduction is nowhere near 28%.

It wouldn't suprise me if the 8 or so authorities that took part in this scheme had an unusually high fatality rate before the scheme started. The result being that they can trumpet the scheme as a resounding success, when the death toll falls.

Lies, damn lies and statistics.....

Unless people object this will be rolled out UK wide (along with the recent proposals for much heavier penalties for 76MPH on a clear motorway)

C

robski

Statistics, I hate em.

You can use them to show just about anything.

Glad the police can reduce accidents by putting more cameras up.

Please can someone tell the motor manufacturers that all the new saftey features they are putting into cars like airbags, abs, traction control etc etc etc etc are not needed now as we can just stick a few more cameras up.

I for one will be quite happy to shed all the excess weight that these devices are adding. And look forward to the reductio in the price of cars due to not having them fitted and the massive costs of R&D for these devices are making cars safer during accidents.

What a load of bollix.

robski

Scooby

This is just another example of contempt and arrogance towards the general public/electorate.

Just how stupid do the governmant and the home office believe the British people to be?

You'll hear anything to justify what they want to implement, you won't hear a balanced or objective view.

It's time for some new faces me thinks, let's cut through all this B/S!

Yex

Whilst I agree with speed cameras being placed in black spots and outside schools and playgrounds etc surely this does not account for these numbers:

Fast factfile from SkyNews site

The amount paid out by motorists in fines runs into millions of pounds a year. The latest available official figures are for 1999.

In that year 423,000 people caught speeding on camera received fixed penalty fines.In the same year some 75,600 more camera detected cases were dealt with by the courts

The average fine dished out by those cases handled by the magistrates came to £132.
And the revenue looks set to rise dramatically with increases of up to four hundred per cent in fines for speeding in some areas.

The piece also explains that 8 forces around the country, including my lovely Essex bridgade , are being allowed to keep revenue from their cameras to buy and install further cameras

Yex - a motor owning, potential extra tax victim for this sh1te awful government

matt_d

Well said ca - another case of a government body pushing out totally misleading numbers, and the media publishing it uncritically. Wish they could be sued for lying about this kind of thing!

Olaf

I don't live in Northamptonshire, but didn't I read that that's where they're running an experiment with civilians in unmarked vans with mobile cameras? They park where they like (sometimes outside schools or at accident blackspots, but also on motorway bridges or in laybys on quiet A roads) & bag as many motorists as they can. As a result, the number of speeding tickets issued in the county went from around 5,000 in 1999 to 90,000 in 2000 (forget the exact numbers, but it was of that sort of level). At the end of 2002 they may roll it out nationally.

Anyone want to buy a Subaru?

KF

Apologies if this is posted elsewhere:

SPEED CAMERA FUNDING TRIAL NOT THE SUCCESS CLAIMED

Statistical Chicanery exposed by ABD

Claims for the success of the so called speed camera
funding trial in eight police force areas are greatly
exaggerated, the ABD claimed today.

In Northamptonshire, the "Marketing Team" for the
speed camera project are trumpeting a 28% reduction in
fatalities between 1999 and 2000. In reality, it was
the 76 fatalities in 1999 that was the unusual figure.
The "result" in 2000, 55 fatalities, simply reflects
the average annual fatality rate in Northamptonshire
over the last five years - 56 fatalities.

ABD spokesman Nigel Humphries says: "This is typical
statistical chicanery by the authorities, who are
desparate to justify a hugely unpopular scheme by
claiming they have saved lives. This scheme is so
unpopular in Northants, where the number of speeding
tickets has risen from 4000 to 100000, that they are
now deliberately targeting through traffic on the M1
and A14 in order to raise their revenue from people
who don't live locally and therefore cannot make
trouble for the scheme."

The whole idea of blanket mass speed enforcement as a
means of improving road safety is flawed.

Claims that 1200 people are killed annually by
speeding are nothing more than a figment of the
imagination of somebody in the DETR, obtained by
including things like tailgating, overtaking on blind
bends and even misjudging the speed of oncoming
traffic when pulling out of junctions.

Research into accident causation invariably shows that
less than 10% of fatalities are caused primarily by
excessive speed. Than means a maximum of 340
fatalities rather the 1200 suggested by the DETR.

Most of these happen in urban areas due to extreme
speeding by a minority of reckless drivers who lose
control and mount the pavement. The correct approach
is to properly target these offenders rather than to
try to catch as many people as possible breaking often
inappropriately low limits on the open road in perfect
safety.

This approach, typified by this latest ill considered
mass campaign, is actually harmful to road safety
because it:

1 Ignores the real causes of most accidents - hazard
perception, poor road engineering, attentiveness

2 Penalises those who ARE competent in these areas,
preventing them from exercising roadcraft skills and
turning them into speedometer watching liabilities.

A fresh and more enlightened approach to road safety
is much needed.

ENDS

Paul_P

Well another county has released this:

"Speed cameras have helped cut the number of deaths on Cleveland roads it has been claimed. Cleveland police were one of 8 forces in a scheme to use money from speeding fines for more cameras instead of passing the cash onto the treasury.
"The results are absolutely dramatic" said Richard Brunstrom, the man coordinating the scheme."

So if they are getting more money from speeding fines then surely they are catching more motorists 'breaking the law'. Therefore how can they say that the number of lives are being saved. All they are proving is that they can put up more cameras to get in more money which in turn can be spent on more cameras which bring in more money.

Does anyone know who this bloke is and how we can get in touch with him?

With all these replies on here stating that the number of deaths caused by speeding is a lot less than the government are telling us, surely someone should be given the chance to speak to this guy and see exactly where he is getting his figures from!!

No doubt the 6 other counties will all come across with the same message! Plus they will all get media coverage and the message that speed cameras are saving lives will be drummed into the general public.

All the speed cameras I know are there for one reason, to bring in extra cash!!
And everyone is right in stating that if cameras were at accident black spots, they should be highlighted and not hidden from view!!
Also if a police office caught you going too fast near an accident black spot, surely a ticking off and him telling you that by stopping you, he has potentially stopped an accident would be better proof that the police are trying to save lives.
Surely this is better than hiding the cameras to catch the unsuspecting motorist and trying to extract as much money as they can!?!

AndyMc

What I find disgracefull about all this is that by targeting/catching and prosecuting speeding motorists they are having NEXT TO NO EFFECT on the fatality rate.
This means their incompetance is allowing 2600 people a year to die.Remember these are real people,members of your or my families not just numbers.

If we were that incompetant at our jobs we would be sacked.

To see just how incompetant they are you only have to look at what happens when a plane or train crashes.Both of these forms of transport cause the deaths of a fraction of the number of people that die on the roads, yet each incident is carefully investigated by real experts who have enough funds and resources available to them to find the real causes.
Whats more lessons are learned and steps are taken to make sure they don't happen again.Its these experts that makes these forms of transport so safe.They don't just say the plane or train was going to fast.

This just does not happen on the roads so your average drivers(you and me included) keep on making the same fatal mistakes because they/we don't have the knowledge and understanding not to.

Make no mistake about it is average drivers, in average cars that do the majority of the damage on the roads and seeing as the average driver does not think he/she speeds they ignore the speed kills message spouted by the goverment etc and don't change the way they drive(And yes I know the minority groups do more damage on a driver for driver basis but at the end of the day they are still a minority)

A bit of basic training on how to do simple things like pull out of a junction safely would have much more of an effect than the current ill researched policy.

Andy

ca

The fatality figures for Cleveland are as follows:

1995 - 28
1996 - 40
1997 - 24
1998 - 15
1999 - 22

Average = 25.8

Someone made the comment, what exactly did Cleveland do between 1996 and 1997 to gain a year on year reduction of 40%? Surely whatevr that was, should be rolled out nationwide? I bet it didn't involve GATSO's!!

For the record, Richard Brunstrom is the current Chief Constable of North Wales and used to be the Assistant Chief Constable of Cleveland.

C

Legacy GTB

Don't forget that the road toll stats are blown out when just one bus filled with Australians falls into a river, killing all on board (a good start, but several million more Aussies to go??? ). Just one accident for example, but suddenly 30 more deaths. Clearly a major change in figures for that year.

Just don't buy into the statistics game!

Mick

iTrader: (1)

More cameras and less coppers will lead to more false registration plates . It's an obvious response.

Mick