Another mobile speed camera being introduced.

[BTB 500]

Interesting that you should make that deduction from those statistics. An alternative deduction could be that the network of permanent speed cameras on the motorways has proved to be very effective in reducing the number of fatalities.

I'm pretty sure motorways have been statistically our safest roads for as long as figures have been published (way before speed cameras existed). And of course the figures in that table were for 2019, yet they have continued to deploy new fixed speed cameras since then (where we are, anyway). The money would clearly have been better spent on improving safety on rural and urban roads, where more than fifteen times as many people died.

 

[Deleted member 65149]

I'm pretty sure motorways have been statistically our safest roads for as long as figures have been published (way before speed cameras existed). And of course the figures in that table were for 2019, yet they have continued to deploy new fixed speed cameras since then (where we are, anyway). The money would clearly have been better spent on improving safety on rural and urban roads, where more than fifteen times as many people died.

You’re right, motorways are our safest roads; as I mentioned in my second paragraph - for a multitude of reasons. A lot (the majority?) of the motoring public say that speed cameras are installed as cash cows, so putting them on a section of M4 (for instance) that’s known for high speeds would possibly generate more income from fines than the cost of installation and maintenance. If, at the same time, average speeds dropped a little on that and adjacent sections of the motorway, it may be possible that serious injury incidents also drop.

Unfortunately, I fear that the cost of educating all users of urban roads sufficiently to make a noticeable impact on death rates would cost far more than the net cost of motorway speed cameras.

That’s not to say that it shouldn’t be done, just that it’s of little value coming out with something similar to the old chestnut used by so many motorists when stopped by plod for speeding, “Don’t you have real criminals to chase after!”

Finally, it’s a lot cheaper and easier to put a reasonable coverage of speed cameras on our 2,300 miles of motorways than on our 29,500 miles of ‘A’ roads.

 

[glojo]

Historically the majority of road deaths have been at speeds under 30mph. I have no real knowledge of how that statistic is today.

Speed cameras
I policed in an age where we were innocent until proved beyond doubt that we were guilty.

Today the motorist appears to be guilty unless they can prove they are innocent??

Having said that I would LOVE to see average speed cameras set at 20mph outside of ALL schools and with modern technology only have them working on days schools are open. (apologies for my contradictions but schools need protecting)

Instead of this cameras are set where they generate the most revenue and yes, I know the police will say they put them where there have been accidents, but a load of bunkum.

 

[ToeKnee]

I seem to remember reading some time ago that deaths on rural roads are so high because there is less passing traffic to see an accident, therefore the emergency services don't get there with enough.

 

[BTB 500]

You’re right, motorways are our safest roads; as I mentioned in my second paragraph - for a multitude of reasons. A lot (the majority?) of the motoring public say that speed cameras are installed as cash cows, so putting them on a section of M4 (for instance) that’s known for high speeds would possibly generate more income from fines than the cost of installation and maintenance. If, at the same time, average speeds dropped a little on that and adjacent sections of the motorway, it may be possible that serious injury incidents also drop.

Finally, it’s a lot cheaper and easier to put a reasonable coverage of speed cameras on our 2,300 miles of motorways than on our 29,500 miles of ‘A’ roads.

The injury rates for motorways are even lower than the fatality rates (they accounted for 6% of all 2019 road deaths, but only 4% of all road casualties), and again only a percentage of those will have been caused by the driver breaking the speed limit. These motorway speed cameras clearly don't meet the standard criteria for positioning them at serious accident 'black spots', so I really don't know how they're being justified. There would be a much better payback in terms of safety by placing them in high risk areas such as outside schools (as glojo suggested).

 

[Deleted member 65149]

Historically the majority of road deaths have been at speeds under 30mph. I have no real knowledge of how that statistic is today.

Speed cameras
I policed in an age where we were innocent until proved beyond doubt that we were guilty.

Today the motorist appears to be guilty unless they can prove they are innocent??

Having said that I would LOVE to see average speed cameras set at 20mph outside of ALL schools and with modern technology only have them working on days schools are open. (apologies for my contradictions but schools need protecting)

Instead of this cameras are set where they generate the most revenue and yes, I know the police will say they put them where there have been accidents, but a load of bunkum.

With your comment about average speed cameras outside all schools, I’m guessing you mean for a distance (of I don’t know what) either side? But yes.

And yes, ”Around two-thirds of crashes in which people are killed or injured occur on roads with a speed limit of 30 mph or less.“

http://www.rospa.com/rospaweb/docs/advice-services/road-safety/drivers/inappropriate-speed.pdf

From the same link: “However, car drivers are much more likely to be injured in collisions at higher speeds.”

All pretty obvious really; there are very few pedestrians and cyclists on motorways but lots on 30mph roads, and it’s those groups who are most vulnerable in collisions.

Further on again we’re told “An independent review of more than 4,000 safety cameras over a four-year period showed that cameras significantly reduced speeding and collisions, and cut deaths and serious injuries at camera sites by 42%.” So perhaps not “just about catching ‘innocent’ motorists but instead about making money” after all.

I agree with the conclusion that says a collection of measures is what’s required:
”A co-ordinated speed management strategy must include education, training and publicity, highway engineering and design, vehicle engineering and enforcement measures. Employers have a powerful role to play in influencing employee driver attitudes and behaviour. Ultimately, all drivers and riders need to be persuaded that driving at inappropriate speeds is not a minor, technical offence that everyone commits, but a serious, dangerous and anti-social activity.”

 

[BTB 500]

Further on again we’re told “An independent review of more than 4,000 safety cameras over a four-year period showed that cameras significantly reduced speeding and collisions, and cut deaths and serious injuries at camera sites by 42%.” So perhaps not “just about catching ‘innocent’ motorists but instead about making money” after all.

However that (widely quoted) review was actually based on data from up to 20 years ago (the period 2000 to 2004), and also included red light cameras. The criteria that applied then for siting a fixed camera are given in the report e.g.

• at least 4 killed/seriously injured accidents in the previous 3 years
• at least 8 personal injury collisions in the previous 3 years
• speeding shown to be a contributory factor in some or all of the accidents

It's not surprising that if you put a (clearly visible) fixed camera at such a site then it's likely to be beneficial. Unlike the gantry cameras spread all over the motorway network in more recent years.

 

[glojo]

With your comment about average speed cameras outside all schools, I’m guessing you mean for a distance (of I don’t know what) either side? But yes.

Hi Knight
As we know average speed cameras need distance to allow them to work out that required 'average speed' and I would guess that distances would need to be set for different schools.

Here in Torbay the police will not set speed cameras outside our schools because they would not justify their costs!!!!! Yup go figure.

A nice long straight dual carriageway going downhill for a mile or so and then another mile going uphill warrants lots of attendance by the police as they can hide in the dip behind a large traffic sign. Surprise, surprise they catch lots of folks speeding but is this a good use of our resources? Yes it is a 70mph limit and we should not exceed it but does the presence of law enforcement risk accidents?? There are always thick black skidmarks where drivers see the enforcement vehicles and they lock their brakes in the hope of not being caught.

 

[Deleted member 65149]

However that (widely quoted) review was actually based on data from up to 20 years ago (the period 2000 to 2004), and also included red light cameras. The criteria that applied then for siting a fixed camera are given in the report e.g.

• at least 4 killed/seriously injured accidents in the previous 3 years
• at least 8 personal injury collisions in the previous 3 years
• speeding shown to be a contributory factor in some or all of the accidents

It's not surprising that if you put a (clearly visible) fixed camera at such a site then it's likely to be beneficial. Unlike the gantry cameras spread all over the motorway network in more recent years.

That’s the problem with analysis of meaningful results necessarily gathered over several years: they take a long time to gather! Here’s the results of something more recent: “An LSE study showed that from 1992 to 2016, speed cameras reduced accidents by between 17% to 39%. They reduced fatalities by between 58% to 68%. And the effects were seen within 500 metres of the cameras.” Note that this was for just speed cameras.

I wouldn’t say that my eyesight is the best, but I’ve always found it easy to spot where gantry mounted cameras may be located. The bloody great gantries are a clue.

 

[Deleted member 65149]

Hi Knight
As we know average speed cameras need distance to allow them to work out that required 'average speed' and I would guess that distances would need to be set for different schools.

Here in Torbay the police will not set speed cameras outside our schools because they would not justify their costs!!!!! Yup go figure.

A nice long straight dual carriageway going downhill for a mile or so and then another mile going uphill warrants lots of attendance by the police as they can hide in the dip behind a large traffic sign. Surprise, surprise they catch lots of folks speeding but is this a good use of our resources? Yes it is a 70mph limit and we should not exceed it but does the presence of law enforcement risk accidents?? There are always thick black skidmarks where drivers see the enforcement vehicles and they lock their brakes in the hope of not being caught.

I suspect that a problem with locating average speed cameras by schools is that most schools are located where there are many locations to depart from a monitored route, thus preventing measurements. Perhaps a solution would be to follow the American example where the speed limit is significantly reduced at school opening and closing times, with very heavy fines if breached.

It’s certainly a dirty trick sighting mobile cameras at the bottom of a hill. That’s where cruise control comes in handy. What doesn’t help is the morons who have no idea of either the speed limit or the speed of their vehicle. On spotting a camera (fixed or mobile) the anchors come on and their speed invariably drops well below the limit. Some say it’s the fault of the cameras, some say it’s the fault of those not paying attention. I’m sure you can guess who I blame.

 

[glojo]

I hate to throw a spanner in the works of folks that love statistics, and yes I hate them... here I go, 'They make liars out of experts and experts out of liars'

Serious road traffic accidents have over the years been reduced!! Shock, amazement.

First simple question. What is a serious injury road traffic accident? Back in the day, ANY road traffic accident where the driver went to hospital for treatment!!! Can that definition be adjusted to possibly match any argument we want to support?

Over the years cars are getting safer and safer, injuries therefore are getting less and less. Bunkum

Statistics are used to claim injuries are getting less and less because of speed cameras....

We also would like to think there were less drivers driving whilst under the influence but has that now plateaued off?

Now far be it for me to suggest that the police attend less accidents so the reporting gets less Oh what a cynic I am. Tis not them attending less accidents, tis all to do with speed cameras.

 

[Deleted member 113659]

There’s a mobile camera van that sits at the corner exiting our village (just at the point it changes from 30mph to national speed limit).

All of the people I speak to that have lived here all their lives can not recall a single accident (fatal or other) at this particular point. So much for the myth that these cameras are meant to me placed at accident black spots.

 

[BTB 500]

That’s the problem with analysis of meaningful results necessarily gathered over several years: they take a long time to gather!

The report previously mentioned used data from 2000 to 2004 and was published in 2005, so it was reasonably current at the time. The problem is that it gets quoted nowadays by various safety organisations without any mention of the fact that it's 15 years old. At best this is pretty sloppy, and at worst it's intentionally misleading.

Here’s the results of something more recent: “An LSE study showed that from 1992 to 2016, speed cameras reduced accidents by between 17% to 39%. They reduced fatalities by between 58% to 68%. And the effects were seen within 500 metres of the cameras.” Note that this was for just speed cameras.

To be accurate, this was no more than a discussion paper written by an individual student attending the LSE. The conclusions are flawed IMO as road injuries and deaths have been steadily decreasing ever since the '60s - so over the 24 year period mentioned they would have dropped anyway, whether speed cameras were there or not.

And the effects were seen within 500 metres of the cameras.”

However the paper then says that the presence of a camera can actually cause an increase in accidents further away:

"In addition, enforcement effects appear highly localised around 500 metres from the camera and dissipate moving away. Beyond 1.5 kilometres from the camera, there are suggestive evidence of a rebound in collisions, injuries and deaths, indicating drivers could have speed up beyond camera surveillance and cause more accidents"

I wouldn’t say that my eyesight is the best, but I’ve always found it easy to spot where gantry mounted cameras may be located. The bloody great gantries are a clue.

Yes indeed, any of the frequent gantries on smart motorways etc. *may* contain a camera. Are you suggesting they should just put up gantries and not bother with the cameras?!

 

[Darrell]

Here we go again.
3 men/children who can use Google are now trying to outdo each other.

 

[Deleted member 65149]

Here we go again.
3 men/children who can use Google are now trying to outdo each other.

Nothing of the kind. We’re all having a reasoned debate. If you’re as bored as you sound you have the option of ignoring our discussion.

 

[markjay]

Speeding causes three separate issues.

The first is where speeding is the sole or main cause of a crash. I believe this is relatively rare.

The second is where speeding is a contributing factor. I.e., the crash was caused due to another reason, but if one or more of the vehicles involved wasn't speeding at the time, then the crash might have been avoided.

The third is the severity of the injuries. A crash may be unavoidable in the circumstances regardless of the vehicles' speed, but the impact will cause far more damage (and potentially injury) if one or more of the vehicles involved was speeding at the time.

 

[markjay]

There’s a mobile camera van that sits at the corner exiting our village (just at the point it changes from 30mph to national speed limit).

All of the people I speak to that have lived here all their lives can not recall a single accident (fatal or other) at this particular point. So much for the myth that these cameras are meant to me placed at accident black spots.

Don't you feel more comfortable knowing that cars won't be speeding when they drive through your village?

BTW, personally, when driving through a village, I always make a point of slowing down to the speed limit (typically 30) and watching my speed carefully regardless of any cameras, simply as an act of respect to the locals whose village I am driving through.

 

[markjay]

...The money would clearly have been better spent on improving safety on rural and urban roads, where more than fifteen times as many people died.

This:

...Finally, it’s a lot cheaper and easier to put a reasonable coverage of speed cameras on our 2,300 miles of motorways than on our 29,500 miles of ‘A’ roads.

Speed cameras that generate revenue are not a 'cost'... improving A and B roads, is.

 

[Darrell]

Nothing of the kind. We’re all having a reasoned debate. If you’re as bored as you sound you have the option of ignoring our discussion.

But it’s not really a reasoned debate is it? Surely debating a subject is talking about something you actually know about.

This to me is just 1 bloke trying to prove the other 2 wrong by quoting a load of gumpf from the internet.

Do any of you know if what you’re quoting is correct? Or do you think it’s correct because you read it online?

 

[glojo]

Do any of you know if what you’re quoting is correct? Or do you think it’s correct because you read it online?

We are using statistics to prove our case but like Darrell has just suggested, do we know what they mean when they refer to 'speed'?

Examples
You are travelling along a country road and as usual, at certain times of the day, farmer Blogs is moving his cows. This road has a speed limit of 60mph and our friendly Mercedes driver negotiates a bend at 40mph when ker-splatt, liver chops for dinner. He has ploughed into those cows, killed a few and he has been taken to hospital just for a quick check-up. Statistic records this as a serious injury road traffic accident where speed is a causation.

Poor Mercedes driver gets a new car as the other one has been wrote-off, this time he is in the centre lane of a busy roundabout, this roundabout is situated on a de-restricted dual carriageway and as he negotiates this roundabout at 30mph, he hits some diesel and poof!! He rams the car in the nearside lane. One driver is again taken to hospital for a check-up as they have a pace-maker and the ambulance crew want this person just to be checked over. Yup, another 'serious' injury road traffic accident and again speed will be a causation.

It is not our Mercedes drivers day because they are now driving on a motorway in heavy rain. Our driver is perhaps not cautious enough as they have 30" low profile wheels and yup there is a very shallow puddle and because they have these wide tyres, everything goes quiet as they aquaplane, go broadside and roll-over. Yup even though they wore a set-belt, the air-bags did there trick, off they went to the hospital for a quick check-over. yup yet another serious injury road traffic accident and once more speed is a caustion.

I have not mentioned fog or that dreaded undertaker but hopefully folks are getting the message? Speed is being blamed but no car is breaking any speed limit!! Yup, I love statistic

Local authorities will use these statistics to justify the siting of speed cameras even though no speed limits were exceeded. To me I still want more average speed cameras outside our schools and at locations where shops are next to busy roads and yes, make sure they only work when these venues are open.

Another quick moan
Near where we live we have a very large roundabout with each junction controlled by traffic lights. No complaint about that but........

This is an open roundabout where a driver can see every junction and every car on that roundabout. I have personally witnessed a car driver being booked for going through a red light at that roundabout at 3am in the morning. The only other vehicle in the vicinity was an unmarked police car behind the offender!! I am not sure but I think these junctions might now have cameras that catch these offenders. During the day when the road is busy, hammer those drivers that drive through a red light but why not switch off these traffic lights during set periods?

If I stand for school idiot and ten folks including me are entitled to vote but I am the only person who voted and I obviously nominate myself. Can I say I won with an overwhelming majority? Only one person voted out of the ten that could but did I get 100% of the votes that were cast? Never in the history of democracy has anyone ever get such a statistic.

Apologies for my daft post but I've been awake all night and am still in a degree of discomfort