Speed Cameras, the twisted truth

Page may contain affiliate links. Please see terms for details.
Interesting, but the revenue collection aspect is something anybody with a half a brain would realise.
Whilst keeping speed in check IS important and a worthy goal, getting a ticket for doing 78mph in a deserted motorway at 3am is NOT going to help prevent accidents. All it does is swell the coffers.
 
The really interesting part for me was the fact that accidents have increased in line with cameras replacing traffic police.
 
I agree - it is very interesting and enlightening......I would also urge everyone reads it...
 
I've put the link on my 'myspace' thingy and I've emailed it to pretty much anyone I know that drives...It's what we've pretty much said all along...
 
As most of you know, I have quite a few objections against speeding, but I liked the article a lot. Assuming that its facts stack up, it's an excellent example of what evidence based decision making should be all about.

As I said before: if speed cameras do not make the roads safer, or even decrease safety, they are the wrong tool for the job and should be removed.

I specifically would further endorse the article's position that having less police on the roads has had a very negative effect on road behaviour - I would welcome a lot more traffic cops out and about to deal with the large amount of antisocial drivers who treat public roads as their private back garden and have no consideration for others.

I welcome the article and hope that decision making can be driven by hard facts and evidence.
 
I know many people who drive a lot better when they're in the City of London, because there's so much Police around, like physically. Otherwise they just speed around everywhere; it's a case of slow for the camera,and speed up after it.
 
I agree we need more police on the roads but the problem is the policing would inevitably be "performance related" or driven by statistics. We would still be targetted, we would still have the same absolutes and the accident rate would still rise because people become distracted when they see a police car - how many accidents do you see on these police camera action type shows caused by people not looking what they are doing because they are watching what the police car is doing.

What's best, driving with both eyes looking forwards or constantly looking in the mirror to see if you are being followed?

Simple thing though, stick to the laws including insurance, MoTs etc (after all they are absolutes not guidelines) and you don't get nicked although yo still get your time wasted from time to time when the officers don't know the law as well as they think they do

this article is nothing new, it's just the contents of Paul Smith's writing "recycled"

Quote from one of the readers


"A child walks into the road the raod without looking. The cause of the accident is not the speed of the car, it is the child's lack of attention. The car is travelling at 15 mph and the child is badly bruised but back at school in a few days. The car is travelling at 30 mph and the child never returns to school. So, although speed may not have caused the accident, it does decide the outcome; and it will always be so: the relative speeds of the objects involved, determines the damage, injury, deaths. It's a clever sleight of hand to claim that 'speed is not a factor' but I would challenge those who make this claim by asking them to describe one single road accident - and there are millions from which to choose - in which the relative speeds of the objects had no influence on the outcome. When the mother hears the screech of breaks outside her house, her concern is not the cause of the accident, it is the outcome. Speed kills.
Posted by Paul Randall on November 12, 2007 9:39 AM
"

Andy
 
What a fascinating and well researched piece. Every motorist should read it. And every MP.

Hmmm....

It's been said before, you make a set of statistics say whatever you want them to say.

The guy has a book to sell, so we'll pick out the emotive article and run that piece. We all dislike speed cameras and buy into the conspiracy that surrounds them. Therefore we respond by saying it's a fabulous piece for work. Meanwhile, using the same stats and evidence to produce something that doesn't appeal to our thinking results in it being labeled as rubbish.

For example, I have to produce various models at work. I do the research, plus in the facts and, voila, a result gets spat out the end. If it's line with what everyone wants to hear, supporting the sponsoring execs view, etc, then I'm a genius hero. When the results are unexpected, I'm invariably sidelined and all sane debate goes out the window.

Two of they key things the writer misses - Pareto principle (especially in regard to cause of reduction in incidence) and that the increase in road deaths stems largely from motorcycle accidents where inappropriate behaviour (including speeding) has been the cause.

Now let me state my case - I don't like cameras, I think they are lazy but through personal experience I know that they can be effective. I've covered it on other threads and won't go into it again.

However, I have challenged any readers to demonstrate with facts that cameras are placed with a revenue objective in mind. It doesn't surprise me that no-one has. We have opinions on their siting - I had strong opinions about one and so found out about it and it had met all the rules for siting AND had reduced accidents on the stretch of road.

Unfortunately until we curb the selfish attitude of doing what suits me rather than the greater good (and I'm as guilty as anyone else) then we will find that governments will tax and legislate us to conform. A utopian dream, maybe - read von Neumann, Morgenstern and Nash to see how it works.
 
It was a year or so ago that I posted the figures regarding the various causations for fatal road accidents and it was blatantly obvious that exceeding the speed limit and deaths was a very low percentage figure. I also pointed out that if the vehicles were not speeding then speed camera's would not have prevented the incident.

More police is the continuing cry but no logic is ever applied to this statement. To make a visible difference to ALL our roads what percentage increase are we talking. Plymouth to Exeter is approximately 40 miles of a main arterial road. At present you might see one traffic car on this route. One car patrolling 44 miles, so if we double the numbers of the local traffic centre we might, just might see two. Would doubling the strength seriously make any difference? To justify their presence then they must surely enforce the current motoring legislation and judging by contributions on this forum, that will go down like a lead balloon?

Statistics are usually quite meaningless but deaths cannot be doctored, or can they.

It is a fact that the police used to investigate ALL road traffic accidents\incidents, but quite clearly they no longer do this. If all road traffic accidents are not recorded then the statistics are 'suspect' Why not stop using police collated figures and start using insurance company data? Less work for the police, less paper work = more time on the roads. Fatal accidents have risen and allegedly at a higher percentage than the increase in vehicular transport. Can this be explained?

I have not been able to drive a motor vehicle since the very early nineties and I have noticed a remarkable change in not only numbers of vehicles on our roads, but driver attitude...... I am talking about YOU, us, everyone of us.

Our attitudes for some unexplained reason has changed? When was the last time we allowed a car to pull out of a side road, when was the last time we stopped at a zebra crossing? When was the last time we thanked a fellow driver? When was the last time we shouted at a fellow car driver? When was the last time we criticised a driver? We all seem uptight, aggressive, in a rush and very unsympathetic to-wards other drivers. This type of driving does not make us better drivers, but if we were calmer, in less of a hurry, more helpful to-wards our fellow road users, then would our roads be safer?

Finally my old soap box point about; Driving at a speed you can stop within the distance we can see to be safe! If this piece of simple logic was followed then our roads would be so much safer and it also has no connection with speed limits. Going round a blind bend and colliding with children, car's or whatever and then swearing at the innocent party highlights all my points.

This report is merely repeating the figures we played with a while back and I doubt nothing will change.

John
 
"A child walks into the road the raod without looking. The cause of the accident is not the speed of the car, it is the child's lack of attention. The car is travelling at 15 mph and the child is badly bruised but back at school in a few days. The car is travelling at 30 mph and the child never returns to school. So, although speed may not have caused the accident, it does decide the outcome; and it will always be so: the relative speeds of the objects involved, determines the damage, injury, deaths. When the mother hears the screech of breaks outside her house, her concern is not the cause of the accident, it is the outcome. Speed kills.
Posted by Paul Randall on November 12, 2007 9:39 AM
"

Andy

I quite agree. It is blindingly obvious that speed kills. If we all did 1 mph probably almost nobody would be killed by cars. That is quite different from saying that speed caused the accident. It might have been caused by a child running into the road, or by a tyre bursting. But it was the speed and weight of the vehicle that killed.
 
agreed Hawk, but in the eyes of one statistician, speed was not the cause of the accident and therefore nothing to do with the childs death whereas another will argue that speed killed the child and the cause of the accident was largely irrelevant. Another could probably give you an entirely different interpretation.

The whole statistical thing is skewed because so few accidents are actually reported - as John said let the insurance companies provide the data, that would give a more realistic representaion

Andy
 
However, I have challenged any readers to demonstrate with facts that cameras are placed with a revenue objective in mind. It doesn't surprise me that no-one has. We have opinions on their siting - I had strong opinions about one and so found out about it and it had met all the rules for siting AND had reduced accidents on the stretch of road.
I agree with most of your very valid points but the paragraph I have highlighted does you no justice and is unfair. ANY camera that consistantly records a HIGH number of speeding motorists over an extended period of time is in my own personal opinion wrongly sited and I say that with certain proviso's. Once the high numbers are noted then the local authority has a responsibilty to investigate the reasons why this is happening. If they just sit back and collect the fines then that camera is no more than a revenue collector.

The next example is historical, but it will still apply at numerous locations nationwide.

A few years ago there were extended roadworks on the M42. The repairs, labour etc were all shut-down over the extended Christmas peroiod and for mile after mile there was unobstructed three lane motorway with NO roadworks, no workers ANYWHERE, yet the 50mph camera's were still flashing away. That to me is unjustifiable, unfair and contributes nothing to road safety. You can dismiss these points and say they don't count, that is your right, but to me they are simply revenue collectors that help fill the coffers of the government.

Of course there is a place for enforcement of our speed limits and speed camera's are a great aid, but it is very rare to see them located outside our schools and the honest reason for this is because they will not detect the numbers that they might if located elsewhere.

Regards
John
 
I agree with most of your very valid points but the paragraph I have highlighted does you no justice and is unfair. ANY camera that consistantly records a HIGH number of speeding motorists over an extended period of time is in my own personal opinion wrongly sited and I say that with certain proviso's. Once the high numbers are noted then the local authority has a responsibilty to investigate the reasons why this is happening. If they just sit back and collect the fines then that camera is no more than a revenue collector.

The next example is historical, but it will still apply at numerous locations nationwide.

A few years ago there were extended roadworks on the M42. The repairs, labour etc were all shut-down over the extended Christmas peroiod and for mile after mile there was unobstructed three lane motorway with NO roadworks, no workers ANYWHERE, yet the 50mph camera's were still flashing away. That to me is unjustifiable, unfair and contributes nothing to road safety. You can dismiss these points and say they don't count, that is your right, but to me they are simply revenue collectors that help fill the coffers of the government.

Of course there is a place for enforcement of our speed limits and speed camera's are a great aid, but it is very rare to see them located outside our schools and the honest reason for this is because they will not detect the numbers that they might if located elsewhere.

Regards
John

I always have time for a well structured debate with you, John :)

Example 1 - You would need to know the criteria for a camera being there in the first place. Excessive speed on it's own is not a valid legal reason for a speed camera to be positioned in a particular location. There may be various risk factors involved, etc, etc. However, it must be doing something as these are not cheap to run (you can get figures easily from your local governing authority). All the time people are whizzing by clocking up points and fines would eventually remove them from the road (through banning) - OK, we know that's doesn't always happening but you see where I am going.

Example 2 - I would assume that the speed restriction was also in force, otherwise the camera evidence would be null-and-void. Roadworks are usually removed during holiday periods to reduce congestion (on example of good thinking ;) ) but you'll often find that the surface is not adequate for the usually rated speed of 70 which is maybe why the restriction is kept in force.


Let me just restate though - I'm not an out-and-out supporter of cameras. All I've ever wanted is hard and fast facts, not opinions. I was proved wrong - I thought a camera had been sited where it was to catch people out, but when the evidence was laid out in front of me I had to come to an opposite conclusion. Unfortunately many drivers are of the opinion that all cameras do is rake in money - but how many will go to the effort and challenge something that they think is wrong rather than challenge it?

Unfortunately we would all deem ourselves to be "experts" when it comes to all matters driving, but our opinions are often proved wrong.

I agree that cameras should be sited at schools and other locations, and perhaps be time sensitive too. I had the technicalities explained in great detail to me which I didn't fully understand (not my field of expertise this radar stuff) but fixed and mobile sites also have to fit in with a number of "environmental" criteria too in order to work properly.

We have three local sites that have cameras and that have significantly reduced the number of serious accidents, yet the real blackspot in the area which would benefit can't have one because of the environmental conditions at the site. Ho hum.
 
Speed limits used to be based on the 85 percentile speed --the speed that 85 per cent of drivers did not exceed on a particular stretch of road. This meant only 15 per cent of drivers felt restricted by the speed limit. I think there are many limits that would not meet that rule today.

Secondly, there was a code of practice that car makers would not compete on performance. I remember Vauxhall amongst others being told to pull an advert that emphasised speed. Now every TV programme that pretends to be about motoring is speed obsessed. Sited on an airfield so people can go fast without the constraints of real world motoring. Reviews of ever bigger engined and faster cars and super cars are never done rationally. Nobody ever says what is this useless heap for? Where will anyone legally do 150? or 200 or whatever. No; the eulogies flow. The car mags too are obsessed with performance and as a result every maker now wants to call everything "Sport" as though we are all off to drive in the Monte Carlo rally rather than joining yet another traffic jam. And what is so comic is that most of the so-called sport versions offer no extra performance at all: just shiny pedals, a bigger exhaust pipe and a suspension that rivals the ride of a brick lorry. But small wonder that the endless emphasis on performance leads many to want to drive 'a bit quick'.
 
Example 2 - I would assume that the speed restriction was also in force, otherwise the camera evidence would be null-and-void. Roadworks are usually removed during holiday periods to reduce congestion (on example of good thinking ;) ) but you'll often find that the surface is not adequate for the usually rated speed of 70 which is maybe why the restriction is kept in force.

The M42 example that John referred to probably represents one of the best cases of inappropriate use of speed cameras. The "road works" were the erection of the variable speed limit gantries. The speed limit was there to protect staff working on the hard shoulder. Laudible intent but the staff only worked during limited hours when traffic levels were at their lowest. For the remainder of the time, the cameras flashed away because drivers could see that there were no roadworks only a line of cones and therefore didn't see sticking to 50 as important. Two flashes later they found out that the cameras were still on duty even if the workers weren't.

By The Way, the book by Christopher Booker that Spike referred to deals with many other "Scares" apart from Speed Cameras. Everything from BSE via the Y2K bug to Global Warming. I've only read a summary so far but I'm planning to buy the book.
 
Example 1 - You would need to know the criteria for a camera being there in the first place. Excessive speed on it's own is not a valid legal reason for a speed camera to be positioned in a particular location. There may be various risk factors involved, etc, etc. However, it must be doing something as these are not cheap to run (you can get figures easily from your local governing authority). All the time people are whizzing by clocking up points and fines would eventually remove them from the road (through banning) - OK, we know that's doesn't always happening but you see where I am going.
Regarding the reasons for siting camera's they are a great idea and when genuinely applied I fully support them, but this criteria is definitely, undeniably sometimes abused in our area. We have the example of the deer jumping into the path of an oncoming vehicle. Exceeding the speed limit was certainly not an issue but the camera was still approved.

Mr E said:
Example 2 - I would assume that the speed restriction was also in force, otherwise the camera evidence would be null-and-void. Roadworks are usually removed during holiday periods to reduce congestion (on example of good thinking ;) ) but you'll often find that the surface is not adequate for the usually rated speed of 70 which is maybe why the restriction is kept in force.
Motorway example,
You would think the cameras would also be shut down and if I were honest I would suggest that I have no idea whether drivers are being reported for speeding! My wife\chauffeur does not break speed limits, so we were not flashed, but you could see the cameras flashing at cars that were travelling at higher speeds. Were they prosecuted? I have no idea, :eek: all we saw was the flash of the cameras. The carriageways were completely open and the cones moved to the side of the hard shoulder, there was absolutely no need for these cameras to 'flash' and when we consider the speed limits on our narrow country lanes is 60mph, it makes it even more of a mockery. Speed cameras at the right location with cameras that also capture an image of the driver is okay by me.

Mr E said:
I agree that cameras should be sited at schools and other locations, and perhaps be time sensitive too. I had the technicalities explained in great detail to me which I didn't fully understand (not my field of expertise this radar stuff) but fixed and mobile sites also have to fit in with a number of "environmental" criteria too in order to work properly.
:) :D If you can't understand the criteria then what chance the rest of us. I totally agree about having cameras with time sensitive activation, a great idea and one I fully endorse along with traffic light controlled round-abouts :mad: :mad: Being stopped at 3am at an empty roundabout just because the traffic lights are activated is extremely frustrating.

Regards
John
 
Double clicked....
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top Bottom