There is a story in the Telegraph that claims that there have been fewer accidents since Swindon turned off their speed cameras last year. tinyurl.com/282gadn .
Of course, this being the British Press, there is not the slightest indication of whether the change is statistically significant. I have no idea, but the numbers look similar enough to me that I strongly suspect that the actual story is 'Turning off speed cameras makes no difference at all to accidents'. Which frankly is not much of a surprise, but nice to know.
|
As usual, we completely fail to strike the balance. It's like a pendulum swinging, we swing too far in one direction then eventually we rapidly shoot to the other end of the pendulum swing.
Overuse of cameras is bad (for hundreds of reasons, gone over many times here and elsewhere).
Some cameras, in some locations, for some purposes are good.
Underuse of cameras puts us in the technological stone age.
|
It gets better....
The speed camera partnership has been culled. Looks like Camerons Govt cuts are working...
www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-wiltshire-10853753
This will mean no more mobile units sat on the bridges over the M4 nailing people for doing slighty over the limit on an empty road
|
>> This will mean no more mobile units sat on the bridges over the M4 nailing
>> people for doing slighty over the limit on an empty road
>>
What is gained by driving at slightly over the limit ?
|
>> What is gained by driving at slightly over the limit ?
>>
Getting there quicker? The longer the journey the more difference it makes? Add up all the time in your life you sit in a car, jiggle the personal average speed figures and re-claim some of your life? Driving faster can help keep your concentration up, less chance of boredom creeping in (definitely works for me), can aid congestion.
Last edited by: Westpig on Sun 8 Aug 10 at 11:05
|
OK Wp, but it isn't life changing for the vast majority of people, and the stress of looking for cameras and other types of speed traps isnt worth it as far as I am concerned. I just set the cruise control at a satnav corrected limit. I never drive for more than two hours without a stop for a coffee and a wander about.
Last edited by: Old Navy on Sun 8 Aug 10 at 11:13
|
> Getting there quicker? The longer the journey the more difference it makes? Add up all
>> the time in your life you sit in a car, jiggle the personal average speed
>> figures and re-claim some of your life? Driving faster can help keep your concentration up,
>> less chance of boredom creeping in (definitely works for me), can aid congestion.
>>
WP.. I can hardly believe my eyes!
A serving Police Officer (Traffic no less!) advocating the use of excess speed!
That said, I agree with you 110%!
If I decide to drive slowly, perhaps to conserve fuel, I tend to find my attention drifting, and often find the need to make more stops on long journeys, than on the same trip but averaging a higher speed.
What we need IMHO is more Officers like you, and less safety cameras, as has been said many times before, it is the current conditions that should dictate the maximum speed, not some bloke in an office guessing.... ie 90 on an empty dry motorway can be ok, 30 on the same stretch, in fog or ice can be too much.....
|
Aren't the vast majority of cameras located in built up areas or on A roads where speeding (except at excessive speeds) would make little difference to most people's journeys? - Which after all are quite short - Now correct anticipating of traffic lights, getting roundabouts right, etc, would save a lot more time and money... but instead most people belt it between lights, brake hard, etc., which saves them no time, wears the car out quicker and is more stressful and wastes money... My 20 mile commute, 27 mins belting it, 30 mins keeping to the limits but driving smoothly... bit of a no-brainer isn't it!
I'm with ON in the main on this, though I do exceed the limit by 5mph or so on the motorway... which is what I assume WP is on about...
Last edited by: hobby on Sun 8 Aug 10 at 11:34
|
>> This will mean no more mobile units sat on the bridges over the M4 nailing
>> people for doing slighty over the limit on an empty road
They dont do people for doing "slightly over the limit", on the m4 they will do you for speed in excess of 79mph. Which is probably nearer 85 mph on your speedo.
And anyway, if you dont seem them you are not safe at speed.
|
Oh good, I hoped for an interesting debate about how statistics are abused to suit political agendas, and we get the standard speed camera thread again. Sorry about that.
Actually, I suppose the abuse is so obvious that perhaps there is no surprise and little to talk about. Hohum.
|
What is gained by driving at slightly over the limit ?
A bit off the speed camera topic, but driving down to SW France as I do a fair bit, 10 mph faster on the whole mainly motorway journey can cut up to 2 hours off the time - say 12 hours down to 10. Good enough for me - but very painful on the pocket with the very significantly worsened fuel consumption!
Get out of bed 2 hours earlier you may say. My response is that at my age I can manage 10 hours driving in a day with appropriate coffee stops, but at about 12 hours in a day I reckon I'm too tired and a danger to myself and other road users.
|
Perhaps wp can confirm the reality of the situation, but the public perception of the proliferation of cameras is that it coincided with the reduction, redeployment and diversification of the UK's dedicated traffic police divisions. In other words, cameras ended up sometimes replacing human policing of our roads instead of complimenting it.
Assuming there is truth in this perception, it is logical to conclude that deactivating cameras without reversing some of the road policing policies of the last government will result in a significant fall in risk of prosecution for speeding, to add to the perceived fall in risk for being brought to book for other forms of motoring offence that we have perceived over the last decade.
I agree with the posts above that cameras are a good idea which has been badly abused. However, if they really did "replace" something, and they are now going, what is going to replace them? Will the roads really be safer?
|
What an excelent summary DP!
Now has anyone in that area asked the questions?
|
Alas, this comes at a time when front line officers may also be reduced due to government cuts. No-one looks at the picture as a whole, merely spout statistics about a specific bonnet bee.
Of course the answer is up to us at the end of the day. Cameras go, and if we want them to stay gone, we need to drive better to keep the accident statistics as is.
Will we all? alas I fear not.
Last edited by: Zero on Mon 9 Aug 10 at 09:28
|
|
There is talk in Germany over many years but will eventually come that the will stop the unlimited sections of autobahn and bring in a 120kph limit then the coffers in Germany will be full of speeding fines.I just do not see a German driving his 300kph Porshe or Mercedes at 120k.
|
given the carnage often seen on German unrestricted autobahns, is this bad thing?
Its only the power of the german auto makers that stops the EU putting a blanket top speed on all of europe.
|
>> given the carnage often seen on German unrestricted autobahns, is this bad thing?
Actually, according to the accident stats here, only 12% of road accidents and 20% of fatal road accidents happen on the autobahns. The main cause of autobahn accidents is considered to be drowsiness (25%).
|
>>considered to be drowsiness (25%)<<
Caused by cruise control?
Pat
|
>> Caused by cruise control?
Caused, probably, by driving too long.
There was a nasty and well publicised crash a few years back when a guy in a van dozed off whilst driving through a set of roadworks. The van went over the barriers into the oncoming traffic. The guy's kids were in the van and died in the crash as did the occupants of the car he hit. He survived. Most of the bad accidents I see on the autobahn are either in roadworks or speed restricted sections.
|
>> Perhaps wp can confirm the reality of the situation, >>
There used to be a percentage number that police forces had to have a certain percentage of their police officers employed as traffic cops. That has totally gone out of the window. The numbers now are very, very low...and that is to the detriment of any kind of road crime, inc very poor driving or very poor maintenance (both of which low life indulge in regularly). It is exceptionally short sighted. How do crooks get about?
For the record, I have never been in traffic... and apart from PC Pedant winding up the generally law abiding by being overly officious on minor stuff...think they are very much needed, but fast becoming an extinct species.
I'm pleased the over reliance on speed cameras is now going down the pan..all it did was make a nation of drivers glue their eyes to the speedo (and miss other things)...or habitually mimse to the irritance of those with a brain and some vision. Cameras occasionally in genuine accident hotspots i'd have no problem with, as after all when you saw it, you'd know there was a problem and take care.
|
|
DP - interesting to think that the public perhaps link the reduction of dedicated 'traffic' units to the proliferation of the speed camera. Who can blame that thinking? But has anybody noticed the rise in government policing targets/measures with the reduction in traffic units? I can't see anything in recent measurement that supports the need for traffic units. Whilst the old argument that criminals travel by car is patently true, you don't need traffic cops to stop them - any officer can do that. Chief Constables are bound to deploy officers where they'll be most effective in pursuit of what the Home Office is measuring. Theresa May recently said that all she wants is crime reduction. No need for 'traffic' then. Not a view I support incidentally.
|
>> This will mean no more mobile units sat on the bridges over the M4 nailing people for doing slighty over the limit on an empty road
Don't jump into conclusion so soon!
This Sunday I saw police with speed gun in Westbound M4!
|
>> Overuse of cameras is bad (for hundreds of reasons, gone over many times here and
>> elsewhere).
>>
>> Some cameras, in some locations, for some purposes are good.
I agree. Cameras at accident hot spots is a good idea. But that excludes most of them. Still, this really is the best real world experiment imaginable. The Swindon results look statistically insignificant i.e. as good as no change. We'll soon know if the anti-camera brigade are right, or Brake are right. I saw today that speed camera partnerships were whining loudly about the two cameras left on in Oxfordshire, and the increased speeding. I think the truth is that turning off the cameras means lots of job losses, and empires destroyed. No wonder they are whining.
|
>>Cameras at accident hot spots is a good idea.
Surely Cameras anywhere there is speeding is a good idea, irrespective of accidents. Unless of course the speed limit is unrealistic.
Taking cameras away is, IMO, bad. As bad as relying on them. They are a tool and should be part of the tool box. Not the onlt tool, nor the only tool missing.
Last edited by: No FM2R on Wed 11 Aug 10 at 18:33
|
>> Surely Cameras anywhere there is speeding is a good idea, irrespective of >>accidents. Unless of course the speed limit is unrealistic.
>>
The problem with cameras is they are too rigid a tool.
Do you really want someone prosecuted at 0500 hours on a bright sunny morning for causing no danger whatsoever...or a GP rushing to an ill patient.....or Great Aunt Maude for doing 36mph in a 30mph limit on the straightest widest bit of road for miles, but it's in an urban area so it's got to be 30?
No one would mind the speeding AND dangerous/careless being done, every time.... but they do mind their mother/sister/brother/son being hassled for minor or very minor stuff.
All that happens now is Great Aunt Maude now drives no faster than 40mph anywhere and has her eyes glued constantly to the speedo. Marvellous. Wouldn't want my kid to step out in front of her.
|
>> Surely Cameras anywhere there is speeding is a good idea, irrespective of accidents. Unless of course the speed limit is unrealistic.
WP has made the point, but I'll chime in. Doing 30 mph on a road with a 30 mph limit is not safe when there are lots of parked cars around and groups of children all over the place. But on a nice day with no one about, and assuming no hidden hazards, wide pavements, then 40 mph might be very safe. Can a camera make that distinction? No. So the council wonk sets the speed limit to 20 mph and erects a speed camera to enforce a limit which is rarely appropriate. Then people develop contempt for speed limits and cameras.
Basically point of road safety measure should not be to enforce speed limits, but to increase safety. There are some areas, such as near a dodgy junction, or before a hidden driveway, where enforcing a limit definitely can reduce accidents.
|
www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-10911436
It seems the Welsh are different. It will be interesting to see if his doom mongering is correct. A good Welsh name there too :-)
JH
Last edited by: Tooslow on Mon 9 Aug 10 at 12:34
|
"Chief Con Mick Giannasi, of Gwent Police, said casualties had almost halved over an eight year period due to the use of speed cameras."
So drink driving campaigns have had NO effect.
Safer cars have had NO effect.
Policing has had NO effect.
It's all down to speed cameras..
The man's a right plonker as he is effectively saying the Traffic Police are a waste of money.
Maybe they are of course. but anyone who makes a sweeping statement like that... Ah He's ACPO.. Well that explains it.. Bunch of self interested self promoting .##### (word removed as it's true )
Last edited by: madf on Mon 9 Aug 10 at 15:48
|
Noticed the other day when mentioned on BBC they seem to wheel out a spokesperson for BRAKE. However, I was thinking where do BRAKE get their money - I cant think they get this from anywhere but the government - or do they have other avenues to get their money - car companies, RAC etc?
Interesting thought.
|
From the Brake website.
Brake is funded by fundraising and donations from individuals, sponsorship by companies, and grants from private institutions and government. We also receive income from subscriptions and sales. We are a medium sized charity with an annual income ranging from between £650,000 and £1,000,000 (UK pounds). We have modest reserves of usually around six months’ running costs.
www.brake.org.uk/about-brake
|
So a pressure group can register as a charity. How very odd, he said mildly.
JH
|
Brake is a registered charity and from its 2008 accounst works on ashoestring..
eg 19 employees,,, cost £621k.##
Clearly a charity for the employees..
##
www.guidestar.org.uk/gs_organ.aspx?CCReg=oqhXJpeshoHaJX63PkxWHQ%3d%3d&strQuery=
|
One of the main problems on German autobahns are the users coming across Europe from the old Communist countries with no sleep, trying to beat the weekend ban on commercials,poor pay, there are numerous reasons.And I agree the German motor industry rules the roost.
Its said in Germany a man when he is born his mother controls him when he is married his wife controls him when he is it work his boss controls him and his only chance of making a decision on his own is when he drives his car on the autobahn alone. Hence the big fast motors are called widow makers with good reason.
|
Apparently they left two of the cameras on in Oxfordshire. No pictures were taken, no prosections will take place, but the one at Cowley has had an increase of - wait for it - 81% in motorists speeding past it in excess of the speed limt. They also left another one on, and this has had an increase of 18%.
|
|
Would you speed past a camera because somebody said it was switched off I certainly wouldn,t take the risk.
|
>> 81% more did.
>>
Some of that 81% would have anyway....the cameras always had a regualr supply of customers with brain in nuetral
|
Turning off cameras 'reduces accidents' in Swindon - Skoda
