Do Speed Cameras Save Lives?

RobBrady · Posted: Sat Jan 14, 2006 4:29 pm Post subject: Do Speed Cameras Save Lives?

Do Speed Cameras Save Lives?

Andrew Howard, head of road safety for the AA Motoring Trust, says that "Too many motorists see themselves as victims of speed cameras rather than the cameras improving their safety". He adds that "Speed cameras have created a nation of people torn between wanting the roads outside their houses and schools protected from speeders while wanting the freedom to interpret conditions on other people’s roads and choose the speed they see fit" .

The National Safety Camera Programme, an independent (PA Consulting Group and University College London three-year evaluation (published June 2004) reported that both casualties and deaths were down by 33% in collisions at sites where cameras were introduced. There was also a 40% reduction in fatalities (over 100) per annum.

The official line is that most fixed cameras are installed at accident ‘black spots’ where four or more serious road accidents have occurred over a three year period. This, of course means that most cameras can only be operated once several people have been killed or injured, prompting the Parliamentary Select Committee on Transport to comment "We cannot think of any other case where society as a whole is expected to bear the costs of lawbreaking, and effective law enforcement is only deployed as a last resort".

It is the joint policy of both the UK Department for Transport and the police to make the locations of these cameras as well known as possible. By the way, not only do we receive reliable camera submissions to the PocketGPSWorld.com Speed Camera Database from police officers, but we are reliably informed that several police forces 'unofficially' use the database in both their squad and private cars.

According to the RAC Foundation Speeding Factfile, excessive speed is a contributory factor in over 1,000 deaths and over 38,000 injuries every year. If you hit an adult pedestrian while driving at 30mph, the survival chance is 80%. But if you hit a pedestrian while driving at 40mph, the pedestrian’s chances of dying rises to 90%. The Department of transport claim "Broadly each 1 mph reduction in average speed is expected to cut accident frequency by 5%".

Opinions about the effectiveness of speed cameras in reducing collisions and therefore casualties often conflict...

Do you believe the statistics that say that speed cameras save lives?

Please use the poll above to vote and also post your comments below, but please remember that statistics derived from website polls only reflect the demographic of those using the site and may not be consistent with the results of other polls. However, it will be interesting to see any variance in the results over time as a result of the debate and also to compare them to 'official' surveys.
_________________
Robert Brady

Johnny_D · Posted: Sat Mar 25, 2006 3:50 pm Post subject:

I think there two fundamental things that need to be considered :

1. Where does the money go?
2. Who benefits?

If these 'camera partnerships' are run as a charitable concern then there accounts should be to the public!

If they are run as business concerns then surly that would be considered unconstitutional? (OK, I'm not american, but i'm sure we must have something similar)

Look at a lot of Speed Camera locations. None of them make any sense.
At all. Period. So how can you really justify the use of them?

Easily - Revenue Stream! I believe it is that simple.

Personally I think that the single greatest invention is the red light cameras. I'd support them on every junction! Red Light jumping has got to be dangerous, so let's camerize them!

Tailgating - Again terrible (And i don't think the proposed tail-gating cameras are going to work).

But Speed Cameras, easy money.

JD
_________________
TTG 300 Died the death of a cracked screen
Navman F20 USB Fell off
TTG 520 Third time lucky?
Bloody Superb PGPSW Camera Database.
Not much else!

astrocompass · Posted: Tue Mar 28, 2006 7:18 pm Post subject:

I'm never really sure whether it's best to start a new thread, or bump an old one. Nor am I really sure where to post on likely developments in the Safety Camera/speeding arena, so, Mods, please feel free to move as necessary.

I've already started a thread on the certainty of penalty surcharges for repeat offenders (Truth, Lies and the Safety Camera Partnerships). Although I've not shared the entire story. There's a whole lot of other stuff coming our way, and I'm happy to write about it if there's sufficient interest.

I said last time I'd write something about the exciting topic of Driver Awareness courses for those who marginally exceed the lower limits. It's difficult, however, to separate this out from the more general topic of graduated penalties - for an indication of the way Government thinking is going go here.

Driver Awareness courses are offered to those who who exceed the lower limits by a small amount ( I read in a broadsheet that one of their journos had been offered a course for doing 31mph in a 30 mph area, but I suspect a degree of journalistic licence here). The benefit of this (apart from having to take a day off work Laughing

) is that while the cost of the course is much the same as a standard fine (sometimes more), you don't get any points on your licence.

However, not all Forces offer the course; to my certain knowledge, one Force claims that it sets its threshholds for speeding so high that it won't offer the course - you get away with it. And no, I'm not telling you where Twisted Evil

. There's no consistency in its application across the country.

The next "however" is to do with repeat just-over-the-limit offenders. You're only allowed one course in a three year period - offend twice, and the second time it reverts to a fixed penalty, or worse, in theory at least. Now some Forces might - and it is a "might" - be able to identify a repeat offender on their patch.

However, let's propose that you're caught in Essex and are offered, and accept, a course instead of a fixed penalty. Two months later, you could be caught somewhere outside of Essex, and again be offered a course, because there is no way you can be identified outside of your home patch as a person who has already undertaken one Awareness course and therefore you don't qualify for another.

This is set to change with the advent of a national database. ALL those who have accepted a course instead of a fixed penalty will only get one go in a three year period. Second time at just-over-the-limit? No option other than a fixed penalty. And points on your licence.

So keep the Camera submissions flowing. Although, having said that, the change in funding mechanism might, just might, have some profound effects, depending on the wisdom and imagination of our local civil servants. I'll elaborate in due course if anyone's interested....

And Johnny_D - I do have sympathy with your views, but I think perhaps you might want to revisit the notion that a lot of speed camera locations don't make sense. If you'd said some of them don't appear to make sense, now that I could go with. And we already know where the money goes, and we know who benefits.

Phew! Sorry to be so long winded. I'll try to make the next one more interesting.

Postscript - did I just say "wisdom and imagination" and "civil servants" in the same sentence? Must be losing the plot......
_________________
Garmin 2360LT
iPaq 2210 TTN5.2

Ako · Posted: Tue Mar 28, 2006 8:51 pm Post subject:

Interesting reading. I was under the impression that the threshold for lower limit offenders was fairly consistent being 10% +2. I mentioned this in another thread and it seemed to be the agreeable norm. Obviously this is not written in stone as you can theoretically be hauled over the coals for an excess of 1mph. It seems that the law is an ass again if some forces are offering the course and some are not. When is the national database supposed to be going live?

and yes!! you did mention Wisdom, Imagination, & Civil servants in the same thread (never mind the same sentence), so I guess you must have been drinking heavily.
_________________
Holux231, XDAII Copilot 6, 1Gb Lexar SD Card

Ako · Posted: Tue Mar 28, 2006 8:52 pm Post subject:

I guess I should have said that the law is a donkey.
_________________
Holux231, XDAII Copilot 6, 1Gb Lexar SD Card

astrocompass · Posted: Tue Mar 28, 2006 9:57 pm Post subject:

nej · Posted: Thu Mar 30, 2006 10:30 am Post subject:

Did anyone read the Good Car Bad Car bit in the Sunday Times this week? There was an interesting graph that showed road deaths declining quite rapidly before speed cameras were introduced (thought to be because of increased safety in cars and a bigger public awareness of drink driving). Then speed cameras were introduced, and the number of deaths stopped dropping. In other words, the introduction of speed cameras halted a ten-year or so trend in reducing road deaths!

stuartm · Posted: Tue May 02, 2006 11:53 am Post subject:

The last report I saw for my area, Thames Valley, showed an increase in accident rates around speed camera sites following their introduction.

theboxers · Occasional Visitor Joined: Jun 17, 2005 Posts: 10

Fatality Rate

So "Safety Cameras" save lives do they! 8O

Let me be clear. I am not totally anti Camera. I just feel that most are sited in the wrong place for the wrong reasons.

The pro camera lobby would have you believe that cameras are there for prevention. Sorry don't buy it. Any camera that is not totally visible at more than a safe slowing distance (if you have drifted over the limit). Is there for revenue generation.

I like the dutch system I have seen. You get a warning sign several hundred yards before the camera. You then get a second sign shortly before the camera. If you are then flashed imo you deserved it.

Yes there is an arguement for driving sub the posted limit. However. The rate at which todays councils are lowering limits for roads and sometimes installing cameras at the same time (for no apparent reason). Leads me to think that limits are adjusted to suit/justify the installation of a camera.

A road I drive regularly went from being a NSL 60 to a 40 overnight. I do not understand why. It's non residential and quite wide. I am waiting for the talivan or gatso to appear. Another went from being a 30 to a 20 overnight, this one I do understand. It is a housing estate with 3 schools and 2 community centres on the road that winds through it.

If you want to lower a limit at least have the courtesy to notify the people using the road. A piece of A4 stuck to a lampost (I have actually seen this and it is the legal way to do it) that you drive past at anything from 30-70 mph is not good enough. The sign should be big and simple. Something like.

We will be lowering the limit on this road as of xy date to x mph. With a contact number.

After all they can stick a sign up notify us of intended road works sometimes months in advance. So why not a limit change sign.

I think a lot of people are starting to feel that some posted limits are not valid. The formerly NSL non residential Dual trunk road becoming a 40 with a camera is a good example. This leads to contempt for other limits that are fully justified.

The safest roads in europe are not so safe anymore. I think it is down to the over reliance of cameras. Get the dedicated Traffic Police backup to the 15% of the total police that they were before the introduction of cameras. By doing that I think you will see a drop in the ksi rate in the UK.

They would generate money from the speeder. But also remove the dangerous and unroadworthy as well.

Damn I can't believe I just called for more police 8O

stuartm · Posted: Mon May 08, 2006 9:24 am Post subject:

To quote the page you linked to:

"We have a provisional figure of one extra death for every 1,000 speed camera convictions."

Haven't you just proved their point? More speeding = more convictions = more deaths.

awake · Occasional Visitor Joined: May 08, 2006 Posts: 43

The majority of accidents are as a direct result of driver error or some kind of mechanical failure yet all we hear is the endless droning on about speed.
Camera partnerships are well versed in the art of figure manipulation to justify their existence.
Driving standards are plummeting in this country and this will not be addressed by the use of speed cameras in fact with the introduction of these devices we are seeing a reduction in Police traffic units which can only make things worse.
The next time you go for a drive make a note of the cause of any potential accident that you observe and I bet it's not speed!

http://www.safespeed.org.uk/

theboxers · Occasional Visitor Joined: Jun 17, 2005 Posts: 10

acmp · Regular Visitor Joined: Feb 03, 2006 Posts: 117

Wow, lots of good points.

Skippy · Posted: Mon May 15, 2006 11:56 pm Post subject: Re: Do Speed Cameras Save Lives?

martdiamond · Occasional Visitor Joined: Jul 16, 2006 Posts: 1

Most mobile speed cameras that I have had the pleasure to pass are invariably placed just inside a 30mph zone, or just over the brow of a hill, hidden behind bushes or similar, but never highly visible and in most cases not located in places of likely speeders, just your everyday..slipped slightly over the limit...not doing anything dangerous...motorists who would soon realise and correct it. Its all about money, not road safety, otherwise it would all go back into being spent on improving roads, better signage ( which could possibly mean removing some signs, sometimes it is barely possible to read them all, when they're not obscuring each other!! ) and on improving the general standard of all drivers on the roads.
Fixed cameras I dont have as big an opinion on as there arn't too many in my area but again I'm sure a lot of them are money makers not life savers!!
Red light cameras I'm all in favour of as that is a silly game certain people play...and those sort of mistakes do cost lives!!!
Finally to my point of SMILEY FACES, weve all seen them show were just over the limit and with a bit of an oh **** we soon put it right, no harm done, no points and no big fine.
Finally Finally people who habitually speed, and do it at large chunks over the limit deserve all they get but your average motorist, just over, hammered for Local Government and the Treasurey... 8)

	PocketGPS
	Web