Speeding fine- im shocked.

[DT Ralge]

And that's after Oxfordshire and Swindon turned their cameras off...

 

Oxfordshire's cameras are being turned back on.

[DT Ralge]

Whilst I believe nobody with a modicum of spatial awareness and reasoning ability could disagree that lower speeds will reduce the frequency and severity of accidents' date=' I feel that you reduce the credibility of your arguments by providing data regarding [i']speed limits[/i] as evidence for the effectiveness of speed cameras.

 

I'm not sure what you are looking for by way of stats but you could try here:

http://www.slowitdown.co.uk/F-O-I.html#How_we_make_decisions

[Lockjaw]

I'm not sure what you are looking for by way of stats but you could try here:

http://www.slowitdown.co.uk/F-O-I.html#How_we_make_decisions

 

Hiya DT.

 

Thanks but I wasn't looking for stats - I was just trying to point out to Spinny that evidence for the fact that lower speeds are safer is NOT the same as evidence that speed cameras are effective. They are two completely different issues.

 

Sadly, he didn't seem to get it. I assume my language was too pompous.

[Cyclone]

It's Oxford, and they've seen a sharp increase in speeding:

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-oxfordshire-10929488

 

Which agree's with what you keep saying, speed camera's reduce speeds. But not with the conclusion you keep drawing (which this contradicts) that higher speeds = more accidents and casualties.

 

QED - speed cameras don't make the roads any safer.

[spindrift]

Which agree's with what you keep saying, speed camera's reduce speeds. But not with the conclusion you keep drawing (which this contradicts) that higher speeds = more accidents and casualties.

 

QED - speed cameras don't make the roads any safer.

 

 

Are speed cameras effective?

 

Each year around 350 people are killed in crashes involving someone exceeding the speed limit.

 

Drivers and riders who are travelling at inappropriate speeds are more likely to crash and their higher speed means that the crash will cause more severe injuries, to themselves or to other road users. Inappropriate speed also magnifies other driver errors, such as driving too close or driving when fatigued or distracted, multiplying the chances of these types of driving causing an accident.

 

Cameras are a very effective way of persuading drivers not to speed, and thereby reducing the number of people killed and seriously injured.

 

They significantly reduce speeding and collisions, and cut deaths and serious injuries at camera sites by 42 per cent.

 

Research shows that:

 

Cameras Cut Speeds

 

* The number of vehicles exceeding the speed limit at fixed camera sites fell by 70%, and at mobile camera sites by 18%

 

 

* Excessive speeding (15mph or more above the limit) fell by 91% at fixed sites and by 36% at mobile sites

 

 

* Average vehicle speed across all new sites fell by 6% overall.

 

Cameras Save Lives

 

* The number of people killed or seriously injured fell by 42% at camera sites. This means there were 1,745 fewer people killed or seriously injured at the camera sites per year - including 100 fewer deaths per year

 

 

* The number of people killed and seriously injured fell by 50% at fixed sites and by 35% at mobile sites

 

 

* There was a 32% reduction in the number of children killed and seriously injured at camera sites

 

 

 

* The number of pedestrians killed or seriously injured fell by 29% at camera sites.

 

Cameras Prevent Crashes

 

* There was a 22% reduction in collisions involving (fatal, serious or slight) personal injury at camera sites.

 

http://www.rospa.com/faqs/detail.aspx?faq=398

[Rampent]

Hands up, who never speeds? Even bus drivers do. In buses.

[DT Ralge]

Hiya DT.

 

Thanks but I wasn't looking for stats - I was just trying to point out to Spinny that evidence for the fact that lower speeds are safer is NOT the same as evidence that speed cameras are effective. They are two completely different issues.

 

Sadly, he didn't seem to get it. I assume my language was too pompous.

 

And if you'd checked the site, you have seen some figures on the reduction in PIC's and KSI's at the fixed and mobile camera sites in Derbyshire (3yrs prior to camera installation compared to 3years after.)

 

Just pointing out that cameras HAVE played a role. Smaller role than many assume ( in ignorance of other interventions the authorities make). The authorities (safety camera partnerships are lamentably poor at PR and miss every opportunity, it seems, to raise awareness amongst the public. Hence the ill-informed and bigoted (I.e. Refusing to change your mind in spite of significant counter-evidence) "debate" on here that refuses to move away from a starting point of "everything the authorities do is stupid."

[R i chy]

I went out shoplifting and I got nicked - and the thing about it that gets me is there weren't even any police or security visible, the sneaky so-and-sos used plain clothes store detectives and cameras that were hidden away - I'm shocked.

 

It's a bit off, being as it was a first time, you'd have thought they'd let me go wouldn't you?

 

I can't believe how many stores are using security cameras these days - it's terrible. Just part of the Government's "War on the Shoplifter" if you ask me.

 

You'd get a lesser punishment for a first time shop lifting offence.

 

The difference between shoplifting and speeding is that 100% of the time, shop lifting isn't a victimless crime, where as 99.9% of the time, speeding is a victimless crime.

 

So you're mocking the fact that the OP thinks it's less of a crime when actually it is.

 

 

 

And just on a seperate personal note on speed cameras. What's the first thing every driver does when they see a speed camera? Take their eyes off the road to look at the speedo..

[DT Ralge]

You'd get a lesser punishment for a first time shop lifting offence.

 

The difference between shoplifting and speeding is that 100% of the time, shop lifting isn't a victimless crime, where as 99.9% of the time, speeding is a victimless crime.

 

So you're mocking the fact that the OP thinks it's less of a crime when actually it is.

 

 

And just on a seperate personal note on speed cameras. What's the first thing every driver does when they see a speed camera? Take their eyes off the road to look at the speedo..

 

not EVERY driver does that - there are those that haven't seen the camera (or anything else perhaps) and there are those that don't need to see the camera having spotted the speed limit as an indication of the hazard level and done something to reflect the change.

There are those who are supported in their never-ending ignorance or flouting of the simplest of road traffic laws by the endless single-issue, blinkered whining on here and elsewhere.

 

Speed doesn't kill, impact speed (excessive acceleration or deceleration force) kills and impacts happen all too often in lower speed limit areas (500 pedestrian deaths out of the 2222 total in yr.2009.)

What hope have these got of dealing with the far more complex end of the spectrum of driving tasks if they consistently fail to pick up the clues and miss hazard levels rising and the signage that goes with it? i.e. signs tend to be static and predictably placed and generally reasonably visible, moving hazards are, by definition, not static and therefore not as predictable and, in the case of pedestrians in the dark, pretty invisible.

[Lockjaw]

And if you'd checked the site, you have seen some figures on the reduction in PIC's and KSI's at the fixed and mobile camera sites in Derbyshire (3yrs prior to camera installation compared to 3years after.)

 

Just pointing out that cameras HAVE played a role. Smaller role than many assume ( in ignorance of other interventions the authorities make). The authorities (safety camera partnerships are lamentably poor at PR and miss every opportunity, it seems, to raise awareness amongst the public. Hence the ill-informed and bigoted (I.e. Refusing to change your mind in spite of significant counter-evidence) "debate" on here that refuses to move away from a starting point of "everything the authorities do is stupid."

 

Crikey spiders, am I posting in a foreign language here!?

 

I'm not denying that cameras are effective. Neither am I denying that lower speeds are "safer".

 

I was simply pointing out that evidence for the latter (which is what Spinny provided) is not, necessarily, evidence for the former (which is what Spinny was suggesting). That was all. Are we there yet? Do you accept that evidence supporting the claim that lower speeds are safer is not, in itself, evidence for the efficacy of speed cameras?

 

No end of data scrutiny is going to change the fact that he presented a logically fallacious argument. I merely wished to make the point that by doing so he weakened his credibility.

 

For what it's worth, I chose to do so because I largely agree with his points but I feel his boorish and, in this case, flawed presentation of evidence is counter productive; turning people away from his points because they are put out by the delivery.