GrannyGranny Posted March 17, 2011 Share Posted March 17, 2011 Spindrift - Speeding in itself is not dangerous and does not necessarily result in "bullying or aggressive behaviour". Inappropiate speeding is dangerous and can lead to an increase in RTAs. Cameras on their own are not the answer proven by the removal and deactivation of a lot of GATSOs and similar cameras in this country in the last 1-2 years. Average speed cameras sited on known accident blackspots and in roadworks are justified IMO. What really needs to change is driver attitude and education especially young newly qualified drivers. Learning to drive shouldn't end after you have passed your test. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cyclone Posted March 17, 2011 Share Posted March 17, 2011 there does not have to be an accident for speeding to be anti-social behaviour. Speeding is never a victimless crime, it's bullying, aggressive behaviour. Yep, I scared a whole bunch of old people yesterday when I hit 65 in a 60 zone on an empty road. There were victims left right and centre, on this empty road. Terrified cyclists, old people, other vehicle drivers, all there on this empty road. So many victims I lost count! Do you actually have a reply to this, maybe a copy and paste? Why not just leave the house 5 minutes earlier? The new ANPR cameras will catch other bad driver behaviour, tail-gating and erratic driving: http://www.car-advise.co.uk/2010/08/new-fixed-anpr-cameras-beware/ These will also catch uninsured drivers. I imagine the anti-camera brigade will consider this an outrageous intrusion and people who forget to insure their car should be allowed to drive around, costing the rest of us £400m a year in the accidents, deaths and misery they cause. The new 20mph zones in London will be covered by these cameras: 20mph speed limits cut London road injuries by 40%, survey claims Researchers call for similar restrictions in all metropolitan areas of the UK Imposing 20mph speed limits on London streets has cut road injuries by 40% claimed researchers , who want similar restrictions in all metropolitan areas of the UK. The capital's 20mph zones were particularly useful in saving young children from death and injury, said researchers from the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/dec/11/20mph-london-speed-limit Reducing speeds save lives, cameras play an important part in reducing speeds. Although many drivers dislike the idea of speed cameras, a study of international research showed on Wednesday that this kind of monitoring of roads does cut the number of traffic injuries and deaths. The study was conducted by Australia's University of Queensland. They analyzed 35 studies from Australia, the United States, Canada, Germany, Denmark, Finland, Britain, Hong Kong, the Netherlands, New Zealand and Norway and saw the usefulness of speed cameras in preventing accidents. Collated findings from all the studies showed that speed cameras cut the average speed by 1-15 percent and the percentage of vehicles that exceeded local speed limits between 14 percent and 65 percent. The numbers of crashes in the areas of the cameras also fell by between 8 percent and 49 percent, while fatal or serious injury crashes reduced by between 11 percent and 44 percent. http://www.news-medical.net/news/20101006/Speed-cameras-reduce-road-accidents-significantly-Study.aspx Have accidents and/or injuries increased in Oxfordshire? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spindrift Posted March 17, 2011 Share Posted March 17, 2011 Yep, I scared a whole bunch of old people yesterday when I hit 65 in a 60 zone on an empty road. There were victims left right and centre, on this empty road. Terrified cyclists, old people, other vehicle drivers, all there on this empty road. So many victims I lost count! You went back along the road and asked all the other road users, residents in houses nearby, cyclists trying to join the road and pedestrians walking by the road if they were adversely affected by your criminal behaviour? No. Of course not. So you have no idea whether your illegal actions affected anyone. A week after the cameras were switched off in Oxfordshire, the Thames Valley Road Safety Partnership, which previously oversaw the operation of speed cameras in the county, performed an outside broadcast for Radio 4. They examined the offence rates at two fixed camera sites that had been decommissioned on 1 August. The results showed an increase in offence rate of 18 per cent at the first site and 88 per cent at the second. The One Show then asked the Partnership to visit some sites one month after switch-off to see whether the trend had changed or continued. Checks from those visits resulted in a report, ‘The Speed Camera Switch-Off: One Month On’, which found that by 23 August, the increase in offence rates was 2.6x (3x compared to 2009 averages). Nine days later, offence rates had increased to 3.2x (3.9x compared to 2009). The results, although only at a limited number of locations for a short period of time, indicate that motorists do alter their speed choices when they know a fixed speed camera is not loaded. Even the most conservative analysis shows a 2.9 to 4 times increase in offending at sites only one month after the switch-off. If seasonal variations and more recent offence rates are used then the increases are significantly higher. The report’s authors said that local authorities around the country should bear these results in mind if they are considering adopting a similar approach to Oxfordshire, as the deterrent effect of the camera housing alone is diminished by public announcements regarding their operational capacity. It will be several months before casualty data can tell the partnership if there’s a correlation between the increase in offence rates and an increase in recorded injury collisions. With many local authorities still discussing the impact of at least 27 per cent cuts to their road safety budgets, RoSPA feared that decisions could be taken hastily which may prove irreversible. Speed cameras reduce speeding and save lives: Cameras are a very effective way of persuading drivers not to speed, and thereby reducing the number of people killed and seriously injured. An evaluation of their effectiveness in 20052 showed that they were saving around 100 lives a year, and preventing over 1,600 serious injuries. A wide range of UK and international research studies consistently show that cameras are very effective at saving lives.3 Public support There is strong public support for cameras: The original Safety Camera Partnerships commissioned surveys in their areas to assess the public’s views about cameras. The level of support was consistently high with 79 per cent of people agreeing “the use of safety cameras should be supported as a method of reducing casualties”. Two thirds (68 per cent) of those questioned agreed that the primary use of cameras was to save lives.2 Notes 1.Contributory factors to reported road accidents, Department for Transport, 2010. 2.The National Safety Camera Programme: Four-year Evaluation Report by University College London & PA Consulting. Published by Department for Transport, December 2005 3.RoSPA Speed CamerasFactsheet 2010, RoSPA, 2010 4.Police Powers and Procedures 2008/09, England and Wales, Home Office April 2010 5.Safety camera vans now enforcing mobile phone and seat belt offences, Kent & Medway Safety Camera Partnership News Release, 8 Sept 2009 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cyclone Posted March 17, 2011 Share Posted March 17, 2011 You went back along the road and asked all the other road users, residents in houses nearby, cyclists trying to join the road and pedestrians walking by the road if they were adversely affected by your criminal behaviour? I told you that the road was empty... There are no houses. There is no footpath, there were no roads joining. Where are you victims now? No. Of course not. So you have no idea whether your illegal actions affected anyone. I do, unless there were invisible road users around. A week after the cameras were switched off in Oxfordshire, the Thames Valley Road Safety Partnership, which previously oversaw the operation of speed cameras in the county, performed an outside broadcast for Radio 4. They examined the offence rates at two fixed camera sites that had been decommissioned on 1 August. The results showed an increase in offence rate of 18 per cent at the first site and 88 per cent at the second. Irrelevant, we're interested in safety, not the number of people who speed. The One Show then asked the Partnership to visit some sites one month after switch-off to see whether the trend had changed or continued. Checks from those visits resulted in a report, ‘The Speed Camera Switch-Off: One Month On’, which found that by 23 August, the increase in offence rates was 2.6x (3x compared to 2009 averages). Nine days later, offence rates had increased to 3.2x (3.9x compared to 2009). The results, although only at a limited number of locations for a short period of time, indicate that motorists do alter their speed choices when they know a fixed speed camera is not loaded. Even the most conservative analysis shows a 2.9 to 4 times increase in offending at sites only one month after the switch-off. If seasonal variations and more recent offence rates are used then the increases are significantly higher. The report’s authors said that local authorities around the country should bear these results in mind if they are considering adopting a similar approach to Oxfordshire, as the deterrent effect of the camera housing alone is diminished by public announcements regarding their operational capacity. It will be several months before casualty data can tell the partnership if there’s a correlation between the increase in offence rates and an increase in recorded injury collisions. With many local authorities still discussing the impact of at least 27 per cent cuts to their road safety budgets, RoSPA feared that decisions could be taken hastily which may prove irreversible. Speed cameras reduce speeding and save lives: You keep making this claim, but have little or no evidence to support it. Speed cameras reduce speeds at spot points on the highway. It's unlikely in a lot of cases that this actually improves road safety. Cameras are a very effective way of persuading drivers not to speed, and thereby reducing the number of people killed and seriously injured. Conclusion not supported by the preceding statement. An evaluation of their effectiveness in 20052 showed that they were saving around 100 lives a year, and preventing over 1,600 serious injuries. A biased evaluation no doubt. A wide range of UK and international research studies consistently show that cameras are very effective at saving lives.3 Public support There is strong public support for cameras: I'm not sure that you being in favour counts as strong support. The original Safety Camera Partnerships commissioned surveys in their areas to assess the public’s views about cameras. The level of support was consistently high with 79 per cent of people agreeing “the use of safety cameras should be supported as a method of reducing casualties”. Two thirds (68 per cent) of those questioned agreed that the primary use of cameras was to save lives.2 Funny, when we did a similar survey on here a far smaller % supported them... Weird how the organisation with a lot to gain commissions a survey and finds people in favour. In related news, Foxes Inc report that 98% of hens are in favour of a relaxation of hen protection from fox measures. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John1954 Posted March 17, 2011 Share Posted March 17, 2011 You went back along the road and asked all the other road users, residents in houses nearby, cyclists trying to join the road and pedestrians walking by the road if they were adversely affected by your criminal behaviour? No. Of course not. So you have no idea whether your illegal actions affected anyone. A week after the cameras were switched off in Oxfordshire, the Thames Valley Road Safety Partnership, which previously oversaw the operation of speed cameras in the county, performed an outside broadcast for Radio 4. They examined the offence rates at two fixed camera sites that had been decommissioned on 1 August. The results showed an increase in offence rate of 18 per cent at the first site and 88 per cent at the second. The One Show then asked the Partnership to visit some sites one month after switch-off to see whether the trend had changed or continued. Checks from those visits resulted in a report, ‘The Speed Camera Switch-Off: One Month On’, which found that by 23 August, the increase in offence rates was 2.6x (3x compared to 2009 averages). Nine days later, offence rates had increased to 3.2x (3.9x compared to 2009). The results, although only at a limited number of locations for a short period of time, indicate that motorists do alter their speed choices when they know a fixed speed camera is not loaded. Even the most conservative analysis shows a 2.9 to 4 times increase in offending at sites only one month after the switch-off. If seasonal variations and more recent offence rates are used then the increases are significantly higher. The report’s authors said that local authorities around the country should bear these results in mind if they are considering adopting a similar approach to Oxfordshire, as the deterrent effect of the camera housing alone is diminished by public announcements regarding their operational capacity. It will be several months before casualty data can tell the partnership if there’s a correlation between the increase in offence rates and an increase in recorded injury collisions. With many local authorities still discussing the impact of at least 27 per cent cuts to their road safety budgets, RoSPA feared that decisions could be taken hastily which may prove irreversible. Speed cameras reduce speeding and save lives: Cameras are a very effective way of persuading drivers not to speed, and thereby reducing the number of people killed and seriously injured. An evaluation of their effectiveness in 20052 showed that they were saving around 100 lives a year, and preventing over 1,600 serious injuries. A wide range of UK and international research studies consistently show that cameras are very effective at saving lives.3 Public support There is strong public support for cameras: The original Safety Camera Partnerships commissioned surveys in their areas to assess the public’s views about cameras. The level of support was consistently high with 79 per cent of people agreeing “the use of safety cameras should be supported as a method of reducing casualties”. Two thirds (68 per cent) of those questioned agreed that the primary use of cameras was to save lives.2 Notes 1.Contributory factors to reported road accidents, Department for Transport, 2010. 2.The National Safety Camera Programme: Four-year Evaluation Report by University College London & PA Consulting. Published by Department for Transport, December 2005 3.RoSPA Speed CamerasFactsheet 2010, RoSPA, 2010 4.Police Powers and Procedures 2008/09, England and Wales, Home Office April 2010 5.Safety camera vans now enforcing mobile phone and seat belt offences, Kent & Medway Safety Camera Partnership News Release, 8 Sept 2009 It is a self-evident truth that reducing speed reduces accidents and therefore saves lives. However, it does not automatically follow that speed limits should be set at a level which saves the most lives. The natural progression of such a policy would be to keep lowering limits, until eventually we would reach the limit achieved by having a man with a flag walk in front of the vehicle. Society must do a cost/benefit analysis and decide how many deaths are acceptable in order to continue enjoying the obvious benefits of motoring. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cyclone Posted March 17, 2011 Share Posted March 17, 2011 It's not self evident (or evident at all) that speed cameras effectively improve road safety though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spindrift Posted March 17, 2011 Share Posted March 17, 2011 I told you that the road was empty... There are no houses. There is no footpath, there were no roads joining. Where is this road surrounded by emptiness? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spindrift Posted March 17, 2011 Share Posted March 17, 2011 Society must do a cost/benefit analysis and decide how many deaths are acceptable in order to continue enjoying the obvious benefits of motoring. Zero road deaths is the stated aim of Sweden's Project Zero. They've achieved spectacular results: http://www.dft.gov.uk/rmd/project.asp?intProjectID=11730 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spindrift Posted March 17, 2011 Share Posted March 17, 2011 It's not self evident (or evident at all) that speed cameras effectively improve road safety though. International research demonstrates you are quite wrong: Speed cameras reduce speeding and save lives: Cameras are a very effective way of persuading drivers not to speed, and thereby reducing the number of people killed and seriously injured. An evaluation of their effectiveness in 20052 showed that they were saving around 100 lives a year, and preventing over 1,600 serious injuries. A wide range of UK and international research studies consistently show that cameras are very effective at saving lives.3 Speed cameras save money: Not only do safety cameras save lives and prevent injury, they also save the public purse many millions of pounds. Apart from their human cost, road accidents are extremely expensive in financial terms. Safety cameras more than pay for themselves, and so from a purely financial point of view, cutting them does not make sense. The four year evaluation of the national safety camera programme estimated that the annual economic benefit of cameras in place at the end of the fourth year was over £258 million, compared with enforcement costs of about £96 million.2 Cameras are educational, not just punitive: Cameras are an effective way of identifying drivers who would benefit from attending a Speed Awareness Course, and so they provide a good opportunity to re-educate, and not just punish, drivers who are caught speeding but who are not massively violating speed limits. These courses are now becoming available across the country. Even where drivers are fined and given penalty points, this acts as a warning to the driver to consider their driving before they begin to tot-up further points, with the risk of being disqualified if they gain 12 or more points. Notes 1.Contributory factors to reported road accidents, Department for Transport, 2010. 2.The National Safety Camera Programme: Four-year Evaluation Report by University College London & PA Consulting. Published by Department for Transport, December 2005 3.RoSPA Speed CamerasFactsheet 2010, RoSPA, 2010 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cyclone Posted March 17, 2011 Share Posted March 17, 2011 Where is this road surrounded by emptiness? Nobody mentioned emptiness. I did mention no footpath, no roads joining it. There's lots of examples of that kind of road, starting with every motorway (although they aren't often empty), followed by many many A-roads, obviously no roads joining applies for a given length only. Where do you think these pedestrians and cyclists were hiding? Up the embankments and behind the tree's at the top? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.