Speed Camera's - Cash Cows.

[DT Ralge]

So would you agree that those cameras that have NOT reduced accidents should now be removed totally , as they have failed to do what they were put there to do ........ reduce accidents ( if you believe the offical line) .?

 

To leave those cameras in place will only go to prove they are NOT there to reduce accidents ................... they are there to RAISE REVENUE.

 

I hesitate to direct you to my essay of a post (sorry it was so long, folks) that tried to explain the complexity and variance of KSI stats that any site and any individual attending PC might generate over a period.

But like I say, they can take the camera away from my (driving) standpoint and it will make no difference to my driving. Sadly, with barely average driving skills that abound mixed with samples of poor driver attitude sometimes expressed on here, I'm not so sure other drivers could say the same. Whether the outcomes would be worse, the same or better, I'm not sure. Only broke Councils (rather than brave) have tried getting rid of cameras.

[Cyclone]

And in doing so they might just be believing what the "man in the pub" told them and refuse to allow a grain of truth to be seen through a pile of half-truths and misinformation. I am not four-square behind the use of cameras - I'd prefer flesh-and-blood PC's making live judgments on drivers' actions and having an immediate discreet word with the driver. But continuing to propagate/peddle blanket anti-camera sentiments does nothing by way of encouraging drivers to develop their hazard perception and lets them off the hook somewhat - their driving skills ought to be at a standard where they recognise a change in limit along with every other warning sign, road paint and surfacing so I have never suggested that driving by numbers is safe. But missing, ignoring changes in limits and getting snapped by a camera could be indicative of a standard of driver attitude, awareness and focus that falls way short of a reasonable minimum. Your constant banging on along the "scamera" route does nothing to encourage the drivers to consider that their "momentary AWOL-ness suggests, as a trigger-event, that they ought to develop their driving skills a little/a lot i.e. my main focus.

 

I'm don't dislike cameras on the basis that I've been caught by one though, my hazard perception appears to be up to the job. I do dislike being lied to by the government and that's a perfectly valid reason to object to the proliferation of cameras.

No doubt some of them are well situated, and if they had been used appropriately then there wouldn't be a 'scamera' argument to make. The councils that used them as a means to generate revenue have created the reality of the scam and now they reap what they sow.

I don't think I'm obliged to help other drivers consider why they've been snapped, with regards to cameras I'm not interested in other drivers at all, I'm interested in the government being held to account and being forced to be honest about the reasons for doing things. If that means a portion of cameras will be shown to be ineffective at increasing road safety and will then be removed, good.

[Cyclone]

Like I said earlier, define safety.

In the case of cameras it's already well defined, so rather than define it I could explain it to you... But then maybe you should just think about it yourself.

If the number of accidents in the close vicinity of the camera is statistically lower after it's installed then safety has increased. If it isn't, then it hasn't.

Simple when you think about it.

 

If I'm crossing the road in a village with a 30mph limit, I'd like to know that the cars driving are doing 30mph and won't be bearing down on me at speed, no matter if I'm crossing the road or at a zebra or pelican crossing.

 

I've lost count of the cars speeding down Beaver Hill Road at Woodhouse who've sped through the zebra crossing while people are on it.

Presumably if that crossing is dangerous there have been accidents on it?

 

But the fact is, anyone who defends a speed camera on here is soon slated by those against them - usually referring to them being a "do gooder" or can do no wrong or some other sly dig.

If you defend all speed cameras then I might suggest that you aren't really interested in whether a specific camera actually increases road safety or not. I can't help what other people call you.

Why do you feel the need to attack a poster just because they follow the law and cameras don't affect them because they drive to the limits?

I don't. Why have you suggested that I do?

BTW - If you're claiming that you never ever speed, then I simply don't believe you. I've lost track of the number of people who make that claim and then fail within 5 minutes of a ride along.

[DT Ralge]

I don't think I'm obliged to help other drivers consider why they've been snapped, with regards to cameras I'm not interested in other drivers at all, I'm interested in the government being held to account and being forced to be honest about the reasons for doing things. If that means a portion of cameras will be shown to be ineffective at increasing road safety and will then be removed, good.

 

Indeed, your job is not to help other drivers consider why they've been snapped.

Your own hazard perception may, indeed, be up to scratch. But with the camera on Eccy Road South (one that has not seen a decrease in serious crashes over the years), what view do you take of the drivers who get snapped by that camera in the light of your own knowledge of the hazards before and around the camera site?

For balance in the never-ending "scamera" claim and counter-claim do you quietly ever wonder what the driver is focusing on to miss all the actual and potential hazards as well as the camera? What could be the result of such shallow observations and interpretation at this site and elsewhere? Do you think the driver will snap into a higher level of hazard perception when he/she needs to elsewhere (outside your house)? Always? If so, do you think that a reactive style of driving is good enough?

Do you wonder whether the driver has any serious intent in keeping to the limit going down hill (is he/she in the right gear?); do you wonder whether the driver always drives into the space at the end of his bonnet without a thought about what might lie ahead around the corner? (Gisborne Road = hidden from view until quite late; parked cars = hidden; traffic lights; shops).

Do you think that the driver has been spoon-fed the clichés "modern cars have got ABS, all will be well" without a great deal of knowledge as to what ABS actually is, what it can and can't do for the driver under emergency braking (because the driver has never been trained in its use).

 

You probably don't, hence you are happy giving poor driving a get-out clause by repeating "scamera ... conspiracy etc" whatever the real truth is (and I have no more gold-plated knowledge of the actual truth than you).

[tynan]

have there not been several serious accidents in the last few months in that area?

 

also, i believe that a speed camera exerts a restraining influence on many drivers for a distance outside the range of its lens and the area around there is rather populated

 

Ive work on Carlisle st for nine years never seen a single accident

[donkey7159]

Ive work on Carlisle st for nine years never seen a single accident

 

The same can be said of the stretch of road running over the bridge at Wortley ( over the stocksbridge by-pass) where the camera van lurks on a weekly basis .

[Cyclone]

Indeed, your job is not to help other drivers consider why they've been snapped.

Your own hazard perception may, indeed, be up to scratch. But with the camera on Eccy Road South (one that has not seen a decrease in serious crashes over the years), what view do you take of the drivers who get snapped by that camera in the light of your own knowledge of the hazards before and around the camera site?

I don't really know it, but if it isn't actually reducing the number of accidents then maybe another solution needs considering.

For balance in the never-ending "scamera" claim and counter-claim do you quietly ever wonder what the driver is focusing on to miss all the actual and potential hazards as well as the camera? What could be the result of such shallow observations and interpretation at this site and elsewhere? Do you think the driver will snap into a higher level of hazard perception when he/she needs to elsewhere (outside your house)? Always? If so, do you think that a reactive style of driving is good enough?

It's a fair point, but punishing the slightly less alert driver isn't going to cause them to be more alert outside my house or at the camera site, so it doesn't actually help the situation.

Do you wonder whether the driver has any serious intent in keeping to the limit going down hill (is he/she in the right gear?); do you wonder whether the driver always drives into the space at the end of his bonnet without a thought about what might lie ahead around the corner? (Gisborne Road = hidden from view until quite late; parked cars = hidden; traffic lights; shops).

Do you think that the driver has been spoon-fed the clichés "modern cars have got ABS, all will be well" without a great deal of knowledge as to what ABS actually is, what it can and can't do for the driver under emergency braking (because the driver has never been trained in its use).

I have thought that our driving training could be better. I still haven't had chance to track my car, but I will do so to better learn it's limits and behaviour at extremes, maybe everyone should do that.

You probably don't, hence you are happy giving poor driving a get-out clause by repeating "scamera ... conspiracy etc" whatever the real truth is (and I have no more gold-plated knowledge of the actual truth than you).

I'm not giving anyone a get out, including the government. Safety cameras should be about safety, the government shouldn't have a get out for lying just because the outcome of their lies happens to be something you approve of.

[alchresearch]

BTW - If you're claiming that you never ever speed, then I simply don't believe you. I've lost track of the number of people who make that claim and then fail within 5 minutes of a ride along.

 

And that's your problem. I don't speed. Simple as. I've no reason to, I might not agree with some limits but that's beside the point. If I were that bothered I'd speed and argue the matter in court in a test case, or get a petition together.

 

Yet if you're unwilling to accept that then you're the one with the problem - be it people not against speed cameras, or those who claim they don't speed.

[Cyclone]

I don't believe you. I've met many people who claim they don't speed, it's never true.

Their opinion on speed cameras is irrelevant.

[alchresearch]

Fine, don't believe me then, it doesn't bother me - just like visible or hidden speed cameras.