Home PageFacebookRSS News Feed
PocketGPS
Web
Read the current newsletter! Weekly
Newsletter
SatNav,GPS,Navigation
Get Speed Camera Warnings For SatNavs Get Speed Camera Warnings For Android Get Speed Camera Warnings For iPhone
Do Less Speed Cameras Mean Less Deaths?


Article by: robert
Date: 6 Feb 2011

pocketgpsworld.comThe Daily Mail has claimed that "Axing speed cameras has caused road deaths to FALL". They state that fatalities have fallen by 14 per cent in three months - a period when over half the UK's speed cameras have been reportedly switched off due to the government's funding cuts.

Any correlation between the roads where the accidents occurred and the inactive speed camera sites was not given.

The Mail may have its figures confused however as they report "More than half – 44.7 per cent – are now switched off"... so I think it's fair to assume that it's less than half!

There were 510 fatalities on the UK's roads between July and September 2010, down from 596 during the same quarter in 2009.

Joint figures for those killed or seriously injured during the 3 months fell by 5 per cent, from 7,115 to 6,740. Also, last year to September, the total road deaths were down 3 per cent while the number killed or seriously injured reduced by 8 per cent.
Comments
Posted by Darren on Sun Feb 06, 2011 12:41 pm Reply with quote

Quote:
Any correlation between the roads where the accidents occurred and the inactive speed camera sites was not given.

Ugh, Daily Mail. The fact that there is no correlation between the reduction and axed cameras says it all really - yet more hokum from that horrid rag.

And even if there was direct evidence, data from a 3mth period is far too small to draw any statistical conclusion.

It would need evidence from multiple-sites at the very least, to prove a correlation between inactive cameras and falling accident numbers.


Darren Griffin - Editor

 
Posted by M8TJT on Sun Feb 06, 2011 3:11 pm Reply with quote

Darren Wrote:
Ugh, Daily Mail. The fact that there is no correlation between the reduction and axed cameras says it all really - yet more hokum from that horrid rag.
I read the DM avidly and believe everything it says Shocked As I have obviously been misled, could you please offer an alternative, which is more factual and in line with my conservative leanings?


 
Posted by fordfocus on Sun Feb 06, 2011 3:46 pm Reply with quote

Even if they are switched off, unless they are covering the camera head with a bag displaying "Not In Use", then a driver would have no idea of it's status and would surely check their speed.

Steve


 
Posted by Darren on Sun Feb 06, 2011 3:49 pm Reply with quote

M8TJT Wrote:
I read the DM avidly and believe everything it says Shocked As I have obviously been misled, could you please offer an alternative, which is more factual and in line with my conservative leanings?

More factual than the Daily Mail? Viz?


Darren Griffin - Editor

 
Posted by Darren on Sun Feb 06, 2011 3:54 pm Reply with quote

fordfocus Wrote:
Even if they are switched off, unless they are covering the camera head with a bag displaying "Not In Use", then a driver would have no idea of it's status and would surely check their speed.

Good point.


Darren Griffin - Editor

 
Posted by Andy_P on Sun Feb 06, 2011 5:06 pm Reply with quote

M8TJT Wrote:
I read the DM avidly and believe everything it says Shocked As I have obviously been misled, could you please offer an alternative, which is more factual and in line with my conservative leanings?


As your current reading choice obviously marks you as a man of superior intelligence, can I suggest a suitable alternative for you which is well-known for its traditional, conservative, viewpoint would be the Guardian?
Smile


"Settling in nicely" ;-)

 
Posted by spook51 on Sun Feb 06, 2011 5:47 pm Reply with quote

If you don't like the Mail you could always read about it in the Telegraph:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/motoring/news/7931842/Speed-camera-switch-off-sees-fewer-accidents.html


 
Posted by pdfbt40 on Sun Feb 06, 2011 7:35 pm Reply with quote

As Darran and fordfocus point out, there is a lot more to demonstrating any correlation between 'turning off cameras' and reduced accident reports (I wouldn't even call them statistics) over a 3 month period.

Of course the daily press are not going to consult a statistician or mathematician concerning the 'significance' of the 3 months data let alone correlation to any/other factors.

It would be nice to think that those areas where the coalitions which use to be the safety cameras partnerships, have with a change of name and emphasis actually achieved something as a 'safety partnership'. Mine allegedly targets anti social driving now !!


 
Posted by JimmyTheHand on Sun Feb 06, 2011 8:25 pm Reply with quote

News Team Wrote:
There were 510 fatalities on the UK's roads between July and September 2010, down from 596 during the same quarter in 2009

I wonder if the fact fuel prices are rising and people are cutting back on expenses, such as driving, have anything to do with it!


J.

 
Posted by RobBrady on Mon Feb 07, 2011 12:26 pm Reply with quote

JimmyTheHand Wrote:
News Team Wrote:
There were 510 fatalities on the UK's roads between July and September 2010, down from 596 during the same quarter in 2009

I wonder if the fact fuel prices are rising and people are cutting back on expenses, such as driving, have anything to do with it!


Apparently traffic volume fell by only 1.3 per cent during that period.


Robert Brady
Editor, Pocket GPS World
The Premier GPS / SatNav Resource for News, Reviews and Forums

 
Posted by MaFt on Mon Feb 07, 2011 1:31 pm Reply with quote

but driving a bit slower may use less fuel. so, of those who drove slower (i.e. didn't get caught by this camera) how many were doing so because of the camera etc or cos they wanted to save fuel? there are too many variables to link it just like that!

MaFt


MaFt®

 
Click here to view more comments...
Reply to topic

CamerAlert Apps



iOS QR Code






Android QR Code







© Terms & Privacy

GPS Shopping