View previous topic :: View next topic |
‘Do you believe safety cameras cut the number of deaths or serious injuries on our roads’? |
Yes |
|
17% |
[ 3 ] |
No |
|
76% |
[ 13 ] |
Don't know |
|
5% |
[ 1 ] |
|
Total Votes : 17 |
|
Author |
Message |
Border_Collie Pocket GPS Verifier
Joined: Feb 01, 2006 Posts: 2543 Location: Rainham, Kent. England.
|
Posted: Sun Mar 14, 2010 9:43 pm Post subject: More in favour of safety cameras on our roads. |
|
|
Looking through my local paper I noticed the above headline.
Without copy typing the whole article I'll just show the main facts.
Quote: | In a poll 72.8% agreed or agreed strongly that fixed and mobile safety cameras are just one of several measures used to cut the number of deaths and serious injuries on the counties (Kent) roads. |
I’d agree with that but what if the poll had asked ‘Do you believe safety cameras cut the number of deaths or serious injuries on our roads’?
Quote: | 71.5% of those polled agreed or agreed strongly the most successful safety camera is one that does not generate any revenue as no-one is breaking the speed limit. | Again I must agree but how many cameras generate ‘zero’ revenue. (I like the word ‘revenue’).
Quote: | While 70.8% of people agreed or agreed strongly that fixed safety cameras are clearly visible to motorists, only 21.1% thought the same about mobile safety cameras. | I’ve got to agree again.
Quote: | It’s a myth our safety camera vans are free to roam the county and stop wherever they choose. They only operate on a stretch of road where at least one person has been killed or seriously injured in a speed-related crash over a 5km (3 miles) stretch of road, in the three years prior to installation. | This got me thinking about the one mobile and two static cameras closest to my home and the accidents which evidently made them necessary.
1. Along my road a motorcyclist was killed when he ‘lost it’ on a bend, the reason the mobile site was put in place. However, the camera van is always sited approx half a mile further along the road, which would not have prevented the accident had it been in place.
2. A schoolboy (teenager) was killed when running across the main road with several friends. There is a footbridge a few hundred yards along the road where, when after crossing, there is direct access to the school. The car driver had no charges brought against him as witnesses said he was travelling at 30mph (in a 40 limit) in a line of cars. The fixed speed camera was sited half a mile further along the road where it becomes a 30mph zone. Again the accident would have happened with the camera in place.
3. A shop owner chased two ‘robbers’ from his shop as they had stolen some goods; he climbed on the bonnet and the ‘robbers’ pulled off with him clinging to the wiper blades. Approx three quarters of a mile along the road the ‘robbers’ crashed into a parked car killing the shop owner instantly. The fixed camera was sited approx one hundred yards past where the accident happened. Once again the camera would have had no bearing on the accident as the ‘robbers’ would have ignored it.
It’s all very well saying the cameras are only sited where there has been a fatality or serious injuries within the past three years and the cameras have prevented further incidents but to my knowledge, and I’ve lived here for over 40 years, there were never any fatalities or serious injuries in those stretches of road for as long as I can remember.
And finally. They are not there for ‘revenue’. A straight stretch of road, single carriage either way, is National speed limit, the camera could easily be placed along the straight section but no, it would be easily seen from a distance so they placed it just over the brow of a hill where it becomes 40mph.
It would be interesting to hear other peoples thoughts. _________________ Formerly known as Lost_Property
And NO that's NOT me in the Avatar. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
mostdom Pocket GPS Moderator
Joined: Jul 10, 2006 Posts: 1964 Location: Surrey, UK.
|
Posted: Tue Mar 16, 2010 9:17 am Post subject: |
|
|
This may be due to the wording of the poll but I voted Yes.
Contraversial I'm sure but I do believe that a correctly positioned speed camera can reduce road incidents. But I do agree that many cameras are poorly placed.
Are some cameras placed to be cash cows? Sure! But if you really question the placment of any camera you can normally come up with at leased one good reason for it being there, and I'm sure thats how the authorities justify them.
Anyway read between the lines and you realise this is just another of those subjective studies that can be read in a million different ways. Note that the question raised says '...one of several measures...'
My suggestion is. Imagine what our roads whould REALLY be like TODAY if we didn't have any speed cameras at all? _________________ Dom
HERE LIES PND May it rest in peace.
Navigon 7310/iPhone Navigon&Copilot |
|
Back to top |
|
|
MaFt Pocket GPS Staff
Joined: Aug 31, 2005 Posts: 15156 Location: Bradford, West Yorkshire
|
Posted: Tue Mar 16, 2010 10:29 am Post subject: |
|
|
a few months ago we had a report in our local paper that basically said "accidents have increased since we added speed cameras so people are ignoring them. as such we have found 24 new sites - half will have new fixed cameras, the other half will be frequented by mobile vans"
now to me as a gradually aging cynical 'old' git i read it differently. to me the fact that there were increased accidents clearly showed that the speed cameras weren't working and that they should look into different methods of traffic calming and not carrying on with the same thing!
i even wrote to the paper but alas the letter wasn't printed (i usually get printed actually) so the cynic in me, again, decided that the paper was in partnership with the SCP - i didn't see ANY letters printed about them but there was a lot of lively discussion in the forums!!
statistics can be made to say anything...
MaFt |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Border_Collie Pocket GPS Verifier
Joined: Feb 01, 2006 Posts: 2543 Location: Rainham, Kent. England.
|
Posted: Tue Mar 16, 2010 3:02 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Quote: | Note that the question raised says '...one of several measures...' |
That's the reason I thought of the poll.
102 views only 14 votes, um? Only 1 in 7 so far have an opinion.
Quote: | My suggestion is. Imagine what our roads whould REALLY be like TODAY if we didn't have any speed cameras at all? |
But mostdom, as I said, there were no fatal or serious injuries for the 25-30 years, at least, before the cameras went up, except for the three accidents I mentioned, and there have been none since. The fact there have been none since doesn't prove they have been effective. Their placement is obviously to catch out motorists and watch the 'revenue' roll in.
The fact that cameras are clawing in millions per year proves they don't work, in slowing many motorists, and many are carrying on as they always did, so no accidents since they were put up isn't down to them. _________________ Formerly known as Lost_Property
And NO that's NOT me in the Avatar. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
mostdom Pocket GPS Moderator
Joined: Jul 10, 2006 Posts: 1964 Location: Surrey, UK.
|
Posted: Tue Mar 16, 2010 4:10 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I thnk speed cameras do have there place in todays society but as long as they CAN make money from them they will, and we have to accept in the meantime that for every one well placed camera there will be another or more poorly placed ones!
I'm sure we could all quote a camera near us that either proves or disproves this study, but the one truth that remains constant is that the authorities ARE making money out of motorists with speed cameras.
I do wish though, that they would seriously consider other traffic calming measures instead in some instances! _________________ Dom
HERE LIES PND May it rest in peace.
Navigon 7310/iPhone Navigon&Copilot |
|
Back to top |
|
|
BigPerk Frequent Visitor
Joined: Sep 06, 2006 Posts: 1618 Location: East Hertfordshire
|
Posted: Tue Mar 16, 2010 4:47 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Well, I guess that's the problem with a survey - there's a big difference between Quote: | ‘Do you believe safety cameras cut the number of deaths or serious injuries on our roads’? |
and
Quote: | ‘Do you believe safety cameras effectively cut the number of deaths or serious injuries on our roads’? |
Surely they MUST cut the number if only 1 casualty is prevented, as long as there isn't also 1 caused by panic ('oh s**t') braking on seeing a camera.
But saying 'yes' implies you think they are worth it - like Quote: | 'Do you think staying indoors from cradle to grave cuts the number of deaths or serious injuries on our roads'? | Well, 'yes' to that too, I guess, but SO ... ?
But the question Quote: | ‘Do you believe safety cameras contribute significantly to Government revenue’? | is much easier to answer
Lies, Damned Lies,Statistics, and Surveys _________________ David
(Navigon 70 Live, Nuvi 360) |
|
Back to top |
|
|
djc1610 Regular Visitor
Joined: Nov 18, 2005 Posts: 186 Location: St Neots, UK
|
Posted: Thu Mar 18, 2010 6:21 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Until we go to the obvious and common-sense solution of having all cameras hidden then we will get the usual 100+ mph until a short distance from the camera - 49.9 mph past the 50 mph camera - then 100+ mph a short distance later.
Of course at present they are not effective, if anything they increase danger when the large number of lunatics suddenly brake hard at the last minute.
Roll on hidden cameras.
Why is it that the significant proportion of lousy drivers on the road (the ones that tailgate closely in fog and rain whilst travelling at speeds well over the speed limit) are so convinced that their driving skills are so better than the rest of us - thus making then totally free of all the safety features used on our roads? _________________ David
VW RNS 510 and TomTom 5200 World |
|
Back to top |
|
|
M8TJT The Other Tired Old Man
Joined: Apr 04, 2006 Posts: 10118 Location: Bexhill, South Sussex, UK
|
Posted: Thu Mar 18, 2010 8:45 pm Post subject: |
|
|
mostdom wrote: | [SNIP]...but the one truth that remains constant is that the authorities ARE making money out of motorists with speed cameras. | I think that the 'authorities' that you are talking about are GB and his crooks trying to reduce the national debt a bit. Or are they wasting Cam money too? Bit of a rhetorical question that, as I already know the answer. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
djc1610 Regular Visitor
Joined: Nov 18, 2005 Posts: 186 Location: St Neots, UK
|
Posted: Thu Mar 18, 2010 11:22 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Speed cameras and fines do not necessarily go hand in hand.
I favour no fines but simply points on the licence.
That way it would hit us all the same and the road maniacs would perhaps start to take more notice if they lost there licence for a few years. _________________ David
VW RNS 510 and TomTom 5200 World |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Skippy Pocket GPS Verifier
Joined: 24/06/2003 00:22:12 Posts: 2946 Location: Escaped to the Antipodies! 36.83°S 174.75°E
|
Posted: Fri Mar 19, 2010 1:49 am Post subject: |
|
|
There are too many dodgy statistics associated with Speed Cameras. There may be a stretch of road which was fatality free for 20 years, then some joy riders crash their car killing 3 people. Next thing, a speed camera goes up and then it is proclaimed to have "saved" three lives because the number of people killed on the road goes back down to zero.
The other thing to note is that the speeding joyriders wouldn't have cared a hoot about the speed camera being there, indeed they would have probably gone even faster. A police patrol would have been a very different story....
My opinion is that they could improve road safety immensely by forcing the drunk, banned, uninsured, unlicensed drivers in their old bangers off the road and doing something other than a slap on the wrist when they get caught.
I mean, a banned driver getting away with a few hundred pound fine? Where's the deterrent in that? It would cost someone like that atleast a grand to even get insurance...
The Police should setup more checkpoints and crack down on these people, but as I've always said: "Police patrols COST, speed cameras make a PROFIT". _________________ Gone fishing! |
|
Back to top |
|
|
mostdom Pocket GPS Moderator
Joined: Jul 10, 2006 Posts: 1964 Location: Surrey, UK.
|
Posted: Fri Mar 19, 2010 10:26 am Post subject: |
|
|
M8TJT wrote: | I think that the 'authorities' that you are talking about are GB and his crooks trying to reduce the national debt a bit. Or are they wasting Cam money too? Bit of a rhetorical question that, as I already know the answer. |
Yep. It might have something to do with GB and his cronies! _________________ Dom
HERE LIES PND May it rest in peace.
Navigon 7310/iPhone Navigon&Copilot |
|
Back to top |
|
|
|
Posted: Today Post subject: Pocket GPS Advertising |
|
|
We see you’re using an ad-blocker. We’re fine with that and won’t stop you visiting the site.
Have you considered making a donation towards website running costs?. Or you could disable your ad-blocker for this site. We think you’ll find our adverts are not overbearing!
|
|
Back to top |
|
|
|