So speed cameras are dangerous

[darmstadt]

The UK government recently suspended the deployment of more speeds cameras pending the outcome of of a University College London probe into whether they actually save lives.

We have no doubt, then, that the investigators will be taking a close interest in the Motorcycle News revelation that road deaths have risen dramatically in those areas favoured with the most Gatsos.

According to the MCN figures - joyfully reported in today's Sun - Hertfordshire saw a 24 per cent rise in speed camera numbers between 2003 and 2004. In the same period, road fatalities rose by 34 per cent.

Likewise in Wiltshire, camera numbers went up 14 per cent, and those killed 22 per cent. In County Durham, meanwhile, a lone Gatso oversaw a 22 per cent drop in fatalities.

The Sun is also delighted to report that in North Wales, where "Gatso fan Chief Constable Richard Brunstrom has a league table for traffic cops", 56,247 speeding tickets were issued although this had little effect on safety, with an 18 per cent increase in road deaths.

The reason? Simple, says safety expert Paul Smith: “Crashes are avoided by making a safe plan based on what you see. Cameras move attention away from hazards to speedometers.”

[Bagpuss]

How do you measure success?

It assumes there has to be a steadyish number of accidents each year. Imagine if the number of accidents went as follows

Year 1 20
Year 2 18
Year 3 21
Year 4 40
Year 5 20

Councils tend to compaire year on year with basic stata. Which would imply accident rates halfed between years 4 and 5 but its obvious year 4 was not representative so we get a false positive (accidents are really going back to a natural level).

[AtW]

The Scameraships say people are just dieing around the corner now, ie in different place, even though it clearly says cameras don't work (you can't have camera on every street), they push for more cameras because their jobs depend on it: Gordon Brown made them live off revenues they earn from ripping off motorists.

[zathras]

The Scameraships say people are just dieing around the corner now, ie in different place, even though it clearly says cameras don't work (you can't have camera on every street), they push for more cameras because their jobs depend on it: Gordon Brown made them live off revenues they earn from ripping off motorists.

Absolutly. What happens is that drivers speeding brake sharply on approaching the camera which has obvious safety implications.

Interestingly drivers with warning devices telling them they are approaching a camera also have less accidents and do not get caught. So what do the supporters of Cameras say. Ban warning devices. Which just about gives a lie to the idea that Cameras are a safety device. They are a money raising device, although it would help if some speeds were appropiate to the road they are on.

[Mailman]

[QUOTE=zathras]Absolutly. What happens is that drivers speeding brake sharply on approaching the camera which has obvious safty implications.[QUOTE]

I think Ive spotted the small problem with your arguement

Mailman

[Alf W]

Exactly. When you think about it, creating a situation where motorists spend their time checking their speedometers and scouring the roadsides for cameras whilst cars around them are swerving and braking erratically is bound to increase accidents. While we're at it, let's pop flashguns in drivers' eyes as well.

[AtW]

While we're at it, let's pop flashguns in drivers' eyes as well.

They do it - many cameras will flash in the face of the driver if its single carriageway, you can and in fact likely so to be prosecuted: in one court case scamership people used ruler to extend white marks on the road to prove driver was speeding.