So speed cameras are dangerous So speed cameras are dangerous
Posts 1 to 7 of 7
  1. #1

    More fingers than teeth

    darmstadt is a fount of knowledge

    darmstadt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    The Eurozone
    Posts
    16,487

    Red face So speed cameras are dangerous

    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.”
    Brexit is having a wee in the middle of the room at a house party because nobody is talking to you, and then complaining about the smell.

  2. #2

    Double Godlike!

    Bagpuss is good enough for Jehovah!


    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    10,066

    Default

    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).
    The court heard Darren Upton had written a letter to Judge Sally Cahill QC saying he wasn’t “a typical inmate of prison”.

    But the judge said: “That simply demonstrates your arrogance continues. You are typical. Inmates of prison are people who are dishonest. You are a thoroughly dishonestly man motivated by your own selfish greed.”

  3. #3

    My post count is Majestic

    AtW is a fount of knowledge

    AtW's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    51,390

    Default

    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.

  4. #4

    Fingers like lightning

    zathras has no reputation

    zathras's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    865

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by 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.
    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.
    Last edited by zathras; 19th July 2005 at 14:30.

  5. #5

    Super poster

    Mailman has no reputation


    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    2,519

    Default

    [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

  6. #6

    Super poster

    Alf W is good enough for Jehovah!

    Alf W's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    2,752

    Default

    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.

  7. #7

    My post count is Majestic

    AtW is a fount of knowledge

    AtW's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    51,390

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Alf W
    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.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •