Speed camera casualties and data

Samtheman1k · 16 Nov 2006 at 09:20

I was looking at the statistics of injuries on various roads, as published by the DFT here (xls file). This particular document is for Kent.

We are always told that safety cameras are working and are great, but if you actually look at the statistics, for example, in A2 Canterbury Road, Nr Swanstree Avenue, there were, 2 deaths or serious injuries, in 3 years before the speed camera was erected. However, if you look at the after figures, there were 3 deaths in a single quarter!!!! So surely, this camera should be taken down as it has lead to an increase in injuries/deaths.

Still think they're about safety?

Oakesy2001uk · 16 Nov 2006 at 09:22

Never did think they were about safety. But they wont come down.

dirtydog · 16 Nov 2006 at 09:30

Oakesy2001uk said:
Never did think they were about safety.

Guigsy · 16 Nov 2006 at 21:59

Samtheman1k said:
We are always told that safety cameras are working and are great, but if you actually look at the statistics, for example, in A2 Canterbury Road, Nr Swanstree Avenue, there were, 2 deaths or serious injuries, in 3 years before the speed camera was erected. However, if you look at the after figures, there were 3 deaths in a single quarter!!!! So surely, this camera should be taken down as it has lead to an increase in injuries/deaths.

Still think they're about safety?

Counter arguement: There was an accident at spot X. There's been a camera there for 2 years now and there's not been a single accident!

Basically accidents are so random that you need to monitor a spot for years to spot a trend, and then so many other things have happened that it's hard to work out whether it's safer because of a camera or because of one of a beeelion different reasons (like the college down the road disappeared and now less 17 year olds rag it down there).

The only decent proof I've seen about cameras is that people slow down when they drive past one. (Also, any counter claims that cameras have made accident stats worse is also totally BS for the same reasons).

Tumbletop · 16 Nov 2006 at 23:39

Guigsy said:
(Also, any counter claims that cameras have made accident stats worse is also totally BS for the same reasons).

To an extent I disagree. I was driving to work this morning in poor conditions along a main road with a 30mph limit. There was a lot of changing of speeds due to many hazards. There was a dustbin lorry doing the rounds, a delivery van stopped on the road, school children walking to school in the rain, and there was heavy stop start traffic.

With so much going on on the road, as I drove along at varying speeds I actually thought to myself that I'm very glad there isn't a speed camera on this road, which meant I could concentrate fully on all that was going on on the road, and not keep glancing at the speedo to ensure I hadn't veered the wrong side of the speed limit.

I don't dissagree that speed cameras slow traffic down, and people should drive within the speed limit (especially in built up areas). However I do think that there are times when its better to stay fully focused on the road ahead.

Jet · 17 Nov 2006 at 00:02

Tumbletop said:
To an extent I disagree. I was driving to work this morning in poor conditions along a main road with a 30mph limit. There was a lot of changing of speeds due to many hazards. There was a dustbin lorry doing the rounds, a delivery van stopped on the road, school children walking to school in the rain, and there was heavy stop start traffic.

With so much going on on the road, as I drove along at varying speeds I actually thought to myself that I'm very glad there isn't a speed camera on this road, which meant I could concentrate fully on all that was going on on the road, and not keep glancing at the speedo to ensure I hadn't veered the wrong side of the speed limit.

I don't dissagree that speed cameras slow traffic down, and people should drive within the speed limit (especially in built up areas). However I do think that there are times when its better to stay fully focused on the road ahead.

Why would you be anywhere near the speed limit in those conditions? :confused:

MetA · 17 Nov 2006 at 00:10

Guigsy said:
The only decent proof I've seen about cameras is that people slow down when they drive past one. (Also, any counter claims that cameras have made accident stats worse is also totally BS for the same reasons).

Werewolf · 17 Nov 2006 at 01:34

Samtheman1k said:
I was looking at the statistics of injuries on various roads, as published by the DFT here (xls file). This particular document is for Kent.

We are always told that safety cameras are working and are great, but if you actually look at the statistics, for example, in A2 Canterbury Road, Nr Swanstree Avenue, there were, 2 deaths or serious injuries, in 3 years before the speed camera was erected. However, if you look at the after figures, there were 3 deaths in a single quarter!!!! So surely, this camera should be taken down as it has lead to an increase in injuries/deaths.

Still think they're about safety?

Does it show how many minor accidents happened?

As someone has said it can take years to get a statistically significant sample of accidents on a stretch of road, the example used could have had 50 accidents with two deaths or series injuries in seperate accidents before the camera, then had 5 accidents with one really nasty one accounting for the deaths/serious injuries after the camera went in.

In fact the manner in which that case has the 3 serious injuries/deaths in one quarter whilst none either side of it suggests exactly that (a blip in the stats, probably caused by a single accident).

The data whilst interesting isn't detailed or over a long enough period to say much, as a single accident can skew the statistics badly over the time span they've got down (rather like the fact my town has had 2 fairly high profile murders this year is going to screw the crime stats up compared to the last few years).