What a surprise, speed cameras do not work
- Thread starter cymatty
- Start date
Soldato
- Joined
- 8 Mar 2007
- Posts
- 3,586
- Location
- Swindon, Wiltshire
2 words: Daily mail.
Not that I'm in favour of speed cameras but I'm highly suspicious about anything the daily mail say.
Although I wouldn't be surprised if what they're saying is true.
Not that I'm in favour of speed cameras but I'm highly suspicious about anything the daily mail say.
Although I wouldn't be surprised if what they're saying is true.
We need to see information on road deaths in Great Britain over the last 10 years with a marker on when speed cameras arrived.
That'll show they don't work, they simply push deaths to another location.
The data in that article is all over the place, it's hard to take any clear readings from it. And wtf are we doing in a bleedin league table of road deaths? Traffic density in the UK is immense, so when you factor that in - it's absolutely astonishing we're anywhere near the top compared to other EU countries.
That'll show they don't work, they simply push deaths to another location.
The data in that article is all over the place, it's hard to take any clear readings from it. And wtf are we doing in a bleedin league table of road deaths? Traffic density in the UK is immense, so when you factor that in - it's absolutely astonishing we're anywhere near the top compared to other EU countries.
Why? All that shows is other countries are starting to catch up with us. The 35% drop in French road deaths means they're still much higher than ours even though they have far lower traffic density. They've also increased their policing of speed limits in the past few years as well.
The nations who have lower death rates have far lower traffic densities where as ours is increasing rapidly yet death rates are still falling, just more slowly.
I'm not personally bothered about people exceeding the speed limit (as I do so myself) but fixed speed cameras only catch unobservant bad drivers so are surely a good thing? It's not like they're generally hard to spot.
The nations who have lower death rates have far lower traffic densities where as ours is increasing rapidly yet death rates are still falling, just more slowly.
I'm not personally bothered about people exceeding the speed limit (as I do so myself) but fixed speed cameras only catch unobservant bad drivers so are surely a good thing? It's not like they're generally hard to spot.
The problem is speed cameras are replacing real police so real road crimes are not being stopped (driving without license insurance etc).
Also it does not help that the sentences for the above offences are laughable at best.
Also it does not help that the sentences for the above offences are laughable at best.
The yellow cameras do not replace anything. They pay for themselves. [rightly or wrongly]
Its the personnel sat in the vans sat on straight dual carriageways shooting ducks making sounds in the woods who could be targeting drink driving instead where you have to ask if resources are being deployed properly.
Its the personnel sat in the vans sat on straight dual carriageways shooting ducks making sounds in the woods who could be targeting drink driving instead where you have to ask if resources are being deployed properly.
![[TW]Fox](/data/man-of-honor/2009.png){kind=avatar}
Soldato
- Joined
- 1 Sep 2004
- Posts
- 4,025
- Location
- Woking, Surrey
Nope the cameras are working like they should to generate easy £££, nothing more. Think of all the people sitting in the council offices rubbing hands at there latest deployment on said bend in the middle of no where . after all the cash goes to them iirc.
I stand to be shot to bits if incorrect
I stand to be shot to bits if incorrect
Soldato
- Joined
- 21 Oct 2003
- Posts
- 13,608
- Location
- Back with a Vengeance.
if the Daily Mail printed as a headline that grass was green, i'd still go outside and check for myself.
a total rag if there ever was one.
a total rag if there ever was one.
these figures are all well and good but as said it does not show the volume of traffic either i have now been driving for 7 years and in that time it seems to me the traffic volume has increased a huge amount in just such a short time. therefore if the deaths are staying the same with more traffic on the road then they are kinda working i guess :/Stormrider said:
unfortunatly.
edit: found a quick bit of info
"The number of private cars registered in the UK rose by 28% between 1995 and 2005[15]. During this time the population increased by around 3.4%[16]. In the ten years 1993-2003 the proportion of households with no car dropped by 5 percentage points from 31% to 26%[17], and in the ten years 1994-2004 total car mileage increased by 15% from 345 to 398.1 billion passenger km[3]."
so more cars traveling further by quite a margin and deaths staying the same.......
Although this does also not take into account the advances in car safety in the last 10 years etc etc
Last edited:
Soldato
- Joined
- 1 Sep 2004
- Posts
- 4,025
- Location
- Woking, Surrey
Malachy said:
Very valid points. There are a number of factors that contribute to the road death figures. The problem is trying to relate figures to measures put into place.
Plus the fact that only the figures that support any measure will only be quoted.
Worth watching re: speed cameras not being accurate - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=noTllmqWjOU
Stormrider said:
Indeed there are a large number of factors that contribute to deaths. The government's research shows excessive speed (which includes driving below the limit but too fast for the conditions) is a factor in about 5-7% of fatalities.
That's why speed cameras don't work to reduce deaths or make the roads safer, speed was not causing these things to happen in the first place.
They are a money making scheme, not a road safety one.
Soldato
- Joined
- 21 Oct 2003
- Posts
- 13,608
- Location
- Back with a Vengeance.
i'd say some cameras are, whereas some are doing there intended job.Dolph said:
remember Ladyman on TG?
"we put up signs telling you that you're approaching a cam area, we paint 'em bright yellow and we publish a list of their locations on the internet...and you're STILL getting caught so who's fault is that?
one thing fixed cameras tell me is they highlight how many sub standard and unobservant drivers we have on our roads. the number of morons i see planting their divers lead boot on the brake pedal because they didn't see the thing until the last minute, even though they'd already been given plenty of warning.
the fact is that the vast majority of drivers caught speeding knew they were over the limit and were intentionally so. it doesn't matter whether you agree with a law or not, if you know it's in place and you choose to break it then you know that if caught there's a penalty to be paid.
if everyone obeyed the speed limit for even a short period of time then the cost of maintaining the cameras versus the huge shortfall in fines would probably result in most of them being removed. as for money making scheme, drivers are giving their money up voluntarily and if they don't want to put some of their hard earned into the govt's pot then they should learn to control their right foot.
The_Dark_Side said:
Indeed with regards to fixed cameras, but aren't most making more use of mobile cameras, and haven't they just amended the regulations so they don't even need to prove an area has a danger before putting it there?
Soldato
- Joined
- 21 Oct 2003
- Posts
- 13,608
- Location
- Back with a Vengeance.
mobile cams could be both more and less effective in my opinion.Dolph said:
also i've recently heard that the cams will no longer need to be painted to make them easily visible and as you mention above they will be allowed to site one anywhere.
the trouble is this issue is surrounded by so much heresay you (the metaphorical) rarely have the right info to make an informed decision.
i remember Clarkson on TG talking about the requirements for diting camera, but to be honest if that man told me grass was green i would go outside and check.