back to article Speed-cam stats to be published, indicates gov

The Department for Transport is proposing that councils and police will have to publish data about speed cameras. The data could include accident rates at speed camera sites, vehicle speeds and the numbers of drivers prosecuted or offered training after offences are recorded on camera. Road safety minister Mike Penning said …

COMMENTS

This topic is closed for new posts.
  1. Stratman

    title

    Does a successful speed camera raise loads of money or very little?

    1. Peter H. Coffin
      Gates Horns

      Exactly.

      The speed camera that has nearly completely halted speeding within its view might be said to be very successful indeed, achieving the stated goal of reducing speeds to the legal limit.

      And taking it away might obviate that success in days.

  2. Anonymous Coward
    Stop

    "Now you can prove it"

    Or if this is to be an unbiased article, presumably you may also be able to disprove it?

  3. Tom 7

    I wonder if a maths A level

    will be required before allowing those idiots that don't know how to accept responsibility for their own actions use this a weapon in court to get them removed.

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Maths

      When I did maths A level (pure and applied) there was very little by way of statistics in there. I also did statistics O level which obviously was more relevant and was actually at a higher level then the little bit of statistics covered in the A levels.

      Analyzing statistics, however, isn't just about crunching the numbers it's also about understanding what the statistics can actually tell you. Those safety partnerships that already publish the statistics have already had loads of hassle from idiots who just don't understand what the statistics can tell them. One of the most important things about any statistical data is knowing how the figures are recorded and what they actually record. For example, how many people know what constitutes a "serious injury" in road accident statistics? In most cases being taken to hospital will be recorded as a serious injury. So a mild case of whiplash may be recorded as a serious injury.

      Somebody somewhere will of course mention regression to the mean (RTM) which is a favourite phrase used to explain away any inconvenient data that seems to show a speed camera is doing it's supposed job. The problem is that some people don't actually know what RTM means they have just heard it somewhere and trot it out to support their argument.

      Some speed cameras do the intended job because they were placed sensibly by the local "safety partnership" - for example on roads with poor forward visibility particularly near junctions. Others are less effective because a particular safety partneship got the funding for a certain number of cameras on a particular road and just banged them in any old where.

      1. mccp

        Further maths

        I don't know when you did your A-level maths, but the AQA A level that my son is currently taking is about a third statistics. The remainder is pure maths and mechanics.

        "For example, how many people know what constitutes a "serious injury" in road accident statistics?"

        I've no idea, but where is your evidence for your bald statement: "a mild case of whiplash may be recorded as a serious injury".

        It's all very well critisizing the use of statistics, but if your are going to make your own claims, they would be more compelling if you backed them up.

        1. Kevin Johnston

          Definition

          The very first sentence of the definition used for these stats starts - An injury for which a person is detained in hospital as an “in-patient”. If you are taken to a hospital as a result of an RTC then it is a serious injury, even if it turns out there was nothing wrong after all. I fell victim to this when I hit an object in the road one evening when coming home from work on my bike. At no point in the ensuing slide/tumble did I hit my head, nor was the initial impact substantial as it was a low angle sliding hit. I was up and about having checked myself and felt comfortable to remove my Helmet but the GP who attended before the ambulance arrived decided I should be immobilised on a backboard and taken to the Resusitation Room for spinal check and Neuro obs.

          Net effect was my bike jacket and trousers were cut off me (gosh, couldn't recover the cost from the Insurance company) and I was held in hospital for over 4 hours before they decided I was fine and could go home without even needing painkillers.

          Helmet was in perfect condition, laptop in my backpack was in perfect condition but I was listed as a 'Serious Injury RTC'

        2. Grease Monkey Silver badge

          Maths and More Maths

          It was JMB a level maths, pure and applied papers.

          My evidence. I had an accident a few years back that got me sent to hospital where the doctors decided to keep me in overnight "for observation". Basically this "observation" involved going to bed and not seeing another medical professional until after breakfast. This bloke gave me a very cursory examination and sent me home telling me I had a mild case of whiplash and should rest for a week. This was enough to class me as seriously injured.

          An awful lot of people are kept in overnight after a road traffic incident to make sure they're not going to suddenly show signs of serious injury. Ever heard of the so called "walk away and die syndrome"?

      2. It wasnt me

        Errr.....

        "Somebody somewhere will of course mention regression to the mean (RTM) which is a favourite phrase used to explain away any inconvenient data that seems to show a speed camera is doing it's supposed job. The problem is that some people don't actually know what RTM means they have just heard it somewhere and trot it out to support their argument."

        ..... You just used RTM to support your point without explaining what it means. Are you any different from others? RTM is real, its effects must be allowed for, deal with it.

        1. Argh!
          Grenade

          RTM? Possibly RTFM

          RTM isn't the problem, the problem is the way the statistics are created in the first place. If the sample size is too small the data is meaningless. Which is pretty likely consdiering as far as I am aware 3 "serious" accidents in a year is sufficient to mandate a speed camera, which would mean even if 3 is your mean value and not an abberation icovered by RTM-type arguments t'll take you many years (not a statistician but hmmm what? 10 years maybe?) to determine what the mean value of accidents is.

          Then you need a similar value counted in the same way (which it has been suggested is not the case with different sample areas before and after camera installation) with and without cameras - oh and it helps if the road conditions remain the same though the sample periods (doesn't sound too likely if you're talking about 20 years - in the last 20 for example ABS was invented and became more common).

          That to me suggests that there's no way any statistics released produced since the widespread use of speed cameras are likely to be shakey at best and totally manufactured to corform to expected values at worst.

          A more sensible approach would seem to be an overall analysis of accidents against spped camera use and statistical analysis of trends there. That's what these guys seem to have done:

          http://www.safespeed.org.uk/effects.html

          You may not believe their conclusions about the links to speed cameras but they make a reasoned argument and support it with data of a decent sample size.

  4. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Problem with this...

    ...is that like traffic wardens, people loath speed cameras with a passion. While it's a positive thing that they are showing post capture prosecution/training statistics, the key thing people will look for to justify the use of speed cameras are whether it (significantly?) reduces accidents along a given stretch of road/given area.

    I'm not sure how easily this data is available. But I imagine that Speed camera's that have been situ for a significant amount of time, it would be more difficult to find meaningful comparative statisitics when you bear in mind road surface improvements / other contributing factors.

    </shambolic rant>

    1. Argh!
      Megaphone

      Works both ways

      "bear in mind road surface improvements"

      I seem to remember some testing done that was reported on the Beeb that modern road surface is actually *less* good and more slippery in at least some conditions (something inevitably to do with cost as I recall) .

      There's also the argument that accident statistics include *all* accidents on a stretch of road including perhaps the random guy that jumped off an overpass bridge or deliberately stepped into traffic.

      Added to that in most sites the numbers are likely to be small for a given camera area and a "30% reduction" or even increase in accidents doesn't statistically mean much if you're talking about 3 accidents a year and not much more of you're talking about 20 (a reduction of 4 could easily be normal varience).

      It's also worth saying since I am one of the people that loath(e) speed cameras that I've been driving a fair number of years and over the years have had a fair number of accidents some my fault others not. In not one of them was any party involved driving above the speed limit. In fact having polled people I know on this subject, of every accident involving those people (which amounts to more than 50 accidents) I wouldn't run out of the fingers of 1 hand counting the number in which any kind of speeding was involved which suggests to me that "speeding" (as opposed for example to "driving too fast for the conditions", which is a completely different thing with only a peripheral relationship to speed limits) is not a primary cause of accidents.

      In every accident I've been involved in or know directly about the major factors are either errors in judgement usually caused by inatentiveness or lack of driving skill such as responding badly to an emerging situation e.g. a skid (and yes I include myself in this too).

      I've yet to see anyone explain how speed cameras help what the evidence I can see suggests is the real problem and likewise I don't see how publishing some random (and probably misquoted, taken out of context by both sides, and doctored) statistics will improve things.

    2. Grease Monkey Silver badge

      Hate

      Yes a lot of people hate speed cameras. The problem is that most people aren't even sure why. I hate some speed cameras because of the way they were implemented.

      One road near me had a sixty limit which was dropped to forty and then almost immediately speed cameras were also implemented. The reduced limit was not given time to work. Yes there were a lot of serious accidents on that road and there severity was heavilly influenced by trees - there are lots of dry stone walls and trees to hit if you leave the road. Statistics for that road may appear to show that the speed cameras work - the serious accident rate does seem to have dropped since the cameras went in - but the statistics don't show whether it's the cameras that have done the job or the rduced limit alone. No amount of statistical analysis will show which is responsible or whether it's a bit of both.

      Many people don't differentiate between speed cameras like this and sensibly located cameras - they just hate all of them.

    3. Anonymous Coward
      Happy

      No problems here

      I have no problem with speed cameras, providing they are sited correctly and in well thought out locations. Some places it makes perfect sense and some people have no idea where ease off the peddle a little, so someone else has to think for them. I would say that 90% of the cameras I have seen seem to be in an appropriate location.

      I have seen places where cameras have been removed as they no longer make sense, they have done the job or the road has been adjusted allow faster speeds. It's good that someone goes back to check if they're still needed.

      I look forward to seeing some of these stats, so see if the boast about saving lives does actually tally.

  5. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Stats do not always tell the truth

    Claiming that xxx accidents have now been reduced to yyy due to plonking said speed cam is not always the whole truth, quite often road engineering is the main reason to reduction of accidents (such as roundabouts, better line of sight for hazards etc...)

    If the accident information was also supplied with information of work done to the roads or surrounding roads (after all traffic may have been diverted) then we would be able to make a more informed judgement on value for money.

  6. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    This can only be a good thing - if the data is any good that is

    When we have the data we can make educated statements and reasoned arguments to support our view on whether a particular speed camera, or speed cameras in general, should or should not be in place.

    I fully accept that the data may be less than useful in some circumstances (particularly with no prior reference points) however it should be possible to acquire the relevant data to fill the gaps - such as historical accident rates, accident severities, alternative safety measures, comparisons with broadly similar stretches of road without a camera (or indeed with more or fewer other safety measures) and so on.

    Personally I think we need to wait to see just what data we are given before we can make any definitive statements, but if we get reasonable information (and can find the rest out) then it should certainly improve the arguments on all sides.

  7. despairing citizen
    Big Brother

    Speed not a factor

    To use an easily seen example, look at the A34 on the run into Stoke-on-Trent, at the time I used it regularly, it had 24 cammeras (11 one way, 13 the other). Mostly 50 mph dual carridge.

    Yes the road is dangerous,

    Because you can do right hand turns (across 2 lanes of traffic) out of small country lanes, rather than being forced into a left hand turn down to the nearest roundabout (lots of them on that 12 miles of road).

    Speed Cammera = revenue; life saving simple road alteration = cost.

    Do the maths to find the driving force here.

    Personally I always used the roundabouts, it was worth the extra half mile of fuel.

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Stop

      Tottaly aggree

      One one strech of road I know, they claim speed cameras have cut accidents by 90%.

      So the reducing of speed limits, changing a dual carriage way into a single carriageway at certain points, closing central reservation crossing points, adding two new sets of lights, making 2 side roads oneway only and lengthing slip roads have had 0 effect then?

      Lie, damn lies & statistics.

      1. Slasher
        Paris Hilton

        Lies...

        I agree - lies, damn lies and statistics.

        Paris, because even she could spot the lies...

    2. John I'm only dancing

      Spot on

      Just like the A50 as well...I'm sure there are more speed cameras in that area than there are people.

      Heading towards Stone, there is one camera which is sited around 400 yards from another on the same carriageway, but just over the brow of a hill with no road joining from the left.

      That was sited there purely to raise revenue and has nothing to do with safety. Fortunately, as I was a frequent user of the road I knew it was there but many unfortunates do not.

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Flame

        Unfortunates?

        These unfortunates of which you speak. These would be the ones who are speeding right? The ones who are breaking the law?

        What makes them unfortunate? Because they got caught? Just like all those unfortunate burglars, benefit cheats, murderers etc who got caught?

        If you don't want the points/fine, don't speed. It's not hard. If people find it hard, then are they fit to drive?

        1. Argh!
          WTF?

          I suppose it had to come from somewhere

          "Just like all those unfortunate burglars, benefit cheats, murderers etc who got caught?"

          Nice to see that you totally buy in to the government line:

          Speeding = Theft + fraud + murder

          Good to know. That's such a perfect analogy and not at all a vastly overblown and utterly irrelevant comparison that I have trouble grasping the full beauty of it.

          /sarcasm

  8. Anonymous Coward
    Stop

    Usefulness of Speed Cammeras

    A few things the stats won't tell us;

    1. How do cammeras prevent dangerous driving, tail gating, etc.?

    2. How do cammeras make the road safe in the event of an accident?

    3. How do the cammeras provide first aid in the event of an accident?

    Remembering that cammeras have been used as an excuse to replace traffic officers.

    Ditch the cammeras, put traffic officers back out on patrol in marked cars, and watch the standard of driving improve, and the number of accidents come down!

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      You miss the point

      Speed cameras are about enforcing the speed limit on a certain stretch or point of a road, nothing more.

      Asking how speed cameras prevent tailgating or providing first aid is like asking how your marked police patrol prevents the moon from flying into space.

    2. Chad H.

      Point 2

      In regards to point 2. Speed Cameras encourage you to drive slower. Crashes at a slower speed result in fewer injuries and deaths.

      As for replacing Cameras with Traffic Wardens.... Who's going to pay for it? We've already had to put VAT up by 2.5% to avoid worse cuts than we're already seeing.

  9. Bilgepipe
    Thumb Up

    Yippee

    So the lawbreakers who want the police to catch "real criminals" will have less to whine about. Oh wait, they'll carry on anyway.

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Happy

      Re: catch "real criminals"

      Given our usual 600 murders/pa and 2500 road kills/pa, one could argue that public safety would be improved by putting police on the road, rather than on high profile murder cases.

      PS

      given how much safer by design cars are today over 10 years ago, the roughly static RTA figures would indicate that the standard of driving is getting worse, and hence needs more policing to get nutters off the road

      1. Argh!
        Happy

        Or alternatively......

        given how much safer by design cars are today over 10 years ago, the roughly static RTA figures would indicate that the standard of driving is getting worse, and hence needs more policing to get nutters off the road"

        Given how much safer by design cars are today over 10 years ago, the roughly static RTA figures would indicate that the standard of driving is getting worse, and hence needs better driver training and education to reduce stupidity on the road rather than pumping more and more money into things aimed at the effect rather than the cause such as speed cameras, traffic calming and ludicrously sited traffic lights, roundabouts and wasting the police's time.

        There....... FTFY

        .

        1. This post has been deleted by its author

          1. Anonymous Coward
            Happy

            Re safer by design

            "Not safer for pedestrians, cyclists, horse-riders, and people in other cars."

            Euro NCAP ratings for pedistrians would indicate otherwise.

            However the uni-student cyclist, at night in dark clothing, with no lights on the bike, cycling the wrong way down the midle of a one way street, kind of defeats the design features.

            .

          2. Wayne

            Safer for pedestrians ? Absolutely!

            For the last several years there have been many new safety standards introduced concerning impact reduction and safety improvements on targets outside the vehicle.

          3. Anonymous Coward
            Grenade

            *Sigh*

            Not Safer for Pedestrians? Easing pedestrian injury when struck by cars has been affecting both design and regulation of new vehicles for several years now. I was told by one motor trade friend that the trend towards Plastic headlamps is partly due to this. I believe they even assess new designs with this in mind as part of vehicle type approval - which all new mass produced cars have to pass before mass production of a model begins.

            Given the habit of pedestrians stepping off the kerb into moving traffic without looking I wonder that more are not killed or injured by their own stupidity/neglegence/inattention. We need jay-walking laws in the UK, but then there isnt a camera that can enforce that area so it would only be ignored anyway. As ever its easier to blame the driver, the driver who pays a huge amount of taxation to use the car and gets so little back in terms of adequate road maintenance etc

            Cyclists are another bunch seemingly devoid of common sense, as I see far too many in dark clothing at dawn/dusk without lights, and even one recently at 10pm riding on the road unlit - a road that has a separate cycle path put in at great expense while highway repairs are neglected year on year. Thats without the idiots that ride 2 abreast on main roads or those cyclists carrying unsafe/insecure loads affecting their balance etc.

            But then accidents are ALWAYS the motorists fault aren't they?

            1. Anonymous Coward
              Flame

              *double sigh*

              Yes some pedestrians step off pavements without looking, just like there are cyclists who cycle without lights and wearing black at night. But then there are motorists who speed and there are motorists who are a menace. Just because SOME people are like this, it doesn't mean ALL people are like this.

              Some pedestrians (e.g. ME) take care when crossing roads.

              Some cyclists (e.g. ME) wear reflective jackets, reflective trouser clips, reflective back-pack covers, have multiple reflectors on the bike and have 2 lights fore and two lights rear, complying to BS lighting and reflector standards.

              Some motorists (e.g. ME) try to be considerate to others and not speed.

              We don't need Jaywalking laws in this country because this country is not organised into blocks like in the USA, and there isn't a crossing every few yards we could use to cross, especially if you live in the country. It's hard enough to cross the road with the number of inconsiderate motorists around who just won't let people cross, even on zebra crossings.

              Yes motorists pay a huge amount of tax. There are multiple reasons for this. One is that we don't have Hypothecation - in other words, the tax raised from the motorist is not ring-fenced to spend on the motorist. Almost none of are taxes are Hypothecated, in fact I can't think of one.

              Yes motorists pay a lot of tax, but they cause a lot of pollution, congestion and other problems too. The alternative would be to reduce motoring taxes and vastly increase income tax to compensate. Would you prefer that?

              "a road that has a separate cycle path put in at great expense"

              There is no obligation to use a cycle path and sometimes it is inconvenient to do so, and on rare occasions, dangerous to do so.

              "while highway repairs are neglected year on year."

              Perhaps, but it's in a cyclist's interest as much as a car drivers to see potholes fixed. After all, if a bike hits a pot-hole, the cyclist is likely to end up much more injured than a car driver.

              "Thats without the idiots that ride 2 abreast on main roads"

              That's allowed, if perhaps not sensible

              " or those cyclists carrying unsafe/insecure loads affecting their balance etc."

              as opposed to motorists carrying unsafe/insecure loads affecting their and other people's safety.

              "But then accidents are ALWAYS the motorists fault aren't they?"

              No, but neither is it always the pedestrian's fault, the cyclists fault or the motorcyclists fault.

              1. Argh!
                Stop

                Nope not really

                "Yes motorists pay a lot of tax, but they cause a lot of pollution, congestion and other problems too. The alternative would be to reduce motoring taxes and vastly increase income tax to compensate. Would you prefer that?"

                Pollution? As opposed to a cow for example? Or a power station? Or a water treatment plant? That's really the only alternative you can think of?

                Perhaps some of the congestion could be solved by taking some of the massive amounts of money paid by car drivers and investing to come up with an alternative form of transport or at least a transport policy that delivers ways to get the right things from A to B and means people have to drive cars less? According to government's own statistics solving such a thing would save billions in policing, hospitals, maintenance etc and so would pay for itself.

                Buses and trains? A limited solution at best that could replace a fraction of the uses of cars (vans etc) but isn't being targeted at what those solutuions are good at anyway and yet is the only thing other than various "traffic calming" measures that government seems willing to throw money at as they provide worse and worse service at higher and higher prices to the consumer.

                "No, but neither is it always the pedestrian's fault, the cyclists fault or the motorcyclists fault."

                Actually by policy it turns out it IS always the car drivers fault. I know of a case recently where a car hit a cyclist who'd cycled across a give way line without stopping. The cyclist all but admitted as much in the claim against the car driver and the drivers insurance company agreed that it was the cyclist who was in the wrong. However despite this the insurance company resused to contest the cyclist's claim citing the unlikelihood of the case being found for the driver if it went to court - they admitted that if another car had been hit in those circumstances there wouldn't be any question, but that courts will in a majority of cases find for a cyclist or pedestrian over a driver no matter the circumstances.

                Perhaps that may be a contributing cfactor in the increase I've noticed over the last decade or so in pedestrians wandering across the road without so much as a glance behind them just assuming any oncoming car will see them and stop.

                "There is no obligation to use a cycle path and sometimes it is inconvenient to do so, and on rare occasions, dangerous to do so."

                That one I agree with - in fact, being a cyclist in London myself, I wouldn't recommend it as a form of transport to anyone who does not enjoy the prostect of imminent death on a day-to-day basis. So much for alternatives to the car.

                "cycle path put in at great expense"

                I dont object to the cyclepaths.... I think they are a great idea - or at least would be if they were actually considered instead of being a nod from the government in the direction of "being green" - too often the government's pet policies collide in this area - I've seen a cyclepath put on a road then a few months later a bus stop on that path built out into the road so that the bus stopping at it blocks the road.

                That not only seems to be a waste of money designed primarily to annoy car drivers at a stop that doesn't get enough people to warrant the extra pavement space, but then forces cyclists back out into the stream of largely unobservant cars who mostly blithly drive in a straight line and therefore too close to the bus stop to allow a cyclist room. Because most car drivers, if they notice a cycle path at all, then just assume the cyclist will be in it and therefore not a problem, that kind of fail in planning makes the cyclepath *more* dangerous for the cyclist than nothing at all.

                I wouldn't object to the massive and ever increasing taxes on driving a car at all if there was any sign that even a percentage of it was spent on transport infrastructure that MADE SENSE instead of urinated away on pet projects to look good rather than do anything useful.

                Hmm I think I'll put my soap box away and get a mop

                .

        2. Anonymous Coward
          Badgers

          reducing stupidity...

          "RTA figures would indicate that the standard of driving is getting worse, and hence needs better driver training and education to reduce stupidity on the road"

          Like by offering people caught by speed cameras the chance to go on a speed awareness course rather than get points you mean?

          1. Argh!

            Close

            "Like by offering people caught by speed cameras the chance to go on a speed awareness course rather than get points you mean?"

            No I mean like by making the driving test actually include something other than theory and basic mechanical control of the car. Like teaching and testing situational awareness, like the abilty to judge speed and distance accurately and convergance rates, like skid training, like what a car feels like to drive in as many road conditions as humanly possible, like *demonstrating* physically stopping distances rather than it being basically theoretical.

            Hardly perfect but even simulating such things with todays technology as part of driver training would vastly increase awareness and possibly get at least a few of the bad habits out *before* they become habits - otherwide you're just treating the symptom again. To fit a number of such simulators in every test facilty in the land would, I'd estimate, come in rather cheaper than any one of the national hate cars policies.

      2. steogede

        @AC 4-1/11, 13:57

        >> given how much safer by design cars are today over 10 years ago, the roughly static RTA figures would indicate that the standard of driving is getting worse

        Not really, much of the 'safer by design' you speak of is only safer for the occupants of the car. Most RTA fatalities are not occupants of cars (they are pedestrians, cyclists, motorcyclists). Also don't forget that the roads are getting busier, so a static figure is actually a reduction.

  10. Anonymous Coward
    FAIL

    Stupid Stats

    The camera supporters, keep saying that speed is a factor in most accidents.

    This is the same as saying that altitude is a factor in most planes hitting the ground.

    True...... but totally useless in determining the true cause of the accidents.

    Try Instead...

    Inappropriate driving (tail gating, driving too fast for the road condition (even when under the speed limit)) is the cause of many accidents.

    The other factor is that according to insurance research, something like 1 in 4 drivers have deffective eye sight (i,e, they need glasses to see what they are running into, but are not wearing them)

    Two things a revenue generating speed cam can't do anything about!

    1. Refugee from Windows

      Stats

      There's little in the way of a better deterrent than a plod in a car along the road. Even if the beggers have ANPR it's a help as it spots those without the usual tax, insurance and MoT, and a collar at the roadside is much more effective than a letter to a possibly false address. Maybe if they didn't have to spend half their time filling in reports for the stats they'd do more policing.

      Recently I drove for 2 miles along a road with supposedly a speed limit of 60 at a mere 20mph. Two people were not so fortunate nearby, when I came back the other road had been closed as they'd come off the road at the bottom of the hill. The slush on ice did not help.

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Happy

        ANPR and public safety

        Police operated ANPR has several effects on public safety.

        1. the number of crooks they catch who are wanted by the courts

        2. drivers without insurance and MOTs are disproportionately represented in the accident stats (i.e. more likely to be involved/cause one)

        Unfortunately they occiasonal work to well, I heard that Hants police had to give up after a couple of hours at the bottom of the M275, as they had managed to fill all the cells at Southsea nick.

  11. Jacqui

    on a very short dual cway in farnboro

    there is a 30mph limit that was watched by speed cameras hiden inthe back of a van in a side street. Due to massive complains the council installed a 8foot square sign listing the number of addicents on this road in the past N years.

    A FOI request by a local paper revealed accidents were mainly drunks tripping over the badly laid paving stones - almost all accidents counted had nothing to do with traffic or speed.

    Only after a lot of people who had been "done" for 31 in a 30 zone did a protest along that road between the roundabouts at each end effectiveky gridlocking fboro did they remove the speed traps, misleading "stats" and install 30mph "slowdowns".

    Finally the pub on that section of road closed a few years ago - which massively reduced the accident rate!

    speed cameras are almost always a revenue stream for the ACPO businesses - they have very little to do with safety.

    1. Ball boy Silver badge

      Farborough speeding policework

      That'll be the same section of road where they nicked everyone by parking-up the monitoring van over the double-yellow lines in said side street, I'll bet. Yes, was clearly okay to violate one law to catch people breaking another!

      It's all stopped now but what a lot of fuss for 6-700 yards of road and I did wonder why they bothered. Your logic is entirely reasonable!

      BTW: monies raised by speeding fines don't go to ACPO but instead end up in the Treasury's pocket. Yes, arguably ACPO get some of this dosh - but then so do you in any state handouts you might qualify for!

  12. Grease Monkey Silver badge

    Revenue

    The assumption that speed cameras are juicy revenue streams is in many cases a fallacy. You have to be pretty daft to get caught by a bright yellow camera (not happened to me yet, touch wood). Therefore the revenue for such a camera can be much lower than it's running cost. This is particularly the case for a camera that's actually doing it's job.

    Considera camera that is "protecting" an accident black spot, what you don't want is the camera actually catching speeders, you want it preventing speeding. So a camera that's doing its job should be raising precisely nothing and costing quite a bit. The only way they could be said to be raising money is where government funding is more than the running cost of the camera. With the current government that will be a very rare situation.

    1. Argh!
      Badgers

      Not so clear cut

      "The assumption that speed cameras are juicy revenue streams is in many cases a fallacy."

      A similar question came up on another site I read:

      http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20101105/00115811731/new-speed-cameras-can-spot-multiple-offenses-at-once-and-send-off-a-ticket-immediately.shtml

      Which prompted me to go look and find:

      http://www.speedcamerasuk.com/speed-camera-faqs.htm#Do

      http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-410449/Undercover-probe-reveals-buckets-money-speed-cameras.html

      http://www.carpress.co.uk/motoring-news/featured-articles/uk-to-get-super-speed-cameras/

      http://www.telegraph.co.uk/motoring/news/7909246/Treasury-set-to-cash-in-on-speeding-fines.html

      Which would suggest the matter is rather more open to debate than you indicate.

  13. Graham Marsden
    Thumb Up

    Portsmouth...

    ... have got in ahead of the rush by deciding to ditch their speed cameras and save a quarter of a million quid a year on cameras which are mostly badly sited and do damn all for actual road safety.

    Perhaps they'd like to use that money put a few more traffic Police out on the streets to catch the drunks and the idiot drivers instead which would do a lot more good.

  14. smudge

    information about their effectiveness

    "Road safety minister Mike Penning said that where taxpayers' money is spent on speed cameras it is right that information about their effectiveness should be made public."

    That's a novel idea. Freedom of information. Who'd have thunk it would come from a Tory?

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Badgers

      Effectiveness

      "...where taxpayers' money is spent on speed cameras it is right that information about their effectiveness should be made public."

      I spotted that too. Presumably we can expect to be able to receive similar information about all government policies. Hopefully this means that the excuse "We can't provide that information due to commercial/contractual sensitivity" which means they won't tell you if a contracted out service is value for money or not is a thing of the past.

  15. JP19

    changes in April

    Because it is going to take a week to get the data and 3 months to apply spin before publication.

  16. rory alsop 1
    FAIL

    @Chad H

    No - speed cameras do not make you drive slower. If you watch the majority of drivers, it is obvious that speed cameras make you drive slower for a very brief period of time (using very heavy braking, without looking in the rear view mirror) before accelerating hard up to a higher than normal speed to make up for the slowed section. On average I see people drive faster on roads immediately after speed cameras than they were before noticing the striped things!

    Get rid of the lot of them and the rest of the nanny state infrastructure and bring back proper traffic cops, responsibility and discretion.

    1. This post has been deleted by its author

      1. Grease Monkey Silver badge

        Yellow

        And why are speed cameras painted bright yellow? Why are there advanced warning signs?

        Because of a government that decided that pandering to public opinion was more important than road safety. I have no problem with hidden speed cameras *if* certain conditions are met.

        Those conditions are that speed limits are clearly posted. That there are repeat signs for the speed limit. And finally and most importantly that speed limits are sensible.

        The limit should suit the road. There has to be some sort of balance struck between road safety and the convenience of being able to keep journey times reasonably low. Many councils seem to be aiming for a blanket 40mph limit out of town in the interests of road safety. If 40mph is safe then why not 30mph? Hey guys, if you drive at walking pace it will be even safer. Let's reintroduce the man with the red flag.

        There is scarcely a road around here outside a built up area with a 60mph limit. Limits on most have been lowered to 40mph or occasionally 50mph even where there is no particular evidence that the roads in question are dangerous or have high accident rates. Funilly enough only one road in the area is on the list of the country's top ten most dangerous roads and that road has a 50mph limit. Safer roads have a 40mph limit.

        The council even opened a bypass which was wide and well designed and met all the current criteria for safety (forward visibility, obstructions near the road, lighting etc.) and then set the speed limit at 30mph. Locals allege that the police refused to enforce the limit and the council were forced to raise it to 50mph. The council claim that the 30mph limit was an error and they always intended the limit to be 50mph.

  17. This post has been deleted by its author

    1. Argh!
      FAIL

      No not whining - realistic

      "Would the people who say speed cameras should be abolished and more police should be out on the roads enforcing the laws put their hands up to pay more tax to fund the policing?"

      Can I vote instead that every penny spent on speed cameras, speed bumps, traffic calming, constantly naffing around with traffic light phasings, putting in pointless roundabouts where they don't fit, rebuilding roads with a bend in to "slow thetraffic", big flashy signs and an ever more rabid obsession with "speeding" in the face of falling speed limits is spent on driver education and training so that people are correctly equipped to be able to judge for themselves what is safe in given conditions rather than relying on an arbitary average number that bears no relationship to reality in most cases.

      If it doesn't work we will at least be spending money on the cause rather than the various syptoms.

    2. Anonymous Coward
      Happy

      RE: Whingers

      YES, I would rather pay for more police on the road.

      I would note however that it is probable that the tax would not be needed, as the money spent buying and maintaining the cam's plus the savings to the NHS in dealing with RTA's would probably cover a good number of additional police traffic officers.

      On a more personal CBA, a significant reduction in stress levels every time I have to use the roads would be worth the additional money

    3. Anonymous Coward
      Happy

      Yes

      Me

      Honest

    4. Slasher

      Already paying for the Police...

      ...so putting them out on the roads instead of in a Police station isn't going to make much difference. Yes, they should be out on the roads instead of cameras. How often do you drive better when you see a Police car? How often do you see one on the road? Once a week? Month?

    5. Grease Monkey Silver badge

      What a crock

      "Would the people who say speed cameras should be abolished and more police should be out on the roads enforcing the laws put their hands up to pay more tax to fund the policing?"

      When the previous government relaxed the criteria on fixed speed camera installation and they became almost ubiquitous I recall a minister arguing that the use of speed cameras would allow traffic police to focus their attention on other issues. I have seen no evidence at all that this has been the case. Indeed the available evidence seems to suggest that over the period since this policy was announced police officers have become more and more desk bound and have spent a lot less time policing and a lot more time filling in paperwork.

      Speed cameras did not free up traffic police to do other work. They diverted funding from traffic policing.

  18. This post has been deleted by its author

    1. chr0m4t1c

      No title

      Maybe they are around your neck of the woods, but I travel around a lot and regularly see cameras that are still grey and/or have no signs (as well as a good deal hidden behind road signs or trees).

      So far I have managed to avoid a single fine, but I've had some close shaves because when you're travelling on an unfamiliar road you're usually looking at the road, the conditions, watching for hidden junctions, trying to avoid hitting the locals (because in some places people do what they want instead of what the road markings tell them to), etc. It's all too easy to stray a little bit over the limit and get caught out by one of these things.

      In the interest of balance, I should point out that I also see them in sensible places, painted the right colour, marked well and probably doing the job they were introduced to do as well.

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Stop

        When you're travelling on an unfamiliar road …

        … with hidden junctions, rogue pedestrians, and the other hazards you mentioned … you tend to exceed the speed limit? Then you are a dangerously incompetent driver.

        Even vaguely competent drivers find it trivially straightforward to stay below the speed limit at all times. Many choose not to, but that's a different story altogether.

        1. Intractable Potsherd
          WTF?

          I'd rather...

          ... have drivers concentrating on what is outside the car but going a bit (or a lot, depending on the conditions) over the speed limit than paying more attention to the speedo than the environment. Any sane person would.

        2. chr0m4t1c

          @ AC 22:55

          Where did I say "tend"?

          I said it was easy to do when concentrating on what is going on around you, by which I meant it can happen inadvertently because speed of a vehicle is not just governed by what gear you are in and how hard you are pressing the throttle, but also by external factors such as the camber of the road, the rolling resistance from the road surface, high winds, etc.

          Even if you drive in a wholly unsafe way by looking at your speedometer all of the time you will find it quite difficult to maintain a constant speed in certain driving conditions, which means that sometimes you may be below the limit and sometimes you may be above it. Not by much, but then cameras don't deal in those vagaries, they deal in absolutes.

          Example:

          Travelling along a road with a 40mph limit and a slight downwards incline at (say) 38mph, the incline steepens very slightly and your vehicle begins to travel at 40mph before you check your speed in (say) 20 seconds time and adjust the throttle. If that was a road you travel often you could probably drive the whole length at 40, if you had never been on that road before you could easily have started at 40 then ended up at (gasp!) 42 for a massively dangerous 20 seconds.

          *That's* what I mean by easily done, not the witch-hunt fantasy that you appear to be referring to.

          Given that I have been on the roads for 20+ years and have (or ever had) any endorsements or points on my license or had or caused any accidents or even been given a stern look by the boys in blue I would hazard a guess that I may have been doing something right in the last half a million miles.

          But then none of us are perfect, not even *you*.

          1. Argh!
            Badgers

            It's easier than that....

            "if you had never been on that road before you could easily have started at 40 then ended up at (gasp!) 42 for a massively dangerous 20 seconds."

            Potentially 46 in that scenario actually. Speedos only have to be accurate to within 10%, which is why speed cameras (and mobile traps) are not *supposed* to nick you until you are doing 45 in a 40 zone or 67 in a 60 zone (limit+10%+1mph).

            So in actual fact you could easily be going faster than the posted limit (44mph in the example) and not know it unless you happen to have a satnav which will record (constant) speed more accurately. If you have one, try it sometime on a straight stertch. You may well find that your speedo is out by a noticable amount. So much for hard limits.

  19. Cunningly Linguistic
    FAIL

    Hidden cameras

    In Tameside, near Manchester, every speed camera is painted a very dark navy blue. On the odd occasion where they have an associated electronic "30 mph Slow Down" display they are all so close to the camera as to be useless, in fact arguably they could be considered to be dangerous themselves due to their effect on drivers is for them to slam on their anchors before the camera gets them.

    Now persuade me that those tactics aren't ones designed for revenue collection rather than accident reduction.

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      I have a cunning way to avoid their revenue collecting tactics...

      Don't speed.

      1. Cunningly Linguistic

        The driver who hasn't broken speed limits...

        ...hasn't been born yet.

        1. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Technically there have...

          ...but they're all under 17

  20. Bernard M. Orwell

    Hidden Gatso

    Many cameras and ANPR systems are still being used, deliberately, to generate revenue rather than prevent speeding. Consider: if everyone stuck to the speed limits, because of the presence of cameras, then the cameras wouldn't generate revenue and would turn into a very costly burden on the tax-payer (right now they pay for themselves with funds to spare).

    Citation: http://www.speedcam.co.uk/gatso.htm

    1. leexgx
      FAIL

      ANPR

      ANPR is for the number plates not speeding, if you get cough with one of them its due to no Tax, Insurance or MOT on the car (that would be your own fault then speeding or not)

      they are used Often With Avg speed cams but they are norm not hidden and are only used on motaways

  21. Livinglegend

    Fiddle and fraud

    is easy with speed scameras.

    Prior to speed scams being set up, all accident figures within a 3km. radius of the site are used as justification. Even accidents on distant roads or on neighbouring housing estates are quoted as 'at the proposed camera site'. After the speed scams are installed, any accidents only on the same road on a length of 0.5km are then considered as 'at the camera sites'. Close to where I live, there were no fatal accidents on the actual road with the cameras prior to installation, following there were 2 fatalities. The local Unsafety Partnership claim that they were installed to save lives and refused to remove them. The cash collecting scameras are still in place after 8 years, despite more and more accidents 'at the sites'.

    Don't believe any released figures unless you can check the validity of accident causation, as only 7% of all accidents are due to excessive speed and then a small proportion of those actually exceed the speed limit. Having told motorists that speeding is a major cause of accidents (NOT), the government can't say they have wasted billions on the wrong safety issue.

    1. Grease Monkey Silver badge

      Fiddle

      Sorry, but the big fiddle was nothing to do with using none qualifying accidents. That's been blown out of all proportion. The big fiddle was the dropped speed limit. The trick was to carry out a speed survey, and then drop the speed limit afterwards. Then compare the results of the speed survey with the new speed limit rather than the speed limit that was in force at the time of the survey.

      So you have your (potentially misleading) KSI accident stats. You need stats that show that a certain percentage of drivers are exceeding the speed limit by more than a certain amount to get your cameras.* You carry out your survey and find that the necessary number of drivers were not exceeding the limit by the necessary amount. Solution? Drop the speed limit. Use the same survey and now it appears that a huge number of drivers were exceeding the limit by a huge amount. Camera funding received.

      * The accident stats and speeding stats even if accurate do not demonstrate beyond doubt that there is a link between speed and accident rates. But there you go, the old government said they did.

      1. Argh!
        Go

        Indeed

        "The accident stats and speeding stats even if accurate do not demonstrate beyond doubt that there is a link between speed and accident rates"

        While poking around today prompted by this topic i found this site:

        http://www.safespeed.org.uk/effects.html

        Which was a bit of a "where have to been all my life" moment for me.

        You can argue they are biased, but they seem to have done a decent amount of analysis

        http://www.safespeed.org.uk/factors.html

        Argue coherently about their point

        http://www.safespeed.org.uk/roadsafety.html

        and put forth an argument for measures to fix the problem

        http://www.safespeed.org.uk/proposals.html

        which are based on reason rather than faith and soundbites.

        Note, they don't go for a "speed limits are for losers we can drive as fast as we like" policy, which is how supporters of cameras often seem to try and paint opponents, but instead focus on getting speed limits right and the enforcement of them right - stomping down in cases where it matters, letting it slide when it doesn't (i.e. HUMAN enforcement)

        I found what seemed to be an external link to a hard Canadian study very interesting:

        http://sense.bc.ca/research.htm

        It makes very interesting reading and I'd reccomend it to everyone whether you agree or disagree.

  22. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Stats will be issued by the dept of misinformation!

    I'm not sure which is more evil, the speed cameras or the stats manipulated to justify them.

    It's plainly clear to me that forcing people to slow down at certain areas is a flawed means of enforcing road safety and that any camera generating large profits is obviously not working.

    The fact is speed is way over emphasised as a safety issue, were actually its careless driving that is the real cause. You could drive blindfolded into a wall but if you were going too fast, it will be recorded as a speeding related incident!

    Years of hypnotising us with 'speed kills' has generated a false sense of safety among many drivers who think they are safe purely because they drive within the limits - despite the fact they are often blissfully unaware of many other rules of the road.

    And, as for the stats, they can easily and are often manipulated to show cameras in a good as light as possible - not least by including data that should not really be included.

    I'm not a statistician but it's pretty obvious to me there is rarely an adequate sample base to generate any meaningful stats from - particularly for road fatalities.

    Unfortuanately real saftey enforcement costs money rather than makes money - so road saftey is going to stay focussed on speed and speed cameras, and no doubt the right stats will be generated to support them.

    1. This post has been deleted by its author

      1. Cunningly Linguistic

        Hiding speed cameras...

        ...doesn't make slower drivers, just poorer ones.

    2. Argh!
      Thumb Up

      Agreed

      "The fact is speed is way over emphasised as a safety issue, were actually its careless driving that is the real cause."

      I agree. To put "speeding" into perspective (i.e. directly related to the posted speed limit) while still focussing on speed as a problem, consider he following:

      A motorway has a posted speed limit of 70MPH. In good conditions on a good stretch of road (just for example that 4 or 5 lane straight bit of the A1(M) before Peterborough) can anyone say that it's not safe to do say 80-85MPH?

      Conversely, if conditions on that SAME stretch of road are bad e.g. foggy with visibility less than 50yards, wet slippery roads like when it gets wet on the dust of prolonged sun, you'd have to be practically suicidal to tank along at 70MPH

      Conclusion: the posted speed limit has little to do with the actual "safe" speed on a road and is more useful an indicator of possible conditions of that section of road (in theory it can be assumed that a lower speed limit indicated some sort of "danger" ahead of which you may not be aware) and this small data should be added to your trained observation of the conditions around you in order to drive safely.

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Happy

        Re: Agreed

        well put,

        vehicle condition, road condition, weather, traffic and driver condition, should all be taken into account when choosing a safe speed at which to proceed, unfortunately this appears to be a very rare set of considerations on the UK roads these days.

        Couple of years back there was fog on the motorway around Birmingham, the inappropriate driving speeds and distances resulted in a 100 car shunt.

        Chief Constable subsequently on the evening news whinging

        No news on the 99 Due Care and Attention tickets that his officers should have been handing out

        50MPH in a Fog Bank on the motorway is dangerous, even if under the speed limit

  23. John Smith 19 Gold badge
    Coat

    Sounds like speed cameras are like those child safety campaigns

    Watching out for the suspicious stranger in the unwashed rain ware when they should have told you about "Uncle Ernie".

    This "Evidence" should be interesting, *provided* they explain the basis on which the data was gathered and processed.

    The antics of the Climate Research Unit should have warned people to read the small print on government supplied (or funded) research carefully.

    Mine's the one with the DVD of Tommy in the pocket.

  24. Inachu
    FAIL

    Police break the law on these cameras sometimes.

    It has been reported that some police modify the redlights down to 3 seconds instead of 5 seconds which is below the federal guidelines.

    Not sure how it is done in europe but changing the timing on lights to get more revenue also should be just as illegal as those breaking the speed limit.

    Who will be fined then?

    1. Grease Monkey Silver badge

      Amber

      Amer light timing is fixed at three seconds in the UK. Some drivers who have been nicked have tried to claim that the lights were timed wrongly, but it's very rare that anybody has managed to prove it.

  25. Anonymous Coward
    Grenade

    It really is astonishingly simple

    If you don't want to get caught by a speed camera, or the police, don't speed.

    If you want to go at 80 on a motorway, campaign for the speed limits to be changed - don't blame the cameras.

    1. Argh!
      FAIL

      It really is astonishingly beside the point

      "If you don't want to get caught by a speed camera, or the police, don't speed."

      Wow, cracking observation (well except for once being pulled and almost ticketed by the police while doing below the legal limit because they *assumed* I was speeding having accellerated rapidly off a set of lights that they happened to be watching from round the corner). Except that the stated purpose of speed cameras is TO IMPROVE ROAD SAFETY not to catch people speeding. No conclusive evidence exists that they do so. Until someone can come up with hard and impartial evidence to the contrary I will continue to complain about something that goes against logic and the anecdotal but fairly compelling evidence that I have seen so far.

      "If you want to go at 80 on a motorway, campaign for the speed limits to be changed - don't blame the cameras."

      Hmm i can remember a number of campaigns for exactly that, including those backed by motoring organisations:

      http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4528507.stm

      How far do you think they got against a backdrop of rabid governmental antipathy towards cars, cries of "think of the children who are maimed and killed by cars" and people who assume that there must be a good reason for a law or it wouldn't have been passed, right?

      In fact for all the campaigning along those lines the speed limits are actually going DOWN on some motorways to 50 or 60.

      I'm starting to be convinced it is government policy to return to the practice of having someone run in front of cars with a red flag again. Totally solves road accidents since few people will be able to break 20MPH and then only for short bursts, decreases obesity due to lack of excercise and you can mandate that anyone out of a job must take the position solving unemployment too. Three for the price of one - makes total sense... right?

      .

      1. This post has been deleted by its author

      2. Anonymous Coward
        Stop

        80mph on a motorway misses three important points

        Firstly, the limiting factor on the car's reactions is your ability to perceive hazards ahead, which will be less good than you think it is.

        Secondly, there is a "sheer speed" issue with respect to HGVs, which can only travel at 56mph, and gives a raised accident rate. This gets worse the faster the rest of the traffic is moving.

        Finally crash barriers can't cope with much more energy than that of an average car travelling at 70-75mph. So go much faster than this an in the event of something going wrong you are likely to be in the other carriageway, with oncoming traffic at a closing speed of 140+mph.

        Indecently, I support speed cameras, and believe that if you want to change the law, stand for parliament. If its as popular an idea as some claim then you should be able to get a majority and change it! I hope however that it is the road outside your children's school on which you remove the first limit, just to show your confidence in other drivers' judgements.

        1. Intractable Potsherd
          Troll

          Way to build a straw man, AC!

          Wanting higher speed limits on motorways is not the same as wanting higher speed limits on residential roads (ie "just outside your children's school"). Residential areas are not motorways or major A-roads, and no-one has suggested that they are.

        2. Argh!
          FAIL

          Speaking of missing the point.....

          "Firstly, the limiting factor on the car's reactions is your ability to perceive hazards ahead, which will be less good than you think it is."

          Hence suggesting increased training to give people a better appreciation of their skills and the means to ANTICIPATE rather than perceive potential hazards. You do know the difference between anticipation and perception, right?

          "Secondly, there is a "sheer speed" issue with respect to HGVs, which can only travel at 56mph, and gives a raised accident rate. This gets worse the faster the rest of the traffic is moving."

          Hmmm 85 vs 56? How is that different to 30MPH versus stationary vehicle? Also I limited my example to a clear road - the stretch I mentioned you can see about a mile an a half, enough anticipation time don't you think?

          If you'd read the rest you'd also have noted that I don't believe that even if the speed "limit" was 85 that it would be safe to drive at that speed at all times so you're pointing out a non-existant flaw.

          "Finally crash barriers can't cope with much more energy than that of an average car travelling at 70-75mph."

          Being a function of the momentum of the impacting object it turns out they suck at much lower speeds than that if you hit one with a van or a lorry or an HGV and also depends significantly on the aangle of impact which it turned out in collisions was often different to what had been anticipated when the barriers were designed. That would be why, once they discovered that, barriers started getting replaced with concrete blockers in the central reservation to better reflect the impacting vehicle back into the carrigeway. so that would be an irrelevent point too then.

          "just to show your confidence in other drivers' judgements."

          As I've said several times in posts in these comments I don't have *any* confidence in other drivers judgements, which is why I advocate increased driver training rather than a pointless and irrelevant "war on speeding".

          The examples I gave were very specific to demonstrate that a speed limit is, by neccesity of being a static measure, unable to take account of prevailing conditions making it all but irrelevant in determining the safe speed at a given time, which will often be much LOWER than the posted limit. Extending that logic it becomes clear that draconian enforcement of speed limits under the pretext of "safety" is pointless in addressing the root issue and is simply a way to tax car drivers while giving the government the appearance of "Doing Something".

          Now please come back when you have something more cogent to argue with than irrelevant "facts" and pointlessly emotive and equally irrelevant "think of the children" wailing.

          .

          1. Anonymous Coward
            Coat

            @Argh!

            I have looked at the facts over and over again. As have many of the transport professionals (most of whom own cars, and a substantial are not adverse to driving fast). I do however have on objection to wars on abstract nouns. This is not a war on speeding, otherwise every motoway in the country would be covered in speed cameras. This is just an attempt to save a few more lives at accident blackspots, there is no conspiracy.

            The difference between the sheer speed and travelling at 30mph in town is that of energy. Kinetic energy is related to the speed squared, not the speed, and a sheer speed means that you need to worry about when a car will decide to dive out from behind a lorry, and try to accelerate up to the speed of the next lane. The greater that difference, the greater the likelihood of a collision.

            You say training courses are the answer. Do your training courses give people improved depth perception to notice a change in speed of the car in front and better eyesight to notice a brakelight at 400m (travelled in 5 seconds at 80mph)?

            Given how transport decisions are made by balancing cost, accident risk and environmental factors with time saved by drivers, if getting rid of speed cameras didn't decrease accident risk then they'd go. The transport budget of the Highways Agency/Local Authorities is finite, and there are always more exciting infrastructure (and CV) building projects to do with it than place speed cameras.

            Fair point on the new concrete barriers, but they are still very much on a minority of motorways yet. I don't know offhand what speeds they are rated to either

            I presume you give the new variable speed limit areas your full support as well? They do change to reflect changing conditions at any point in time

            But I stand by my earlier statement, get the political backing and get speed limits (on motorways only if you like) removed you really believe that they are not currently suitable.

            1. Argh!

              Try reading closer and not out of context

              "I have looked at the facts over and over again"

              Looked at these ones?

              http://www.safespeed.org.uk/effects.html

              They seem to have done a fairly thorough job and present reasoned arguments based on evidence. I have yet to see any such analysis on the other side. If you have a link to such a thing by all means post it as I would be interested in the view.

              "This is not a war on speeding"

              The goverments entire public road safety policy since the early 90's has been focussed on "Speed Kills" and "Slow down" campaigns and enforcement has drastically increased:

              Speed camera offences 1996 - 262,000

              Speed camera offences 2006 - 1,865,000

              While behind the scenes they occasionally do something more useful like re-engineer accident blackspots, the face presented to the public and the direct effect on drivers is a draconian enforcement of speed limits and the lowering of speed limits in many areas in response to political or public pressure rather than an analysis of the road in question.

              What would you call that?

              "Do your training courses give people improved depth perception to notice a change in speed of the car in front and better eyesight to notice a brakelight at 400m (travelled in 5 seconds at 80mph)?"

              Strawman. The point of training as I said before is to give you the tools to ANTICIPATE a potentially dangerous situation BEFORE it arises - in your example one would see the HGV and ANTICIPATE that there is a potential for a hidden car and slow accordingly removing the reaction time problem. The fact that you suggest that an 80MPH speed limit would have any effect on this is exactly the problem. Arbitary and ruthlessly enforced speed limits and the focus on them creates the illusion that "driving within the speed limit" is the only thing that needs to be done to be safe on the road, which is simply not true. You seem to have completely ignored that portion of my post though.

              "Given how transport decisions are made by balancing cost, accident risk and environmental factors with time saved by drivers, if getting rid of speed cameras didn't decrease accident risk then they'd go."

              [Citation needed] Any evidence to support that claim at all?

              "I presume you give the new variable speed limit areas your full support as well? They do change to reflect changing conditions at any point in time"

              Having regularly driven through them, no in fact they don't and that's not a suprise - there is no way an automated system could detect and take account of the number of variables involved and even if they could the safe speed could potentialy change minute-to-minute if not second to second and it would be ludicrous to change the posted limit that often

              Perhaps they help to some extent and would certainly make sense in areas that have a specific variable danger - I would rather see variable limits around schools for example than on motorways.

              Again, try reading this as it's very similar to what I think about it

              http://www.safespeed.org.uk/proposals.html

              *Correct* speed limits are useful, variable or otherwise but still no substitute for the responsibilty and correct judgement of the person behind the wheel.

              "But I stand by my earlier statement, get the political backing and get speed limits (on motorways only if you like) removed you really believe that they are not currently suitable."

              You really weren't listening were you? I don't WANT speed limits removed. I want the focus and reliance on them removed and the myth that driving to the speed limit makes you safe removed and the reliance on cameras that cannot make a subjective judgement of safey removed and the soundbite and patently false "speed kills" campaigns removed. I want all these things replaced by a genuine effort to improve the safety of our driving before we become like Belgium.

              And yes, having found an organisation that believes the same thing I will support them. However, being cynical about how gullible the average member of the public can be when it comes to being told something is true over and over, and knowing how little effect political lobbying has unless you have millions of pounds to spend I expect my support to be an empty gesture at best. Reasoned argument has little place in politics.

              .

            2. Argh!
              WTF?

              The police too....

              It appears even the police think that the object is to generate a many speeding convictions as possible....

              http://www.newstatesman.com/blogs/the-staggers/2011/01/police-officer-thompson-speed

        3. leexgx

          it not be 140mph hit not how physics works

          myth-busters revisited Head on crash http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3GuqiAHGGT4

        4. leexgx

          with oncoming traffic at a closing speed of 140+mph

          second half of that test (mod edit my other post to include this as well, as part 2 only viewable in USA below link works everywhere)

          http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r8E5dUnLmh4

  26. David Gale

    To include maintenance stats...?

    I wonder if these stats will include information on whether a speed camera has beeen maintained as required for it to be recognised as a prescribed device? Whilst GATSO camera units are routinely removed from their cabinets for servicing and calibration, a calibration methodology that would never be allowed in any other industry, there has been a monumental cover-up, that has included the connivance of CPS and the courts, to avoid the disclosure that many GATSO's power supply units have NEVER been tested adequately to verify their output voltage. A GATSO without such certifiation does NOT meet with the statutory obligations required of a speed metering device. The Home Office know it, the CPS know it and the courts know it:

    http://www.pistonheads.com/gassing/topic.asp?h=0&f=10&t=442382&mid=0&i=0&nmt=Power Supply Units to GATSO cameras - update&mid=0

  27. Jim 59

    Revenue

    The link between speed cameras and revenue was broken some time ago by the Coalition govt, I think. The use of speed cameras should now be being driven by the incentive to save lives - not make money. Given that, I don't see what we motorists have to complain about.

    1. David Gale

      What have we to complain about?

      What have we to complain about?

      How about the state knowingly perverting the course of justice? (see 'maintenance' post)

    2. Argh!
      Stop

      Was it?

      "The link between speed cameras and revenue was broken some time ago by the Coalition govt,"

      [Citation Needed]

  28. leexgx

    lern how to drive correctly

    my understanding is that speed cams are not affective at all, its like speed cam is there every one slows down for it then goes back to the norm speed for the road (be it 40 in an 30 if the road permits it and 20-10 around schools i do agree with even to the point 10mph that i norm do well norm only can do as most have full road speed bumps not the square ones)

    learn how to drive correctly meaning,

    dual or 3 lane motorways do not hang in the out side lane the second and 3rd line is overtaking if some one is behind you move into the first lane or second lane, if overtaking do not hold back and make problems behind you

    the best one i find that's annoying is drivers who think that due to them needing to turn right 2-5 miles up the road they need to stay in the second lane on an dual carriage way (and not doing the road speed) and some times the driver in the first lane does not help by matching the speed of the driver of the second lane in doing so making an rolling block (i have had to indicate and move my car over to force the car in the first lane driver to move so i could get ahead of the lane hogger in the second lane something i should not have to do)

    I know some drivers that drive slower the Trucks that are limited to 64mph that's just asking for problems or driving past next to trucks not overtaking in good time or just driving next to them in an blind spot just asking to be side swiped

    there are also drivers that just cant complete movements correctly

    switching lanes with out signalling, pulling out onto an main road when plenty of time is there, i think i can make an quite an long list about but OAP should be looked at far more often as small number of them are quite unsafe to drive (they are not all bad)

    to an agree about police more around that ant going to happen due to officers fired or been planned to officers (do not think they should be on motorways thought as they just make 2-4 mile long tailbacks at low speeds on them due to every one slowing down even slower then 60 in some cases)

  29. Anonymous Coward
    Black Helicopters

    funny stuff

    It doesn't matter if they paint them bright yellow, its still easy to miss one. especially if you are somewhere unfamilliar.

    Look at it this way, I have only ever been caught by a speed camera once. And that was whilst I was about 200 miles away from home, collecting a new car I had bought. Unluckilly for me there was a speed camera just down the road from this guys house. I managed to set it off for doing 46mph in a 40mph area.

    The things which pissed me off the most was that, nowhere near the camera is there any speedlimit signs, there are no junctions nearby, its on a road in the middle of nowhere, they positioned it in a dip to try and hide it, and there wasn't even any pavements along the road.

    So who, or what the feck were they making safer? Oh wait,,, it payed for some more fake police/comunity support officers? thats ok then.

This topic is closed for new posts.