Road safety 'made worse by speed cameras'

I.S.T.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1178423/Road-safety-worse-speed-cameras.html

Road safety 'made worse by speed cameras'
By Daily Mail Reporter
Last updated at 9:14 AM on 08th May 2009

An over-reliance on speed cameras is today blamed for Britain's road safety record lagging well behind other countries.

Comparisons with 23 other developed nations found that the UK ranks 17th for child pedestrian deaths and 11th for pedestrian deaths overall.

The figures, published by the National Audit Office, show that 646 pedestrians and 136 cyclists were killed in 2007 - most on roads with a speed limit of less than 40mph.

Critics of the cameras welcomed the study, which they claimed showed the speed traps were a 'dangerous distraction' to drivers.

A spokesman for the road safety campaign group Safe Speed said: 'The view is these eyes in the sky are all-singing, all-dancing miracle cures.

'They may help but they are certainly no replacement for more properly trained police with the authority to act against irresponsible road users.'

The NAO also called on the Government to set new targets to reduce the numbers of those killed and seriously injured on the roads.

A spokesman for the NAO said: 'Making roads safer for pedestrians and cyclists is a key element in encouraging people to walk and cycle more.'

The Department for Transport said: 'We will continue to promote cycle and pedestrian training to give children the practical skills to keep safe on the roads.'

godtabh

Where does it say that speed cameras reduce safety?

Critics of the cameras welcomed the study, which they claimed showed the speed traps were a 'dangerous distraction' to drivers.

But I feel they may have a different agenda in saying this.

Any facts to back up what was said? No.

A load of **** TBH

I.S.T.

kearnsr wrote: »

Where does it say that speed cameras reduce safety?



But I feel they may have a different agenda in saying this.

Any facts to back up what was said? No.

A load of **** TBH

They reduce road safety as other areas such as protecting pedestrians and cyclists are being neglicated due to the over reliance on speed cameras. The number of road traffic police has been dramatically reduced since the intorduction of speed cameras so a lot more people get away with non-speed related offences. You'll find all the facts on www.safespeed.org.uk

godtabh

IrishSpeedTraps wrote: »

They reduce road safety as other areas such as protecting pedestrians and cyclists are being neglicated due to the over reliance on speed cameras. The number of road traffic police has been dramatically reduced since the intorduction of speed cameras so a lot more people get away with non-speed related offences. You'll find all the facts on www.safespeed.org.uk

www.safespeed.org.uk wrote:

Are you being prosecuted for a motoring offence?
A very significant number of prosecutions are defective. The trick is to find the defect. A good firm of specialist lawyers may well be able to help.

I wont be taking that site seriously

crocro

when is the new private speed camera system being deployed?

dereko1969

ok have a read here and tell me where it states that road safety has been made worse by speed cameras?
http://www.nao.org.uk/publications/0809/improving_road_safety_for_ped.aspx
i'll save you the time, it doesn't. the daily mail has basically re-written a 'safespeed' press release which is equating an increase in pedestrian/cyclist deaths with an increase in speed cameras and saying the two are linked - totally mad link.
what it does say and which the mail hasn't bothered reporting on is that the most effective method of reducing accidents is putting in ramps/bumps but nimbyism and the safespeed people would probably object to that and would probably set up a site so you can download the position of ramps/speed bumps to your sat nav so that your rice-burner boy racer extra large chrome exhaust doesn't get scratched!

TheInquisitor

dereko1969 wrote: »

ok have a read here and tell me where it states that road safety has been made worse by speed cameras?
http://www.nao.org.uk/publications/0809/improving_road_safety_for_ped.aspx
i'll save you the time, it doesn't. the daily mail has basically re-written a 'safespeed' press release which is equating an increase in pedestrian/cyclist deaths with an increase in speed cameras and saying the two are linked - totally mad link.
what it does say and which the mail hasn't bothered reporting on is that the most effective method of reducing accidents is putting in ramps/bumps but nimbyism and the safespeed people would probably object to that and would probably set up a site so you can download the position of ramps/speed bumps to your sat nav so that your rice-burner boy racer extra large chrome exhaust doesn't get scratched!

Im not sure housing estates can take any more speed bumps. Are you saying that all roads should have speed bumps including main arterial 100km/ph roads?

crocro

the daily mail is a rag. this is my favourite article:

thebman

dereko1969 wrote: »

ok have a read here and tell me where it states that road safety has been made worse by speed cameras?
http://www.nao.org.uk/publications/0809/improving_road_safety_for_ped.aspx
i'll save you the time, it doesn't. the daily mail has basically re-written a 'safespeed' press release which is equating an increase in pedestrian/cyclist deaths with an increase in speed cameras and saying the two are linked - totally mad link.
what it does say and which the mail hasn't bothered reporting on is that the most effective method of reducing accidents is putting in ramps/bumps but nimbyism and the safespeed people would probably object to that and would probably set up a site so you can download the position of ramps/speed bumps to your sat nav so that your rice-burner boy racer extra large chrome exhaust doesn't get scratched!

lol, I don't see why it is a crazy link to make TBH.

When there are speed cameras people slow down for them. The rest of the time they can do what speed they like so I can see how they could be ineffective.

Then you have things they don't detect like talking on mobile phones, texting, reading books while driving (I've seen this and newspapers), breaking red lights etc...

I don't think speed cameras are very effective TBH. They might be able to make them effective but so far they've not bothered.

serfboard

I suppose a plea to people to stop posting links from the Daily Rant Mail will not be listened to?

The usual sources spewing the usual garbage. I tend to believe the opposite of what this "publication" says.

crocro

thebman wrote: »

When there are speed cameras people slow down for them. The rest of the time they can do what speed they like so I can see how they could be ineffective.

So use covert mobile cameras.

[Then you have things they don't detect like talking on mobile phones, texting, reading books while driving (I've seen this and newspapers), breaking red lights etc...

Be careful what you wish for...
mobile phones, make-up eating ... http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/manchester/7994449.stm
Red light cameras are in use at junctions in the UK for years and I've seen cameras used in London to catch people parking illegally for a couple of minutes to run into a shop.

Automated methods of traffic enforcement save the state money and free up police to do proper police work rather than things that should be done by machines.

Sesshoumaru

dereko1969 wrote: »

ok have a read here and tell me where it states that road safety has been made worse by speed cameras?
http://www.nao.org.uk/publications/0809/improving_road_safety_for_ped.aspx
i'll save you the time, it doesn't. the daily mail has basically re-written a 'safespeed' press release which is equating an increase in pedestrian/cyclist deaths with an increase in speed cameras and saying the two are linked - totally mad link.
what it does say and which the mail hasn't bothered reporting on is that the most effective method of reducing accidents is putting in ramps/bumps but nimbyism and the safespeed people would probably object to that and would probably set up a site so you can download the position of ramps/speed bumps to your sat nav so that your rice-burner boy racer extra large chrome exhaust doesn't get scratched!

I have a totally standard Audi A6 Avant Quattro Sport and the bottom of my car scrapes against the top of many speed bumps. Thats driving over them at less than walking pace. Speed bumps in estates are also annoying because you are constantly hearing the shock absorbers on cars compressing and decompressing. Speed cameras, speed bumps.... they all just paper over the fact that we have poor driver training in Ireland. Total waste of money and just leads us down the road of a nanny state.

thebman

crocro wrote: »

So use covert mobile cameras.

Be careful what you wish for...
mobile phones, make-up eating ... http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/manchester/7994449.stm
Red light cameras are in use at junctions in the UK for years and I've seen cameras used in London to catch people parking illegally for a couple of minutes to run into a shop.

Automated methods of traffic enforcement save the state money and free up police to do proper police work rather than things that should be done by machines.

Lol I like this article. It only works if you punish people right away. Like training a dog

Can we get treats for good behavior?

corktina

quoting seeshorsananu...

absolutely...what kills people is BAD drivers, never mind what speed they are doing.....its not the people slowing for cameras that are dangerous, its those same people driving too fast or inapproriately in the first place...

Im appalled by the driving standards in this country. Thank Dog the roads are relatively quiet!

thebman

Sesshoumaru wrote: »

I have a totally standard Audi A6 Avant Quattro Sport and the bottom of my car scrapes against the top of many speed bumps. Thats driving over them at less than walking pace. Speed bumps in estates are also annoying because you are constantly hearing the shock absorbers on cars compressing and decompressing. Speed cameras, speed bumps.... they all just paper over the fact that we have poor driver training in Ireland. Total waste of money and just leads us down the road of a nanny state.

My main problem with speed bumps is they are uncomfortable at any speed. They are also bloody everywhere and force people to slow down and then they just speed up afterwards straight away.

They don't encourage anything as people try to get over them as fast as possible anyway since you see people hammer them because it is uncomfortable at any speed so some people decide that the fastest speed that the car can hit it at is the best speed to approach it at.

I like this idea. All these bloody speed bumps will probably be replaced in a few years with these ones. They are crap in their current state and I want rid of them.
http://www.motorauthority.com/self-lowering-speed-bumps-to-benefit-slow-drivers.html

delta_bravo

Road safety is made worse by bad road users, not speed cameras

cyclopath2001

kearnsr wrote: »

Any facts to back up what was said? No.A load of **** TBH

+1
The OP, a confirmed pro-speeder loobyist, also posted this non-story over in 'Motors' where it was received warmly.

jackofalltrades

crocro wrote:

Automated methods of traffic enforcement save the state money and free up police to do proper police work rather than things that should be done by machines.

It seems in the England and Wales that speed cameras have been used to replace proper police patrols. Officers don't seem to be freed up to patrol the roads rather their jobs seem to be eliminated.

According to this website there has been a reduction of almost 20% in the numbers of police patroling the roads in England and Wales.
http://www.policeoracle.com/news/We-Need-More-Traffic-Cops_17601.html

Speeding in the UK is responsible for less than 10% of road deaths.

The UK is saturated with speed cameras at the moment, the last time I was driving over there my Satnav was warning me about speed detection points every 2 minutes. Speed cameras didn't stop the driver that exectued a dangerous overtaking maneuver and but for the fact that I could pull into at tiny bit of hard shoulder would have collided with me at high speed. Nor did it stop the courier who blantaly reversed in oncoming traffic so he could pull out of an industrial estate.

And for the record in anti-speed in the sense that the speed in inappropiate for the road/driver/car/conditions and should be enforced by a person who can take these factors into account.

cyclopath2001

jackofalltrades wrote: »

Speeding in the UK is responsible for less than 10% of road deaths.

This is typical spin from the 'pro-speeding' lobby who focus exclusively on the 'accident-prevention' aspect of speed limiting measures, taking them as an affront to their machine handling skills.

The reason to limit speed is not just to prevent accidents but to limit the severity of injury, or likelihood of death when an accident does occur. Other valid reasons are, improved reaction time when the unexpected occurs, reduced noise pollution and improved quality of life for pedestrians and cyclists.

jackofalltrades

jackofalltrades wrote: »

It seems in the England and Wales that speed cameras have been used to replace proper police patrols. Officers don't seem to be freed up to patrol the roads rather their jobs seem to be eliminated.

According to this website there has been a reduction of almost 20% in the numbers of police patroling the roads in England and Wales.
http://www.policeoracle.com/news/We-Need-More-Traffic-Cops_17601.html

Speeding in the UK is responsible for less than 10% of road deaths.

The UK is saturated with speed cameras at the moment, the last time I was driving over there my Satnav was warning me about speed detection points every 2 minutes. Speed cameras didn't stop the driver that exectued a dangerous overtaking maneuver and but for the fact that I could pull into at tiny bit of hard shoulder would have collided with me at high speed. Nor did it stop the courier who blantaly reversed in oncoming traffic so he could pull out of an industrial estate.

And for the record in anti-speed in the sense that the speed in inappropiate for the road/driver/car/conditions and should be enforced by a person who can take these factors into account.

+1

The problem is not speeding as such, but inappropiate speed.

Two different things, a patrolling police car would most likely ignore someone doing a few miles over the limit while driving safely, but would nick someone who did an F1 take off from the lights even if they didn't break the speed limit or someone haring round bends etc.

Speed cameras only have an effect at the precise point they are located, the remainder of the road is free to do what you like on and UK motorists know that!

cyclopath2001

-1

Deleted User wrote: »

The problem is not speeding as such, but inappropiate speed.

But the pro-speeding lobby thinks the only time speed is inappropriate is when it leads to a loss of control of the vehicle?

cyclopath2001

cyclopath2001 wrote: »

-1
But the pro-speeding lobby thinks the only time speed is inappropriate is when it leads to a loss of control of the vehicle?

Rubbish! Inappropiate speed is when it can potentially lead to such a situation when the vehicle could become unstable, that situation depends on many factors Blah Blah Blah etc.... A fixed speed sign cannot always provide the appropiate speed limit for the driver to follow, common sense and better driver training will doo far more for road safety than speed limit fixsation!

cyclopath2001

Deleted User wrote: »

Rubbish! Inappropiate speed is when it can potentially lead to such a situation when the vehicle could become unstable

Is that all?

cyclopath2001

cyclopath2001 wrote: »

Is that all?

No, but it's a very long list and I can't be bothered to type it!

Bottom line is the speed limit sign is only part of the story!

crocro

jackofalltrades wrote: »

It seems in the England and Wales that speed cameras have been used to replace proper police patrols. Officers don't seem to be freed up to patrol the roads rather their jobs seem to be eliminated.

According to this website there has been a reduction of almost 20% in the numbers of police patroling the roads in England and Wales.
http://www.policeoracle.com/news/We-Need-More-Traffic-Cops_17601.html

Surely the important thing to measure is not how many police are patrolling the roads but rather the road accident rate. One is an input measure - the other an output. During the period above when traffic police were reduced by 20%, the fatal road accident rate fell by 20% in the UK. Is this not a very god news story? Less staff required to achieve a lower fatal accident rate.

During these 10 years police numbers increased significantly in the UK, so the idea that police jobs were 'eliminated' by police cameras seems unlikely.
http://www.statistics.gov.uk/hub/crime-justice/police/police-personnel-and-resources

Speeding in the UK is responsible for less than 10% of road deaths.

Speed is a factor in all road deaths. You can't be killed by a stationary vehicle. The severity of a road accident is proportional to the speed of the vehicles involved. The limits of human reaction time determine that the chances of avoiding an accident are increased the slower the vehicles are travelling.

The UK is saturated with speed cameras at the moment, the last time I was driving over there my Satnav was warning me about speed detection points every 2 minutes.

I would imagine that speed cameras would be more effective if they were all hidden and mobile so that they wouldn't register on satnav systems. People are hardly going to change their behaviour unless they expect to get caught if they break the limits.

Speed cameras didn't stop the driver that exectued a dangerous overtaking maneuver and but for the fact that I could pull into at tiny bit of hard shoulder would have collided with me at high speed. Nor did it stop the courier who blantaly reversed in oncoming traffic so he could pull out of an industrial estate.

Speed cameras don't reduce all types of traffic offences. Nobody would make this argument.

And for the record in anti-speed in the sense that the speed in inappropiate for the road/driver/car/conditions and should be enforced by a person who can take these factors into account.

It would be inefficient to allow every speeding infringement to be decided by a policeman. There's always a judge to appeal to in a special case.

jackofalltrades

Surely the important thing to measure is not how many police are patrolling the roads but rather the road accident rate. One is an input measure - the other an output. During the period above when traffic police were reduced by 20%, the fatal road accident rate fell by 20% in the UK. Is this not a very god news story? Less staff required to achieve a lower fatal accident rate.

During these 10 years police numbers increased significantly in the UK, so the idea that police jobs were 'eliminated' by police cameras seems unlikely.
http://www.statistics.gov.uk/hub/cri...-and-resources

I'm not claiming police force numbers have decreased. I'm claiming that police officers on traffic duty have decreased.
Maintaining the level of police officers on traffic duty would have probably yielded a reduction in fatal road accidents even further than the 20% you claim. Stopping the Uk slipping further back on EU accident league tables.

crocro wrote:

I would imagine that speed cameras would be more effective if they were all hidden and mobile so that they wouldn't register on satnav systems. People are hardly going to change their behaviour unless they expect to get caught if they break the limits.

The Satnav system that I was using identified mobile sites aswell.

Speed is a factor in all road deaths.

Yes, but its only the primary cause in a small minority if cases.

It would be inefficient to allow every speeding infringement to be decided by a policeman. There's always a judge to appeal to in a special case.

I'd suggest having speed cameras catch drivers blantantly speeding and have police officers use there judgement with less "cut and dry" cases.

cyclopath2001

jackofalltrades wrote: »

I'd suggest having speed cameras catch drivers blantantly speeding and have police officers use there judgement with less "cut and dry" cases.

I agree. You break the speed limit: you get penalty points and a fine. That's just a rap on the knuckles. Do it too often, you lose your license. The cameras are ideal for these cut & dried incidents. You're either over the limit or you're not.

If it's blatant in the judgment of the cops: you get done for dangerous driving.

bk

The problem of people slowing down and speeding up for speeds cameras can easily be fixed by the new type of speed camera that take your picture at a particular point and then do the same a few miles down the road again and calculate how long it should have taken you to get there and therefore if you were speeding or not.

However these types of camera are most effective on long stretches of Motorway, where to be honest a couple of miles over the speed limit don't really make mush of a difference to safety.

cyclopath2001

bk wrote: »

The problem of people slowing down and speeding up for speeds cameras can easily be fixed by the new type of speed camera that take your picture at a particular point and then do the same a few miles down the road again and calculate how long it should have taken you to get there and therefore if you were speeding or not.

Or by fitting tamper-proof GPS-based monitoring. This has other advantages, for example in getting a lower insurance quote and facilitating use-based road charging/insurance.

cyclopath2001

cyclopath2001 wrote: »

Or by fitting tamper-proof GPS-based monitoring. This has other advantages, for example in getting a lower insurance quote and facilitating use-based road charging/insurance.

Beware of what you wish for!
Big brother - 1984!
A device that tracks and records your every movement, A police state's dream.

I.S.T.

cyclopath2001 wrote: »

+1
The OP, a confirmed pro-speeder loobyist, also posted this non-story over in 'Motors' where it was received warmly.

"a confirmed pro-speeder loobyist". I disagree. How did you confirm this?