new & interesting places for your GPS

Speed camera switch-off sees fewer accidents

 

Fewer people have been killed and injured on roads following a decision by a local council to switch off its speed cameras.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/motoring/news/7931842/Speed-camer...

--
"Ceterum autem censeo, Carthaginem esse delendam" “When governments fear the people, there is liberty. When the people fear the government, there is tyranny.”

We always knew that, heh.

We always knew that, heh.

Quote:

Accident data shows that in the first nine months after the devices were scrapped in Swindon, there were 315 road casualties in the area as a whole, compared with 327 in the same period the previous year.

In total there were two fatalities – compared with four in the same period previously – and 44 serious injuries, down from 48.

But seriously, that is only a 4% difference. I have a hard time thinking that is significant, statistically. But maybe I am wrong.

In any case I am opposed to automated enforcement, even if a relative bloodbath were to occur on the roads when the speed cameras are turned off, I would still only support actual police enforcement of such laws.

Good Observation

Steevo wrote:

But seriously, that is only a 4% difference. I have a hard time thinking that is significant, statistically. But maybe I am wrong.

In any case I am opposed to automated enforcement,

Steevo has the proper approach to this article. While it looks like this may be a blow to camera advocates like myself, 9 months of data showing 4% change needs to be followed up on.

Hope those who follow this thread will read the "related articles" cited in the original article.

Cause and Effect?

How do speed cameras cause accidents? I can understand the arguments about red light cameras (but don't agree), but how can a speed camera cause an accident on the open road?

The police have been very busy giving speeding tickets on the highways around here. Seems lots of folks here think the posted speed limit means the minimum speed rather than the maximum speed.

--
Tuckahoe Mike - Nuvi 3490LMT, Nuvi 260W, iPhone5

In other words - its not

In other words - its not statistically significant - which proves its all about the revenue not safety.

How did you draw that conclusion?

photomatt wrote:

In other words - its not statistically significant - which proves its all about the revenue not safety.

The title of the thread is Speed camera switchoff sees fewer accidents. If revenue were the reason for the camera, why would it be switched off?

.

Because it wasn't making enough money, hence the revenue reason.

I did not find that in the article

Mpegger wrote:

Because it wasn't making enough money, hence the revenue reason.

Perhaps I missed it, but I did not find any quote that said it was not making enough money.

Would you quote the section that you used to make your statement please?

A Study I'd Like to See

Double Tap wrote:

Fewer people have been killed and injured on roads following a decision by a local council to switch off its speed cameras.

Driving Slower Reduces Death and Injuries!

Maybe this:

jgermann wrote:
Mpegger wrote:

Because it wasn't making enough money, hence the revenue reason.

Perhaps I missed it, but I did not find any quote that said it was not making enough money.

Would you quote the section that you used to make your statement please?

"However, large parts of the country are now expected to follow its example after the Government announced a £38 million cut in the Road Safety Grant, which funds the devices, from £95 million to £57 million."

To me that statement says "We cannot generate enough revenue to cover the new cost of the cameras." If it truly impacted safety as much as they stated, they would find a way of continuing the service.

Not really

scout67 wrote:
jgermann wrote:
Mpegger wrote:

Because it wasn't making enough money, hence the revenue reason.

Perhaps I missed it, but I did not find any quote that said it was not making enough money.

Would you quote the section that you used to make your statement please?

"However, large parts of the country are now expected to follow its example after the Government announced a £38 million cut in the Road Safety Grant, which funds the devices, from £95 million to £57 million."

To me that statement says "We cannot generate enough revenue to cover the new cost of the cameras." If it truly impacted safety as much as they stated, they would find a way of continuing the service.

You have to understand how cameras and the fines work in the UK. The fines go to the national government which pays for the installation and operation of the cameras. The localities put them in, but then are reimbursed by the government. With the gov not reimbursing the local authorities for the operational costs, they are being turned off to save the locality money - not because they were unprofitable as the local authority didn't see any of the money to speak of.

--
"Too often we enjoy the comfort of opinion without the discomfort of thought." -- John F. Kennedy, 35th U.S. president

link

Box Car wrote:

You have to understand how cameras and the fines work in the UK. The fines go to the national government which pays for the installation and operation of the cameras. The localities put them in, but then are reimbursed by the government. With the gov not reimbursing the local authorities for the operational costs, they are being turned off to save the locality money - not because they were unprofitable as the local authority didn't see any of the money to speak of.

Please provide a link to back up what you're saying.

See this thread for a good explanation

twix wrote:

Please provide a link to back up what you're saying.

of the financing of cameras. This article clearly indicates that cities did not make money from the fines.

http://www.poi-factory.com/node/30152

t

jgermann wrote:
twix wrote:

Please provide a link to back up what you're saying.

of the financing of cameras. This article clearly indicates that cities did not make money from the fines.

http://www.poi-factory.com/node/30152

"Originally councils were able to keep the money they raised from speed cameras as long as the money was used for road transport.
Since 2007 they have had to send the fine income to the Treasury, but under Labour around the same amount – between £80 £100 million a year – was returned as a road safety grant.
Since taking office, the Coalition has cut the road safety grant, while councils are still obliged to hand fine income over to Whitehall.
It has left councils picking up a bill for collecting money on the Government's behalf at the same time as facing the biggest financial squeeze in a generation."

I'm taking issue with Box Car's last sentence. It's not until recently that the local governments are not getting reimbursed.

so lets just slow down to a crawl

"Driving Slower Reduces Death and Injuries!"

True, but the logical conclusion to that is to drive no faster than a speed at which cars will absorb impact without death and injury. The camera will not stop the driver distracted by what's happening inside the car or impaired by loss of physical/mental abilities and concentrating on those issues don't make as much money.

The superhighways were built to be safe at 95

Here in America, maybe not the same as in the UK, our superhighways especially out here in the west were built to be safe at high speeds.

Imagine, a 4 or 8 lane road through the desert, straight, flat, mostly no traffic at all.

Why the heck should we only go 55 or even 75 MPH on such a road?

Clearly it was designed to be safe at 95. Most people are going 80 or 90 out there. You can go quite a ways before you even see another car. It's 140 miles to the next town. Gad. If there was a place to put on speed this is it!

Those speed cameras in Arizona, they were there strictly for money. To bail out the state from their money problems caused mostly by too much spending.

That didn't work out so well for them, the vendor was pretty expensive. The state was not making much money. The voters were pretty pissed off. Out the cameras go! This is what makes America great.

So be it

Steevo wrote:

We always knew that, heh.

Quote:

Accident data shows that in the first nine months after the devices were scrapped in Swindon, there were 315 road casualties in the area as a whole, compared with 327 in the same period the previous year.

In total there were two fatalities – compared with four in the same period previously – and 44 serious injuries, down from 48.

But seriously, that is only a 4% difference. I have a hard time thinking that is significant, statistically. But maybe I am wrong.

Amen!
In any case I am opposed to automated enforcement, even if a relative bloodbath were to occur on the roads when the speed cameras are turned off, I would still only support actual police enforcement of such laws.

--
Bob: My toys: Nüvi 1390T, Droid X2, Nook Color (rooted), Motorola Xoom, Kindle 2, a Yo-Yo and a Slinky. Gotta have toys.

Any differences in weather

Any differences in weather between the too periods?

Could just be

a difference in the 'Bozone' layer....

--
Striving to make the NYC Metro area project the best.

No Camera - Minor change in accidents

Although the 4% is statistically not very important, the best part of the results is that the advocates of the cameras being installed to reduce accidents are just blowing smoke. Cameras do not deter accidents. Cameras are a revenue source for the camera providers and local government.

Look at the stats the other way round

I think you guys are interpreting the statistics the wrong way round. The important point here is not that accidents went down 4% when the cameras were removed, but that the number of accidents did not INCREASE compared to when the cameras were present. To me, this shows that these cameras had little or no benefit to the public safety.

Regards,
--Lee

Improved Traffic Flow Without Cameras

Tuckahoemike wrote:

Seems lots of folks here think the posted speed limit means the minimum speed rather than the maximum speed.

Wait, it doesn't? smile That'd be big news to drivers around here (Phoenix area).

I've noticed traffic flow on local freeways is vastly improved now that speed cameras have been turned off. With them in operation people would slam on the brakes (especially tourists) when they spotted the enforcement signs or cameras causing an accordion effect that could be seen for long distances during rush hours. With the cameras out of action people just continue cruising at a comfy 70 or so without speeding up/slowing down and risking rear-enders in the process.

Actually the biggest safety hazard here isn't speeders, it's lane hogs. Some drivers show no lane courtesy at all, planting themselves in whatever lane they choose without regard to vehicles behind them or traffic flowing around them on both sides.

Cheers

--
Nuvi 760 & 660, Streetpilot, GPS III, GPS 10X

I hear ya....

Gadgetjq wrote:

Actually the biggest safety hazard here isn't speeders, it's lane hogs.

Doggone mobile roadblocks....

--
Striving to make the NYC Metro area project the best.

sponsored links