Speed Cameras in the UK - Saving lives?
What I want to know is this - how do they measure the effectiveness, or otherwise of each camera and where, if anywhere, is this information recorded?
Given that statistics can be formed to prove just about anything you want (99.5% of all statistics prove this), is there a sure-fire, definitive way of stating whether a specific camers is or isn't doing what it's supposed to do (ie slow traffic and save lives, or just generating revenue for the police and other authorities)?
Answers:
In Northants, a certain number of deaths/accidents should have happened at a location before a camera is fitted. The A43 is the most dangerous road in the countly, but only has one camera at the Northampton end and, judging by the amount of accidents, more cameras should be fitted.
However, analysis of the causes of the accidents shows that speed is rarely the cause. Often it is poor driving that is at fault and not the speed of the vehicle.
However, a clear way of measuring the effect of the camera is not how many speeders have been caught, but how many deaths have not occured.
Unfortunately, statistics show that cameras are only effective 100 yards before and after the camera. So, while they are good for critical spots like bends and junctions.
It is, however, interesting to note that, during the construction of a new road south of Birmingham, a speed camera mount was already in place, next to a junction, before the road was opened. This implies that the designers could not build a stretch of road that would not be dangerous/fatal unless a camera was fitted. Revenue generator?
ok then
Im bored of people who moan about speed cameras, my advice to them is STOP BLOODY SPEEDING that way you wont have to pay a fine and the cops wont be accused of making a fortune from them. Its that simple
Speed cameras suck!! I hope the court case about the human rights wins, then you dont have to say who is driving the car! mwuhahahahahaha
There are certain instances where the number of accidents in towns have been reduced and they claim this is due to the installation of a speed camera. However, think in the majority of cases they are just income generators and can even casue accidents themselves. I have been driving behind someone who suddenly slammed on the brakes becasue they have spotted a speed camera on several occasions - could have easily casued a multiple car crash!!
Making money, and costing lives.
http://www.pacts.org.uk/speedcamerabrief.
This might answer your question.
Here in CANADA we had photo radar in Ontario about ten years ago.The day it was in force the highway traffic speed dropped from the usual 140-160 kph to the posted limit of 100kph.It lasted until the next government removed photo radar then the speeding was even worse.The accident rate actually dropped for the year or so it was in force.
The only drivers who complain are those who speed and get caught. more power to the camera! (why should even one person get killed because someone wants to go faster than the limit)
Speed Cameras Can Save Lives But They Don't Cause Accidents. Cars Don't Kill People It's The Nut Behind The Wheel That Does That. If Those That Speed Didn't There Wouldn't Be Any Need For Speed Cameras And Your Question Would Be A Moot Point. For My Children's Sake, You All Know Speed Kills So Please Kill Your Speed NOT MY CHILDREN!
If you say so
The number of road deaths caused yearly had been falling steadily in the UK from a peak in the seventies, to a low in the mid nineties and has now crept up again.
The main cause in the fall is thought to be improved car design, and anti drink driving legislation, and part of the reason for the recent increases is thought to be higher traffic volumes and greater distances travelled per year / per driver.
There is indirect evidence that speed cameras don't help, Durham county doesn't operate them and they have one of the lowest fatality rates in the UK, but then proponents of cameras can argue that is down to other causes. Another study in London showed that while you can reduce deaths for a dangerous junction with the introduction of a speed camera, the overall accident rate in an area remained the same, since in the surrounding areas accident rates increased.
So at best they help marginally, at worst they reduce the number of traffic police patrolling the roads and actually increase road deaths.
As the Government insists that the cameras are only there to make the road safer then why are they still there after they have reduced the accidents to below the level that they are deemed necessary.
Speed does not cause accidents.
Latest info when police are actually on the road to stop motorists is that they find unroadworthy vehicles, unlicensed drivers, untaxed vehicles, drunk drivers etc etc
I drive 100,000 miles a year and pass God knows how many cameras in the middle of the night; not one of which serves a useful purpose at 2am.
In the Bradford area, West Yorkshire, the road-deaths per annum are now exactly the same as they were before cameras were installed on the roads.
"Speed is the biggest cause of accidents", claimed the local motorised plod.
Well, of course speed is not the cause of a single accident; it is always bad/drunk/drug driving or pedestrians who hurl themselves in front of cars for some strange reason.
All the fools who think that cameras save lives by making people stick to speed limits, are probably the same ones who speed past schools at 30mph, driving UP to the limit rather than down to a safe speed.
If people were really serious about road-safety, I would suggest that they campaign for random eye-tests for ALL motorists, and not just LGV and PSV drivers, because a lot of people who passed a test at 18 with perfect eyesight, are probably half-blind by the time they get to 55.
Unless people can see properly, what chance have they of avoiding anything?
you get fined and points for doing as little as 33mph in a 30 limit now, i spend more time watching my speedo than the road
The answers post by the user, for information only, UKQnA.com does not guarantee the right.