If you need urgent support, call 999 or go to your nearest A&E. To contact our Crisis Messenger (open 24/7) text THEMIX to 85258.
Options
Take a look around and enjoy reading the discussions. If you'd like to join in, it's really easy to register and then you'll be able to post. If you'd like to learn what this place is all about, head here.
Comments
Here's the chart, with the red line being actual road fatalities, and the yellow line being the trend based on the data between 1978 and 1993, the blue line being the trend between 1950 and 1993. As you can see, since the introduction of speed cameras (in 93), this trend has practically halted. Now I'm not saying that speed cameras are the reason for this, just that they're clearly not doing a damn thing to help. Then again, maybe if people had their eyes on the road rather than their speedos, it might help a bit. I was driving in Preston the other day, and it was the first time I was driving where I would get my own speed ticket rather than one for my instructor. I spent most of the time looking at the speedo.
I will try to dig out some of the studies the goverment has published. But regardless of what you have posted there, which I'm sure it is true, if a study says there were x deaths/serious accidents at a spot before a camera was introduced and a significantly lower number after the camera went up, clearly the camera was directly responsible for the reduction in accidents was it not?
No, not really
I`ve tried to point out the flaw in statistical analysis before.
The reduction in deaths could be the result of numerous variable inputs.
There's a few things worth bearing in mind. One is the enforcement of drink/driving laws another is the seat belt laws and then the extension of that to rear belts and child seat...
How many were people run over, how many were drunks and how many were as a direct result of speed, how many deaths per accident (i.e. 20 people dying in a coach crash would screw up the figures) etc etc etc
The same chance as it being any other road.
Statistical nonsense. The average throw of a die is 3.5
Speed cameras make people slow down for accident blackspots, though, which is why they are successful. A competent driver should know roughly how fast he is driving without having to look at the speedon (if he has to look at the speedo every 20 seconds then he shouldn't be on the road), and speed cameras at junctions focus the mind- he'll be touching the brake not the speedo.
It is rare that 20 miles of a road would be an accident blackspot. Most speed cameras on rural trunk roads cover junctions- for instance on the A69, one of the most dangerous roads in the north-east, three of the four speed cameras cover dangerous crossroads and the fourth is in the middle of a village. On the A1 north of Newcastle its the same- one covers the end of a dual carriageway and prevents people doing 95mph to scream past trucks, and two more cover dangerous blind junctions (one being right next to a school).
I fail to see what the issue with those speed cameras is, yet there are regular campaigns to get all speed cameras in Northumberland removed.
Arguments about safety are important, but they miss the crucial point. Speeding kills. Speeding is against the law. Speed cameras catch speeders. Speeders are, by definition, criminals. The police are doing their job wonderfully- catching criminals.
There is a disconnect between the first sentence and the logic inherent in the following four sentences.
Speed laws in this country are a joke. Variable speed limits are the way forward.
I agree with all that, but that doesn't mean that speed cameras are bad.
The law is x, the law is sometimes wrong, but if you break it you get punished. If anyone feels that strongly about speeding fines they shouldn't speed.
Generally traffic wardens are right to issue tickets. Any cunt who parks on double yellows or especially in a disabled bay deserves it.
The problem is that they often give tickets when they cleary shouldn't.
Look at this cunt. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=408030&in_page_id=1770
I'm sorry, but no-one has address the fact, that the number of fatalities on our roads has failed to be reduced, when practically year on year for 40 years previously they were. Surely if speed cameras were effective, then not only would serious injuries be reduced, but also some of the fatalities would be too?
And this still looks pretty compelling to me:
Fatalities at camera sites
Per year before: 265
Per year after: 160
Absolute change: -105
Percentage change: -40%
Figures are annualised averages and relate to 3,376 camera sites in partnership areas
Source Dept for Transport
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/3807325.stm
And there are other effects of speed cameras as well. For instance deterrance. And quick detection of dangerous drivers. A driver who does 50mph on built up areas is a danger to others and deserves a ban. Without speed cameras he will only be caught by pure luck, if a police patrol happens to spot him. With cameras he will be caught much faster.
Speed does kill, that fact is inarguable- if you hit someone at 25mph they will probably live, but if you hit them at 35 they probably won't. You are obviously more likely to survive a head-on collision at 50mph than you are at 75mph.
Speed cameras protect small sections of dangerous road, and that is the data that should be extrapolated. The anti-camera lobby never ever seems to do that though...funny that.
As for the traffic warden, to be honest he was right. Most double yellow lines also have signs up saying no parking, he knew that he shouldn't park there, and I have no sympathy at all.
I notice you mention that the anti-speed camera lobby are dismissing your data on this fact. At least I'm addressing it, and arguing my point. What's your argument? "To extrapolate from the data that the road deaths should have gone down further than they have is a gigantic error, and probably a deliberate one at that." Well that is clearly crap. For a start, how can you just instantly dismiss such a huge shift in something that has remained relatively constant for 40 years? And I know because I have already said that the data shows that in other European countries without the "speed kills" policy have seen a steady decline in line with expectations. Countries like Germany, which give the driver the responsibility, have continued to see declining road fatalities. Whereas countries like the UK have failed to see the same progress. How do you explain that one? That is to be expected because of innovations in car safety. You seem to think that seatbelts, ABS, and all that other stuff is now at a dead end, and they no longer work to improve car safety. Well they have just added another star to the Euro NCAP safety ratings as a measure of how much they have achieved in the short period of time. I'm not saying that the data from this side of the argument is perfect in any way, but compared to that government crap, which has a huge interest in making it appear that speed cameras are working, it's positively saintly.
However to be honest its just common sense that the faster you are going the more likely that the pedestrian who steps out is more likely to be hit (because you can't brake in time) and is then more likely to die (because hitting someone at 40 mph is more likely to kill them than hitting them at 30mph).
The fact that there are also other reasons for the number of deaths on the roads going down doesn't mean that speed cameras don't play a part.
Are you going to prove that?
If someone slows down for a dangerous junction, and therefore doesn't crash into someone pulling out at 90mph, how is that crash going to happen somewhere else?
Aladdin has shown what difference the camera sites have made.
It's common sense that speed kills- even where it isn't the primary cause, if you hit something at 40mph you've more chance of walking away than if you hit it at 90mph. Speed is dangerous.
I can easily dismiss the flawed extrapolation for what it is. Refinements in car safety will make a difference, but not as much as wearing a seatbelt or not driving when pissed- both of which account for a lot of the decrease in road fatalities since 1975. It's inherently flawed to say that deaths should come down because they always have done. And even refinements will make smaller impacts as technology improves- putting ABS on a car will make more of an impact than putting better ABS on it.
I honestly don't understand the logic of anyone who campaigns against speed cameras. Some speed limits are wrong (I'd like to see slightly higher limits on motorways) but for the most part they are fine and the people driving too fast are wrong.
Unless you think that people who are driving at 25mph lose control and fatally crash often...
Speed cameras are not the answer on their own - no-one is suggesting they are, but the idea that the evidence that speed cameras don't make a difference is so barking you could put a lead on it and take it for a walk.
FATAL CRASH FACTORS
Losing control
35%
Going too fast for conditions
17%
Failing to look properly
17%
Turning or maneouvring poorly
12%
Exceeding speed limit
12%
Only one of those factors is caught by a speed camera, because the speed camera doesn't take into account the conditions.
Dude, if you've ever slowed down for a speed camera, then they work. Speed cameras are good at slowing drivers down, and even better and taking their money.
I'm not arguing they're not effective, just that they're as much a revenue generator as a speed deterrent.
France: 2.7% drop in injury accidents 1999 to 2000
Fatalities down 10% 1995 to 2000
Germany: 3.2% drop in injury accidents 1999 to 2000
Fatalities down 26% 1995 to 2000
Italy: 3.2% drop in injury accidents 1999 to 2000
Fatalities down 9.7% 1995 to 2000
Belgium:6.0% rise in motorway casualties 1999 to 2000
Fatalities up 1.4% 1995 to 2000
Sweden:0.4% drop in injury accidents 1999 to 2000
Fatalities up 3% 1995 to 2000
UK: 0.2% drop in injury accidents 1999 to 2000
And the fatalities are shown on the graph I presented earlier, but remained fairly constant.
Now you will notice that the first three countries, that have a policy focusing on driver responsiblity, have seen an overall drop in injuries and fatalities. The second three countries have a policy of using speed cameras to force drivers to drive within the limits. And I think you can work out the rest for yourself. Each is the official statistics from each country taken from the Safe Speed website, which campaigns for the implimentation of the measures I have been describing throughout this thread.
Yes, I can read.
Why do you think people lose control? Because they're driving too fast!
Same with all the other ones...
Speed kills. Do you dispute that?
Speed cameras shouldn't replace traffic police, but to try and claim that they don't work is ludicrous. Especially with spurious "stats" you can't even link to.
Speed cameras only raise revenue from criminals. What's the problem with that?
OK here goes. The figures are starting from a higher level, because historically many of these countries have failed to put in measures that the UK has to reduce accidents.
13.7 deaths per 100,000
9.8 per 100,000
12.9 per 100,000
15.4 per 100,000 people
5.6 per 100,000 people
http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/hea_mot_veh_dea-health-motor-vehicle-deaths
All from
UK has 5.6 per 100,000 people
http://www.statistics.gov.uk/cci/nugget.asp?id=1208
Yes, because the UK is dropping from a low base.
Now you will notice you are around twice as likely to be killed in France, Germany or Italy where they focus on driver responsibility than in the UK or Sweden. What does that tell you?
Here but since you've completely ignored the stats I've presented so far, I expect you to do the same here, since you've already made your mind up anyway. I'm sure I can find plenty more sources of the same information, but I would only do so if I expected you to not dismiss it outright anyway. I seriously hope your next reply is actually trying to address the issues raised by these stats, rather than dismiss the source instead. Because even if you do still believe there is a place for speed cameras, it does show a disturbing trend that road fatalities are not being cut in the same way as the 40 years before that. So what could the possible reasons for that be?