The case for speed cameras destroyed in a flash

[dmp]

Speed enforcement? 98% about TAXATION via Citation. Revenue. NOT safety - but a blind, ingorant public won't buy it. They will sit back on their laurels and chant "speed kills! speed kills!" because they are too lazy to understand WHY that statement is wrong, AND they want to feel better about their lack of driving skill. Yup. I'm telling you all - The BEST chance is, you SUCK as a driver. It's not an insult, just reality. I bet MOST drivers have the skill to use even 50% of their car's handling and braking ability. What do we do? We 'demand' Driver Babysitters and extra airbags and..oh yeah! A Citation to that guy driving 70mph in a 60, and passing on the right because our oblivious ass is driving in the left lane.

Dont. Get. Me. Started...(sigh)

By David Millward, Transport Correspondent
(Filed: 29/09/2006)

Your view: has the danger of speeding been overplayed?

A review of the Government's speed cameras policy was demanded yesterday after official statistics showed that only five per cent of crashes are caused by drivers breaking the speed limit.

Drivers who let their attention wander cause more than six times as many accidents.

Campaigners seized on the figures and demanded: "In that case, why are there so many cameras?"

Paul Smith, of Safe Speed, which has led the campaign, said the Government's case for continuing to install cameras had been destroyed.

"Even those statistics are flawed, because they could include a joy-rider who is going at 100mph and no camera will ever stop him," he said. "They are spinning like tops to justify the camera programme."

Motoring groups called for a broader approach to road safety and a revaluation of the £95 million camera project.

Edmund King, the chief executive of the RAC Foundation, said: "The figures suggest that all drivers need to concentrate more on the road rather than on their phones, passengers, music, food, drinks, navigation systems and the clutter of signs."

Chris Grayling, the Tories' transport spokesman, called for greater use of police patrol cars, rather than cameras, to deal with the menace of "rogue drivers".

There are more than 5,400 camera sites in England and Wales, which raised £113 million in fines in 2004-5.

The Department of Transport insisted that, while driver error accounted for 66 per cent of accidents, motorists going too fast for the conditions, irrespective of the speed limit, accounted for 29 per cent of crashes.

The analysis rekindled the speed camera argument and raised questions over whether the Government would meet the road safety targets it had set itself. The figures showed that the number of people killed on the roads last year fell to 3,201, one per cent fewer than in the previous year. The 28,954 people seriously injured represented a seven per cent fall on 2004. The Government has said it wants the number of people killed or seriously injured on the roads to be reduced to 40 per cent of the 1994-8 average by 2010.

Its figures, based on information sent to the Government by police forces, show that the tally has dropped by 33 per cent.

But analysis of hospital data sent to the Department of Health painted a very different picture, suggesting that the drop in the number of deaths had been minimal.

A study of the figures in the British Medical Journal said the gap between police and hospital data indicated that the Government was unlikely to meet its casualty reduction targets.

"It is hard to ascertain why there should be such a wide divergence in these figures," said one of the authors of the article, Mike Gill, professor of public health at Surrey University.

"There are two main contenders for the discrepancy in my view. First, there is an unintended effect of drink-drive legislation.

"While one cannot avoid police intervention when there is a fatality, when somebody is hurt it may be tempting to shuffle people off to casualty and keep schtum.

"Also, dedicated traffic patrols have been reduced and therefore there is less likely to be police intervention in all cases."

However, Prof Gill was reluctant to suggest that the study undercut the case for speed cameras.

"We don't know what the figures would have been otherwise," he said.

Andrew Howard, of the AA Motoring Trust, supported the Government's analysis and the speed camera programme. "Human beings make mistakes," he said. "So the only thing that can be done is to mitigate their impact and that means slowing the car down."

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2006/09/29/nspeed29.xml

 

[Hobbit]

To some extent, speeding is dangerous. It increases stop distance and makes crashes deadlier, but most speeding ticket programs are about taxation through citation. If you're speeding, the burden is on you to either slow down or get around the slow guys. If you're going too slow in the left lane, then the burden is on everybody else to dodge you.

 

[dmp]

To some extent, speeding is dangerous. It increases stop distance and makes crashes deadlier, but most speeding ticket programs are about taxation through citation. If you're speeding, the burden is on you to either slow down or get around the slow guys. If you're going too slow in the left lane, then the burden is on everybody else to dodge you.

Then it's not the speeding - is the decision to speed in the context where one would have to stop suddenly. If the slow guys would stay to ONE part of the road, I wouldn't have to go around them.

 

[misterblu]

Then it's not the speeding - is the decision to speed in the context where one would have to stop suddenly. If the slow guys would stay to ONE part of the road, I wouldn't have to go around them.

So we should be ticketing left lane campers and leaving the 'speeders' alone.

 

[5stringJeff]

So we should be ticketing left lane campers and leaving the 'speeders' alone.

We should also use cameras to ticket red-light runners.

 

[misterblu]

We should also use cameras to ticket red-light runners.

Eh? No thanks.

That's been abused in the past, and will continue to be abused in the future.

In addition, there are a few studies out there that show an increase in rear-enders in intersections once red-light cameras are installed.

:thumbdown:

 

[5stringJeff]

Eh? No thanks.

That's been abused in the past, and will continue to be abused in the future.

In addition, there are a few studies out there that show an increase in rear-enders in intersections once red-light cameras are installed.

:thumbdown:

Someone (probably Darin) posted that yellow lights need to be on for 3-4 seconds in an intersection to make sure people don't slam on their brakes unnecessarily. I'm fine with that. But egregious (sp?) red-light runners hold up traffic, especially at intersections with shorter lights. The purpose of traffic lights should be to keep traffic flowing as smoothly as possible, but red-light runners screw that up.

 

[misterblu]

Someone (probably Darin) posted that yellow lights need to be on for 3-4 seconds in an intersection to make sure people don't slam on their brakes unnecessarily. I'm fine with that. But egregious (sp?) red-light runners hold up traffic, especially at intersections with shorter lights. The purpose of traffic lights should be to keep traffic flowing as smoothly as possible, but red-light runners screw that up.

While I totally agree with that red-light runners suck, I don't think that installing cameras at intersections is a good solution. Not only is the temptation to lower yellow light cycle time to increase revenue too great, but people caught in 'marginal' situations are much more likely to slam on their brakes instead of continue through.

Oh, and I would think that the amount of time needed for a yellow light would be proportional to speed. 3-4 seconds might cover all speeds from 25-50mph, but I somehow doubt it. Especially considering the different surfaces and conditions present (icy, wet, etc).

 

[dmp]

I like cake.

 

[Mr. P]

While I totally agree with that red-light runners suck, I don't think that installing cameras at intersections is a good solution. Not only is the temptation to lower yellow light cycle time to increase revenue too great, but people caught in 'marginal' situations are much more likely to slam on their brakes instead of continue through.

Oh, and I would think that the amount of time needed for a yellow light would be proportional to speed. 3-4 seconds might cover all speeds from 25-50mph, but I somehow doubt it. Especially considering the different surfaces and conditions present (icy, wet, etc).

Red-light cameras are working here. T-bone accidents are down at intersections where the are installed. As far as yellow light time, there are standards. Here it's 1 second for every 10 mph of the posted speed limit. So, lowering the cycle time would be reason for dismisal if you went to court.

I'm for tickets for any violation of traffic law, an support straight to jail for some.

 

[dmp]

Red-light cameras are working here. T-bone accidents are down at intersections where the are installed.

But what about rear-end collisions, which can be MORE dangerous at times.

 

[Mr. P]

But what about rear-end collisions, which can be MORE dangerous at times.

They were some the first few days...not common now.

 

[dmp]

They were some the first few days...not common now.

If true, that sure bucks the trends.

 

[Mr. P]

If true, that sure bucks the trends.

Funny how when people follow the rules everything works well ain't it?

 

[dmp]

Funny how when people follow the rules everything works well ain't it?

Personally, I think the city would just manipulate the data to make their Money-generation tool SEEM 'safer'.

 

[Nienna]

I like the speed camera they have in our neighborhood. The SL is 25, but we live on a stretch of road that connects the two main outlets. It's a long, straight strip, and people get up to 40 or so. We don't let our kids play out front without parental supervision, but our neighbors across the street have always let their small kids roam. I would hate to see a kid hit, because someone didn't have enough time to stop.

However, highway speeding is a little different.

 

[Mr. P]

I like the speed camera they have in our neighborhood. The SL is 25, but we live on a stretch of road that connects the two main outlets. It's a long, straight strip, and people get up to 40 or so. We don't let our kids play out front without parental supervision, but our neighbors across the street have always let their small kids roam. I would hate to see a kid hit, because someone didn't have enough time to stop.

However, highway speeding is a little different.

Really it's not.

 

[misterblu]

Really it's not.

Perhaps she meant freeway speeding. Around here, freeways have no cross streets or driveways, while highways do.

Speeding on a long, straight stretch of freeway is quite different than speeding on a highway or other street with those dangers.

Oh, and I like cake too.

 

[dmp]

This was taken on HWY 2, in WA state.

I bet, had I enough power, I coulda touched 150mph and been pretty safe doing it.

 

[Nienna]

Perhaps she meant freeway speeding. Around here, freeways have no cross streets or driveways, while highways do.

Speeding on a long, straight stretch of freeway is quite different than speeding on a highway or other street with those dangers.

Oh, and I like cake too.

You boys like your cake... and I bet you like to eat it, too, don't ya?