Speed cameras cost lives

**SpankMe** · 8th October 2003, 19:51

Somebody posted this on SV650 forum, thought you might like to see it

Drivers' Association says speed cameras cost lives
THE ASSOCIATION of British Drivers claims that since revenue-generating speed cameras started proliferating, road deaths have reached over 5,000.

It says that government statistics show that as the numbers of speed cameras soared from 1993 onwards, the downward trend in road deaths that had existed for decades was almost completely lost. Had the former trend (a year on year 6% decrease in fatalities) continued, about 5500 people that have died on the roads in the last decade would be alive today.

The Associations claims that drivers who would normally be looking for potential hazards now have to split their attention and concentrate on spotting speed cameras and watching their speedometers.

At the same time uninsured, drunk and dangerous drivers now enjoy a greatly reduced chance of being apprehended as traffic police are switched to other duties. Further evidence of this is provided by the steady reduction in those apprehended for careless, dangerous and drunken driving from 232,000 in 1990 to 144,000 in 2000, a decrease of 37% in absolute terms, and a decrease of over 45% when increased traffic is allowed for.

Police, magistrates, and local councils, have always sought to justify cameras by claiming to save lives.

The usual basis for this claim, says the Association is that in locations where cameras are installed, the number of accidents reduces in the period immediately following their installation. What the partnerships invariably fail to acknowledge is that they place cameras at locations where there have been unusually high numbers of accidents in the three year period preceding the camera installation, and where accident numbers would probably have reduced by a simple process of chance.

This effect is extremely well understood, says the ABD and is known to statisticians as "regression to the mean" - the tendency for unusually high numbers of crashes to occur from time to time but not to be repeated year in and year out.

**Big Dog** · 8th October 2003, 21:34

MMM something to cogitate upon?

**SPman** · 8th October 2003, 21:58

Exactly. Drivers and riders groups have been hammering on, on a similar theme for years. If we think speed cameras are bad here, apparently they are everywhere in the UK - where they were brought in, after 1 year of a 2 year trial! Usual story, pick areas with a high blip in the accident/death figures, announce after 1 year that the results have been so succesful in reducing accidents (ie, the statistical blip returns to normal), that the 2nd year of the trial is unnecesary and "lives will be lost if we dont implement cameras immediately!" and promptly introduced thousands of the accursed things, reducing police numbers because the Robots would keep traffic in check!

Fuckwits!

**scumdog** · 8th October 2003, 23:19

A cunning plan - let's make speed-cameras redundant: ride/drive at the speed limit!!! that'll do the trick.
One day I'll get caught by a speed camera but if you pick your roads you can waft along at a reasonable clip without grief -'course ya got to keep an eye out for "the man".

**wkid_one** · 9th October 2003, 06:45

I am sorry guys - but why the whinging - at the end of the day it is only going to get worse not better. As speeding causes death (society doesn't tend to like that word) and is a form of revenue collection - it is going to remain the focus of the police.

Why speed cameras? Well they are the most cost efficient way of policing a set stretch (or spot more like) of road.

In Britian they are presently trialing GPS tags in cars - with the intention that all new vehicles introduced (yes MB as well) come out with a GPS tag. This is then monitored by a network of GPS satellites - which can tell the police at any moment in time who is speeding.

The result - you end up with a ticket in the mail.

I would rather has speed cameras anyday....don't whinge too loud - coz they are more likely just to up the ante

**SPman** · 9th October 2003, 07:09

don't whinge too loud - coz they are more likely just to up the ante

I think you will find they continue to up the ante regardless of any whinging or not on the part of Joe Public!

The more you make known your displeasure at actions of an overbearing control nature, the better. History shows that ,ultimately, authorities ignore, at their peril, rising tides of protestation from the public masses!

**Lou Girardin** · 9th October 2003, 07:19

The stats Spankme quoted, closely mirror NZ's. Our fatalities are up 40 approx over last year. I'd dispute whether camera enforcement does lower speeds, locals get to know where fixed cameras are and slow for them. Mobile cameras become easily recognised, except when they change vehicle types, and that's short tern anyway.
There's a vast difference between getting a ticket 3 - 4 weeks later and being stopped at the time of the offence.
Some UK Police forces have changed from semi - hidden cameras to brightly painted ones because of public outrage. If enough people keep the pressure on the Govt, they will back down. One thing Govt's want more than revenue, is votes.
Lou

**Sharkey** · 9th October 2003, 07:32

I have difficulty with the trail of causation with the article Spank Me quoted. It seems to me that if there is currently a high in the death rate, then perhaps that is simply "regression to the mean" from the previous years of falling rates. Also, if drivers are spending so much time searching for cameras and watching speedometers that they crash, then they probably shouldn't be on the road. It is easy to maintain a speed with regular glances at the speedo - you don't need to be constantly looking. If drivers are concentrating on the job at hand, then there should be ample time to see hazards. The comments about diverting traffic police to other tasks seems more pertinent.

Also, lets consider some other trends that have been going on in the last decade. There has been huge growth in the modification market, and quick as vechicles are now cheep as chips, but I would wager that drivers are no better.

The trouble with statistics is that they can mean anything. The people who wrote that article obviously had their on barrow to push, and chose to interpret their stats to suit.

**MikeL** · 9th October 2003, 07:35

Originally posted by scumdog
A cunning plan - let's make speed-cameras redundant: ride/drive at the speed limit!!! that'll do the trick.

A cunning plan indeed Baldrick, I mean Scumdog. Of course it's only really feasible if we know at all times where the cameras are operating. Would be a bit of a drag if we had to keep to the limit everywhere, wouldn't it?

So what we need is an easily accessible and constantly updated database which we can quickly consult before we leave home. Since the Ministry of Road Revenue is unlikely to provide us with such information (quite unaccountably, because it would after all be helping to prevent law-breaking!), we would have to build and maintain the database ourselves.

I suggest a new KB Forum...

Must stop now. Have to post off a cheque for $170 to Wellington.

P.S. Does anyone know if there is a fixed camera on Mt Smart Rd between Curzon St and Rockfield Rd??? Where exactly??

**Lou Girardin** · 9th October 2003, 08:44

Well, I've been driving/riding along time without too many biffs and bangs. But I'm buggered if I can read the RF speedo at a glance. The km/h numbers are too small, my eyes are too old, so I fitted a bike computer, much better.
But, even when I'm cruising I find the speed creeps up unnoticed, especially in cars. The 10 km/h tolerance is bad enough, 5 is going to be a real pain.
I hope there's a particularly hot corner of hell reserved for traffic nazis.
Lou

**aff-man** · 9th October 2003, 09:02

I can attest to the fact that the fear of speeding tickets can cause an accident. Since getting the zxr which picks up speed a hell of a lot quicker than the vt, i have found myself glancing way to much at the speedo and in a few cases going a little to close to the curb or center line. Now i know that speeding does kill but my bike is only a 250 and what hope do i have of keeping my licence and not getting killed on a bigger bike (if it is lowered to a 5km/h tolerance). And it's not due to road conditions or statistics it's just bloody ridiculious people saying that hmmmmm i want to be recognised so i have this thoery with evidence(all be it a load of crap) that lowering the tolerance will decrease road accidents.

**scumdog** · 9th October 2003, 09:26

I'm with you Sharkey, hell, how much effort does it take to keep an eye on the speedo needle? most times I can read my dumb old H-D guage no problem and you don't have to actually look at the number, - the needle position is enough to go by.
On another point, - all you whingers out there, - how fast do you think you should be allowed to go? and if there was a hypothetical speed limit of say 140kmh, how would you expect that to be enforced? (and to your satisfaction so that you don't whinge?). - and you can bet your bottom dollar that when someone did crash at that speed and somehow survived the old Kiwi "blame someone else" syndrome would kick in and they would moan "if the speed limit wasn't so high I wouldn't have crashed".
Face it, there are enough slack-jawed, mouth-breathing improvident lack-wits that are out of their depth speed-wise when they are doing 70kmh!!!

**750Y** · 9th October 2003, 10:15

if speeding on the open road is the big nasty then why not simply restrict vehicles to a top speed? That won't stop people driving poorly or doing 100 in a 50 of course. I'm not saying that appeals to me personally, but surely it's a logical possibility.
there seems to be some mixed messages coming from the government about what the road safety campaign is really about.
it seems to me they're saying you can have the capacity but god help you if you use it we'll make some money out of that. i think it's a lot of BS. I do think we're responsible for our actions tho. but the thing is the government weilds the power so why don't they act instead of providing the ambulance at the bottom of the cliff? it's not rocket science, it's politics. blablabla. all's im saying is maybe they should start walking the talk.

**Lou Girardin** · 9th October 2003, 14:04

It's the old 'lowest common denominator' thing again. Make laws for the yokels, then hammer anyone who dares to stand above it.
Why can't we have limits of 120, 130 or 150 in places. It works for other countries. All we have to do, is make sure people can drive before they get licences.
Lou