Call to scrap speed cameras in UK

[LardEmbargo]

Well, I thought it was interesting anyway. At least someone thinks it's not just speed that's the problem (just the only factor in road behaviour you can measure easily).

Telegraph motoring section

Forget speeding, what we actually need to help make the roads safer is cameras that send you an automatic fine with a nice photo of you driving like an arse :)

[Ocean1]

I've read similar (and more detailed) reports before.
Even when the link between speed and accident rates is successfully challenged it fails to change policy relating to speed cameras for at least 4 reasons I can think of.

1: Even if it can be shown that cameras don't affect accident rates it's an inescapable fact that lower speeds cause lower injury rates.

2: Civic policy is not usually based on sound science anyway, it's driven by political credibility (a sort of common anti-sense amenable to wildly varying interpretation).

3: Camera's are the cheapest form of behaviour control available (regardless of whether they work in reducing accident rates or not).

4: They also have the highest conviction rate of any enforcement tool (and therefore the best conversion rate of tickets into revenue).

If you want to scare yourself think about the fact that the technology is already available to have all vehicles self-reporting:

Dear sir/madam, this is to inform you that on U date at V time you traveled at W K/hr on X road in contravention of the law. Your account has subsequently been debited $Y and you are hereby advised that you now have Z demerit points. Your vehicle has since been sold to recover this debt, please deliver it to the most convenient local traffic authority asset realisation depot.

Enjoy the wild blue beyond while you can.

[Sanx]

I've read similar (and more detailed) reports before.
Even when the link between speed and accident rates is successfully challenged it fails to change policy relating to speed cameras for at least 4 reasons I can think of.

1: Even if it can be shown that cameras don't affect accident rates it's an inescapable fact that lower speeds cause lower injury rates.

Unfortunately for governments (especialy the UK's), they can't even claim that. In one area, County Durham, speed cameras were never introduced and they have a significantly better accident and casualty record than comparable areas. Good article / interview here. He comments that of the 1900 collisions they have a year, just 60 (3%) are as a result of exceeding the speed limit. Instead, he concentrates on *shockhorror* driver education.

4: They also have the highest conviction rate of any enforcement tool (and therefore the best conversion rate of tickets into revenue).

That's the main driver for speed cameras in the UK. Changes to various legislation in 2001 allowed police forces to keep revenue raised from speed cameras. In the two years following the change, the number of speed cameras tripled and the revenue raised increased 500%. In neighborouring Northumbria, the police operate 46 fixed and 78 mobile speed cameras; and that Police force are extremely reticent in publishing accident statistics. However, their website does contain a very interesting little gem:

"Much of the confusion and disagreement over the effects of speeding relate to the Transport Research Laboratory's (TRL) report 323. This shows excessive speed as a stand-alone contributory factor in only about 7% of collisions. This apparent disparity can be explained by the way collisions are coded. Excessive and inappropriate speed is also a factor in the following: sudden braking, careless/reckless driving, following too close, hurried behaviour, loss of control of a vehicle, poor overtaking manoeuvres, etc. The relatively low incidence of excessive speed as a stand-alone factor suggests that where other factors are included (such as those listed above), the police officer may consider it unnecessary to code speed as well. The Department for Transport is addressing this through revised guidance being developed with the police to assist officers with coding at the scene of a road traffic collision.

Which translated means: "Statistically only 7% of accidents have excessive speed as a contributory factor (we're not going to mention that only 3% had it as the main causal factor) and this number doesn't suit our purposes. We want to make money from all you dangerous speeding criminals, and therefore we're going to bump up the figures by lumping in a whole host of other factors as well, no matter how tenuous the relationship."

And this is exactly what the government do over here.

[more_fasterer]

Likewise, I wonder how many accidents are coded as speed being a main or contributory causal factor, when the actual cause is something else (e.g. poor judgement by driver)

1: Even if it can be shown that cameras don't affect accident rates it's an inescapable fact that lower speeds cause lower injury rates.

To a point... a head-on collision between two cars (or even better, urban assault vehicles) travelling at 50km/h can still cause fatalities. Does this make 50km/h an unsafe speed, on any road?

[Biff]

One of the many complaints relating to the introduction of speed cameras in the UK is that several polices forces actually scrapped their traffic cop sections in totality as a direct result!!

While the revenue generated by the cameras was/is staggering, they do nothing to curb the ever increasing number of illegally driven vehicles on the roads of the UK, such as those driven without an MOT (WOF) or un-insured drivers. And, as most cops will tell you, the bad guys often drive around in stolen/illegal vehicamules.

Although in central London this isn't so much of an issue, as there are Automatic Number Plate (ANR) systems in place. So every vehicle in central London has its numberplate checked against the national vehicle database.

Speed cameras have their place. But IMO they are too often used for the wrong reasons, with local (police) authorities relying on them more as an easy method of generating revenue, at the detriment of catching the real bad guys.

[Ocean1]

To a point... a head-on collision between two cars (or even better, urban assault vehicles) travelling at 50km/h can still cause fatalities. Does this make 50km/h an unsafe speed, on any road?

Simple physics dude, the relationship between velocity and potential energy is exponential. Stopping from 50km/hr in 2 Metres produces about a quarter of the energy of a deceleration from 100km/hr, and results in much less serious injuries. I wasn’t trying to indicate that any particular speed is appropriate for any specific road though.

I don't have a problem with speed restrictions, they're not there to protect me from myself. There's other people affected by any accident caused by my poor driving judgement too, and the higher the speed I fuck up at the higher the potential costs to others.

I do have a problem with unreasonable enforcement tactics. I also have a problem with the obvious subversion of those tactics to purely revenue gathering functions.

My last speeding infringement was for the heinous crime of attaining 111km/hr on the Himatangi straights. While passing a cattle truck (the only other vehicle in sight). On a perfect day with zero negative environmental conditions.

I was quite prepared to take the ticket as just an unavoidable financial hit, simply another form of road user levy, (an unreasonable and peremptory one) but I got seriously grumpy about the lecture the officer tried to impose. What surprised me was that he obviously believed his inflated version of the extent of my crime, are they all that thoroughly brainwashed?

Edit: Was my last infringement... until an hour ago

Camera in a van got me at 107 (according to speedo), in a line of traffic all doing the same speed.

Be interesting to see what's in the mail.

[peasea]

Simple physics dude, the relationship between velocity and potential energy is exponential. Stopping from 50km/hr in 2 Metres produces about a quarter of the energy of a deceleration from 100km/hr, and results in much less serious injuries. I wasn’t trying to indicate that any particular speed is appropriate for any specific road though.

I don't have a problem with speed restrictions, they're not there to protect me from myself. There's other people affected by any accident caused by my poor driving judgement too, and the higher the speed I fuck up at the higher the potential costs to others.

I do have a problem with unreasonable enforcement tactics. I also have a problem with the obvious subversion of those tactics to purely revenue gathering functions.

My last speeding infringement was for the heinous crime of attaining 111km/hr on the Himatangi straights. While passing a cattle truck (the only other vehicle in sight). On a perfect day with zero negative environmental conditions.

I was quite prepared to take the ticket as just an unavoidable financial hit, simply another form of road user levy, (an unreasonable and peremptory one) but I got seriously grumpy about the lecture the officer tried to impose. What surprised me was that he obviously believed his inflated version of the extent of my crime, are they all that thoroughly brainwashed?

Edit: Was my last infringement... until an hour ago

Camera in a van got me at 107 (according to speedo), in a line of traffic all doing the same speed.

Be interesting to see what's in the mail.

111kph???
You sinner!

I was dragged over the coals not once but twice, last Easter Monday (by the same sad, lying filth, scumbag pig) and told in no uncertain terms what a danger to humanity I was. 111kph on a bright, sunny day, on a deserted dry road is enough to kill and maim people far and wide, don't you know? To travel at such speeds is to dice with death (yours and that of others) so any penalty that befalls you is not only justified, it will likely be comparitively minimal. A public flogging is more in order than mere monetary hardship, confiscation of the machine that you offended on should be compulsory, suspension of license for life and genital mutilation incurred to boot.

Actually, what I meant to say was; "they're a bunch of money-grabbing suck-arses."

[Max Preload]

Simple physics dude, the relationship between velocity and potential energy is exponential. Stopping from 50km/hr in 2 Metres produces about a quarter of the energy of a deceleration from 100km/hr, and results in much less serious injuries.

You're confusing kinetic energy with momentum. The deceleration is only double.