Speed cameras. Interesting observation

[timwilky]

Hmm. looking at a few statistics of local cameras from the Lancashire partnership for Road Safety

The Grove A6 Chorley :- date installed 25/7/96, Rate of personal injury collision during 3 year baseline period 3.3/year, Annual rate of personal injury collisions since camera installed 3.4/year.

A6 Shaw Hil Drive, Chorley :- date installed 25/7/96, Rate of personal injury collision during 3 year baseline period 1.3/year, Annual rate of personal injury collisions since camera installed 1.4/year.

B6229, Hapers lane chorley :- date installed 29/03/04, Rate of personal injury collision during 3 year baseline period 2.0/year, Annual rate of personal injury collisions since camera installed 2.0/year.

And my favorite B5251 Spendmore lane Coppull :- date installed 29/12/2004, Rate of personal injury collision during 3 year baseline period 2.7/year, Annual rate of personal injury collisions since camera installed 4.1/year.

Strange then the the same web site that gives these statistics also says "Although there has been a certain amount of resentment the growth in the use of speed cameras, it has been proven that safety cameras make people drive slower and as a direct result, reduce crashes and help protect road users." Their own statistics tell me that this is not always case and in some cases it would appear the insidence of personal injury collisions increases when cameras are installed. But then that is statisics and you can make of it what you want

they make people drive slower.....ALL AT ONCE!....then speed up again

Originally Posted by gettin2dizzy

they make people drive slower.....ALL AT ONCE!....then speed up again

it's the annoying tailback effect that they cause that annoys me...person coming up to one taps the brakes to make sure they are within the limit, person behind taps brakes a bit harder to keep a safe distance and so on.....with enough traffic a standstill is the result. overuse of cameras is causing congestion.

we need the decision makers in this country to realise that traffic cops are so much more effective at regulating driver behaviour. coppers can pick up other things such as tailgateing and driving like a tw@ which cameras will never get.

but then coppers cost money whereas cameras generate money.....simple arithmetic wins the argument here at the expense of overall road safety - those in power should be ashamed of themselves.

Originally Posted by emcf

it's the annoying tailback effect that they cause that annoys me...person coming up to one taps the brakes to make sure they are within the limit, person behind taps brakes a bit harder to keep a safe distance and so on.....with enough traffic a standstill is the result. overuse of cameras is causing congestion.

we need the decision makers in this country to realise that traffic cops are so much more effective at regulating driver behaviour. coppers can pick up other things such as tailgateing and driving like a tw@ which cameras will never get.

but then coppers cost money whereas cameras generate money.....simple arithmetic wins the argument here at the expense of overall road safety - those in power should be ashamed of themselves.

Would I be right in thinking that you ave strong feelings about this issue

Seriously though I hate the things (and I don't speed as a rule - can't afford the tickets...)

But these things make life soo much more difficult when combined with idiots that don't know how to drive. There is one I pass everyday that seems to stand out. I'm in the middle lane doing 60 allowing people from a slip road to join the motorway. Someone in a Beemer / Merc / VW (generally ) overtake me like I'm going backwards (I don't actually care about that bit though). Said car then slows down to 45 to go past the camera meaning I can either undertake the idiot or slowdown myself... Even worse is when they pull infront of me *then* slow down. You pull out to overtake, pass the camera and they speed up again (given up doing that now though - it just causes extra stress).

Gah!

[northwind]

Originally Posted by timwilky

Strange then the the same web site that gives these statistics also says "Although there has been a certain amount of resentment the growth in the use of speed cameras, it has been proven that safety cameras make people drive slower and as a direct result, reduce crashes and help protect road users." Their own statistics tell me that this is not always case and in some cases it would appear the insidence of personal injury collisions increases when cameras are installed. But then that is statisics and you can make of it what you want

How many other cameras are there on the site that don't meet this trend? If they have 30 sites and only 4 have an increase, and all but one marginal, then that's entirely expected- especially when you're dealing with low numbers in the first place. Not arguing for them, I'm not a speed camera fan, but you've got to know what the responses to your arguments will be if you expect to win, and plan ahead

hmmm,

the scamera partnerships are supposed to carry out 3 yr reviews of all there sites, if any sites can no longer be justified then they are supposed to be removed, doesnt happen though,

in these cases it looks like the increase, although only minor would just make the case for cameras stronger,

looks like highway engineering would possibly be a more suitable solution to engineer out the danger........

[timwilky]

Originally Posted by northwind

How many other cameras are there on the site that don't meet this trend? If they have 30 sites and only 4 have an increase, and all but one marginal, then that's entirely expected- especially when you're dealing with low numbers in the first place. Not arguing for them, I'm not a speed camera fan, but you've got to know what the responses to your arguments will be if you expect to win, and plan ahead

Yes, plenty on the site do show a reduction. However get this one


B5256, Sheep Hill Lane near Back Lane, Clayton le Woods. Stats say :- date installed 9/12/2004, Rate of personal injury collision during 3 year baseline period 2.3/year, Annual rate of personal injury collisions since camera installed 0.0/year.

That is rubbish. This is the camera where my friends mother and father were mown down by a driver who paniced braked and mounted the pavement knocking Terry over the bridge into the river below. Both Terry and Ida suffered broken limbs and Terry still cannot walk 2 years later.

Stats are open to interpretation but where I know there have been injuries and the rate is still 0.0/year somebody somewhere is not telling the whole truth.

[northwind]

Yep, sounds well dodgy that one... Again, though, if the argument against cameras is going to go anywhere you have to avoid specifics. They can respond to your challenge there with "Ah, but there were probably accidents in the period before installations that weren't recorded too" or somesuch. Cobblers of course but plausible on the face of it...