Something we all knew!

Just seen this on the MCN website.

It's not exactly anything that we didn't already know but it's nice to see it at last being proven!

Paul from SS has been doing this for years and I am a passionate supporter of his cause. There have been numerous occasions in the past 3 years when he has unearthed some damning information - it's interesting to read the responses (or lack thereof) from the officials and legislators trying to play it down, including one particularly great one from Brunstrom

We've long known that cameras are for revenue generation and not safety, this report goes some way to help the cause but it is specific to Motorways. I'm sure there'll be a mass of spin coming out in the next few months from the Scamerati about how superbly cameras do in urban areas and how over 70% of the population support them.

It would be very interesting to review the questionnaire that is used to deliver these results, and the demographics of the respondants... you can almost guarantee the questions are loaded, and they cherry pick people they think will give the most positive benefit.

I think the fact that the campaign around the cat and fiddle road has been so successful without using camera's demonstrates how uesless they are... (It is the cat and fiddle isn't it?)

And IIRC the county with the least camera's has one of the best saftey records.

Originally Posted by MavUK

And IIRC the county with the least camera's has one of the best saftey records.

If you look at the long term trends it performs similar to others - still well on track for the 2010 reduction targets. But the key fact is it is doing so with Police and common sense rather than revenue collection boxes and ridiculously inappropriate speed limits.

[timwilky]

As I have posted before. I have a family friend who was very badly smashed up when a car lost control when the driver panic braked for a speed camera. It mounted the pavement and knocked him over the wall of a bridge into the river below. It also hit his wife who also suffered a broken leg and ribs.

2 years later he is still in a wheel chair. Try telling him the speed camera parnerships are a responsible body who simply want to reduce the number of people injured on our roads. If that camera wasn't there, he would have had a pleasant Sunday afternoon stroll. Instead he had 3 months in hospital and has not walked for 2 years. His wife had 3 weeks in hospital and now walks with a stick and relies on others to push her husbands wheel chair. These were very active people. He an ex copper even.

Of course cameras cause accidents.

Originally Posted by timwilky

As I have posted before. I have a family friend who was very badly smashed up when a car lost control when the driver panic braked for a speed camera. It mounted the pavement and knocked him over the wall of a bridge into the river below. It also hit his wife who also suffered a broken leg and ribs.

That's absolutely awful.

Another (and worringly, fairly hard to 'prove' with any sort of accuracy) problem with speed cameras is the knock on effect of other, indirectly linked, accidents caused by an absence of traffic coppers. There's no one to catch people driving badly (provided they don't speed), so those people remain on the road (and quite possibly remain ignorant of the fact they're driving like spanners), until they have/cause an accident.

I remember reading an early response to this from someone associated with the scamera scheme (I think it was in MCN a month or so back if anyone wants to dig it up), they basically said, 'You pay for research, you get the results you want. This isn't a fair study.'

Do they not understand what a ridiculous thing that is to say?
If they are effectively saying all research is not balanced, how the **** do they expect us to take their research that shows cameras increase safety, more seriously?!

Originally Posted by Ceri JC

I remember reading an early response to this from someone associated with the scamera scheme (I think it was in MCN a month or so back if anyone wants to dig it up), they basically said, 'You pay for research, you get the results you want. This isn't a fair study.'

Do they not understand what a ridiculous thing that is to say?
If they are effectively saying all research is not balanced, how the **** do they expect us to take their research that shows cameras increase safety, more seriously?!

I hate to say it but there is no such thing as fair research mate. I worked in the PR industry for six years, whenever we wanted to create a news story with survey results, the first thing we would do is write down the results we wanted, then work out what the questions where from that, then meet a survey company and discuss who the best audience would be to get the results we wanted etc etc..... it's mostly done like that. Costs a few grand but gets oyu the story you want for the papers.

[Kylie]

I've done a lot of driving (not riding, yet) in the west of Ireland, and the Garda there don't use cameras, they use the "old fashioned" approach of hiding behind hedges, up trees, in ditches etc with speed guns.

Tis much better as those ignorant drivers on the road who spot speed cameras at the last minute don't spot the police at all, so no panic braking. Those of us who do like to look where we are going sometimes spot them, sometimes not, which is how it should be. And the Garda are super polite and friendly when writing you a ticket too!

More police in ditches!