Speed cameras fail to cut collisions

Not Suprised

After all many of these speed cameras are a cash cow. Most of the dangerous driving I see on the road, amounts to people, gazing at their speedo for speed cameras. Using the mobile phone, lighting up a cigarette, reading a map, looking at satnav glue to the windscreen (this should be banned) or changing lanes without checking mirrors or blindspot.

By hotredman on 25 August, 2011, 6:24pm

Whats new

Speed cameras where never intended to cut accidents.

All they have ever been is a means of Taxing the motorist, that is why you never see any police on the streets anymore all they do is sit behind desks issuing fines collected from cameras

By wallyman on 26 August, 2011, 2:29pm

Cuke

Hi, I wish they'd make up their minds about this, firstly we have evidence that they do work,, then the pro-camera brigade say this is proof that vindicates having them installed. Then we have the evidence that they don't, so the anti-camera loonies go off on one, this is a unfair tax upon the motorist rant. and that it is taking the police off the street, LOL. Thing is, if you didn't speed then you wouldn't get caught, thus if you do then you are only taxing yourself...

By cuke2u on 26 August, 2011, 8:01pm

Surprise Surprise

That's because they are, first and foremost, revenue-raising machines!

By erly5 on 26 August, 2011, 10:02pm

Speed cameras are placed where accident rates are rising

So not all of them stop the rise completely. Doesnt mean they dont have an effect.

By haggardpete on 28 August, 2011, 9:08am

on average...

In your text you say that Humberside 17 out of 89 sites saw an increased accident rate - the flip side of this is that as many as 72 of those sites could have had a decreased accident rate - though you don't say this - and some of those could have had no change.

Accident rates can also change for other reasons aside from speed cameras and will randomly fluctuate from year to year anyway. Most "sites" will have a very low accident rate so having two more accidents in a "site" in a year can dramatically affect the rate. So this measure is so sensitive to small changes in the number of accidents recorded - consider the possibility that not all "accidents" will make it into the statistics for a variety of reasons.

Lower speeds will also affect the severity of the accident which is much harder to measure though there have been many attempts - i.e. AIS and IIS which try to assess immediate and long term injury. As a rule lower speeds result in reduced injuries but not always as there is a low probability of high injury at low speed - this does not invalidate the original argument! :)

By seanpor on 30 August, 2011, 11:29am

Read the text - don't just read the headline

I don't know why people can't see through the journalistic spin on this one - probably either because they're stupid or simply because they don't want to. If you actually read what the article says it does not justify the headline "speed cameras fail to cut collisions". In fact the first line of the article says it more accurately - "speed cameras DON'T ALWAYS cut accidents". Reading further you can see that in a pretty small minority of locations this is the case, but that leaves the rest of the locations which presumably HAVE seen a reduction.

But for a motoring magazine it is much easier to pander to the loons like Jeremy Clarkson who want to be able to travel at any speed they choose, even if it has a negative impact on other people's lives. Hence the sensationalistic headline coupled with further unsupportable language like "shocking statistics" - how in hell is that justified from the facts?

By ncollingridge on 30 August, 2011, 11:34am

Speed Cameras

It's inappropriate speed that is the problem. And that is down to drivers being idiots and generally not paying attention. Many speed cameras do a good job but the majority are without doubt cash cows, for example, why do you need speed cameras on motorways unless for road works or variable speed limits? At least speed awareness courses are a step in the right direction.

By hustin1 on 30 August, 2011, 11:46am

One big con

Yes ' the people who said speed cameras work was the Labour government, and its crackpot supporters transport 2000, who would have everybody back on horse and cart if possible.
Transport 2000 preached its hatred of motor vehicles to the Labour government who willingly listened to unsubstantiated claims and then lied through its teath to tax the motorist as a cash cow.
Unfortunately once speed cameras had been initiated nationwide, politicians from any party being politicians are slow to remove a good cash raiser especially if its initiated by the other side.
One major thing that stands out to me, as the supposedly motorists friends, the AA and the RAC have never seriously backed the motorist over the last 15 yrs or so in the removal of green taxes or speed cameras, in fact the AA's Edmund King heartily supported the use of speed cameras.

By Bobbybev on 30 August, 2011, 11:52am

As haggardpete has suggested, it could it be that there was a clear upward trend in the accident rate that was simply unaffected by the speed cameras.
If looking at your speedo is likely to cause an accident, when are you supposed to look at it?
Travelling at an appropriate speed in the right gear is one method advanced drivers use to minimise accidents.

By Tornado on 30 August, 2011, 12:55pm

Just as we always thought

A way for the government to get easy money from the motorist.

By cousins11 on 30 August, 2011, 3:36pm

Phil

"You can lead a horse to water but youcan'tmake it drink" The authorities think all motorists are stupid, we have known for ages speed cameras don't stop accidents at the camera sites they just move to another location.

By shad25 on 31 August, 2011, 11:21am

Here's an interesting thought...

... several naive commenters above seem to think safety cameras are simply a way for the government to make money.

So why, when they first came to office, did our new coalition government make proposals to REDUCE the number of cameras in order to SAVE money?

Remember their plans to CUT public services, benefits, school building, etc. to SAVE money? Those plans also included CUTTING the number of speed cameras.

Bit of a puzzler that, isn't it?

By quintilian on 31 August, 2011, 2:54pm