Axing speed cameras - result

[zebby]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...aths-FALL.html

[Jim Goose]

OMG lies lies lies!!!!
Wont someone think of the children????

[charles_wif_xf]

Well I'll be damned...

[LTDHO]

Originally Posted by Jim Goose

OMG lies lies lies!!!!
Wont someone think of the children????

Ha ha. True.

[TheInterceptor]

Camera's: Stares at speedo and concentrates on being below posted limit to not get booked
No camera's: Pay's attention to the road and surrounding and concentrates on driving.

WHO WOULD HAVE THOUGHT

[AussieAV]

Don't get too excited. These figures support logic and sensible thinking, and therfore will not be understood by "road safety experts" or "politicians".

They will be completely incapable of understanding what these figures mean, and will probably decide that more cameras are needed so that they can occasionally turn them off to save lives.

[sudszy]

The results are meaningless at the present time, one needs to compare apples with apples, the accident rate decreased, but so did the traffic, the 1.5% drop in traffic could be entirely responsible for the 5% drop in accidents, we simply dont know.
It also appears that these are the cameras where they are signs showing they exist, from the story it appears that the motorists had no reason to believe they were being switched off, so there may be other factors in play as to why driver behaviour changed.

its also a little unclear as to why the cameras were turned off to save money? aren't all those motoring crusaders claiming the cameras are cash cows making several squillion per day each?

[mik]

Originally Posted by sudszy

The results are meaningless at the present time, one needs to compare apples with apples, the accident rate decreased, but so did the traffic, the 1.5% drop in traffic could be entirely responsible for the 5% drop in accidents, we simply dont know.
It also appears that these are the cameras where they are signs showing they exist, from the story it appears that the motorists had no reason to believe they were being switched off, so there may be other factors in play as to why driver behaviour changed.

its also a little unclear as to why the cameras were turned off to save money? aren't all those motoring crusaders claiming the cameras are cash cows making several squillion per day each?

surely it would take a 5% drop in traffic to make a 5% decrease in accidents?

[atec77]

Originally Posted by sudszy

The results are meaningless at the present time, one needs to compare apples with apples, the accident rate decreased, but so did the traffic, the 1.5% drop in traffic could be entirely responsible for the 5% drop in accidents, we simply dont know.
It also appears that these are the cameras where they are signs showing they exist, from the story it appears that the motorists had no reason to believe they were being switched off, so there may be other factors in play as to why driver behaviour changed.

its also a little unclear as to why the cameras were turned off to save money? aren't all those motoring crusaders claiming the cameras are cash cows making several squillion per day each?

The results when Canada dumped cams offered the same result , cams are in them selves a hazard

[Rodp]

Originally Posted by mik

surely it would take a 5% drop in traffic to make a 5% decrease in accidents?

Ah... no.

I'm thinking too early to call, myself. Need further data. Turn them all off.

[platinumXR]

If there were a true need for these abominable devices, perhaps school zones etc. would be better suited to their relevance. Such minor percentage fluctuations are a pointless statistic in the general scheme of things.

However, being such cash cows due to sheer beligerence (and fault or inatention); I suspect they will be here for some time yet.

[sudszy]

Originally Posted by mik

surely it would take a 5% drop in traffic to make a 5% decrease in accidents?

You are assuming a linear relationship between traffic flow and accident rate on a typically very busy multilane roads and it may well be right, but have you researched this for yourself. Possibly if we halved the traffic flow on some of our busy roads, driving would be much easy and safer and the accident rate could drop away to zero on some sections.

[AussieAV]

Originally Posted by sudszy

You are assuming a linear relationship between traffic flow and accident rate on a typically very busy multilane roads and it may well be right, but have you researched this for yourself. Possibly if we halved the traffic flow on some of our busy roads, driving would be much easy and safer and the accident rate could drop away to zero on some sections.

And what about the assumptions that the government makes. That most roads are safe to travel on at 60km/hr no matter what the prevailing traffic/weather/light conditions are, however travel at 63km/hr are you're a menace to society.

It is blatantly ridiculous to suggest that every stretch of road in the country, under any possible environmental condition, falls neatly into seven categories, and is only safe to travel on at one of the main speed limits (50, 60, 70, 80, 90, 100 or 110). It is even more ridiculous to then say exceeding these limits anywhere, at any time, by only a few km/hr is always dangerous and needs to be punished by fines.

Punish excessive speeding and/or dangerous driving harshly (even very harshly) by all means, but give drivers some credit for being able to judge road conditions to within a certain tolerance of the posted limit (say 10-15% for argument sake).

[aussiblue]

Sorry to appear a killjoy but, as frequently happens with that paper, the Daily Mail appears to have got it wrong:

See http://fullfact.org/factchecks/speed...tatistics-2482

Speed Cameras and Road Casualties: What's driving the trend?
7 February, 2011 - 19:31 -- Ceri Hughes
Recent reports in the Daily Mail have looked at the proportion of speed cameras that are actually in use and the decline in road accidents. Is the link as strong as the headline suggests? 2 out of 5
"Road deaths dropped 14 per cent in three months while speed cameras were being axed or switched off", Daily Mail, 7 February 2011.

The Mail juxtaposes a reduction in road deaths against the fact that speed cameras have been "axed" with the implication that there is some kind of relationship between the two. Do speed cameras kill people? We thought it deserved a factcheck.

The Mail quotes figures from the Department for Transport's recent Transport Statistics Bulletin which states that the number of road deaths decreased by 14 per cent from 596 deaths in the third quarter of 2009 to 510 in the third quarter of 2010. If we look at the same quarter to quarter comparisons for previous years we can establish a trend with the third quarter percentage decreases between 2007 and 2008, and 2008 and 2009, at 14 and 10 per cent respectively.

However, the assertion that deaths "dropped by 14 per cent in three months" does not make it clear that we are looking at a quarter on quarter comparison from 2009 to 2010. In fact, the number of deaths increased from the second to the third quarter of 2010, from an estimated 460 to 512 deaths. These fluctuations throughout the year appear to be typical.

The figures highlight a general trend for decreasing road deaths over the past decade. This is made clearer by the following chart from the Department for Transport which presents data on the numbers of people that were killed and seriously injured on the roads between 1994 and 2010:





For all road users, only cyclists saw a percentage increase in the number of deaths on the roads. Whilst the figures for the first portion of the Mail's statement check out to a certain extent, we run into difficulties with the second part. It is difficult to surmise that a reduction in speed cameras has caused the decrease in road deaths as the Mail's headline "axing speed cameras has caused road deaths to FALL" would suggest.

The paper even appears to have failed to tally up its own claims regarding the proportion of speed cameras that are in use in the UK. We read that "more than half – 44.7 per cent – are now switched off". Leaving aside the numerical illiteracy for now, we decided that the substance of the claim deserved some closer analysis.

The article refers to a survey carried out for Which? Car that highlights the proportion of speed cameras that are operational in different police authorities. The data was obtained through a series of Freedom of Information requests.

It's not clear how the Mail arrived at their contradictory percentage of 44.7 per cent. The Which? report puts forward an average of 46.7 per cent of speed cameras as operational and concludes that 53 per cent must be out of use at any one time. This average actually obscures the range of data across different police forces with some forces reporting that 100 per cent of cameras were operational and others (Lancashire) as little as 10 per cent. A further four police areas – Cleveland, Durham, North Yorkshire and Wiltshire – had no fixed speed cameras.

The Mail states that "more than half of Britain’s 6,000 speed cameras are now switched off at any one time as councils try to save money". In fact the survey paints a slightly different picture: although reporting was incomplete, with some police authorities yet to submit full information on the number of fixed camera sites in their area and the proportion that were operational, the total number of fixed camera sites that the survey relates is 3,144 in England and Wales.

Which? also calculates that Scotland has 160 fixed speed camera housings whilst Northern Island has four fixed speed cameras. In all this would account for an estimated 3,308 fixed camera sites in Britain alone and not the 6,000 that the Mail refers to.

Of course fixed cameras are not the only method used to monitor speeding – police may also use mobile cameras – but the Mail appears to be referring to fixed cameras that are likely to be switched on or off.

Thus, the Mail appears to have applied the findings from this Freedom of Information request to an unconnected estimate for the number of speed cameras in Britain. If we read their statement that 'more than half of Britain's 6,000 speed cameras are now switched off' we might assume that we were dealing with roughly 3,000 cameras. In fact, the total number of cameras that the survey refers to is roughly 3,308.

Another subtlety gets lost between the original article and the Mail's piece – whilst a significant proportion of cameras may not be operational at one time it does not follow that they have been 'axed' or 'removed' as the article suggests. Which? writes that "our research shows that the norm is to have more yellow boxes than actual cameras, with the working parts rotated around at random, or in response to the latest speed and accident statistics".

It can be difficult to determine causality, even more so when there is little evidence to back it up. The Mail's conclusion that there is a correlation between the reduction in road deaths and the fact that more than half of speeding cameras are off at any one time does not seem a strong one.

and http://www.pocketgpsworld.com/Do-Les...eaths-2878.php

Do Less Speed Cameras Mean Less Deaths?


Article by: robert
Date: 6 Feb 2011

The Daily Mail has claimed that "Axing speed cameras has caused road deaths to FALL". They state that fatalities have fallen by 14 per cent in three months - a period when over half the UK's speed cameras have been reportedly switched off due to the government's funding cuts.

Any correlation between the roads where the accidents occurred and the inactive speed camera sites was not given.

The Mail may have its figures confused however as they report "More than half – 44.7 per cent – are now switched off"... so I think it's fair to assume that it's less than half!

There were 510 fatalities on the UK's roads between July and September 2010, down from 596 during the same quarter in 2009.

Joint figures for those killed or seriously injured during the 3 months fell by 5 per cent, from 7,115 to 6,740. Also, last year to September, the total road deaths were down 3 per cent while the number killed or seriously injured reduced by 8 per cent.

[AussieAV]

I also doubt that the cameras being turned off saved lives. Most places seem to be enjoying reductions in road fatalities, as we would expect with improvements in car safety features. What it does show is that speed cameras are not the lifesavers they are marketed to be.

I think the message that can be taken from the article (even if inaccurate to a degree), is that a government focusing on speed as the be-all and end-all of traffic safety is naive to say the least. One could even argue that their lack of focus on other issues such as driver training and education, lack of officers to police bad driving habits like tailgating, and probably many others, borders on negligence.

I could almost bear the fact that the use of speed cameras is little more than rampant revenue raising, if the funds they raise were directly channelled back into road safety issues that actually made a difference.

[Van D]

Just a bit of input from living on the other side of the pond (Canada). No fixed speed cameras anywhere (that I am aware of), very rarely a mobile speed camera to be seen, no red light cameras, speeds of 20km/h~ over the limit generally accepted and performed on highways/freeways. Speeds through cities never actually follow the speed limit, simply the flow of traffic.

In 2 years living there I saw less accidents, less 'hooning', less idiots on the road and a hell of a lot nicer attitude towards cops.
Can't wait to go back.

[Rodp]

Originally Posted by AussieAV

I could almost bear the fact that the use of speed cameras is little more than rampant revenue raising, if the funds they raise were directly channelled back into road safety issues that actually made a difference.

There's the rub.

When predicted speed camera revenue is in a state government's proposed budget, that pretty much says it all.

[platinumXR]

Originally Posted by Van D

Just a bit of input from living on the other side of the pond (Canada). No fixed speed cameras anywhere (that I am aware of), very rarely a mobile speed camera to be seen, no red light cameras, speeds of 20km/h~ over the limit generally accepted and performed on highways/freeways. Speeds through cities never actually follow the speed limit, simply the flow of traffic.

In 2 years living there I saw less accidents, less 'hooning', less idiots on the road and a hell of a lot nicer attitude towards cops.
Can't wait to go back.

Oh' Canada...Oh' Canadaaaaaaa....

I'd bet a few from here may go back with you by the sounds...

[flappist]

Originally Posted by Van D

Just a bit of input from living on the other side of the pond (Canada). No fixed speed cameras anywhere (that I am aware of), very rarely a mobile speed camera to be seen, no red light cameras, speeds of 20km/h~ over the limit generally accepted and performed on highways/freeways. Speeds through cities never actually follow the speed limit, simply the flow of traffic.

In 2 years living there I saw less accidents, less 'hooning', less idiots on the road and a hell of a lot nicer attitude towards cops.
Can't wait to go back.

Yeh but you are in Alberta. Wander off to Quebec and you may see a slightly different "view" by the french gestapo.

At the border crossing from Toronto there is a huge welcome sign, all in french except for two lines.

1) Firearms are prohibited in Quebec
2) Radar detectors are prohibited in Quebec

What is that all aboot.....eh?

[ltd]

Originally Posted by flappist

Yeh but you are in Alberta. Wander off to Quebec and you may see a slightly different "view" by the french gestapo.

At the border crossing from Toronto there is a huge welcome sign, all in french except for two lines.

1) Firearms are prohibited in Quebec
2) Radar detectors are prohibited in Quebec

What is that all aboot.....eh?

He he he he

[sudszy]

Originally Posted by AussieAV

I also doubt that the cameras being turned off saved lives. Most places seem to be enjoying reductions in road fatalities, as we would expect with improvements in car safety features. What it does show is that speed cameras are not the lifesavers they are marketed to be.

Can you back that up with any studies with countries/districts/states reduction in accident rates where speed cameras are used and where they aren't?

Originally Posted by AussieAV

I think the message that can be taken from the article (even if inaccurate to a degree), is that a government focusing on speed as the be-all and end-all of traffic safety is naive to say the least.

I agree, speed is not the be all and end all, but dont see that any message can be taken from the article, other than that cherry picking of stats is rife at the daily mirror.

[flappist]

Originally Posted by sudszy

Can you back that up with any studies with countries/districts/states reduction in accident rates where speed cameras are used and where they aren't?



I agree, speed is not the be all and end all, but dont see that any message can be taken from the article, other than that cherry picking of stats is rife at the daily mirror.

Well if you would like a local example of how the "nanny state revenue raising" agenda has done the opposite of what it was proposed look at the Northern Territory road deaths since the (//) was removed.

I strongly believe that ALL monies raised from speed cameras in Australia should be taken by the Federal Government for use in improving road safety in every state and territory EXCEPT where the money originated.

That way there can be no state bias towards revenue raising as they do not ever get any of the money......

I suspect my idea would be effectively the 21st century version of heresy and a crime against God.... oops I mean the state governments (not that many of then believe there is a difference).

[Van D]

Originally Posted by flappist

Yeh but you are in Alberta. Wander off to Quebec and you may see a slightly different "view" by the french gestapo.

At the border crossing from Toronto there is a huge welcome sign, all in french except for two lines.

1) Firearms are prohibited in Quebec
2) Radar detectors are prohibited in Quebec

What is that all aboot.....eh?

Been there, done that Actually travelled coast to coast and back over a long period of time and Quebecers were amazing!

To top it off I was driving a huge 86 B250 Dodge van covered in graffiti, and filled with not so legal substances, pulled up twice for issues not surrounding speed (rego).. still nothing

[seduced_xr]

Originally Posted by TheInterceptor

Camera's: Stares at speedo and concentrates on being below posted limit to not get booked
No camera's: Pay's attention to the road and surrounding and concentrates on driving.

WHO WOULD HAVE THOUGHT

when i drive through a combo cam. im glued to the speedo making sure im a few km under and keep double checking to make sure the light is deffinately green.

you sir are 100% on the money

[sudszy]

Originally Posted by flappist

Well if you would like a local example of how the "nanny state revenue raising" agenda has done the opposite of what it was proposed look at the Northern Territory road deaths since the (//) was removed.

I strongly believe that ALL monies raised from speed cameras in Australia should be taken by the Federal Government for use in improving road safety in every state and territory EXCEPT where the money originated.

That way there can be no state bias towards revenue raising as they do not ever get any of the money......

I suspect my idea would be effectively the 21st century version of heresy and a crime against God.... oops I mean the state governments (not that many of then believe there is a difference).

Im guessing that you are referring to:: http://www.nt.gov.au/pfes/PFES/index...ion=page&p=148, which verifies a drop in the road toll in NT in the last year,
but why not provide this evidence in your post?

Perhaps, just like the journalists in the daily mirror you have picked a very small time frame from which to try make a point(cherry picking) and didnt want anyone to look too closely?. Overall the toll has gone up and down considerably. If you looked at 2008 it could be claimed that the toll was 50% higher than last year and whatever measures were adopted during the last two years were an outstanding success.

Clearly making any conclusions on the NT's very low overall toll and large % variations needs to be done very carefully.

[MNM96]

Originally Posted by mik

surely it would take a 5% drop in traffic to make a 5% decrease in accidents?

Depends if you are selective with the 1.5% you remove! lol

[flappist]

Originally Posted by sudszy

Im guessing that you are referring to:: http://www.nt.gov.au/pfes/PFES/index...ion=page&p=148, which verifies a drop in the road toll in NT in the last year,
but why not provide this evidence in your post?

Perhaps, just like the journalists in the daily mirror you have picked a very small time frame from which to try make a point(cherry picking) and didnt want anyone to look too closely?. Overall the toll has gone up and down considerably. If you looked at 2008 it could be claimed that the toll was 50% higher than last year and whatever measures were adopted during the last two years were an outstanding success.

Clearly making any conclusions on the NT's very low overall toll and large % variations needs to be done very carefully.

Evidence in Australian road statistics is only ever available in one of two types:

1) Supportive of the Govco agenda

2) Inconclusive and inaccurate

[AussieAV]

Sudzy, it appears you are suggesting that we are falling prey to the logical fallacy of "Post hoc ergo proctor hoc" as described in this link

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Post_hoc_ergo_propter_hoc

(see what I did there - I used a reference, therefore my point must be correct!)

The thing is these sorts of false arguments and statistic manipulations is the only type of evidence I've ever seen put forward by the pro speed camera brigade too.

And just for the record, speaking for myself (and I suspect a number would agree), I am not against speed cameras entirely. They could be a useful tool in the policing and prevention of dangerous driving habits. What I am against is the fining of ridiculously small increments above the limit.

Pure commonsense (sorry, it's hard to find research papers on things that should be obvious to everyone e.g. not too many university studies devoted purely to proving rain is wet) tells us that any given stretch of road does not have a magic speed at which it is safe at all times under all conditions. It also tells us that the powers that be would not set the limit for any stretch of road at the highest possible safe speed for optimum driving conditions. Therefore it means that at given times most roads would be safe at speeds above the posted limit.

Now I'm not suggesting that travelling 85 in a 60 zone is ever likely to be safe, but it is ridiculous to say that travelling at 63 in a 60 zone is always dangerous and punishable. This is the problem with speed cameras, they can't distinguish if the speed travelled by a vehicle was unsafe.

Equally there are times when 55 may actually be a dangerously high speed in a 60 zone. Problem is the message I believe being promoted by the "camera war" on speeding is that the posted limit is always safe.

[flappist]

A successful speed camera from a road safety point of view is one that NEVER results in a fine because no one exceeds the limit.
Well signed and obvious it gets the message across that "this is a dangerous place, be careful".

Of course this makes it an abject failure as far as revenue is concerned.

A successful speed camera from a revenue point of view is one that is hidden in a relatively safe place where more people tend to go a bit faster. It also seems important never to install hidden speed cameras in dangerous places as any accidents, especially fatal ones, are a bit "inconvenient" when spin doctoring the "caring govco road safety speed cameras save lives" message.

So based on the bountiful income from speed cameras it is plainly obvious that the caring understanding nanny types in govco and their pseudo academic puppets are not all that interested in saving lives if it is not a profit centre......

[Franco Cozzo]

What gets me is how they also use the Monash university to "prove" their agenda, I bet there is a lot of money changing hands in favor of the university for some of the stuff they "prove" correct.

BUT, no one can stand up to it, especially anyone in a position of power because its career suicide.

Hence the only way to get something done is with pitchforks and torches