OT: Speed camera folly confirmed

Discussion in 'UK and Europe' started by Matt B, Dec 15, 2005.

  1. Matt B

    Matt B Guest

    In a thread here not too long ago, it was said, in an attempt to
    ridicule my contention that speed cameras were not chosen because they
    were thought to be the most effective way of reducing KSIs across the
    country, and that other solutions would be more effective:

    "If you have a site that requires some treatment, a traffic engineer
    will look at it and suggest an appropriate treatment method. they do not
    just pick one at random."

    It has been reported today that indeed they were not chosen at random[1].

    ================
    Mr Darling told BBC News that authorities often chose to install new
    cameras as they were effectively free, being run with funds from central
    government.

    He said: "I believe it is time to look at the way in which we fund road
    safety so that when you have got councils and police looking at a
    particular site, they consider all the options open to them.

    "It might be a junction improvement, it might be the speed limit or it
    might be a camera."

    He said he hoped the changes would allow authorities to take a broader
    approach to road safety
    ================

    I think that confirms, straight from the horses mouth, /exactly/ what I
    have been saying for quite some time now :)

    Perhaps now, after these wasted few years, we will see the downward
    trent in KSIs restored.

    [1] http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4530464.stm

    --
    Matt B
     
    Tags:


  2. David Martin

    David Martin Guest

    Matt B wrote:
    > In a thread here not too long ago, it was said, in an attempt to
    > ridicule my contention that speed cameras were not chosen because they
    > were thought to be the most effective way of reducing KSIs across the
    > country, and that other solutions would be more effective:
    >
    > "If you have a site that requires some treatment, a traffic engineer
    > will look at it and suggest an appropriate treatment method. they do not
    > just pick one at random."
    >
    > It has been reported today that indeed they were not chosen at random[1].
    >
    > ================
    > Mr Darling told BBC News that authorities often chose to install new
    > cameras as they were effectively free, being run with funds from central
    > government.
    >
    > He said: "I believe it is time to look at the way in which we fund road
    > safety so that when you have got councils and police looking at a
    > particular site, they consider all the options open to them.
    >
    > "It might be a junction improvement, it might be the speed limit or it
    > might be a camera."
    >
    > He said he hoped the changes would allow authorities to take a broader
    > approach to road safety
    > ================
    >
    > I think that confirms, straight from the horses mouth, /exactly/ what I
    > have been saying for quite some time now :)
    >
    > Perhaps now, after these wasted few years, we will see the downward
    > trent in KSIs restored.


    You are reading into it more than perhaps is legitimate. You also quote
    selectively, and missed the bit which said:

    "New figures suggesting cameras continue to save lives at the accident
    blackspots where they have been introduced are also expected to be
    released."

    So what we have is the choice between 'Speed camera/no change'
    broadened to 'Speed camera/other engineering change/no change'. Council
    expenditure has not been limited like this, just the relatively small
    amount of money contributed by speeding motorists.

    As 95% of all motorists admit to regularly breaking the law, maybe we
    should adopt the Thieves Guild mode of operation and just send them all
    a speeding fine every 3 months, spending the proceeds on traffic
    calming. I'm sure that, given the choice between speed bumps (favoured
    by Matt B as they are the most effective accident reduction method) and
    cameras, most would opt for speed bumps..

    ...d
    >
    > [1] http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4530464.stm
    >
    > --
    > Matt B
     
  3. Paul - xxx

    Paul - xxx Guest

    Matt B came up with the following;:

    > Mr Darling told BBC News that authorities often chose to install new
    > cameras as they were effectively free, being run with funds from central
    > government.


    > I think that confirms, straight from the horses mouth, /exactly/ what I
    > have been saying for quite some time now :)


    It confirms what many, many motorists have been saying for a long time ...
    ;)

    --
    Paul ...
    (8(|) Homer Rules ..... Doh !!!
     
  4. Matt B

    Matt B Guest

    David Martin wrote:
    > Matt B wrote:
    >
    >>================
    >>Mr Darling told BBC News that authorities often chose to install new
    >>cameras as they were effectively free, being run with funds from central
    >>government.
    >>
    >>He said: "I believe it is time to look at the way in which we fund road
    >>safety so that when you have got councils and police looking at a
    >>particular site, they consider all the options open to them.
    >>
    >>"It might be a junction improvement, it might be the speed limit or it
    >>might be a camera."
    >>
    >>He said he hoped the changes would allow authorities to take a broader
    >>approach to road safety
    >>================
    >>
    >>I think that confirms, straight from the horses mouth, /exactly/ what I
    >>have been saying for quite some time now :)
    >>
    >>Perhaps now, after these wasted few years, we will see the downward
    >>trent in KSIs restored.

    >
    > You are reading into it more than perhaps is legitimate.


    I'm saying what I find.

    > You also quote
    > selectively,


    Yes, the bit which confirmed what I've been saying for ages.

    > and missed the bit which said:
    >
    > "New figures suggesting cameras continue to save lives at the accident
    > blackspots where they have been introduced are also expected to be
    > released."


    Because we already know that they reduce accidents in a very limited
    area, but not as well as other methods.

    > So what we have is the choice between 'Speed camera/no change'
    > broadened to 'Speed camera/other engineering change/no change'. Council
    > expenditure has not been limited like this, just the relatively small
    > amount of money contributed by speeding motorists.
    >
    > As 95% of all motorists admit to regularly breaking the law, maybe we
    > should adopt the Thieves Guild mode of operation and just send them all
    > a speeding fine every 3 months, spending the proceeds on traffic
    > calming.


    That already happens. VED is charged at a higher rate than is essential
    to cover the cost of administrating a register of motor vehicles, and
    fuel duty, and VAT on fuel duty are purely punitive taxes.

    > I'm sure that, given the choice between speed bumps (favoured
    > by Matt B as they are the most effective accident reduction method)


    Don't put words into my mouth. I've never expressed a preference for bumps.

    > and
    > cameras, most would opt for speed bumps..


    Why limit the choice to the old discredited methods, and ignore the
    likely successors to both of those?

    --
    Matt B
     
  5. David Martin

    David Martin Guest

    Matt B wrote:

    > > So what we have is the choice between 'Speed camera/no change'
    > > broadened to 'Speed camera/other engineering change/no change'. Council
    > > expenditure has not been limited like this, just the relatively small
    > > amount of money contributed by speeding motorists.
    > >
    > > As 95% of all motorists admit to regularly breaking the law, maybe we
    > > should adopt the Thieves Guild mode of operation and just send them all
    > > a speeding fine every 3 months, spending the proceeds on traffic
    > > calming.

    >
    > That already happens. VED is charged at a higher rate than is essential
    > to cover the cost of administrating a register of motor vehicles, and
    > fuel duty, and VAT on fuel duty are purely punitive taxes.


    VED doesn't cover the cost of the road network. Specific licensing
    costs only cover about 75% but the use of motor vehicles predicates
    almost 100% of expenditure


    > > I'm sure that, given the choice between speed bumps (favoured
    > > by Matt B as they are the most effective accident reduction method)

    >
    > Don't put words into my mouth. I've never expressed a preference for bumps.


    You spent a very long thread wingeing about speed cameras and
    complaining that more effective methods were not being used instead.
    The most consistently effective methods are vertical deflections (ie
    speed bumps).

    Or is this a case of double standards, and you don't want something
    effective, you want something that only affects others..

    > > and
    > > cameras, most would opt for speed bumps..


    > Why limit the choice to the old discredited methods, and ignore the
    > likely successors to both of those?


    Shoot anyone who fails to avoid anaccident through carelessness or
    deliberate negligence? Spot the KSI rate going way down, even with
    summary execution at the roadside and bodies hung from lamp posts.

    Or do you mean mob tyranny, where pedestrians are punished for deigning
    to be in the way of a motorist?

    ...d
     
  6. Matt B

    Matt B Guest

    David Martin wrote:
    > Matt B wrote:
    >
    >>>So what we have is the choice between 'Speed camera/no change'
    >>>broadened to 'Speed camera/other engineering change/no change'. Council
    >>>expenditure has not been limited like this, just the relatively small
    >>>amount of money contributed by speeding motorists.
    >>>
    >>>As 95% of all motorists admit to regularly breaking the law, maybe we
    >>>should adopt the Thieves Guild mode of operation and just send them all
    >>>a speeding fine every 3 months, spending the proceeds on traffic
    >>>calming.

    >>
    >>That already happens. VED is charged at a higher rate than is essential
    >>to cover the cost of administrating a register of motor vehicles, and
    >>fuel duty, and VAT on fuel duty are purely punitive taxes.

    >
    > VED doesn't cover the cost of the road network.


    Why should it??? It /only/ has to cover the cost of keeping a register
    of motor vehicles - doesn't it?

    > Specific licensing
    > costs only cover about 75% but the use of motor vehicles predicates
    > almost 100% of expenditure


    Sorry?

    >>>I'm sure that, given the choice between speed bumps (favoured
    >>>by Matt B as they are the most effective accident reduction method)

    >>
    >>Don't put words into my mouth. I've never expressed a preference for bumps.

    >
    > You spent a very long thread wingeing about speed cameras and
    > complaining that more effective methods were not being used instead.
    > The most consistently effective methods are vertical deflections (ie
    > speed bumps).


    Of the "old" methods maybe, but why do we need to keep harping back to
    the dark ages of traffic engineering?

    > Or is this a case of double standards, and you don't want something
    > effective, you want something that only affects others..


    Eh? Have you *never* read a word I've written?

    >>>and
    >>>cameras, most would opt for speed bumps..

    >
    >>Why limit the choice to the old discredited methods, and ignore the
    >>likely successors to both of those?

    >
    > Shoot anyone who fails to avoid anaccident through carelessness or
    > deliberate negligence? Spot the KSI rate going way down, even with
    > summary execution at the roadside and bodies hung from lamp posts.
    >
    > Or do you mean mob tyranny, where pedestrians are punished for deigning
    > to be in the way of a motorist?


    Look back, look around you, look at how others do it, look at human
    nature. The penny may drop one day.

    --
    Matt B
     
  7. sothach

    sothach Guest

    David Martin wrote:
    > Matt B wrote:


    > > That already happens. VED is charged at a higher rate than is essential
    > > to cover the cost of administrating a register of motor vehicles, and
    > > fuel duty, and VAT on fuel duty are purely punitive taxes.

    >
    > VED doesn't cover the cost of the road network. Specific licensing
    > costs only cover about 75% but the use of motor vehicles predicates
    > almost 100% of expenditure


    Depends what you mean by cost of the road network - it its just laying
    the tar, then maybe licensing does cover that: but factor in all the
    secondary costs (environment, health, lost work days, policing) then
    VED + fuel tax only covers about 1/3 to 1/2 of the bill. Burying one
    RTA fatality alone costs a cool million quid.
     
  8. David Martin

    David Martin Guest

    Matt B wrote:
    > > You spent a very long thread wingeing about speed cameras and
    > > complaining that more effective methods were not being used instead.
    > > The most consistently effective methods are vertical deflections (ie
    > > speed bumps).

    >
    > Of the "old" methods maybe, but why do we need to keep harping back to
    > the dark ages of traffic engineering?


    Those days when they used science to evaluate the effectiveness of
    approaches? You posted about some scheme that had 20,000 vehicles per
    day and had a chap walk out into the flow of traffic with no bad
    effect. I find your description somewhat lacking. A simple calculation
    would indicate an *average* flow of a vehicle passing every four
    seconds. Factor in peak flows and it becomes apparent either that you
    have misrepresented the data, or the scheme is a wide area rather than
    a single street.

    > > Or is this a case of double standards, and you don't want something
    > > effective, you want something that only affects others..

    >
    > Eh? Have you *never* read a word I've written?


    There are plenty of the words you have written that I have never read.
    Likewise I'm sure you haven't read all the words I have written (or
    even the subset that are publically published).

    > Look back, look around you, look at how others do it, look at human
    > nature. The penny may drop one day.


    It obviously hasn't dropped where you are. I have already postulated
    three simple legislative changes that would dramatically reduce
    accidents:
    1) Priority to the left on non-trunk routes
    2) Presumption of fault on the part of those with the highest duty of
    care.
    3) Blanket 20mph default speed limit for residential non-trunk routes.

    ...d
     
  9. David Martin

    David Martin Guest

    sothach wrote:
    > David Martin wrote:
    > > Matt B wrote:

    >
    > > > That already happens. VED is charged at a higher rate than is essential
    > > > to cover the cost of administrating a register of motor vehicles, and
    > > > fuel duty, and VAT on fuel duty are purely punitive taxes.

    > >
    > > VED doesn't cover the cost of the road network. Specific licensing
    > > costs only cover about 75% but the use of motor vehicles predicates
    > > almost 100% of expenditure

    >
    > Depends what you mean by cost of the road network - it its just laying
    > the tar, then maybe licensing does cover that:


    Build and maintenance of the road network is not covered by VED. It is
    around 75-90 % depending on how one accounts for it. Somewhere I have
    figures from DfT but can't be arsed to look them up right now.

    > but factor in all the
    > secondary costs (environment, health, lost work days, policing) then
    > VED + fuel tax only covers about 1/3 to 1/2 of the bill. Burying one
    > RTA fatality alone costs a cool million quid.


    That's a much larger debate and includes accounting for tax on fuel as
    well.

    ...d
     
  10. 'we already know that they reduce accidents in a very limited area,
    but not as well as other methods.'

    That's because the government were stupid enough to paint the things
    bright yellow and allow their location to be publicised. This means
    that motorists know exactly where they can get away with speeding. What
    we really need is the introduction of Intelligent Speed Adaptation
    systems as soon as possible and until then, as well as the continued
    use of cameras at proven crash 'black spots', the random and blanket
    use of covert speed enforcement so drivers are encouraged to slow down
    everywhere, not just where there is a bright yellow box by the side of
    the road. At the very least the resultant lower speeds would ensure
    that the consequences of any crash that might happen, however caused,
    would be less severe than if the driver were speeding...
     
  11. Matt B

    Matt B Guest

    [email protected] wrote:
    > 'we already know that they reduce accidents in a very limited area,
    > but not as well as other methods.'
    >
    > That's because the government were stupid enough to paint the things
    > bright yellow and allow their location to be publicised. This means
    > that motorists know exactly where they can get away with speeding.


    That's why they /do/ work. I suppose it depends what you mean by
    /working/. Hidden cameras catch more speeders, obvious cameras reduce
    speeding.

    > What
    > we really need is the introduction of Intelligent Speed Adaptation
    > systems as soon as possible


    We already have that, the driver, but, because of the burdens of
    speedometer watching, traffic light watching, kerb watching, line
    watching, and because of the false sense of superiority we give them by
    the design of our road spaces they are denied the opportunity to use it.

    > and until then, as well as the continued
    > use of cameras at proven crash 'black spots', the random and blanket
    > use of covert speed enforcement so drivers are encouraged to slow down
    > everywhere, not just where there is a bright yellow box by the side of
    > the road. At the very least the resultant lower speeds would ensure
    > that the consequences of any crash that might happen, however caused,
    > would be less severe than if the driver were speeding...


    Now take a look at the /effective/ methods being used elsewhere.

    --
    Matt B
     
  12. sothach

    sothach Guest

    [email protected] wrote:
    > What we really need is the introduction of Intelligent Speed Adaptation
    > systems as soon as possible


    Is that the Swedish system where your driving license contains a chip
    that sets the vehicle operating parameters? So as you enter a
    residential area the chip would get a signal from the road-side box
    that set the speed governer to 20mph, or the cops in hot pursuit would
    fire a 'suspend license' message, cutting the cars engine.
    Yeah, that should work better than cameras, alright.
     
  13. Matt B

    Matt B Guest

    David Martin wrote:
    > Matt B wrote:
    >
    >>>You spent a very long thread wingeing about speed cameras and
    >>>complaining that more effective methods were not being used instead.
    >>>The most consistently effective methods are vertical deflections (ie
    >>>speed bumps).

    >>
    >>Of the "old" methods maybe, but why do we need to keep harping back to
    >>the dark ages of traffic engineering?

    >
    > Those days when they used science to evaluate the effectiveness of
    > approaches?


    Or at least claimed to, yes, rather than psychology and sociology, which
    is proving to be so much more effective elsewhere.

    > You posted about some scheme that had 20,000 vehicles per
    > day and had a chap walk out into the flow of traffic with no bad
    > effect. I find your description somewhat lacking. A simple calculation
    > would indicate an *average* flow of a vehicle passing every four
    > seconds. Factor in peak flows and it becomes apparent either that you
    > have misrepresented the data, or the scheme is a wide area rather than
    > a single street.


    I think it was a crossroads. I'll look it up again and provide more
    info if you're not familiar with it.

    --
    Matt B
     
  14. Matt B wrote:
    > [email protected] wrote:
    > > That's because the government were stupid enough to paint the things
    > > bright yellow and allow their location to be publicised. This means
    > > that motorists know exactly where they can get away with speeding.

    >
    > That's why they /do/ work. I suppose it depends what you mean by
    > /working/. Hidden cameras catch more speeders, obvious cameras reduce
    > speeding.


    So catching criminals doesn't reduce the crime rate, then ? That must
    have
    come as a blow to the police.
     
  15. Jon Senior

    Jon Senior Guest

    Matt B wrote:
    > That's why they /do/ work. I suppose it depends what you mean by
    > /working/. Hidden cameras catch more speeders, obvious cameras reduce
    > speeding.


    The knowledge that there was an _extensive_ network of hidden cameras
    would surely have the same effect. It certainly would after 2 weeks of
    high publicity fines!

    > We already have that, the driver, but, because of the burdens of
    > speedometer watching, traffic light watching, kerb watching, line
    > watching, and because of the false sense of superiority we give them by
    > the design of our road spaces they are denied the opportunity to use it.


    "burdens of speedometer watching"? With my astonishingly high 8 years of
    driving experience (Around 5 years of which I only drove when visiting
    my parents) I am perfectly capable of holding a given speed with a
    variance of no more than +-2mph at low (<40mph) speeds and around +-4mph
    at higher speeds. How do I know this? I've got the tachograph records to
    prove it. I can do that without having to stare at the speedo. I would
    hope that I'm not exceptional, and I certainly don't consider myself to
    be amongst the top drivers in the country. In fact, my awareness of my
    personal limitations means that I often lower my speed.

    How about a simple test that identifies whether a driver is capable of
    regulating their vehicle speed safely. Forget points... just remove the
    licence. That way we can improve KSI rates and reduce traffic congestion
    in one fell swoop. ;-)

    > Now take a look at the /effective/ methods being used elsewhere.


    You keep alluding to these but have neglected to mention what they are.

    Jon
     
  16. Matt B

    Matt B Guest

    [email protected] wrote:
    > Matt B wrote:
    >
    >>[email protected] wrote:
    >>
    >>>That's because the government were stupid enough to paint the things
    >>>bright yellow and allow their location to be publicised. This means
    >>>that motorists know exactly where they can get away with speeding.

    >>
    >>That's why they /do/ work. I suppose it depends what you mean by
    >>/working/. Hidden cameras catch more speeders, obvious cameras reduce
    >>speeding.

    >
    > So catching criminals doesn't reduce the crime rate, then ?


    You know differently?

    > That must
    > have
    > come as a blow to the police.


    You think?

    --
    Matt B
     
  17. Wife and I have both been nabbed by cameras - 41 and 45 in 30 zone -
    for both of us our only offences in 40 years of driving. As a result to
    safeguard our licenses we both now drive at or close to the limit
    wherever we are, not just were there are cameras.
    So I'd say they are a great success in reducing speed and hence
    accidents. More cameras the better - I'd much rather tootle along
    gently at 30, 50 etc and would prefer everyone else to do the same.
    Strict imposition of the 70 limit would also be good for us all.
    Sticking to the limit is not easy however as one tends to be followed
    by Jeremy Clarkson type twats who want you to go faster. When this
    happens I tend to slow down even more.

    cheers

    jacob
     
  18. Jon Senior

    Jon Senior Guest

    [email protected] wrote:
    > Sticking to the limit is not easy however as one tends to be followed
    > by Jeremy Clarkson type twats who want you to go faster. When this
    > happens I tend to slow down even more.


    Which is good practice. If someone is driving too close, you can't stop
    as suddenly so you'll need to allow more room in front. The slower you
    get, the closer they get and the slower you have to drive. If the
    JCTT[1] realised this, they'd back off a little and get to go faster. Ah
    well.

    Jon

    [1] Jeremy Clarkson type twats
     
  19. Matt B

    Matt B Guest

    Jon Senior wrote:
    > Matt B wrote:
    >
    >> That's why they /do/ work. I suppose it depends what you mean by
    >> /working/. Hidden cameras catch more speeders, obvious cameras reduce
    >> speeding.

    >
    > The knowledge that there was an _extensive_ network of hidden cameras
    > would surely have the same effect. It certainly would after 2 weeks of
    > high publicity fines!


    Why be confrontational when it's a human nature problem?

    >> We already have that, the driver, but, because of the burdens of
    >> speedometer watching, traffic light watching, kerb watching, line
    >> watching, and because of the false sense of superiority we give them
    >> by the design of our road spaces they are denied the opportunity to
    >> use it.

    >
    > "burdens of speedometer watching"? With my astonishingly high 8 years of
    > driving experience (Around 5 years of which I only drove when visiting
    > my parents) I am perfectly capable of holding a given speed with a
    > variance of no more than +-2mph at low (<40mph) speeds and around +-4mph
    > at higher speeds. How do I know this? I've got the tachograph records to
    > prove it. I can do that without having to stare at the speedo. I would
    > hope that I'm not exceptional,


    And it is precisely that obsession with speed that limits and cameras
    lead to. It /doesn't/ matter what actual speed you are traveling at so
    long as you are aware of your surroundings, and know you are traveling
    within an appropriate safety envelope. Are you aware of your precise
    speed when walking or cycling?

    --
    Matt B
     
  20. David Martin

    David Martin Guest

    Matt B wrote:
    > And it is precisely that obsession with speed that limits and cameras
    > lead to. It /doesn't/ matter what actual speed you are traveling at so
    > long as you are aware of your surroundings, and know you are traveling
    > within an appropriate safety envelope. Are you aware of your precise
    > speed when walking or cycling?


    Take the speedo away and people will gradually drive further outside
    their safety envelope. Even when they 'know' it is outside the envelope
    (and virtually nobody knows what their current safety envelope is [1]).
    Positive reinforcement in the form of not crashing and getting where
    you want to be faster leads to the rare (for an individual) occurances
    where you are caught out being regarded by society as 'unlucky' and not
    the fault of the vehicle operator.

    The brother of a friend was killed by 'mud on the road'. Well, no he
    wasn't, he was killed because he was going too fast without leaving
    appropriate time to adapt to the changing conditions.

    ...d
     
Loading...
Loading...