50% increase in deaths planned for M4

[Davidc]

The accident reduction statistic is always presented wrapped in the standard web of lies and half truths. Sure, there was probably a massive reduction in accidents within 100 yards of the speed cameras .

The BBC item implied that the reduction was for the whole of the Wiltshire section of the M4.

What horrified me was the calm acceptance by all concerned that the death rate would return to at least its former level. particularly as I have to use that piece of road sometimes.

 

[GrumpyGregry]

The war on the motorist has been ended in order, so it seems, to allow efforts in the war on the vulnerable road user(s) to be redoubled.

What was it the ABD man said? "out of 40 million voters 30 million own cars" It would appear the cabinet were listening.

Was at a cycle forum meeting last night and the county council officers were less than happy with the idea that cameras they've put in for safety reasons may be scrapped so central government will appeal more to irresponsible petrolheads.

We get the govt we deserve.

 

[Globalti]

I don't suppose any camera advocates have taken into account that since the idea was foisted upon us, motor cars have become a lot stronger, built to higher standards of survivability and annual casualty rates have diminished as a consequence?

 

[ufkacbln]

ok, 58mph, whatever, that wasn't the point...

Would you be happy if the next 5mm bolt you bought was 5.8 mm?

 

[jonesy]

I don't suppose any camera advocates have taken into account that since the idea was foisted upon us, motor cars have become a lot stronger, built to higher standards of survivability and annual casualty rates have diminished as a consequence?

Well if you are really interested, why don't you have a read of the relevant evaluation reports and see if they've accounted for other factors? But of course you won't, you've already pre-judged them as "standard web of lies and half truths", without knowing anything about them. But who needs experts in accident analysis when you've got 30 million drivers each with their own opinion...

 

[ufkacbln]

I don't suppose any camera advocates have taken into account that since the idea was foisted upon us, motor cars have become a lot stronger, built to higher standards of survivability and annual casualty rates have diminished as a consequence?

Has it?



With better brakes and tyres - why do we need special surfaces at junctions because cars cannot stop?

.. and more relevant, with all these advances why have we still got cars like the Jeep Grand Cherokee that fails every single pedestrian test run by EuroENcap?

 

[Bollo]

The fine money went onto a central pot, so the government got the benefit of the cash, not the local authorities

The local authorities were given funding to put them up

This funding has stopped


Perhaps they could get the rozzers out on traffic duty rather than having them eating donuts and pulling people for having a spliff

I'm really confused now. The local authorities were given money? I thought it was the government that gave them the money? And now the government won't be receiving all that lovely revenue from the cameras? So the government will receive less money to pass on to the local authorities? Or not? Help me out here, zim.

 

[zimzum42]

I'm really confused now. 1) The local authorities were given money? I thought it was the government that gave them the money? 2) And now the government won't be receiving all that lovely revenue from the cameras? 3) So the government will receive less money to pass on to the local authorities? Or not? Help me out here, zim.

1)The govt gave them money, yes

2) If they switch of cameras, then yes, the govt might not make as much money

3) However much they receive, it doesn't matter, they are cutting the funding anyway

 

[zimzum42]

Would you be happy if the next 5mm bolt you bought was 5.8 mm?

??????????

 

[e-rider]

The tories have plans to scrap speed cameras all over England - idiots!

 

[GrumpyGregry]

[QUOTE 1150378"]
I took that into account when trying to decide whether I as a pedestrian would rather be hit at 58mph by a Toyota Yaris or a Rover SD1.
[/quote]

Either way at that sort of speed you'll end up as a KSI statistic. But such casualty levels are 'acceptable losses'. 30 million motorists can't be expected to driver slower for the sake and safety of mere pedestrians. Why, if the peds were not the undeserving poor they would surely own cars of their own and be driving around in them.

 

[atbman]

Not quite sure I understand the arguments against speed cameras.

Don't I recall that, a few years ago, motorists complaints were that they were always being caught by sneaky (and therefore decidely unBritish) hidden cameras and that they would obey the speed limits if they knew where the cameras were.

And didn't the gov't paint them all yellow and put up warning signs?

So, didn't speeding offences drop, then?

 

[Headgardener]

The only people who as I see it complain about speed cameras are those who have got caught and should have been more attentive in the first place.

 

[StuartG]

Speeding isn't the real offence - its pretty gross lack of attention not to see the warning sign, yellow back and road markings. If they can't see those what is the chance of spotting a cyclist/pedestrian?

Three strikes and you are out (for life?) would seem to be a more reasonable approach than fining folks.

 

[Bollo]

There was a bit on the BBC South Today about this. Oxfordshire CC switched off all their speed cameras last week but 'accidentally' left a few on. One camera recorded 62 speeders in a 5 day period, an 88% increase for the first week after the announcement. Another recorded 110, 18% more than the average. The council will not be prosecuting any of the drivers.

Just to blat some simple stats at this one.....

62 as an 88% increase implies that the mean number of speeders over this period is around 33. Using the poisson distribution (may not be completely accurate, but good for counting event type experiments) , there's about a 1 in 10,000 chance of this happening accidentally (99.99% upper confidence interval - even tails - on a Poisson with mu=33 is 61.5).

In the interests of fairness, the same analysis for the 18% increase yields about a 1 in 10 chance of the variation being purely statistical.

I'm not going to go all Paul Smith (RIP) about these fag-packet sums, but I can't imagine the council has any motivation to perform a long term study at ex-camera sites to establish some proper measurements.

Of course, we could just appeal to people's nice side by putting up a sign that says 'please' and possibly lights up, but I suspect that these were only effective because drivers were unsure whether there was a camera attached as well.