FabSwingers.com forum: Do Speed Cameras Really Prevent Accidents

By *he_original_polo OP Woman
over a year ago

a Primark shoebox in Leicester

" "Speed cameras in Oxfordshire, which were switched off for cost-cutting reasons, have been turned back on again following publication of higher casualty figures.

Data released by Thames Valley Police shows in the six months after they were switched off, 83 people were injured in 62 accidents at the site of fixed cameras. The figure for the same period of the previous the year (August 2009 to January 2010) was 68 injuries in 60 accidents. The number of people seriously injured rose by 19 to 179."

So some are saying the stats prove beyond question the cameras reduce accidents and injuries. Whilst the stats do show a small number increase.... no one seems to be mentioning one really important factor.

When looking at like for like you have to consider what else might have influenced change. Between August 2010 and January 2011, didn't we have the worst period of fucking snow on record!

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

Ive actually seen them cause accidents lol

A car run in the back of another as it quickly slowed down when it saw the camera at last minute xx

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

No you just go even faster when you have passed them to make up time

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

Depends whose stats you use...

... and if you believe the stats you have chosen...

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *ee_awMan
over a year ago

newcastle

The increase in accidents they are using for these stats wasn't even in the areas where the speed cameras were turned off - at the sites where the cameras were they did record that average speeds were higher (and over the limit) but there was no significant rise in accidents at these sites.... lies, lies and statistics!

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

they are just cash mchines allways have been and always will be.there is no proof they prevent accidents in fact theres more proof they cauce them with ppl suddenly braking when spotting one hidden behind a tree or a bend.flashing neon signs telling the motorist there speed when approaching built up areas are far more affective than cameras but of cource they dont generate any income for the greedy councils

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *ornyandnymphoCouple
over a year ago

poole

"they are just cash mchines allways have been and always will be.there is no proof they prevent accidents in fact theres more proof they cauce them with ppl suddenly braking when spotting one hidden behind a tree or a bend.flashing neon signs telling the motorist there speed when approaching built up areas are far more affective than cameras but of cource they dont generate any income for the greedy councils "

Flashing neon signs do sod all. There is one at the bottom of our road, there are still as many people speeding and as many accidents as before.

If you get caught speeding twice in 12 months you get a years ban, that should solve the issue. Never had a speeding ticket in my life, and I used to drive hundreds of miles a week.

Speed Kills, simple. I would rather be late and alive, than not arrive at all. Or worse still take an innocent life.

And don't even get me started on driving and using a mobile phone.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

Yes they do

Along time ago (back in th e90's) I used to work in a team for a local authority who did pre instalation and post instalatin studies on speed camera sites.

Speeding decreaced on average 50% (ie half of people studied were over the speed limit after the instalation as oposed to before).

Speed kills. We didn't install cameras where we thought they woud catch most people. We installed cameras where most people died from idiots who drove too fast.

If you get caught speeding, it's not the fault of the camera who caught you, it's your fault for driving too fast. I have heard all sorts of silly excuses like they change the speed limit just before the camera, but so what? The speed camera is there to make sure you obey the law.

You would not complain if a camera caught a criminal steling things would you? breaking the speed limit is a crime, you have no 'right' to do so imaterial of yhow good a driver you think you are, these things are very well though out and are ver well placed.

Wise up, the faster you drive the more likely you are to kill someone stupid enough to walk in front of you.........

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *aryDafiMan
over a year ago

Tripple e

If we could have free prescriptions i would vote for more speed cameras as they raise money. I can't help feeling a dictator state would be far better for the UK though.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

It always makes me laugh where the British want all laws applied to the letter... except for driving!

I cant count the amount of times I have heard "but I was only a few miles over the limit" etc. Can you imagine a burglar in court saying "But I only stole a few things", a thug saying "But I only beat her up a little bit", a rapist saying "But I only touched her up a little bit" and thinking thats ok?

What is it with drivers that they think the law A) doesnt apply to them and B) they have a level of leniency they should be allowed to apply to it.

Its a simple reality - its the law, you have either broken it or you havent!

The camera generating money is a result of the driver breaking the law, nothing else! If the driver wasnt BREAKING THE LAW then the camera wouldnt flash and charge him!!!

You may not like the law, you may not agree with the law - but as with every other law it has to be adhered to, not just when you fancy and are not in a hurry!!!

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *plpxp2Couple
over a year ago

Middlesbrough

There's one basic problem with the whole issue of "safety" cameras (yeah right

): the theory that speed kills.

Speed does not kill, what causes problems is the inappropriate use of speed and that is a whole different thing that cannot be judged by a camera (you need proper policing). After all if it was speed we could simply go back to having a man with a flag walking in front of our vehicle.

As far as statistics, Durham does not have fixed cameras, it has traffic police and a much lower level of accidents.

Still it won't be an issue for much longer as none of us will be able to afford fuel

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *-and-KCouple
over a year ago

Back of Beyond

Its a proven fact they reduce accidents

20 feet each side of the bloody things. Other than that it is a PROVEN FACT that they are nothing more than a cash cow for the government.

Its amazing how many 'safety partnerships' used to go on and on about saving lives with them when they got the revenue back. Now it all goes to central government they don't even do half the job they used to. Our local one just keeps bleating about not having the funds to operate.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

Post new Message to Thread