150,000 in fines on Halifax road by speed camera

[HeadingNorth 11]

If they are speeding they would need to slow down for them to avoid a fine.

 

Precisely. It's to help them break the law and get away with it.

 

 

People who don't speed, don't need to know where the cameras are. People who do speed, should not know where the cameras are. They should be caught and penalised.

[sccsux 10]

I agree, but people will always speed

 

Then they deserve to be fined, even by these "cashmeras".

[DT Ralge 10]

The money goes to the treasury.

 

Thanks for the link - I wonder, though, how many actually bother to read it and have their views on "scameras" challenged by it.

[sccsux 10]

Thanks for the link - I wonder, though, how many actually bother to read it and have their views on "scameras" challenged by it.

 

I find the following quote interesting:

 

"The road casualty rate has declined at a slower rate since speed cameras were introduced in the early 1990s."

 

and

 

"Using the road casualty rate from 1978-1990 it can be estimated that 1,555,244 more road casualties have occurred from 1991-2007,3 than would have if the 1978-1990 trend had continued."

 

Seems like the cameras are making no difference to the casualty rates.

Edited November 28, 2011 by sccsux

[Murphy Jnr 10]

I find the following quote interesting:

 

"The road casualty rate has declined at a slower rate since speed cameras were introduced in the early 1990s."

 

and

 

"Using the road casualty rate from 1978-1990 it can be estimated that 1,555,244 more road casualties have occurred from 1991-2007,3 than would have if the 1978-1990 trend had continued."

 

Seems like the cameras are making no difference to the casualty rates.

 

Has this increase in accidents occured on roads wth camera's or is it on UK roads in general.

The vehicle count must have also increased at an alarming rate in that same period which would have some baring on the increase in accidents.

[BHRemovals 10]

They 've got a big grant to repair them

[Deltic 10]

I find the following quote interesting:

 

"The road casualty rate has declined at a slower rate since speed cameras were introduced in the early 1990s."

 

and

 

"Using the road casualty rate from 1978-1990 it can be estimated that 1,555,244 more road casualties have occurred from 1991-2007,3 than would have if the 1978-1990 trend had continued."

 

Seems like the cameras are making no difference to the casualty rates.

 

It is common for rates of decline to become slower as problems become smaller. At the start of any program it's relatively easy to produce change. It might be better to focus on the fact that road casualties have reduced. In ant case speed cameras are not the only factor in road safety.

 

I would be interested to know why 1978-1990 was chosen as the baseline trend. It's a common technique in statistical reporting to choose a range of numbers which happen to support you point of view.

 

It would be difficult if not impossible to prove that the cameras are making no difference to road casualties overall. You would have to have a control sample running somewhere and I that is very difficult. Any variation between two locations would skew the comparison.

[sccsux 10]

I would be interested to know why 1978-1990 was chosen as the baseline trend. It's a common technique in statistical reporting to choose a range of numbers which happen to support you point of view..

 

Probably to cover the 12 years before and the 12 years since the introduction of the cameras?

[DT Ralge 10]

That the line on the KSI graph flattened out entirely between 1994 and 2004 was and still is a mystery to everyone.

Placing the "blame" on cameras alone is entirely dodgy as would any suggestion to the contrary that the subsequent reduction in KSI figures is entirely as a result of cameras.

The facts are that deaths in 1966 reached 8000.

The steady decrease to 3500 (each year in the period 1994 to 2004) came as a result of more than a few factors.

The subsequent years saw year-on-year reductions to 2222 in 2009 and to 1850 in 2010. Again down to a big set of factors.

We have managed, therefore, to almost halve the death toll in the last 7 years - one of the very few Govt. targets ever hit.

[Shogun 10]

I'm not sure if the cameras make any difference to the figures over all but it dos seem that the accidents still happen regularly , but they seem to happen somewhere else from the cameras as people get used to where they are and slow down, when they give the statistics out they always say accidents have been reduced in this area by so and so percent but they don't say that there has been an increase in accidents around the corner as the cars speed up to try and make the bit of time up lost going through the cameras up the road,what would make people slow down would be if the cameras were hidden and people would not know were they are that would certainly slow people down,

Edited November 28, 2011 by Shogun

[Penistone999 10]

 

Seems like the cameras are making no difference to the casualty rates.

 

Unlike the bank balance of the treasury.

 

These Scameras are purely a renenue raiser, which is the reason why they were invented in the first place. They have NEVER been about road safety.

 

If road safety was the sole purpose of these cameras ,then points on your licence would have been the ONLY penalty ,as points soon add up ,and are the best deterent for not doing it again, but by having a financial penalty as well ,it proved that these cameras are there purely to make money .

 

Once you add a financial penalty to anything ,it is clear revenue raising is the sole objective of the excersise.

[HeadingNorth 11]

These Scameras are purely a renenue raiser, which is the reason why they were invented in the first place.

 

But they only raise revenue from law-breakers, so no honest citizen has a problem with that.