Speed Cameras in the UK - Saving lives?

Question

We hear a lot of argument both for and against the effectiveness of roadside speed cameras, both sides claiming that the devices have or haven't saved any given number of lives.
What I want to know is this - how do they measure the effectiveness, or otherwise of each camera and where, if anywhere, is this information recorded?

Given that statistics can be formed to prove just about anything you want (99.5% of all statistics prove this), is there a sure-fire, definitive way of stating whether a specific camers is or isn't doing what it's supposed to do (ie slow traffic and save lives, or just generating revenue for the police and other authorities)?

Poli - I'm not moaning - if you had actually read the question, you'd soon realise that I was asking for people opinions, not making a statement.

Can you PLEASE read the damn question, you lefty liberal wets???! No-one is monaing about cameras - I AM ASKING YOUR OPINION!!

alex - like your answer mate - just one point - how is it possible to say how many people haven't been killed??? There's a camera on the A43 near where I live, and literally millions of people haven't been killed there! Only joking.

And no, I'm not condoning speeding, particulalry in "urban areas" - couldn't stand to kill someone through my own recklessness. In fact, I have had a clean licence since I passed my test way back (when it was all black and white!) and think that in certain areas, such as schools and hospitals, housing estates etc tha teh limit shoudl be lowered still, to 15 or 20, and that there shoudl be more visible old bill on teh roads, not those sodding "Highway Agency Traffic Officers" - who teh hell do they think they are?!!

Answer 1

In Northants, a certain number of deaths/accidents should have happened at a location before a camera is fitted. The A43 is the most dangerous road in the countly, but only has one camera at the Northampton end and, judging by the amount of accidents, more cameras should be fitted.

However, analysis of the causes of the accidents shows that speed is rarely the cause. Often it is poor driving that is at fault and not the speed of the vehicle.

However, a clear way of measuring the effect of the camera is not how many speeders have been caught, but how many deaths have not occured.

Unfortunately, statistics show that cameras are only effective 100 yards before and after the camera. So, while they are good for critical spots like bends and junctions.

It is, however, interesting to note that, during the construction of a new road south of Birmingham, a speed camera mount was already in place, next to a junction, before the road was opened. This implies that the designers could not build a stretch of road that would not be dangerous/fatal unless a camera was fitted. Revenue generator?

Answer 2

The fact is that we have no way at all of proving that speed cameras either do or do not save lives. The safety lobby argue that the rate of road deaths has fallen since cameras have been introduced but they cannot prove that the rate of deaths has fallen because of the cameras, especially since the rate of road deaths was falling anyway, well before cameras were even thought of. The anti-camera people point out that the introduction of cameras has coincided with a slowing down (even a flattening off) in the rate of decline but, again, they cannot prove that this is because of cameras. The reality is that the number of road deaths has fallen because of a wide range of factors, e.g. safety features on cars, seatbelts, better road layout and signage, less drink-driving, and so on. As many of these factors have happened at the same time, it is impossible to isolate the precise effect of a signle factor.

Answer 3

I drive 100,000 miles a year and pass God knows how many cameras in the middle of the night; not one of which serves a useful purpose at 2am.

In the Bradford area, West Yorkshire, the road-deaths per annum are now exactly the same as they were before cameras were installed on the roads.

"Speed is the biggest cause of accidents", claimed the local motorised plod.

Well, of course speed is not the cause of a single accident; it is always bad/drunk/drug driving or pedestrians who hurl themselves in front of cars for some strange reason.

All the fools who think that cameras save lives by making people stick to speed limits, are probably the same ones who speed past schools at 30mph, driving UP to the limit rather than down to a safe speed.

If people were really serious about road-safety, I would suggest that they campaign for random eye-tests for ALL motorists, and not just LGV and PSV drivers, because a lot of people who passed a test at 18 with perfect eyesight, are probably half-blind by the time they get to 55.

Unless people can see properly, what chance have they of avoiding anything?

Answer 4

The number of road deaths caused yearly had been falling steadily in the UK from a peak in the seventies, to a low in the mid nineties and has now crept up again.
The main cause in the fall is thought to be improved car design, and anti drink driving legislation, and part of the reason for the recent increases is thought to be higher traffic volumes and greater distances travelled per year / per driver.
There is indirect evidence that speed cameras don't help, Durham county doesn't operate them and they have one of the lowest fatality rates in the UK, but then proponents of cameras can argue that is down to other causes. Another study in London showed that while you can reduce deaths for a dangerous junction with the introduction of a speed camera, the overall accident rate in an area remained the same, since in the surrounding areas accident rates increased.
So at best they help marginally, at worst they reduce the number of traffic police patrolling the roads and actually increase road deaths.

Answer 5

Speed Cameras Can Save Lives But They Don't Cause Accidents. Cars Don't Kill People It's The Nut Behind The Wheel That Does That. If Those That Speed Didn't There Wouldn't Be Any Need For Speed Cameras And Your Question Would Be A Moot Point. For My Children's Sake, You All Know Speed Kills So Please Kill Your Speed NOT MY CHILDREN!

Answer 6

As the Government insists that the cameras are only there to make the road safer then why are they still there after they have reduced the accidents to below the level that they are deemed necessary.

Speed does not cause accidents.

Latest info when police are actually on the road to stop motorists is that they find unroadworthy vehicles, unlicensed drivers, untaxed vehicles, drunk drivers etc etc

Answer 7

Here in CANADA we had photo radar in Ontario about ten years ago.The day it was in force the highway traffic speed dropped from the usual 140-160 kph to the posted limit of 100kph.It lasted until the next government removed photo radar then the speeding was even worse.The accident rate actually dropped for the year or so it was in force.

Answer 8

There are certain instances where the number of accidents in towns have been reduced and they claim this is due to the installation of a speed camera. However, think in the majority of cases they are just income generators and can even casue accidents themselves. I have been driving behind someone who suddenly slammed on the brakes becasue they have spotted a speed camera on several occasions - could have easily casued a multiple car crash!!

Answer 9

The only drivers who complain are those who speed and get caught. more power to the camera! (why should even one person get killed because someone wants to go faster than the limit)

Answer 10

Speed cameras suck!! I hope the court case about the human rights wins, then you dont have to say who is driving the car! mwuhahahahahaha