From: http://go.theregister.com/news/http://www.theregister.co.uk/2005/07/19/gatso_deaths_link/

 

Fatalities rise in speed camera hotspots

 

The UK government recently suspended the deployment of more speeds cameras pending the outcome of of a University College London probe into whether they actually save lives.

 

We have no doubt, then, that the investigators will be taking a close interest in the Motorcycle News revelation that road deaths have risen dramatically in those areas favoured with the most Gatsos.

 

According to the MCN figures - joyfully reported in today's Sun - Hertfordshire saw a 24 per cent rise in speed camera numbers between 2003 and 2004. In the same period, road fatalities rose by 34 per cent.

 

Likewise in Wiltshire, camera numbers went up 14 per cent, and those killed 22 per cent. In County Durham, meanwhile, a lone Gatso oversaw a 22 per cent drop in fatalities.

 

The Sun is also delighted to report that in North Wales, where "Gatso fan Chief Constable Richard Brunstrom has a league table for traffic cops", 56,247 speeding tickets were issued although this had little effect on safety, with an 18 per cent increase in road deaths.

 

The reason? Simple, says safety expert Paul Smith: “Crashes are avoided by making a safe plan based on what you see. Cameras move attention away from hazards to speedometers.” ®

its finally proven what we've known all along. lets hope our silly government takes heed.

Here, here. F**kin hate them (figures I've got 6 points). Focus on the wrong thing, seen more close misses through people braking for cameras (often to speeds way less than the limit) than I have from any other reason.

Dave

So Government profit really is more important than our lives???????? :hurl:

its finally proven what we've known all along. lets hope our silly government takes heed.

 

LOL!! yeah right :rolleyes:

At last, But will the government admit it.

 

 

Whoooo look there goes another one. The only problem is flying pigs These days are usually in Volvos

Remember it was only a few weeks ago Darling Alister was in the news talking about the governments plans to make motorists 'pay as you go' (upto £1.50 per mile?) within the next ten years. A GPS system will be installed in your car, tracking you and knowing your speed.

 

My concern is that this could be a diversionary tactic. Instead of the permanent Gatsos, we could see growth in mobile cameras, SPECS cameras, and guess what, in-car speed monitoring devices - GPS.

 

Speeding revenue is a self financing nice little earner, I cant see that changing TBH, safety doesn't come into it, they cherry pick the stats to say what they want anyway. Apparently there was an overall drop in the fatality rate on UK roads last year - DFT.

HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

If you remember back a few months I got an SP30 and so after a lot of advice, I copitulated and decided to pay and have done with. However, I did have my say and it went like this:-

 

Dear Designated Officer,

 

I apologise for my payment being late, nevertheless, please find my cheque attached.

 

In the mean time, I would like to make a statement, which I never thought I would need to do.

 

For many, many years I have been a careful driver and have always been very speed conscious and have agreed with the use of speed cameras as a deterrent. However, recently there has been spate of news reports that has shocked me, and that have coincidently come around the same time that I received my offence.

 

I’m still not a 100% sure where I was meant to have been speeding and did not receive any documentation before the court hearing. However, I would like to request a copy of the picture taken of our vehicle so that I can identify the location. However, I am confident that it was no more than 5-7mph over the speed limit.

 

I class myself as an excellent driver but I don’t say this out of arrogance but out of proof. I have been driving for 13 years, have covered an average of 20k miles per year and have never had an accident. I have however seen some atrocious driving by others so nothing surprises me nowadays but never to the point where it could have been classed as reckless.

 

Therefore, I have decided to start carrying out research in the use of speed cameras in general in the attempt to reduce the numbers of them. The reason for this is that I believe that they cause more near misses and potential accidents than if they were not there at all. I have recently started working in Nottingham and have turned in to a paranoid driver. I am finding myself spending more and more time looking at my speedometer than on the road, due to the fact that there are so many cameras being erected. Surely, making drivers twitchy does not save lives? Therefore, the only thing it can make is MONEY!!!

 

 

 

Yours truly,

Mr C Theopistou

 

In my letter I included a print off of this:-

 

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/shropshire/4559173.stm

 

and to finish it off, I had 1 piece of paper at the back with 1 word on it in font size 200 diagonaly across the page saying, "JUSTICE?"

 

 

and this is what I got back........................

 

 

Dear Sir/Madam,

 

I am in receipt of your latest communication, however, I regret I am unable to assist you further.

 

Your faithfully,

 

 

 

 

Faithfully my ars3!

I am going to send them another letter back saying this:-

 

Dear Sir/Madam,

 

Why?

 

 

Yours Faithfully

 

 

What do you wreckon the response will be?

I am going to send them another letter back saying this:-

 

Dear Sir/Madam,

 

Why?

 

 

Yours Faithfully

 

 

What do you wreckon the response will be?

 

the responce will be as follow,

Dear Sir, thank you for your bla bla bla, as i am the only cashier in this place i will be cashing your cheque a.s.a.p, thank you

 

BTW

your letter reminds me of how i blagged my way out of a ticket :p

I won't disagree with facts and figures but at the end of the day, an accident will always involve some driver who made a poor judgement, below that of what a reasonable person would have decided.

Speed camera's are out there, live with them not against them - that's for dead people.

I know 2 roads round where I live which are 40mph limits and have speed cameras.

 

EVERY time I am behind some one on these roads, they brake very hard when approaching the camera to less than 30mph.

 

This is dangerous and will cause an accident.

COS, hardluck mate, good point well made, speed cameras punish safe drivers doing slightly more than a draconian speed limit perfectly safely and that's about all they do.

 

Most people they catch are driving safely at the time and that's what's so farcical and upsetting - being punished for driving safely.

 

All other aspects of driving that ARE actually dangerous they cannot detect, tailgating, drunk, drugged, unlicenced, incompetent, too slow, too fast in rain/fog etc etc. But we all know this and so do they ..££.

 

Then you hear stories like the 159mph copper which rubs salt in, tell me it's a joke!

I won't disagree with facts and figures but at the end of the day, an accident will always involve some driver who made a poor judgement, below that of what a reasonable person would have decided.

Speed camera's are out there, live with them not against them - that's for dead people.

 

 

Agree with your first point, accidents mainly happen because people aren't concentrating on the task, but I dont get your second point.

 

Are you saying speed cameras save lives? If so please give evidence of a camera saving a life.

 

Yes they are out there I agree, but if drivers sit back and just accept them soon you wont be able to breathe for the damn things! Protest now or the 'transport 2000' & 'brake' types of car hating PC emotional crapsters will soon have them every 1/2 mile or so and nanny you to death!

 

Public opinion is 70-80% against cameras in independant polls ( not biased polls carried out by camera partnerships ) and the government know it.

I dont like to state the obvious but I have on "MANY" occasions been following a car or van when all of a sudden they have noticed a camera at the last minute and slammed on the brakes without thought of who or what is behind them. In most cases the vehicle wasnt speeding. But as already mentioned it makes you twichy. My brother inlaw last year on the A14 coming back from Ipswich did the same I nearly 5hat myself and said WTF. "I thought that van was a mobile speed van". had it have been wet or icey I may not have lived to tell the tale.

Fookin get rid. and make cars safer and the standard of driving higher?

Sorry back again:

would you agree that if everyone drove on or below the speed limit that the countries roads would become one massive traffic jam?

i was snapped by a gat$o last month. i was ahead of a small group of cars, driving in the middle of three lanes on the way out of Leicester at 7 in the evening - all cars doing 32ish. i realised i was in the wrong lane - i needed to move over left but a beemer was in that lane and about two car lengths behind me. so as not to cut him up i floored it a little and pulled infront of him at a safe distance. FLA$H FLA$H. got caught doing 36!!! :mad: :mad:

at least theyve offered me the option of the speed awareness workshop.

$camera$ are there for nothing but tax FACT!

Sorry back again:

would you agree that if everyone drove on or below the speed limit that the countries roads would become one massive traffic jam?

 

Yes, and alot more dangerous with cars moving at the same speed on motorways, crawling past overtaking each other like HGV's do now.

I like to pass quickly and keep as much space as poss around me.

 

Does anyone remember the M4 scamera protest, when the camera vans started sitting on bridges? Since then the scammers haven't been there but are claiming a 60% reduction in crashes! Now they are back on the bridges again.

Here's some interesting facts about accident causation on the M4, from the ABD yesterday :

 

**** EMBARGOED UNTIL 23.59 WEDNESDAY 20 JULY 2005 ****

 

 

New research undermines M4 cameras

 

 

New research from road safety group the Association of British Drivers today damned the M4 speed cameras as "a massive mistake". The Association was also charged £111 for access to vital information about the causes of crashes which, it believes, should have been made public.

 

In data provided by Wiltshire Constabulary, driver inattention topped the list of accident causes, followed by poor lane changing and careless/reckless behaviour. In fact, not one single accident had excess speed as the sole cause.

 

But included in the crashes that allowed the Partnership to use speed cameras were:

 

- an accident where a pedestrian fell from a bridge

- an accident where a gust of wind pushed one lorry into another

- several tyre blowout accidents

- a crash where a car drove the wrong way up the motorway

 

"Excess speed" came fifth on a list of accident causes along with driver fatigue. "Excess speed includes accidents where vehicles were travelling within the speed limit but too fast for the conditions - e.g. fog - where cameras could have no effect.

 

Mark McArthur-Christie, the ABD's Road Safety Spokesman, said "These statistics show clearly that speed is far from the most significant factor in crashes - but no matter what the causes, the Partnership still thinks cameras are the solution. These figures show that cameras on the M4 will do absolutely nothing for road safety. They should be withdrawn immediately."

 

In investigating the causes of M4 crashes, the ABD found that hard data was next to impossible to acquire. The camera Partnership even initially denied that they held data on the causes of crashes. After requesting information from a range of departments and organisations, a request under the Freedom of Information Act was also turned down. The ABD was finally forced to pay £111 to Wiltshire Constabulary for the data.

 

McArthur-Christie continued, "This data - now we've forced it into the public domain - raises very serious questions about the use of speed cameras on the M4. It also raises questions about why the data has not been made public before."

 

Brian Gregory, the ABD's Chairman, said "This work shows clearly that we need to get away from the whole "the answer's a speed camera, now what's the question?" approach to road safety. We also want to see them forced to publish the causes of crashes they use to justify cameras."

 

 

Notes for editors

 

The major causes of M4 crashes, 1999-2004 were:

 

Inattention - a factor in 28% of crashes

Failure to judge others' path or speed (ie - poor lane changing) - a factor in 28% of crashes

Lack of judgement of own path - a factor in 17% of crashes

Fatigue - a factor in 14% of crashes

Careless, thoughtless or reckless behaviour - a factor in 14% of crashes

Excess speed - a factor in 14% of crashes

 

"Excess speed" is speed which is too fast for the conditions as well as speed in excess of the posted limit. As such, it is impossible to find out how many crashes were caused by drivers exceeding the limit and how many by simply too fast for the conditions.

 

Significantly, the causes of crashes are given rankings by accident investigators. They class causes as definite, probable and possible. "Excess speed" was ranked as a "definite" cause in just one fatal crash - less than 1% of all accidents.

 

*Data from Wiltshire Constabulary, M4 crashes 1999-2004

 

 

 

**************************************************

 

Press Enquiries: 0870 4442535

ABD general enquiries and membership: 07000-781544

For more information about the ABD visit our Website at http://www.abd.org.uk

 

END