Posted By garyh See the article in The Times today; http://www.timesonline.c...crime/article1929284.ece Basically a graph is presented shows how speed camera revenues have gone up massively; whilst Deaths form road accidents have declined very slightly over the same timescale. At the same time the number of traffic officers has declined. In my view the speed camera is a crude substitute for a Police officer who can assess not just if you are over the speed limit, but if you are driving in a manner inappropriate for the conditions. This may even be at a speed which is below the speed limit! I hate it when speed cameras are called safety cameras - they measure speed ONLY. They can never measure or enforce safety. What do others think?

Posted By J Knight I think that one study cited by a viewspaper is not worth taking too seriously. Other studies indicate that cameras cut deaths at camera sites; my personal conclusion is that I would like to see very many more of them, that they need to be camouflaged (in which case I suppose I wouldn't see them ;)), and that average speed cameras are even better, John

Posted By Gff Has there been a study done to investigate if the fall in accidents around speed camera locations has been coincidental to the increase in the number of motorists using camera database downloads on Sat Nav systems.

Posted By J Knight Allan, Cameras do not levy not a tax on motorists. What they do is provide evidence for the prosecution of drivers who break the law. Don't speed, don't pay fines. Which bit of 'speed limit' don't you understand? John

Posted By allan wood john are you saying you have never broke the speed limit in your life? are you completely innocent in everything you do? the last man on the planet to be so was nailed to a cross my opinions are my opinions and i am entitled to them and will speak my mind whenever and wherever and to whoever.

Posted By allan wood john as i said before as a motorist you are an easy target, not much police work in loading cameras or sitting hidden laying in wait for someone to go past speeding, easy pickings really! but to do some proper invetigative police work well drawn your own conclusions!

Posted By J Knight Allan, Nobody makes motorists speed. They are only easy targets because they are breaking the law. People who break the law usually have sanctions applied to them. Should people who break road-traffic laws get off scot free, or should they be reminded that in order to hold a licence to drive they should meet certain conditions? And I think that's why people don't like cameras; they work. Police patrols don't catch speeding drivers (I've seen people on motorways speed past patrol cars with no reaction); cameras do. People don't like to get caught. If you do get caught, there are two responses; 'I did it' oops, my fault' or 'speed cameras are just a tax on motoring'. The second argument has, sadly, been peddled wholesale by the red-tops and is now part of 'common-sense'. But its not true; if people didn't speed cameras wouldn't make a penny, and that, to me, is that, John

Posted By steve e ashton I am put in mind of postings from one of this forums previous regulars - MarkSMark where are you now? His postings were always hilarious and often thought provoking. One was to the effect that, if we could catch offenders on CCTV not wearing their PPE - or failing to report accidents etc - could we fine them... The idea may seem odd, but it rings bells with many of us. We devise sensible rules following risk assessments, we train people to follow them, and we exhort supervisors to enforce them. Wouldn't it be nice if we could plaster the workplace with CCTV to 'catch out' those who failed to comply? And sack 'em. Well - the police have it. The rules have been set, we've been taught to follow the rules, the police have been told to enforce the rules - and there are cameras available on our roads to help them. Few people on here would admit nonchalantly walking across a building site with no helmet on. I am surprised by how many are willing to admit they ignore the rules on safe driving. It smacks horribly of hypocrisy. And, yes, I will admit to occasionally feeling the risk assessment criteria were not devised with my own situation in mind (alert, advanced training, experienced, good tyres, sound mechanicals....) so I should be allowed to do my own assessment of a safe speed. But then I remember what I do for a living. Steve .

Posted By J Knight Gary, So far so true, but also don't fall into the trap of thinking that speed isn't always a factor in traffic accidents. And don't forget; Drivers speed Drivers tailgate Drivers talk on phones and text(!) Drivers jump red lights Because they feel that they can get away with it. Well, we can stop one of those negative behaviours easily and simply, and maybe at the same time improve the compliance culture on the roads. So why not? What's the harm in catching and fining speeding drivers? Bring it on, John

Posted By RobAnybody Gary, I think the title of this should be "Speed cameras work so well I nearly got nicked!" Or some such. Seriously though, the Camera Safety Partnership (haa haa haa) programmes that have been set up are to blame for the bad publicity. We base safety on the principle and practice of risk assessment as should the CSPs. However, if we were to decide that wearing briefs or jockey shorts cause unecessary suffering to male genetalia & therefore should ban all but baggy undies we would be laughed out of court. The CSPs are supposed to carryout a risk assessed approach based on numbers of fatalities, major incidents, road furniture etc. From this they are allowed to put up safety cameras to discourage motorists from speeding. However, the difference in systems is this. If you go to court & are found guilty of a breach in H&S legislation I don't get paid more. If you go to court & are found guilty of speeding then the CSPs are paid more. Until this disparity is changed so that I can earn more I will continue to support your stance. If you are caught & believe it was unfair as you are innocent go to pepipoo.com or (.co.uk, I can't remember which) for some very good advice. As for the remarks about traffic cops, I know a couple & they are really angry that they have been put on training duties & the like as there is no need for them. As one said to me "A camera doesn't spot the rep on his phone with a coffee between his knees, does it?" As for studies by "just one viewspaper", yep agree. However that one viewspaper has studies from the US & Germany to back it up. Turns out that some fixed speed cameras can be confused by large vehicles & walls! Don't ask. Good & Safe Driving to All (I use the train) Rob

Posted By Richard Mathews I really have no sympathy for the people who moan about the points they have on their licences because the nasty speed cameras keep catching them. I agree with what John has said, if you don't break the law, you don't have to worry about getting caught by the cameras, it's that easy. I’m not saying though that exceeding the speed limit is always unsafe, or that if you stick to the speed limit you will always be safe. But, the speed limit is the law whether I agree with it or not and if I break it (which I try not to) and get caught I have to accept the punishment. Richard

Posted By J Knight On your specific points Rob: I rarely take a special look at my speedo when I approach a camera as checking my speedo regularly is part of the way I drive; Evidence on the effectiveness of speed cameras is confusing, some studies suggest an increase in accidents at camera sites, most show a reduction. But where is the evidence for the usual argument put forward by the pro-speeding lobby that traffic patrols improve safety? If you can't do the time, don't do the crime; or, don't come running to me with a broken leg, John

Posted By RobAnybody Okay, If you can't do the time don't do the crime & the law is the law. What if the law takes away the very British right not to incriminate yourself? We've been aware from the year dot that speed limits are in place & only recently do we complain. The problem with the current enforcement regime is it is corrupt. If you are caught speeding by a robot you will be sent a NIPs (Notice of Intended Prosecution) which you will have to sign as an admission or inform on the person who was driving. If you don't you are guilty. There are ways around this but I'd get good legeal advice before you try. Once you are prosecuted the money goes to the CSP. They make money ensuring you cannot defend yourself. That is inherently wrong & corrupt. That is the real reason people get upset. At least the HSE give you a chance to defend yourself. Frankly I don't like people speeding. Although I terrorise North Yorkshires back roads on a weekend (hypocrite). I don't like being distracted whilst driving & I don't like people preaching to me on how I drive. But I do respect the law (mostly) & if I were pulled over by a Traffic Police Man/Woman I would be really humiliated & disappointed with myself. Now, apply all that is wrong with the speeding enforcement regime & apply it to the wonderful world of OHS. How many of you would work in an environment where you willingly knew you were eroding freedoms? Where you were not part of anything except a numbers game. Where everytime you caught someone infringing the law you were paid. How many of you would be reading this now? I'm not an apologist to either side. I lost a loved one to a traffic accident & speed was not the reason for the death. I am though, fed up with grown men & women who are fighting because they have been divided by poor legislation & corrupt enforcement. Take a deep breath. Look at each others point of view. Consider how the law is being enforced & try to come to a concensus of opion. You wouldn't be fighting if it weren't for robots. Now I sound like a luddite. P.S. try the train if you can. I get to sleep before I get to work! Rob

Posted By jackw. As someone once said there are "statistics, dam statistics and lies" Cameras do in general cut down speed at their location but people then s[peed up again as soon as they pass them. The road between glasgow and ayr (i sunny scotland) has seen many serious accidents, injuries and fatalities. They now have average speed cameras thus slow traffic down over the whole journey, a better idea in my view than static cameras. Of coirse the blue flashing light makes a difference too. But i would argue as there are so few traffic police that this is marginal. Curiously to me that on an H&S sight no one has postulated the need for drivers to act responsibly, take more care when driving, act in a safe manner even. Yes we drivers are easy targets but that doesn't make us right when we are wrong and break speed limits and the Law. Cheers drive carefully.esp if you are on the road between glasgow and perth tomorrow around mid day..I will be.

Posted By Ian Mitchell Serious bit. Average cameras DO work. Anybody noticed that they are getting more popular? The argument about causing people to brake suddenly etc. no longer applies with these. They only catch somebody who is clearly flouting the law by speeding consistently over a long distance rather than genuinely losing concentration for a few seconds. Banter bit. You CAN get flashed by a camera and get away with it providing 1) it is the old gatso flash type and not the new truvelo infra-red 2) you are heading towards it (ie it sees your front plate). The only reason they mark up both carriageways with measurement lines is to stop people moving into the other carriageway to miss the measuring lines when the camera flashes.

Posted By J Knight I'm not knocking or criticising police patrol officers by the way. What I'm asking is; where is the evidence that that form of enforcement actually works? And the reason I ask is this. I can remember GATSOs coming in, when they used to be painted grey and before they were handed over to CSPs. People hated them. They hated them so much that they managed to get them painted yellow, and to get their sites restricted. Why did people hate them? Because, quite simply, they were getting caught. I remember one prominent meber of the government at the time being concerned that drivers were accumulating points. But he wasn't concerned that people were breaking the law and driving pretty much as they chose, no, he was worried about votes; and he was Home secretary at the time. As far as I am concerned arguments about the inequity of the CSP system and so on miss this fundamental point, and ignore the historical development of the argument. So people hated them, and continue to hate them. So websites and 'journalists' started to pull apart every and any piece of evidence demonstrating positive outcomes from cameras. Its got to the point where the fog of 'evidence' promoted by viewspapers on this subject makes an easy objective appraisal of the effects of cameras very difficult. On the other hand everybody 'knows' that police patrols, if they were increased, would be effective. Do we know? I mean, would they? Where is the debate about the relative merits of police patrols against cameras? Any enforcement regime will be partial in its effects and subject to criticism; so the question which has to be answered is; are cameras better or worse at reducing crashes than police patrols? I know that Brett Day on this forum has cited some evidence that Durham's policy of enhanced patrols and limited use of cameras has led to a steady reduction in fatalities in their police area. Well, good, there's one piece of evidence. But has that evidence been through the viewspaper/man-in-the-pub/Middle England shredder, like every piece of evidence in favour of cameras? Doubt it. So, maybe the thread title should be SOME EVIDENCE MAY SHOW SPEED CAMERAS DON'T WORK BUT THERE'S VERY LITTLE EVIDENCE FOR OR AGAINST ANY OTHER FORM OF ENFORCEMENT Drive safely on a very blustery wet autumn day. Oh, its June, well, there you go, John

Posted By John Allen To some extent I have sympathy with the view that cameras are no substitute for officers on patrol and can only catch one form of unsafe behaviour albeit the one which contributes to a significant proportion of road vehicle collisions. However belief in the myth that far from reducing vehicle accidents, cameras actually cause them appears to be widespread yet largely the work of one individual who claims to have carried out research to support this claim. Unfortunately despite many requests to the contrary, this individual has consistently refused to submit this work to any scientific journal for peer review or scrutiny. It’s a bit like what Carl Sagan said about flat earthists – one the one side you have a huge body of scientific evidence and on the other, Co-co the clown. The position of cameras is announced in advance by signs, the cameras themselves are brightly painted, the position of mobile cameras is given in advance in local newspapers, you can buy sat nav devices which have their locations pre-programmed or you can look up their position on the internet, and of course you have a device in your car just below your eyeline which tells you your speed. So my question is – how on earth does anyone ever get caught?

Posted By Merv Newman expletive deleted (twice) The law is the law. If someone on your site did not respect the rules then they could expect a good kicking. If, on the road, you did not respect the rules then you could expect a good kicking. H&S people, please don't whinge if you have to pay the fine. (and for god(e)(s) sake (pick your own gender and plurality) never admit it) Merv

Posted By J Knight John, I agree with most of what you say, but your first sentence is not true; it would only be true if cameras were everywhere. Cameras can reduce deaths at camera sites while having zero effect on overall road mortality, since most people conspire to be killed at sites other than camera sites. And lets face it; if 95% of deaths are at speeds less than the limit for the area involved (even if that were true) that still leaves 150 people a year killed by excessive speed. That has to be a number worth working on. Rob; don't smoke but beer is definitely one of lifes pleasures, John

Posted By GARRY WIZZ Speed cameras don't work......?,Well it might save a couple here and there. NHS does'nt work, cancer kills thousands of people, However we are going to spend millions on road safety to save just a few lives Me, I would rather deal with the risk of speed than the risk of cancer. Target money at the point of need, not at the loudest shout. Do gooders... you will never change thier point of view,