Swindon accident rates and Gatso removal

[obi_waynne]

GATSO (speed cameras) have been removed from Swindon and they are reporting no rise in the accidents rate although speed cameras are hailed as a road safety measure.

Do you know about the Swindon area (have they removed the cameras or just turned them off)? Do speed cameras have an impact on the accident rate or even the traffic flow?

 

[dpsubaru]

has their been a fall in accidents? have they given actual figures or just said no increase - this could be very telling information. Furthermore, on what type or roads were they located?

 

[thexav]

People cant afford the fuel to drive quickly nowadays anyway.

I never thought that cameras cut down accident rates and I think they probably caused a few with drivers slamming on the breaks as they went past them.

 

[WLBjork]

Bit too soon to say anything. Give it 5 years then see.

 

[HDi fun]

If the Gatsos are being removed to save money then we have to assume that it wasn't all about revenue in the first place.

And if the removal of them does not result in an increase in accidents and injuries then we have to question what on Earth were they installed for in the first place.

What a waste of hundeds of millions of pounds!

 

[geraint13]

If the Gatsos are being removed to save money then we have to assume that it wasn't all about revenue in the first place.

And if the removal of them does not result in an increase in accidents and injuries then we have to question what on Earth were they installed for in the first place.

What a waste of hundeds of millions of pounds!

agree with all you said except the waste of money.
how much revenue have they made since their first use. the goverment coffers where over flowing with speed camera fines.

 

[HDi fun]

agree with all you said except the waste of money.
how much revenue have they made since their first use. the goverment coffers where over flowing with speed camera fines.

So what's the reason then?

Or is it because the fines go straight to central government rather than the local authority which has confused the issue somewhat?

I thought the local authority kept the cash unless the FPN was challenged in court, whereupon it did the go to central government if the case was successful against the driver.

 

[geraint13]

yes its because westminster has all the cash when my local council struggles to keep the roads in good condition or keep the bus pass for the elderly.

im not sure about the chalengeing side of things but im very sure central goverment got a shed full of cash from the cameras.

this is why i hate cameras, penalise when your wrong, yes cant argue, but when the cash doesnt go to my local authority to help with road costs etc and is spent in different county then PLEASE COME ON .......

 

[HDi fun]

yes its because westminster has all the cash when my local council struggles to keep the roads in good condition or keep the bus pass for the elderly.

im not sure about the chalengeing side of things but im very sure central goverment got a shed full of cash from the cameras.

this is why i hate cameras, penalise when your wrong, yes cant argue, but when the cash doesnt go to my local authority to help with road costs etc and is spent in different county then PLEASE COME ON .......

There are two answers to this.

1. Don't exceed the posted limit.

2. If you choose to [exceed the speed limit] and get caught by a camera (static or mobile) then you're not looking far enough ahead. Best perhaps to slow down anyway then.

I often wonder how people get caught on a local 70mph bypass - they have over 1/4 mile to modulate their speed on approach to the well known mobile site.

So where are they looking???

Slightly off topic post I agree, but, well - you all know my thoughts on Gatsonides' devices.

 

[obi_waynne]

Initially the revenue generated went to the local authorities. Here are the steps as I see them....

1) Outcry went up - Gatso are a revenue raising device.
2) Gatso revenue now goes to central government but running costs fall to the local authority.
3) Local authorities start decomissioning GATSO's for reasons of cost!

What comes next then?
4) Revenue share with the government and local authorities/GATSO deployment nationalised and running costs bourne by central government/Gatso's removed and other taxes are raised to cover the lost revenue.

 

[HDi fun]

A bit of a makeover of the administration in this country would not go amiss. Do we really need so many layers of government? Wouldn't it be nice to increase state benefits to those in need of assistance.

Anyway, why should the state benefit from the proceeds of 'crime' ?

OK, I agree that speeding isn't (not yet, anyway) a criminal offence.

If I commit an 'offence' (ie. exceeding posted limit) then the state benefits to the tune of sixty quid!!

 

[geraint13]

A bit of a makeover of the administration in this country would not go amiss. Do we really need so many layers of government? Wouldn't it be nice to increase state benefits to those in need of assistance.

Anyway, why should the state benefit from the proceeds of 'crime' ?

OK, I agree that speeding isn't (not yet, anyway) a criminal offence.

If I commit an 'offence' (ie. exceeding posted limit) then the state benefits to the tune of sixty quid!!

less politicians should equal less of their wages which come from our taxes.

the proceeds of crime are offset by the police man hours, solicitors, judges, and other court costs. or they should do. ive payed them enough lol.

so what should of been your punishment then HDI ? if not your pocket. points = more insurance and so on....

 

[HDi fun]

less politicians should equal less of their wages which come from our taxes.

the proceeds of crime are offset by the police man hours, solicitors, judges, and other court costs. or they should do. ive payed them enough lol.

so what should of been your punishment then HDI ? if not your pocket. points = more insurance and so on....

I haven't been flashed or reported so it's totally hypothetical. Mainly because I obey the speed limits most of the time.

The only time I'll exceed the limit transiently is passing vehicles on de-restricted roads. Clearly it's dangerous to hang around during a passing move. The objective is to complete the move as swiftly as possible and return to the LHS of the road.

Much as the highway code slams practice, the police driving manual 'Roadcraft' simply tells us that the safe speed is not necessarily the same as the posted speed limit. It makes no mention at all of whether the safe speed is higher or lower than the posted limit.

 

[geraint13]

am definetly going to have to read this book

 

[HDi fun]

am definetly going to have to read this book

It's well worth it. Not just because of the point I mentioned but there's stacks of worthwhile other stuff besides. I have referred to it many times since buying and reading it in 1987 leading up to my driving test.

 

[obi_waynne]

Is this the book Roadcraft-drivers-handbook If so it is not that expensive.

I also recommend Very advanced driving by Tom Topper - he warns the driver of Skidiots, Fastards and a whole plethora of other road users with tips on fast roundabouts, beating traffic queues, positioning et al. (probably only available used now but a bargain!)

 

[HDi fun]

I read Tom Topper's book at about the same time (circa 1986). It's good but he's very complacent I feel and I don't like the tacky terms such as Skidiot and fastard

 

[old-git]

agree with all you said except the waste of money.
how much revenue have they made since their first use. the goverment coffers where over flowing with speed camera fines.

If the coffers were overflowing, why are they removing cameras in order to save money? With the country's budget problems surely, if they are only cash generating machines, the government would be putting up more!

I think this has proved my point that the cameras aren't there to make money, contrary to what the papers would us believe. I find it strange that people say they don't believe anything they read in the papers, except when they claim (with no documentary evidence) that safety cameras are a revenue scam.

With only a few collisions at any one site in any 12 month period, meaningful data will take some months to collect.

 

[HDi fun]

If the coffers were overflowing, why are they removing cameras in order to save money? With the country's budget problems surely, if they are only cash generating machines, the government would be putting up more!

I think this has proved my point that the cameras aren't there to make money, contrary to what the papers would us believe. I find it strange that people say they don't believe anything they read in the papers, except when they claim (with no documentary evidence) that safety cameras are a revenue scam.

With only a few collisions at any one site in any 12 month period, meaningful data will take some months to collect.

It does present things in a different light. I have never thought that the cameras were simply a money scam. Which leads us all to question what was the point?

Accident rates and injuries didn't go down with the introduction of cameras.

Let's see what happens with their removal. Given that they're being 'retired' on account of cost then we have to question the initial motive for their introduction?

To be honest, the cameras don't bother me. Mobile or FIP types.

 

[RobBentley]

I really detest average speed cameras and would be glad to see the back of those. You spend your entire time speedo watching as opposed to paying attention to the road ahead.

 

[old-git]

I really detest average speed cameras and would be glad to see the back of those. You spend your entire time speedo watching as opposed to paying attention to the road ahead.

Surely, you have to keep an eye on your speedo wherever you drive, otherwise you would be breaking the speed limit constantly. I find that the occasional glance is all that is needed. On most cars the speedo is visible using peripheral vision so there is no need to remove eyes from the road ahead at all

Average speed cameras (and I don't like them either!) are very effective, especially in safety critical locations such as road works.

Actually, due to the effectiveness of these cameras, there is no real need to check your speed as everyone else is doing it for you

 

[old-git]

Accident rates and injuries didn't go down with the introduction of cameras.

Based on what data?

 

[HDi fun]

What I was trying to convey, and I didn't get it right is that public perception is that accident rates didn't go with the introduction of speed cameras. It was popular to believe that the cameras were all about revenue.

But clearly that wasn't correct otherwise the cameras would not be being removed now on account of their operating costs.

We need to stand aside and see what happens. Much as I'm not a fan of over zealous enforcement on de-restricted roads I am concerned about some of the stupidly excessive speeds some drive at in built up areas. Then again, they're still getting caught by the cameras so it's not slowed down those few morons either.

 

[old-git]

What I was trying to convey, and I didn't get it right is that public perception is that accident rates didn't go with the introduction of speed cameras. It was popular to believe that the cameras were all about revenue.

But clearly that wasn't correct otherwise the cameras would not be being removed now on account of their operating costs.

We need to stand aside and see what happens. Much as I'm not a fan of over zealous enforcement on de-restricted roads I am concerned about some of the stupidly excessive speeds some drive at in built up areas. Then again, they're still getting caught by the cameras so it's not slowed down those few morons either.

Public perception plagued me for my whole working life

With regard to cameras the press had an issue with them for some reason, I guess they saw them as an easy and popular target.

As for their unpopularity, this is also a press myth, in my experience. All the correspondence I received on the subject was from people wanting a camera on their stretch of road and none from drivers wanting one removed.

When conducting speed surveys and in order to be able to
compare road with road, the 85%ile speed was used. This is the speed at which 85% of drivers travel at or below. These are the drivers that can be influenced by limits, campaigns, etc.

It is acknowledged that the top 15% are the moronic drivers who will speed regardless and the safety cameras were used as a means of slowing them down as nothing else works. Unfortunately the cameras also caught out the inattentive but otherwise fairly safe drivers.

The cameras didn't stop all of them but at least they paid for their pleasure

 

[HDi fun]

Public perception plagued me for my whole working life

With regard to cameras the press had an issue with them for some reason, I guess they saw them as an easy and popular target.

As for their unpopularity, this is also a press myth, in my experience. All the correspondence I received on the subject was from people wanting a camera on their stretch of road and none from drivers wanting one removed.

When conducting speed surveys and in order to be able to
compare road with road, the 85%ile speed was used. This is the speed at which 85% of drivers travel at or below. These are the drivers that can be influenced by limits, campaigns, etc.

It is acknowledged that the top 15% are the moronic drivers who will speed regardless and the safety cameras were used as a means of slowing them down as nothing else works. Unfortunately the cameras also caught out the inattentive but otherwise fairly safe drivers.

The cameras didn't stop all of them but at least they paid for their pleasure

Fair enough.

It is strange that since the recent decision to 'axe' speed cameras there has been a lot of protest which has been supported by the media. Of course, the media is going to publish whatever sells papers but the general public is a fickle bunch. Whinge for years about cameras, then the minute they're removed whinge about their removal.

I used to be anti-camera but in fairness there are very very few poorly sited ones and very very few cynically sited ones. If you, or I, or anyone else gets clobbered then we probably deserve it to be honest.

Even if the speed limit is needlessly low (and some are, in my opinion) you clearly are not paying enough attention to your driving, otherwise you'd have seen the camera. What should we expect?

I also don't hold with the constant speedo gazing 'defence'. If my car is doing 86mph it's not by accident, I have chosen to drive it at that speed. The car does not accelerate on its own. It's quite easy to glance at the instruments every few seconds at the same time as I 'go round' the mirrors.

 

[geraint13]

thought council had to pay for the upkeep and so on for them ? if this is the case then they have decided to cut them as their budjets are slashed. i know not all the cash went to westminster but if the councils are paying and not central gov then any normal business person (very pc there i think ) would cut them as they wont pay for themselves.

 

[HDi fun]

That's exactly what's happened. I'm slightly nervous about wholesale removal of the things though.

 

[geraint13]

That's exactly what's happened. I'm slightly nervous about wholesale removal of the things though.

this is driver dependant really, new drivers esp. they would of spent the last few years listening to older siblings, parents moaning about them and they now pass and think "no cameras, foot to the floor" then more than likely a trip to a&e or the morgue. thats the only thing i would worry bout with camera removal.

 

[HDi fun]

this is driver dependant really, new drivers esp. they would of spent the last few years listening to older siblings, parents moaning about them and they now pass and think "no cameras, foot to the floor" then more than likely a trip to a&e or the morgue. thats the only thing i would worry bout with camera removal.

Agreed. But I still see a fair number of middle aged drivers (do I qualify at 40?) who think 55 is a f+++++g superb speed at which to travel everywhere. Blissfully unaware of everything ahead of or around them. Strangely many seem to think it's a superb motorway speed as well. Thus forcing all the HGVs into the middle lane, and everything else into the far right lane.

How selfish!!

 

[RobBentley]

I find I pay a-lot more attention to actual road conditions driving at a sensible pace for the conditions as opposed to ensuring I am below a certain speed. 50mph average speed for miles is enough to make anyone start to phase out.

 

[HDi fun]

I find I pay a-lot more attention to actual road conditions driving at a sensible pace for the conditions as opposed to ensuring I am below a certain speed. 50mph average speed for miles is enough to make anyone start to phase out.

I agree. Motorways can be monotonous as hell if we all sit at exactly the same speed for hours and hours.

Changing relative speeds and lanes, passing some traffic, being passed by some other traffic (OK, that doesn't happen very often :embarrest all adds visual interest and keeps us alert.

 

[geraint13]

i agree. got an average section on the m4 thats set at 50mph. its boring and i regulary find myself drifing off into another world when going through it. i think its a load of rubbish.

 

[WLBjork]

Speed cameras do make a tiny profit compared to the cost of running them. Clarkson wrote some figures for his column from 2006 I think. IIRC, and if Clarkson was correct in his figures, on something like £50m fines, there was a profit of £100k.


The thing about cameras is that, unlike "passive" anti-speeding measures, they do not deny you freedom of choice, nor do they damage your car as speed bumps/cushions do. Indeed, once could argue that the "passive" measures go as far as to punish the innocent.


Must say I don't have a problem with 50mph limits, but I'm used to them on roads that are single carrigeway with bends aplenty and some small side-roads to keep the mind occupied.