It’s time to switch off the speed camera ‘cash machines’

[FPV+fteT3]

You do of course realise the Australian College of Road Safety is funded by,

The Australasian College of Road Safety is an association of people aiming to improve road ... and organisations in Australia working in or interested in road safety. ... Core funding is provided by the Australia Government Department of Health.

All the spin supporting cameras and safety is concocted by departments that rely on govco grants like monash university studies etc.. they all have an agenda attached and that is to push the party line if you wish to keep funding. Now if you can find an independent study carried out by researchers who have no funding from govco that would carry some weight.

[aussiblue]

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/1...D4C9B26.f04t02
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1963295/
http://discovery.ucl.ac.uk/103529/
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/1...20196/abstract
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science...22437508000030

Just enter "speed cameras road fatalities" into Google Scholar and you will get thousand of hits all with similar conclusions.

[Trump]

Must I keep shooting holes through these loaded (and outright wrong) studies:

Originally Posted by Speed cameras for the prevention of road traffic injuries and deaths - 10 November 2010

Main results

Thirty five studies met the inclusion criteria. Compared with controls, the relative reduction in average speed ranged from 1% to 15% and the reduction in proportion of vehicles speeding ranged from 14% to 65%. In the vicinity of camera sites, the pre/post reductions ranged from 8% to 49% for all crashes and 11% to 44% for fatal and serious injury crashes. Compared with controls, the relative improvement in pre/post injury crash proportions ranged from 8% to 50%

How many studies didn't meet the inclusion criteria???

Originally Posted by Reducing Road Traffic Injuries: Effectiveness of Speed Cameras in an Urban Setting - Am J. Public Health 2007

Methods. We designed a time-series study with a comparison group to assess the effects of the speed cameras. The “intervention group” was the beltway, and the comparison group consisted of arterial roads on which no fixed speed cameras had been installed. The outcome measures were number of road collisions, number of people injured, and number of vehicles involved in collisions. We fit the data to Poisson regression models that were adjusted according to trends and seasonality.

The comparison between the freeway (the beltway) and other arterial roads is invalid for a multitude of reasons, the most obvious one being that the road types are fundamentally different to use one as the control and the other as the test.

The worst one though:

http://discovery.ucl.ac.uk/103529/

This isn't even a report about the effectiveness of the speed cameras, it is about having the cameras in the UK pay their way!!!

[aussiblue]

This isn't even a report about the effectiveness of the speed cameras, it is about having the cameras in the UK pay their way!!!

Yes; I had lost interest; see little point in me putting much effort in where people have already made up there minds and cast dispersions on honest scientists and researchers. But no it is not just about them paying there way; its about the effectiveness of a spewed camera program; it says:

at new sites, there was a 32% reduction in vehicles breaking the speed limit. At fixed sites, there was a 71% reduction and at mobilesites there was a 21% reduction. Overall, the proportion of vehicles speeding excessively (ie 15mph more than the speed limit) fell by 80% at fixed camera sites, and 28% at mobile camera sites. Both casualties and deaths were down after allowing for the long-term trend there was a 33% reduction in personal injury collisions (PICs) at sites where cameras were introduced..... .Overall, this report concludes that safety cameras have reduced collisions, casualties and deaths.

I guess saving lives though is a social benefit that meets the cost and people won't even read what they don't wish to know.

The full abstract reads:

2000, a system was introduced that allowed eight pilot areas to recover the costs of operating speed and red-light cameras (safety cameras) from fines resulting from enforcement. In 2001, legislation was introduced that allowed the system to be extended to other areas. A national programme was then gradually introduced. In February 2003, the Department for Transport (DfT) published a research report 1 that analysed the effectiveness of the system in the eight pilot areas over the first two years (April 2000 to March 2002). This report updates this analysis to the 24 areas that were operating within the programme over the first three years (April 2000 to March 2003). Only areas operating within the programme for at least a year were included in the analysis. High level results are as follows: Vehicle speeds were down ? surveys showed that vehicle speeds at speed camera sites had dropped by around 7% following the introduction of cameras. At new sites, there was a 32% reduction in vehicles breaking the speed limit. At fixed sites, there was a 71% reduction and at mobile sites there was a 21% reduction. Overall, the proportion of vehicles speeding excessively (ie 15mph more than the speed limit) fell by 80% at fixed camera sites, and 28% at mobile camera sites. Both casualties and deaths were down after allowing for the long-term trend there was a 33% reduction in personal injury collisions (PICs) at sites where cameras were introduced. Overall, this meant that 40% fewer people were killed or seriously injured. At camera sites, there was also a reduction of over 100 fatalities per annum (40% fewer). There were 870 fewer people killed or seriously injured and 4,030 fewer personal injury collisions per annum. There was a clear correlation between reductions in speed and reductions in PICs. There was a positive cost-benefit of around 4:1. In the third year, the benefits to society from the avoided injuries were in excess of £221millioncompared to enforcement costs of around £54million.The public supported the use of safety cameras for targeted enforcement. This was evidenced by public attitude surveys, both locally and at a national level. Overall, this report concludes that safety cameras have reduced collisions, casualties and deaths.

[simon varley]

Interestingly though, In the UK speed cameras (both fixed and mobile) have to be signed and visible. There are also very strict guidelines on where fixed cameras can be situated.

not sure how much comparison can be drawn between the two countries' data.

The public supported the use of safety cameras for targeted enforcement.

absolutely. I do too. I just don't support the blanket use of speed cameras as a revenue raiser.

[TheInterceptor]

Originally Posted by ljf12

In WA it is my understanding that all revenue raised from speed and red light cameras goes in to the Road Trauma Trust Account. I believe the account is used to fund safer roads, road safety education etc but I have read that a lot money in the fund is not being utilized. I guess that in WA we can't really have a go at the government for using cameras etc as a cashcow.

If the government wants to raise some easy cash just put cameras on stop signs.

In regards to a recent post regarding passing lanes I always slow down to allow people to pass quickly, maybe there should be a lower limit in the left lane (something else for people to ignore).

Not sure if its the state or the local council who have resurfaced some roads around Busselton. Resurfaced roads which were perfectly smooth. I dont understand how they can **** money away like that. No crashes sparked the resurfacing either.
WA is good at wasting money. How about the taxpayer funded afl stadium. I dont want my money paying for that bull****!

WA love their hidden tripod multanova cameras and theyve been hiding them for months now, in bushes, gardens, just peeking from behind trees. Not too long ago they just parked them on the side of the road pointed at oncoming and hid their vehicles.
Theyve recently spoke about an action plan of installing loads of fixed cameras too.
And not to mention the recent addition "hoon" cameras hidden all around Perth waiting for jo blog to pull a skid so they can send you the fine in the mail in 3 weeks.

This isnt an attack of your post ljf, just angry at the WA govco.

Well done for slowing down on passing lanes, kudos to you sir. 95% of people still speed up...public holiday long weekends are the worst down here. 30 to 20kph under the limit, speed limit done only on overtaking lanes, lane hogging. People have NO idea out here.

Good on the poms for shedding some logic on cameras.

[Sabantien]

I don't know what others think about this, but speed limits help people stay safe because there are other drivers on the road.

Your car is fast, it's well designed, it's safe. You're a good driver. That's great. But you're not the only car on the road.

Here's my scenario. You're driving along, there's two lanes each way. You're cruising at 80, the speed limit, but you come across one of those people who like doing 20 below. No worries, you overtake.
Now. One of the biggest complaints I read on here about speed limits is how hard it is to glance at the speedo for a fraction of a second to make sure you stay below the speed limit. This is incredibly difficult for a large number of people. Now, you check your mirror, do a shoulder check, but this is also a very short period of time. You see a car behind you in the lane you're about to swap into. In that fraction of a second you have to glance, you judge how far away they are, the speed limit is 80, so you know how fast they should be coming up on you.

This has all happened in less than a second. You look back in front, start overtaking when all of a sudden that car is doing 120, not 80, and they're beside you as you begin your overtaking manouevre.

It's not all about what you can do, it's about everyone else around you.

[TheInterceptor]

Here's a scenario which is very common down here.

Going along the highway, single lane each way except for overtaking lanes. Cruising along at an erratic 85 95kph (holding a consistant speed is only a mere concept) then coming up to the overtaking lane, traffic speeds to 110 and at times, 115 120 as soon as the lane splits into two. One goes to overtake but ends up sitting in the overtaking lane not gaining any ground on the slow vehicles. Very common to see cars punch it to 140kph to get past. Youre either forced to sit behind the idiots or exceed the speed limit by a bit. Locals are known to excersise use of horns and certain hand gestures to these idiots.

So yes, it is about everyone else around us. When did drivers become selfish self righteous dimwits? There was an L plater doing 80kph on the same highway once! Must be giving driving tickets away at the corner shop...

Cameras of any kind do not help with unsafe slow drivers who promote aggression.
Otherwise, speed limits work!
In the rural areas, there are no set limits. It just says "END 80" or "END 70" which means drive to conditions up to a max state speed limit of 110kph. Works very well.

[b0son]

Originally Posted by aussiblue

Yes; I had lost interest; see little point in me putting much effort in where people have already made up there minds and cast dispersions on honest scientists and researchers.

I've already posted evidence of one of the best known researchers in the field locally manipulating his study to arrive at a dubious, status-quo-supporting conclusion... a conclusion not reached by an independent re-analyses.

They're not going to bite the hand that feeds them.

[aussiblue]

The same John Lambert that has worked for Monash's Road Safety Research Centre e.g. http://www.monash.edu.au/miri/resear...s/muarc194.pdf so on that basis you would discount it :-) What this fact does show is the peer review process works and finding are critically examined by others.

[aussiblue]

I'll help you out. The only credible articles against speed cameras were written by Alan Buckingham in 2003 See https://www.cis.org.au/images/storie...buckingham.pdf and http://cis.org.au/images/stories/pol...buckingham.pdf But overwhelming bulk recognised researchers around the world have come to quite different conclusions.

Interestingly, Prof Buckingham has been somewhat silent on the subject since.

[b0son]

Well, regardless of where you think the research is at, you still need to consider whether the emphasis is proportionate to the risk. The crash fatality rate is around 1500 deaths per 100 million km travelled. We travel around 15,000km on average, and if we drove until the day we die (82yo on average), we would risk death less than 1 in 4 lifetimes. Improving risk of something that is already very unlikely by 20-30% is not nearly as significant as it seems when put in those terms.

[noflac52]

Yes the cameras do save some lives, that's a given! The problem is that they achieve this by dumbing things down to the lowest common denominator.

Its time to achieve the same or much better outcomes by teaching all licence holders to drive properly. We would have a much better society if personal responsibility is resurrected and accountability is also included in the mix.

One of our road rules is along the lines of " every driver must avoid causing an accident if it is possible to do so regardless of which other law or laws are in play at the time". I consider each driver who has low to average competency levels to be potentially breaking this law every time they drive a vehicle because they have no idea how (in many cases) to avoid a potential situation that could see them involved in a crash possibly causing harm and trauma to others on the road.

So I say yeah lets turn the cameras off and achieve better results by teaching rather than punishing! We may then be able to travel around this beautiful country of ours without the lowest common denominators holding everyone to ransom at ridiculously low speeds. If we achieve this I think aggression on the roads would eventually die a natural death and travelling anywhere would be much more pleasant.

[Trump]

Originally Posted by aussiblue

The same John Lambert that has worked for Monash's Road Safety Research Centre e.g. http://www.monash.edu.au/miri/resear...s/muarc194.pdf so on that basis you would discount it :-) What this fact does show is the peer review process works and finding are critically examined by others.

Being formerly employed as a scientist many moons ago, I think I may be more than a little qualified to comment on the peer review system. On paper, it is the best thing since sliced bread for presenting new research. It would allow for independent scrutiny and critical unbiased review. But most importantly, it was supposed to be a means to ensure the scientific method had been followed.

In reality though, the peer review system has become a mechanism to maintain the scientific status quo. The vast majority of the "peers" in this system are heavily biased towards rejecting anomalous data and findings that contradict currently accepted models and theories. Yes I will agree that a lot of the submitted new research turns out to be quackery. But on the not so rare occasion, legitimate data and research that flies in the face of the orthodoxy is presented for review. More often than not, this rejection is because said peers have invested their entire careers and lives researching and publishing conformist science. But what isn't as well known is that scientists have very fragile egos (way more fragile than the layman) and to accept that they have wasted their lives following a dead end is crushing. So they keep ploughing ahead, some pushing falsehoods to their deathbeds.

Less common though is the class of scientists that I've termed "jobbers", scientists who aren't in it to expand the body of knowledge in their fields but there just for a paycheck. Such jobbers excel in one area though, and that is securing research grants. They'll sell their mothers to get funding and as a result, ethics is a dirty term for them. I am by no means insinuating that John Lambert is such a person, but I've dealt with such people that had weaseled their way to positions of influence and access to grant money. They never bit the hand that fed them and were very pliable when it came time to present findings. As such, it stands to reason that such scientists are the rank and file in govco-funded research institutes.

Originally Posted by aussiblue

I'll help you out. The only credible articles against speed cameras were written by Alan Buckingham in 2003 See https://www.cis.org.au/images/storie...buckingham.pdf and http://cis.org.au/images/stories/pol...buckingham.pdf But overwhelming bulk recognised researchers around the world have come to quite different conclusions.

Interestingly, Prof Buckingham has been somewhat silent on the subject since.

It isn't surprising that Alan Buckingham has become silent. He is someone that has fallen foul of the peer review process because his findings aren't mainstream and don't fit in with the views held by his peers. And it is very easy to tell if such rejections of findings are justified: valid rebuttals attack the argument with reason and fact, unjustified rebuttals are almost always ad hominem attacks.

[burnz]

Originally Posted by Loud_Noises

Must I keep shooting holes through these loaded (and outright wrong) studies:



How many studies didn't meet the inclusion criteria???



The comparison between the freeway (the beltway) and other arterial roads is invalid for a multitude of reasons, the most obvious one being that the road types are fundamentally different to use one as the control and the other as the test.

The worst one though:

http://discovery.ucl.ac.uk/103529/

This isn't even a report about the effectiveness of the speed cameras, it is about having the cameras in the UK pay their way!!!

there are two studies..
1/ from road engineers
2/ from govco for media consumption..

what ones do you think you'll find on the net?.

[Trump]

Originally Posted by burnz

there are two studies..
1/ from road engineers
2/ from govco for media consumption..

what ones do you think you'll find on the net?.

Touche.

[joolz]

Originally Posted by burnz

there are two studies..
1/ from road engineers
2/ from govco for media consumption..

what ones do you think you'll find on the net?.

Try another search with a VPN without geoblocking and see what pops up! Just a thought...

[1TUFFUTE]

Originally Posted by GTBenny

If the Government was serious about saving lives they'd implement better driver training and more regular testing. Educating drivers and teaching them to prevent an accident will always be better than fining them for doing the wrong thing. The problem with this approach is it will cost money not make money.

Benny.

Exactly. I remember not so long ago they axed the driver training program at high schools in qld.......like L and P plate drivers don't need every single bit of help they can get.

We also got a garbage 4klm over speeding fine recently.....down a very steep hill where the on coming cars are seperated by an impenetrable high retaining wall. So basically we've NEVER seen or heard of an accident or incidents in the 6-7 years we've been here. Muppets!!

[aussiblue]

there are two studies..
1/ from road engineers
2/ from govco for media consumption..

what ones do you think you'll find on the net?.

Both; if you mean transport engineers. E.g. http://trrjournalonline.trb.org/doi/abs/10.3141/1830-05
http://search.proquest.com/openview/...gsite=gscholar etc

and also a lot of people from Insurance and OHS organisations.

[irish2]

Originally Posted by Loud_Noises

Being formerly employed as a scientist many moons ago, I think I may be more than a little qualified to comment on the peer review system. On paper, it is the best thing since sliced bread for presenting new research. It would allow for independent scrutiny and critical unbiased review. But most importantly, it was supposed to be a means to ensure the scientific method had been followed.

In reality though, the peer review system has become a mechanism to maintain the scientific status quo. The vast majority of the "peers" in this system are heavily biased towards rejecting anomalous data and findings that contradict currently accepted models and theories. Yes I will agree that a lot of the submitted new research turns out to be quackery. But on the not so rare occasion, legitimate data and research that flies in the face of the orthodoxy is presented for review. More often than not, this rejection is because said peers have invested their entire careers and lives researching and publishing conformist science. But what isn't as well known is that scientists have very fragile egos (way more fragile than the layman) and to accept that they have wasted their lives following a dead end is crushing. So they keep ploughing ahead, some pushing falsehoods to their deathbeds.

Less common though is the class of scientists that I've termed "jobbers", scientists who aren't in it to expand the body of knowledge in their fields but there just for a paycheck. Such jobbers excel in one area though, and that is securing research grants. They'll sell their mothers to get funding and as a result, ethics is a dirty term for them. I am by no means insinuating that John Lambert is such a person, but I've dealt with such people that had weaseled their way to positions of influence and access to grant money. They never bit the hand that fed them and were very pliable when it came time to present findings. As such, it stands to reason that such scientists are the rank and file in govco-funded research institutes.



It isn't surprising that Alan Buckingham has become silent. He is someone that has fallen foul of the peer review process because his findings aren't mainstream and don't fit in with the views held by his peers. And it is very easy to tell if such rejections of findings are justified: valid rebuttals attack the argument with reason and fact, unjustified rebuttals are almost always ad hominem attacks.

One other fact that is often overlooked, is that academics in general are very detached from the real world. They go to school, then on to university, where they study for a great number of years to achieve a doctorate. They then can only get a job as a lecturer, or doing research that is mostly government funded. I have dealt with a great number of academics who would only fit in at either at a university, or an asylum.

[burnz]

Originally Posted by aussiblue

Both; if you mean transport engineers. E.g. http://trrjournalonline.trb.org/doi/abs/10.3141/1830-05
http://search.proquest.com/openview/...gsite=gscholar etc

and also a lot of people from Insurance and OHS organisations.

no road engineers they actually set the 85th% that you never hear from again..
Insurance companys have there own agenda..

Originally Posted by irish2

One other fact that is often overlooked, is that academics in general are very detached from the real world. They go to school, then on to university, where they study for a great number of years to achieve a doctorate. They then can only get a job as a lecturer, or doing research that is mostly government funded. I have dealt with a great number of academics who would only fit in at either at a university, or an asylum.

university's have to tow the funded line, always check who writes the cheques..

[GasoLane]

Originally Posted by irish2

I have dealt with a great number of academics who would only fit in at either at a university, or an asylum.

There's a difference ?

[aussiblue]

It isn't surprising that Alan Buckingham has become silent. He is someone that has fallen foul of the peer review process because his findings aren't mainstream and don't fit in with the views held by his peers. And it is very easy to tell if such rejections of findings are justified: valid rebuttals attack the argument with reason and fact, unjustified rebuttals are almost always ad hominem attacks.

He also had a relationship with Safe Speed a UK, United Kingdom-based pressure group that campaigned against speed cameras, so perhaps he had his own bias too. Indeed by his own admission he sourced his data for his arguments from that somewhat discredited organisation (see http://www.monbiot.com/2005/12/22/pa...re-of-a-crank/ and http://www.monbiot.com/2005/12/20/th...-in-our-midst/ and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Safe_Speed)

[castellan]

From what I see is that most people speed in the holiday time's mainly in 4X4 or Plate drivers mainly going past.

I don't mind people speeding but it's where they do it at times that can get on my goat, like speeding when they are coming up to or going through merging traffic on the highway without any regard to what could happen.

Why do people speed when it's such a high danger spot.

That's where the camera's should be, right at the danger point, and if anyone complains that they are hard done by, well stiff cookies.

[blueoval]

Originally Posted by castellan

From what I see is that most people speed in the holiday time's mainly in 4X4 or Plate drivers mainly going past.

I don't mind people speeding but it's where they do it at times that can get on my goat, like speeding when they are coming up to or going through merging traffic on the highway without any regard to what could happen.

Why do people speed when it's such a high danger spot.

That's where the camera's should be, right at the danger point, and if anyone complains that they are hard done by, well stiff cookies.

I agree. But govco wants them put in high complacency spots, like downhill roads, straight roads which if you are not watching you're speed will allow you to creep up not to be a danger but enough for them to nab you financially.

[mik]

my spin on the camera thing (ive said it before)is they probably do save some percentage of lives , as for peer reviews, it sounds good , but once upon a time peer reviews said the earth was flat,
so while some of the info is probably valid, you cant believe everything you hear 100 %, you have to use your common sense, its pretty obvious some of these cameras are for revenue.

the thing all these peer reviews don't say is ............. because of the cameras that there's bugger all police on the road patrolling, the powers that be think cameras are the be all and we need not have so many patrols on the road .......pulling drivers up , questioning them , judging whether they need a bit of of re-education as to what they where doing wrong,
and possibly a fine or a warning to go with it according to the officers judgement,
as well as that,
police use to once have a quick look at the tyres on the car which is a 20 second job , and with that you can often get an indication what the rest of the car is like.
if its a vp/el falcadore with the burnout rims and shoddy tyres on it, they know it warrants further investigation, with the posibility of getting a young driver off the road for the day and possibly doing himself some harm.

Cameras are a double edged sword if they are used on their own,

how many actually die because there is hardly any police presence picking people up on their bad driving habits ??

when i was a young bloke, cruising down the road in amongst a bunch of other cars, i got singled out for speeding, it wasnt much, maybe 10 kph on a main road.

the officer asked me if i knew why i was pulled up .... which i already knew, no point denying it , he then told me i was making a bit of ground on the cars even though i was among a bunch of cars that where all above the limit, and with that he gave me a warning to ease off a bit and let me go,
and that one encounter stuck with me for most of my driving life .
you get no such interaction with a dumb camera, once your out of range its open slather.

[aussiblue]

but once upon a time peer reviews said the earth was flat,

Hardly https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flat_Earth not since the scientific method let alone formal peer reviewed research.

The mistaken notion that medieval Christians thought the earth is flat has been referred to as the myth of the flat Earth, or "the Flat Error". Since the 20th century the consensus among historians of science has been that medieval Europeans, with rare exception, put little confidence in a flat earth model.

Ok you were doubtless kidding but while there may be a revenue motive associated with speed cameras but this doesn't 't change the fact that they save lives. If the research finding were confined to one institution or one country but the same findings have been found for 20 plus years in all countries that have researched the issue. But I guess despite the overwhelming evidence there are also a lot of climate change sceptics (dangling the bait).

[burnz]

Originally Posted by aussiblue

Hardly https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flat_Earth not since the scientific method let alone formal peer reviewed research.



Ok you were doubtless kidding but while there may be a revenue motive associated with speed cameras but this doesn't 't change the fact that they save lives. If the research finding were confined to one institution or one country but the same findings have been found for 20 plus years in all countries that have researched the issue. But I guess despite the overwhelming evidence there are also a lot of climate change sceptics (dangling the bait).

you'll find that a high proportion if not all those test were performed in the city's..

crash data from expressways from speeding and or excessive speed is what you should be looking for...

[FPV+fteT3]

There is a way to beat the cash machines whatever their excuse is for being there, I will leave this link here.

http://www.radars.com.au/MyShop/index.php?cPath=27