allan tracy ) gurgled happily, sounding
much like they were saying :

All Allan needs to do is to look at how little the road casualty
figures have gone down over the course of a decade during which the
primary safety - crash survivability - of cars has rocketed.

Hit the back of a combine harvester or a hay truck at thirty and let's
see what your crash survivability does for you.

Hit a stationary truck at 30 in a '70s car.
Hit a stationary truck at 30 in a modern car.

Look where the **** you're going, and DON'T hit a stationary truck at
all...

Changing nothing else would have seen casualty figures falling
drastically, ergo the stasis must be due to a negative effect from
the other changes.

I'm sorry but that's complete ********.

By far, most stretches of road still do not have speed cameras so have
been unaffected.

On the roads where they have been introduced reportable accident have
declined by between 41% and 69%.

Overall (Nationally) the level of traffic accidents has declined
slightly (not much) but this has to be set in context of year on year
traffic growth which should (normally) have led to more accidents.

If you think about that for a brief moment, you'll realise that you're
actually agreeing with me.

allan tracy ) gurgled happily, sounding much
like they were saying :

It's funny but where I work the company car drivers, that we all knew
had been driving like pratts for years (as the insurance claims
showed), are the same people that seem to be picking up the points from
the cameras.

Perhaps it's also because they're the people who do the most miles...?

Safe responsible drivers, by definition, will always notice the signs
and therefore never be caught.

There's a rather ginormous leap of logic in there, but since you seem to
have swallowed the government propaganda wholesale you'll probably refuse
to see it.

"allan tracy" wrote in message
ups.com...


On the roads where they have been introduced reportable accident have
declined by between 41% and 69%.

Didn't one of the recent reports on camera effectiveness query the amazing
difference between the police's statistics, and the NHS's statistics, which
apparently showed that the number of treated casualties hadn't declined at
all?

Paul

Safe responsible drivers, by definition, will always notice the signs
and therefore never be caught.

There's a rather ginormous leap of logic in there, but since you seem to
have swallowed the government propaganda wholesale you'll probably refuse
to see it.

I don't care about propaganda.

All I need to know has been their effect on some rather notorious roads
where I live. My journey to work has certainly become more civilised
thanks to the cameras and there has been fewer accidents.

One of my neighbour's sons is a policeman and, when pushed, he admits
there's been a reduction in the number of times he gets to sweep up
blood but he's no friend of the cameras having been done once and his
wife twice.

Now whether the cameras just move the problem elsewhere as frustrated
drivers hit the gas once clear I don't know, but I do know it's not a
reason to pull them down just because people insist on driving with an
elevated level of stress.

I've no doubt my local Death Valley B road will also see them
introduced and it's very difficult to argue against them when there
has been so much carnage and you know that the cameras will put a stop
to it.

To be honest it's been mostly young drivers that come to grief (daddy
buys them a car for their eighteenth birthday) and, for sure, that's
an altogether separate issue than wholesale speeding.

Trouble is, the separate issue can't be put right overnight whereas a
camera can go in within a couple of days.

And as my councillor put it, when you've got residents on the bends
that have had their garden wall knocked down half a dozen times,
they're not interested in the bigger picture they just want a f**king
camera.

"allan tracy" wrote in message
oups.com...

furnessvale wrote:
John Rowland wrote:
In Grafton Rd NW5 there is a short stretch which is northbound-only for
a
few hours in the morning and southbound-only for a few hours in the
evening.
There is a pair of cameras to ensure the law is upheld. How much does a
pair
of cameras like this cost to install, and how much to maintain?

Probably less than the cost of one fatal head on accident by idiots who
would take a chance in the absence of cameras.
George


I've driven in Germany and the level of obedience to the traffic
rules is on a completely different level to what you experience in the
UK. I would almost go as far as saying it's absolute obedience.


You can't have followed many people through traffic lights.
IME jumping red lights seemed to be a national sport.

tim

"John Rowland" wrote in message
...
Conor wrote:
In article , John Rowland
says...

In Grafton Rd NW5 there is a short stretch which is northbound-only
for a few hours in the morning and southbound-only for a few hours
in the evening. There is a pair of cameras to ensure the law is
upheld. How much does a pair of cameras like this cost to install,
and how much to maintain?

I've seen figures of £10,000 per camera bandied about.

Is that the cost of a Gatso? The cameras I'm talking about have a simpler
job to do.

A lot will depend on if you have to dig up the road
to put power in.

I doubt you will see any change from 100K if you do.

tim

allan tracy ) gurgled happily, sounding
much like they were saying :

And as my councillor put it, when you've got residents on the bends
that have had their garden wall knocked down half a dozen times,
they're not interested in the bigger picture they just want a f**king
camera.

No, they want something doing.

And quite rightly too.

If this is a rural B-road, then it'll be NSL. 60 limit. Add in the 10%+2
ACPO guideline, and the camera won't be triggered below 67mph.

I very much doubt that's an appropriate speed if this road is as you
describe. So a camera's useless. As usual.

The root cause of the problem is poor driving standards - and cameras in
place of proper policing are exacerbating that.

In message , Huge
writes

The KSI figures from Northants make intersting reading. According to the
Beeb, the number of people speeding has "fallen significantly" and
the number of KSI's has nearly doubled. So much for GATSOs.

Quite.

In any case, the grouping of "killed or seriously injured" always
strikes me as spin. There have been dozens of incidents in my kitchen in
which someone has been killed or superficially burned.

--
Steve Walker

"Steve Walker" wrote in message
...
In message , Huge
writes

The KSI figures from Northants make intersting reading. According to the
Beeb, the number of people speeding has "fallen significantly" and
the number of KSI's has nearly doubled. So much for GATSOs.

Quite.

In any case, the grouping of "killed or seriously injured" always strikes
me as spin. There have been dozens of incidents in my kitchen in which
someone has been killed or superficially burned.

It's obviously a very dangerous location then. We'd better get it shut down,
or at the very least have a safety camera installed.

If this is a rural B-road, then it'll be NSL. 60 limit. Add in the 10%+2
ACPO guideline, and the camera won't be triggered below 67mph.

I very much doubt that's an appropriate speed if this road is as you
describe. So a camera's useless. As usual.


I believe the intention would be to slap a 40mph speed limit on as well
which really it needs.

The root cause of the problem is poor driving standards - and cameras in
place of proper policing are exacerbating that.

You're only ever going to get limited policing because it's expensive,
the cameras are the best alternative available, the coppers are hardly
likely to be there at two in the morning.

Poor driving standards are unfortunately all too common.