# 50% increase in deaths planned for M4



## Davidc (4 Aug 2010)

On the local news last night. Wiltshire is closing down the speed cameras on the M4.

When they were introduced the death rate dropped by 1/3.

The death rate is predicted to rise to where it was - a 50% rise.

The world has gone mad.


----------



## Dave Davenport (4 Aug 2010)

They might as well put a big sign up saying 'go as fast as you like, we're not bothered'.


----------



## mcshroom (4 Aug 2010)

Ah but at least the poor persecuted motorists will no longer be put upon!


----------



## MartinC (4 Aug 2010)

Now that the "war on the motorist" has apparently ended when will motorists stop killing and injuring people?


----------



## Bollo (4 Aug 2010)

This was on the cards the moment the Tories won (and yes I know what I mean!). Some of the more extreme motoring groups, including our chums at Safespeed and the ABD, had been lobbying quite hard before the election. Add to that the usual reactionary b0llocks from the Wail and Express reinforcing the dominant majority's misplaced sense of persecution and its a cheap vote winner. 

The bit I find amusing is that the schemes are being discontinued because their budget has been cut. But I thought "they only put them up to generate revenue", so surely the councils will be losing money by dismantling them? Could this mean that they weren't a tax on motorists after all, but actually there to improve safety? That the Wail and Express have been feeding us fibs?


----------



## zimzum42 (4 Aug 2010)

The fine money went onto a central pot, so the government got the benefit of the cash, not the local authorities

The local authorities were given funding to put them up

This funding has stopped


Perhaps they could get the rozzers out on traffic duty rather than having them eating donuts and pulling people for having a spliff


----------



## summerdays (4 Aug 2010)

Bollo said:


> The bit I find amusing is that the schemes are being discontinued because their budget has been cut. But I thought "they only put them up to generate revenue", so surely the councils will be losing money by dismantling them?




Not the councils



zimzum42 said:


> The* fine money went onto a central pot, so the government got the benefit of the cash*, not the local authorities
> 
> The local authorities were given funding to put them up
> 
> This funding has stopped




That's the bit I really don't understand - as it didn't go into a local transport/safety budget - which I wish it did, but instead went into the government coffers ... haven't they just shot themselves in the foot in this time of economic tightening of the belt?


----------



## zimzum42 (4 Aug 2010)

Hopefully it's just one part of a move to stop us becoming comprehensively a surveillance state

As for motorways, I'de prefer to see more marked cars out on the motorways, and get to see them using those little ramps at the side of the motorway that are always empty...


----------



## Nigel-YZ1 (5 Aug 2010)

I remember reading a couple of years ago that roadside speed displays had a better deterrent effect than cameras. I'm sure it was a TRL document.

I've never been a fan of the phrase 'at camera sites' whenever accident statistics are given. Always made me wonder what the benefits are elsewhere.

I'd have preferred 'average speed' enforcement cameras, so you protect an entire road and not just the bit with the timing marks. It brought some sanity to the Stocksbridge bypass, which I use regularly.

But then I'm one of the pious few. I can control my right foot, show courtesy and give plenty of room. So the cameras never bother me. Even though I do own a BMW!


----------



## Globalti (5 Aug 2010)

The accident reduction statistic is always presented wrapped in the standard web of lies and half truths. Sure, there was probably a massive reduction in accidents within 100 yards of the speed cameras but as far as I can see all those cameras did was penalise drivers whose observation was so crap that they failed to spot the big reflective yellow box on a stalk. As a driver who likes to make reasonable progress I am very much more fearful of average speed cameras and random Police patrols or "Safety Partnership" vans; the only two speeding fines I have received in 36 accident-free driving years have been at the hands of real live Police officers.


----------



## zimzum42 (5 Aug 2010)

Same here, only ever been done by a proper copper with a speed gun...

A camera will catch a perfectly decent driver doing 56mph in a 50 zone, but won't do anything to catch a complete muppet who is all over the place at 49mph. Which is more dangerous?


----------



## Tim Bennet. (5 Aug 2010)

> A camera will catch a perfectly decent driver doing 56mph in a 50 zone


No it won't. They're set to speed limit plus 10% plus 2mph. So 58+mph to trigger it.
I think this margin is quite generous.


----------



## zimzum42 (5 Aug 2010)

ok, 58mph, whatever, that wasn't the point...


----------



## theclaud (5 Aug 2010)

zimzum42 said:


> ok, 58mph, whatever, that wasn't the point...



You wanted muppets caught. If you're doing 58+ in a 50 zone, you are a muppet. Everybody's happy.


----------



## zimzum42 (5 Aug 2010)

Yes, you catch someone out, but you miss an opportunity to get someone who is potentially more dangerous off the road.

Driving round the country, it's been obvious for years now that there are fewer police cars out on traffic duty. I assume you've seen those police camer action shows. Traffic patrols do wonders, catching uninsured and untaxed drivers, drug dealers, thieves, drunk drivers, etc etc


----------



## Davidc (5 Aug 2010)

Globalti said:


> The accident reduction statistic is always presented wrapped in the standard web of lies and half truths. Sure, there was probably a massive reduction in accidents within 100 yards of the speed cameras .



The BBC item implied that the reduction was for the whole of the Wiltshire section of the M4. 

What horrified me was the calm acceptance by all concerned that the death rate would return to at least its former level. particularly as I have to use that piece of road sometimes.


----------



## GrumpyGregry (5 Aug 2010)

The war on the motorist has been ended in order, so it seems, to allow efforts in the war on the vulnerable road user(s) to be redoubled.

What was it the ABD man said? "out of 40 million voters 30 million own cars" It would appear the cabinet were listening.

Was at a cycle forum meeting last night and the county council officers were less than happy with the idea that cameras they've put in for safety reasons may be scrapped so central government will appeal more to irresponsible petrolheads.

We get the govt we deserve.


----------



## Globalti (5 Aug 2010)

I don't suppose any camera advocates have taken into account that since the idea was foisted upon us, motor cars have become a lot stronger, built to higher standards of survivability and annual casualty rates have diminished as a consequence?


----------



## ufkacbln (5 Aug 2010)

zimzum42 said:


> ok, 58mph, whatever, that wasn't the point...



Would you be happy if the next 5mm bolt you bought was 5.8 mm?


----------



## jonesy (5 Aug 2010)

Globalti said:


> I don't suppose any camera advocates have taken into account that since the idea was foisted upon us, motor cars have become a lot stronger, built to higher standards of survivability and annual casualty rates have diminished as a consequence?



Well if you are really interested, why don't you have a read of the relevant evaluation reports and see if they've accounted for other factors? But of course you won't, you've already pre-judged them as "standard web of lies and half truths", without knowing anything about them. But who needs experts in accident analysis when you've got 30 million drivers each with their own opinion...


----------



## ufkacbln (5 Aug 2010)

Globalti said:


> I don't suppose any camera advocates have taken into account that since the idea was foisted upon us, motor cars have become a lot stronger, built to higher standards of survivability and annual casualty rates have diminished as a consequence?




Has it?



With better brakes and tyres - why do we need special surfaces at junctions because cars cannot stop?

.. and more relevant, with all these advances why have we still got cars like the Jeep Grand Cherokee that fails every single pedestrian test run by EuroENcap?


----------



## Bollo (5 Aug 2010)

zimzum42 said:


> The fine money went onto a central pot, so the government got the benefit of the cash, not the local authorities
> 
> The local authorities were given funding to put them up
> 
> ...



I'm really confused now. The local authorities were given money? I thought it was the government that gave them the money? And now the government won't be receiving all that lovely revenue from the cameras? So the government will receive less money to pass on to the local authorities? Or not? Help me out here, zim.


----------



## zimzum42 (6 Aug 2010)

Bollo said:


> I'm really confused now. 1) The local authorities were given money? I thought it was the government that gave them the money? 2) And now the government won't be receiving all that lovely revenue from the cameras? 3) So the government will receive less money to pass on to the local authorities? Or not? Help me out here, zim.



1)The govt gave them money, yes

2) If they switch of cameras, then yes, the govt might not make as much money

3) However much they receive, it doesn't matter, they are cutting the funding anyway


----------



## zimzum42 (6 Aug 2010)

Cunobelin said:


> Would you be happy if the next 5mm bolt you bought was 5.8 mm?



??????????


----------



## e-rider (6 Aug 2010)

The tories have plans to scrap speed cameras all over England - idiots!


----------



## GrumpyGregry (6 Aug 2010)

[QUOTE 1150378"]
I took that into account when trying to decide whether I as a pedestrian would rather be hit at 58mph by a Toyota Yaris or a Rover SD1.
[/quote]

Either way at that sort of speed you'll end up as a KSI statistic. But such casualty levels are 'acceptable losses'. 30 million motorists can't be expected to driver slower for the sake and safety of mere pedestrians. Why, if the peds were not the undeserving poor they would surely own cars of their own and be driving around in them.


----------



## atbman (6 Aug 2010)

Not quite sure I understand the arguments against speed cameras.

Don't I recall that, a few years ago, motorists complaints were that they were always being caught by sneaky (and therefore decidely unBritish) hidden cameras and that they would obey the speed limits if they knew where the cameras were.

And didn't the gov't paint them all yellow and put up warning signs?

So, didn't speeding offences drop, then?


----------



## Headgardener (10 Aug 2010)

The only people who as I see it complain about speed cameras are those who have got caught and should have been more attentive in the first place.


----------



## StuartG (10 Aug 2010)

Speeding isn't the real offence - its pretty gross lack of attention not to see the warning sign, yellow back and road markings. If they can't see those what is the chance of spotting a cyclist/pedestrian?

Three strikes and you are out (for life?) would seem to be a more reasonable approach than fining folks.


----------



## Bollo (11 Aug 2010)

There was a bit on the BBC South Today about this. Oxfordshire CC switched off all their speed cameras last week but 'accidentally' left a few on. One camera recorded 62 speeders in a 5 day period, an 88% increase for the first week after the announcement. Another recorded 110, 18% more than the average. The council will not be prosecuting any of the drivers.

Just to blat some simple stats at this one.....

62 as an 88% increase implies that the mean number of speeders over this period is around 33. Using the poisson distribution (may not be completely accurate, but good for counting event type experiments) , there's about a 1 in 10,000 chance of this happening accidentally (99.99% upper confidence interval - even tails - on a Poisson with mu=33 is 61.5). 

In the interests of fairness, the same analysis for the 18% increase yields about a 1 in 10 chance of the variation being purely statistical. 

I'm not going to go all Paul Smith (RIP) about these fag-packet sums, but I can't imagine the council has any motivation to perform a long term study at ex-camera sites to establish some proper measurements.

Of course, we could just appeal to people's nice side by putting up a sign that says 'please' and possibly lights up, but I suspect that these were only effective because drivers were unsure whether there was a camera attached as well.


----------



## StuartG (11 Aug 2010)

Bollo said:


> The council will not be prosecuting any of the drivers.


Condoning criminality? That would be an offence in itself in other circumstances.


----------



## Globalti (11 Aug 2010)

Bollo said:


> There was a bit on the BBC South Today about this. Oxfordshire CC switched off all their speed cameras last week but 'accidentally' left a few on. One camera recorded 62 speeders in a 5 day period, an 88% increase for the first week after the announcement. Another recorded 110, 18% more than the average. The council will not be prosecuting any of the drivers.
> 
> Just to blat some simple stats at this one.....
> 
> ...



They switched off the cameras but the machines continued to record the speeds. I suspect that for many months the majority of cameras have not been working or have been destroyed; in certain parts of the country there's a vigorous campaign of sabotage, see: http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2003/sep/07/transport.ukcrime and on our Blackburn ring road there are three empty cameras, two of which even have no calibration marks painted on the road. I think there's a recognition that they have had their day and now that there is political interest in them, local authorities have lost the will to keep them working. I heard the piece on Oxfordshire and smelled a statistical "rat" straight away.


----------



## Bollo (12 Aug 2010)

Globalti said:


> ..... I heard the piece on Oxfordshire and smelled a statistical "rat" straight away.


Just to make it clear, I'm saying that the variation is *extremely unlikely *to be due to statistical effects only.

My little analysis is almost certainly wrong, or to be more precise much too crude. For example, there are too few sites, the timescale is too short to consider the effects of weather, the full weekly travel cycle, school holidays etc. What it would say to me is that there's a good reason to look, and to look for longer and over more sites. Also, the correlations between speeding and accident rates will be different at different sites. This isn't the same as saying speed isn't a factor in accident rates, just that it will be a more or less important factor depending on the location.

Ultimately, the decision to remove speed cameras (indirectly by removing funding) is purely political. It plays well with majority of voters, who are willing to accept a potential increase KSIs to indulge themselves on the roads. Any after-the-fact attempt at justification on safety grounds is just hypocritical bum gravy (ref Safespeed).


----------



## Bad Company (19 Aug 2010)

Davidc said:


> On the local news last night. Wiltshire is closing down the speed cameras on the M4.
> 
> When they were introduced the death rate dropped by 1/3.


 The rate was already falling and continues to do so.



> The death rate is predicted to rise to where it was - a 50% rise.


 By who?


----------



## Glenn (20 Aug 2010)

http://www.oxfordmail.co.uk/news/8339528.Speed_camera_data__misleading_/

SPEED camera bosses have been accused of misleading the public over claims more motorists are speeding since the cameras were switched off on August 1. 

Last week, Thames Valley Safer Roads Partnership said a roadside camera on the A44 in Woodstock had seen an 18.3 per cent increase in speed offences since the switch-off compared to the average number caught this year. 

At the same time a radar inside a second camera in Watlington Road, Cowley, registered an 88 per cent rise in offences when compared with figures in 2008 and 2009. 

The partnership said the figures for 2010 were not available, as the camera had been switched off due to roadworks. 

When the Oxford Mail requested 2008-9 data for the Woodstock camera – to make an equal comparison to the Watlington Road camera – the partnership said the figures were not readily to hand. 

Now, the Oxford Mail having obtained the information, the figures actually show speed offences fell by four per cent when comparing the figures since the switch-off to offences in 2008-9. 

All the county’s speed cameras were switched off after Oxfordshire County Council withdrew funding. 

Within days the partnership released its statistics, alth-ough spokesman Dan Campsall warned: “These are very limited results from just two locations. 

“However, if this is a trend that grows across Oxfordshire it is very worrying indeed.” 

Woodstock town councillor and former mayor Peter Jay said: “(These figures) are lies, damn lies and statistics. 

“It’s always wrong if anyone misuses figures and if a public authority misuses them it’s not only wrong but a disgrace.” 

Mark McArthur Christie, the chairman of the Oxford group of the Institute of Advanced Motorists, said: “People have been very accepting of partnership statistics in the past and taken them at face value. 

“If this gets people questioning camera stats that’s a good thing. The problem for the partnership is once people feel misled they feel reluctant to believe you a second time.” 

Mr Campsall insisted there was no deliberate attempt to mislead the public about the figures. 

“I don’t think there’s anything we have done that is disgraceful or lies and damn lies. 

“As we have always maintained, these remain limited data sets and there is a great deal more study that will need to be undertaken to determine what the increased risk at decommissioned camera sites is.” 

He said the inconsistency in the figures arose because the partnership were evaluating speeding data for a live broadcast on Radio 4 and wanted to get the most recent set of data prior to the decommissioning of cameras in 2010 to show the impact of the switch-off. 

However due to road works the Watlington Road camera had not been in operation this year so the partnership has to use historic figures from 2008 and 2009 instead of the 2010 comparison for Woodstock. 

The county council is doing its own survey of speed across the county. 

Council leader Keith Mitchell said: “This does back up what I have been saying that we have got to wait a while to get some real information on this and when we do get it it has to be consistent with what we are comparing. 

“I’m not an expert in this, I’m a finance person at heart and for us this decision has been about our finances and cutting the cameras or cutting children’s services.”


----------

