Prev: Woman drivers are 100,000 times more deadly than terrorists
Next: Ugliest car of all time
From: PHATRS on 6 Jun 2010 23:54
http://www.justice.vic.gov.au/wps/wcm/connect/ccc/CCC/Home/Cameras/Camera+Locations/
From: Sylvia Else on 7 Jun 2010 21:53
On 7/06/2010 1:54 PM, PHATRS wrote:
> http://www.justice.vic.gov.au/wps/wcm/connect/ccc/CCC/Home/Cameras/Camera+Locations/
>

"Cameras cut crashes by reducing average speeds, changing driver
behaviour and encouraging safer driving."

Where's the evidence?

Sylvia.
From: hippo on 7 Jun 2010 22:54
Sylvia Else wrote:
>
> On 7/06/2010 1:54 PM, PHATRS wrote:
> > http://fat.ly/2qp1m
> >
>
> "Cameras cut crashes by reducing average speeds, changing driver
> behaviour and encouraging safer driving."
>
> Where's the evidence?
>
> Sylvia.
>
>

Well, not in *this* article, for sure!

" On motorways and on urban roads many of us speed yet speeding can rarely
be a cause of serious or fatal accidents because data also show that there
is just one death per 136 million km travelled in cars in Britain'15 and
just one death per 109 million km travelled in Australia.'16 So, in
Britain, given that the average person drives approximately 18,000
kilometres per year it would take 7,610 years of (frequently speeding)
travel before the driver could expect to be involved in an accident
resulting in his or her death. If, as the British TRL research shows,'17
7.3% of accidents are caused by speeding then you would need to drive for
over 100,000 years to die as a result of 'excessive speed'. Compared with
this, staying in a British National Health Service hospital looks far
riskier. The National Audit Office estimates that 5,000 people die every
year from infections picked up during stays in hospitals due to lack of
basic hygiene.'18 "

" The failure of speed cameras to reduce serious road accidents is not a
quirk of British or Australian data. Similar findings led the government
of British Columbia in Canada to scrap their cameras. Data from the
British Columbia Coroners Office on vehicle-related fatalities showed
speed cameras did not save lives. A 2000 report, entitled Safe Roads, Safe
Communities, stated that the programme had no discernible impact on speed
or on the fatal accident rate. It also noted that most accidents happen at
slower speeds, with two-thirds of all crashes occurring at speeds below
the posted limit.

As for Britain, speed enforcement played no role in contributing to it
having the safest roads in the world. Neither did the very rapid drop in
road fatalities in Australia during the 1980s come about through speed
cameras, DDPs or the associated speed policies. Furthermore, there is no
evidence that speed cameras are playing a role today. In fact, there are a
number of plausible reasons why speed cameras may cause more accidents:

* Speeds are slowed near camera sites so drivers divert to less safe
routes in a bid to save time, or they may try to make up time by driving
at inappropriate speeds where there are no cameras;
* Speeds are slowed and journey times are increased, leading some
drivers to become frustrated or aggressive, and it forces all drivers to
suffer longer exposure to accident risks;
* Lower speeds demand and, therefore, promote lower attention levels;
* Initiative to drive at the appropriate speed for the conditions
shifts from the driver to speed cameras. Therefore, drivers will become
less used to taking responsibility for adjusting speed according to
complex, changing circumstances encountered;
* Drivers prioritise speed and speedometer watching over safe driving;
* Speed cameras distract the driver's attention as drivers look out
for the next camera rather than the road ahead;
* Speed cameras cause sudden braking as drivers slow down to the
posted speed limit. "

Link to complete article below. It's a few years old now but still (rather
depressingly) relevant if you have the time to read it:

http://www.cis.org.au/policy/spr03/polspr03-1.htm

--
Posted at www.usenet.com.au
From: Sylvia Else on 7 Jun 2010 22:59
On 8/06/2010 12:54 PM, hippo wrote:

> * Speed cameras cause sudden braking as drivers slow down to the
> posted speed limit. "

That's a particularly fun one when approaching a reduced speed limit
with a cop car behind. You stay at the legal higher speed until the last
moment, and jam on the brakes to get your speed down by the time you
reach the sign.

When the cops rear-end you, they have absolutely no defence.

Of course, it's best done in a hire car.

Sylvia.
From: hippo on 7 Jun 2010 23:15
Sylvia Else wrote:
>
> On 8/06/2010 12:54 PM, hippo wrote:
>
> > * Speed cameras cause sudden braking as drivers slow down to the
> > posted speed limit. "
>
> That's a particularly fun one when approaching a reduced speed limit
> with a cop car behind. You stay at the legal higher speed until the last
> moment, and jam on the brakes to get your speed down by the time you
> reach the sign.
>
> When the cops rear-end you, they have absolutely no defence.
>
> Of course, it's best done in a hire car.
>
> Sylvia.
>
>

or for an extra twist, dab the brake pedal a couple of times earlier so
they *know* your lights work, then reef on the handbrake (with the button
held in) during a 4-2 downchange :)

--
Posted at www.usenet.com.au
 |  Next  |  Last
Pages: 1 2 3
Prev: Woman drivers are 100,000 times more deadly than terrorists
Next: Ugliest car of all time