Sponsored by
Safety cameras ‘flawed’
speedbj Speed Camera on Sheffield Parkway
Campaigners today branded South Yorkshire’s network of cameras ‘flawed’ and ‘unnecessary’ after The Star revealed how much money they are making.
Claire Armstrong, spokesperson for the national Safe Speed campaign group, said: “Since only five per cent of accidents nationally have excessive speed as a contributory factor, including those accidents which are ‘too fast for conditions’ but below the speed limit, we can see how utterly over-the-top and unnecessary speed cameras are.
“We need proper engineering to resolve the accidents’ cause, not merely cameras to treat a symptom.”
South Yorkshire Safety Camera Partnership, which is responsible for running and maintaining the speed cameras, also revealed it has spent £5,080,153 on maintenance and upkeep of the cameras, placing new ones and any other expenditure relating to them in the last three financial years.
Just three months ago, it was revealed serious accidents and deaths at the SYSCP’s 56 camera sites were reduced at 27 of the locations with the number of accidents actually going up at 24.
One site which has seen accidents increase is the county’s ninth top earning site - the A625 Ecclesall Road South near Ringinglow Road which snapped 2,421 drivers and made £39,480 through fines.
There was only one accident in the eight years before the camera was installed - but six serious collisions in the 13 years afterwards.
But Chief Superintendent Keith Lumley, chairman of South Yorkshire Safer Roads Partnership, said: “It is accepted that safety cameras are a valuable contribution to the continuing fall in those killed and seriously injured on the roads of South Yorkshire and the UK.
“Our data shows that over the last three year period, there has been a reduction of 40 collisions across all fixed camera sites preventing those serious collisions that cause death and life changing injuries to those involved.”
But Ms Armstrong argued: “Speed camera placement criteria results with the cameras being located in specially selected locations where the casualty rate is expected to fall substantially, even if no treatment is applied.
“This is a well understood phenomenon called regression to the mean, which shows that cameras are portrayed to be a strong benefit when in reality there is no proof of any benefit.
“The economic recession has also made a significant difference to the amount of traffic on the road. During every previous recession we know that the accident rate drops, which is why we have seen the fall in accidents over the last few years. There has been a six per cent fall in total traffic volume so there is therefore less exposure to danger. “Councils need to act competently when they analyse data, and then spend funds effectively on the right road safety policies. Speed cameras must be removed from our roads, they are a flawed road safety policy.”
Simon Geller, from local bike group, Cycle Sheffield, warned against turning off cameras. He said: “They have an overall calming effect on the county’s roads, not just where they are installed.
“There is a simple way to beat the speed cameras - drive at or below the speed limit.”
Email to a friend
Print this page
Looking for...
Featured advertisers
Jobs
Search for a job
Motors
Search for a car
Property
Search for a house
Weather for Sheffield
Saturday 26 May 2012
Today
Sunny
Temperature: 9 C to 21 C
Wind Speed: 17 mph
Wind direction: East
Tomorrow
Sunny
Temperature: 11 C to 21 C
Wind Speed: 14 mph
Wind direction: East
Comments
There are 7 comments to this article
Page 1 of 1
WildNorthlands
Monday, November 28, 2011 at 04:11 PMMr J. C Walker of Ann Arbor offers us some advice on how to manage Road Safety in the UK. As US motorists kill over 35,000 people every year, a lot more than the UK even proportionately, I don't think we should take his advice any time soon.
Old Man of the Sea
Monday, November 28, 2011 at 07:05 AMMagpies etc etc : please learn to read and understand. I DON'T brake for cameras, I was just saying that some drivers do because they don't actually know their speed and panic on seeing a camera. I drive at or within the limit so I don't need to brake. After 48 years of driving I can judge my speed perfectly without even looking at the speedo.
samspam
Sunday, November 27, 2011 at 11:00 PMWHAT! This simple fact shows the mendacity of the arguments for these cash cows......... "Ecclesall Road South near Ringinglow Road which snapped 2,421 drivers and made £39,480 through fines. ... There was only one accident in the eight years before the camera was installed - but six serious collisions in the 13 years afterwards"....... We knew it was happening and here's the evidence............... the only good reason for this camera is the fact that it catches people out..... the issues could be sorted without a camera but... cash cow. Lazy policing......... and bad justice...... why bad, because speed is not the indicator of a good or bad driver but it is the most consistent offence punished..... the bad drivers..... any definition of that should include driving without fully concentrating on the road ... camera's are dumb... and they cause accidents! The other evidence on deaths is related to other factors, improved vehicle safety etc... corrupt cash cow
Keith Peat
Sunday, November 27, 2011 at 10:52 PMClaire Armstrong should have learned by now that the 5% figure is fallacious since true driving experts know that 'speeding', that is to drive above an arbitrary and unscientific number on a pole, cannot cause one single accident at all, not 5%. She also uses the official's term 'excessive speed' that does not exist in law and so should not be used at all to mangle 'speeding' with 'too fast'. That's why the officials use this non-legal term. Too fast occurs at all speeds, most often below the limits and is in fact an element of the offence of dangerous driving, not 'speeding' but the officials don't want you to realise that. But cameras cannot see too fast and thus do not see one single accident cause. To the fools who say, 'stick below the limits yada yada' and typically the cyclist, that is not the issue. He is blindly accepting that the limit was correctly set by an expert for good reason. I survey them and they are not. When set too low, they turn previously lawful drivers into offenders and that is all. The limit outside my house is now thirty, but there were no accidents out there when it was forty so all it has done is increase the speeders. But then cyclists cannot accept that they wouldn't survive very long if there were only cycles running around and that this over-slowing of a major infrastructure actually kills more from the economic cost. It is a fool who imagines that all this pious road safety is cost-less. Billions from our economy which would save far more lives if in the NHS, or emergency services. It's about time 30, million drivers used their voting power and became active. www.youdrive.org.uk
jcwconsult
Sunday, November 27, 2011 at 04:58 PMSpeed cameras should more correctly be known as speed cash registers for the "Safety Camera Partnerships" (sic) that promote them. You have data that almost as many camera locations had HIGHER accident rates as those which had lower accident rates. Then accounting for the regression to the mean and the economic recession as the writer points out you have a demonstrable benefit of essentially zero that any legitimate statistician could claim was caused by the camera presence. What should South Yorkshire and all of Britain do? First, return to the former principle of posting speed limits at the 85th percentile speed of free flowing traffic under good conditions, the method that almost always produces the smoothest and safest traffic flow. This will also reduce camera violations by enough that most of the remaining cameras will be removed and the VERY common dangerous actions of heavy braking at camera sites will cease. Second, have engineers look at the real causes of accidents at black spots and fix the engineering problems that cause them. Third, have more patrols with trained police officers looking for bad drivers making genuinely dangerous driving errors, something that cameras can never do. James C. Walker, National Motorists Association, www.motorists.org, Ann Arbor, Michigan USA (Frequent visitor to Britain to see my wife's family in Yorkshire)
Los Blancos Galactico Rossoneri Mancunian
Sunday, November 27, 2011 at 01:43 PMYes OMotS Stay within the limits and you have nothing to worry about! If you are within the limits then you shouldn't panic as the camera won't flash!
Old Man of the Sea
Sunday, November 27, 2011 at 08:16 AMIt is cynical to call them 'safety cameras' as they are nothing but revenue raisers. Many motorists who are travelling legally within the speed limit panic when they see a camera and brake to well below the limit, thus causing those following to brake also. The speeder just brakes hard at the camera and then accelerates away once past the white markers. Cameras cause more accidents and near misses than they avoid. The best way to avoid speeding fines is to keep within the limit at all times.
Page 1 of 1
Your view
Please sign in to be able to comment on this story.