Iain Young

Glad I was sat down when I read that

hedgehog

The figures I quote are "per mile driven" and so take into account the possibility of a lower population, less frequent drivers etc. It should also be noted that even if Durham tended to be more rural this would be no get out clause as statistically rural roads are seen as very dangerous indeed. Paul Garvin makes this point himself when he comments on his figures, basically he points out that the "type" of his traffic is similar to any other county in the UK with a good mix of city, rural and motorway. I also think you will find it very hard to convince anyone that the only county without a camera also, just by chance and across the whole population of the area, happens to have drivers who are 40% less likely to have an accident that others across England and Wales.

There may be a higher percentage of careful drivers in Durham but it would then be hard to expalin why these careful drivers move about the country as speed camera density changes. Have they all moved out of Scotland and Essex as the number of cameras has risen? I think that highly unlikely but by your reasoning it would be the only way to explain increasing deaths in these areas. You should also note that Scotland and Essex are not the only areas showing this trend, they just happen to be good examples because they are very different and also because Essex does have the highest camera density in the UK.

The situation is actually very clear: fewer cameras and other means of automated speed enforcement mean that you have less risk of being killed on the roads.

What we need to be asking is why they continue with this flawed policy which is actually killing drivers? Anyone who values their life should be asking this question to politicians looking their vote on 5th May.

Iain Young

I agree with you as far as the solution is concerned, (i.e. fewer cameras and more proper police on the streets), but you can make statistics prove anything, especially when there are so many variables concerned.

jods

Are you the only Gay in the Village ?

Iain Young

And yet another informed and intelligent response

scoobynutta555

IMHO very bad drivers are literally getting away with murder. Speed cameras only 'catch' drivers who are flouting a given limit. What I've read about the situation is that traffic police numbers are being reduced around the country. Fewer traffic police means in my book careless/dangerous drivers given a free hand to be as dangerous as they like without fear of prosecution, unless they trip a speed trap.

What Ive also read is that speed is only responsible directly for around 11% of accidents.

Whats needed is more traffic police monitoring bad driving and EXCESSIVE speeders (not necessarily speeding per se), a look at all speed limits with the possibility of motorways and main routes having higher limits and dangerous roads having lower limits.

Lets not forget drivers who go about without insurance, mot tax and in some cases licences. They are much more likely to be in an accident, yet its so much easier to have a plod in a transit with a camera going after easy prey.

Seems one way traffic to me, speed limits are liberally dumbed down in many area, yet the 'safest' routes have stupidly low limits and under no circumstances are they raised.

More stringent penalties should be handed out to new drivers commiting offences, and to drivers who are not physically or mentally capable of driving to the average standard. I frequently see over 70s etc driving in a most suicidale fashion. And lets not forget what state the roads are in and how poor some of the road design is.

The refusal of the chief constable in Durham must be very proud of his counties accident statistics. The holy grail of putting cameras everywhere, and especially the mobile units which I am totally against, can be seen for what they are, revenue generators. Its shameless really.

warrenm2

You seem to feel you have been giving an informed and intelligent response, except of course when hedgehog points out how the official line on speeding is in fact erroneous in its assumptions, THEN the situation is So lets just ignore all facts that dont suit your arguement then? Very informed there Iain! (NOT)

jonc

Or you could see how many lives have been saved since the introduction of speed cameras, and as it stands ther have been no reduction in the number of deaths on the roads since their introduction. So are they working?

paul-s

no exactly the point, theyre just raising taxes and not preventing deaths. why else would there be any reason to hide them ??

hedgehog

Or why would the camera partnerships want to hide the minutes of their meetings despite the Freedom of Information act? I mean, they don't deal with national security, their remit is supposed to be dealing with road safety and it is in the public interest to know about that, I would have thought. They can't possibly be doing anything "secret" concerning road safety.

However, they are allowed to produce two sets of minutes for each meeting, one "open" set and one "closed" set. Why would that be if they were only acting in our interests? The following is from the minutes of the Dorset partnership Steering Group:

BA stated that the DSCP approach to the Act is to be as open and friendly as possible. Since the act went live on 1 January 2005 the DSCP has averaged one question a day. Most questions have been centred on finance. Minutes of Meeting and Agendas are required to be split into Open and Closed. Open minutes will be available to the general public and anyone else that is interested. Closed minutes will be distributed only to those that have attended the meeting and will be classed and headed as Confidential - Not for re-distribution or copy without originator consent. To be destroyed when no longer required. Each copy will be issued to the individual and will be numbered. The open minutes will show all the headings from the agenda, but will state that minutes taken under certain headings are exempt under FOI Act.

Leslie

I wonder when they will think of using CCTV cameras to fine all those pedestrians who jay walk all over the roads these days. They would need to have registration plates of course!

Les