Topic: IIHS report says speed cameras lower incidents of deaths and injuries

[HeliDriver]

Speed cameras in school zones good. 
Speed cameras on wide suburban roads to raise revenue   bad.
Speed cameras on expressways.   Should be coated with thick black paint or just stolen and destroyed...or just set to 160 km/h


Worst of all. The average speed cameras being installed in some places in the UK  that log you in an out of an area and compute your average speed.   The politicians who allow these should be fed their own balls deep fried with hot sauce.

I completely agree, in school, playground and secondary suburban streets, sure....put them on major roadways, thats BS and nothing more than a cash cow.

Just going to throw this out there... but, why are school zones such a sacred cow?

First of all, when school is getting in or out and there are kids all over the place, I find that 30 km/h is too fast: I'll crawl through at around 20 km/h, max.

But for the other 90% of the day, while all the kids are at their desks, the school zone is deserted. And it's usually pretty open around a school, so sight lines are clear for a hundred yards in any direction, so why the need to crawl through at a ridiculous 30 km/h? And then as soon as you leave the wide-open school zone, you're in a residential neighbourhood with trees and shrubs and parked cars for kids to hide behind, yet the speed limit becomes 50 km/h. How does that make any sense?

And of course the photo radar van loves to park in the school zone near my house, because I'd say about 95% of drivers cruise through there at a perfectly reasonable 40-50 km/h (in the middle of the day when nobody is around). If you're really serious about protecting the children, then have a uniformed cop there handing out draconian fines to the true morons who drive unsafely (and that includes parents illegally dropping off kids in "No Stopping" zones in front of crosswalks and such.)

[Fobroader]

Speed cameras in school zones good. 
Speed cameras on wide suburban roads to raise revenue   bad.
Speed cameras on expressways.   Should be coated with thick black paint or just stolen and destroyed...or just set to 160 km/h


Worst of all. The average speed cameras being installed in some places in the UK  that log you in an out of an area and compute your average speed.   The politicians who allow these should be fed their own balls deep fried with hot sauce.

I completely agree, in school, playground and secondary suburban streets, sure....put them on major roadways, thats BS and nothing more than a cash cow.

Just going to throw this out there... but, why are school zones such a sacred cow?

First of all, when school is getting in or out and there are kids all over the place, I find that 30 km/h is too fast: I'll crawl through at around 20 km/h, max.

But for the other 90% of the day, while all the kids are at their desks, the school zone is deserted. And it's usually pretty open around a school, so sight lines are clear for a hundred yards in any direction, so why the need to crawl through at a ridiculous 30 km/h? And then as soon as you leave the wide-open school zone, you're in a residential neighbourhood with trees and shrubs and parked cars for kids to hide behind, yet the speed limit becomes 50 km/h. How does that make any sense?

And of course the photo radar van loves to park in the school zone near my house, because I'd say about 95% of drivers cruise through there at a perfectly reasonable 40-50 km/h (in the middle of the day when nobody is around). If you're really serious about protecting the children, then have a uniformed cop there handing out draconian fines to the true morons who drive unsafely (and that includes parents illegally dropping off kids in "No Stopping" zones in front of crosswalks and such.)

Because I think if you keep peepee slapping morons with fines enough they will not speed through school zones and playground zones when it matters. I agree, have a cop, have two handing out fines at peak times, but I just cannot see any reason to be doing above 30km/h in a space where there are kids. Problem is, I have had more issues with the parents dropping the kids off than the actual kids. Parking illegally, pulling illegal u-turns, leaping into traffic between vehicles wherever the hell they want.....I can see where the kids learn this idiotic "I have the right of way" kind of thinking that gets pedestrians turned into hamburger.

[Noto]

Speed cameras in school zones good. 
Speed cameras on wide suburban roads to raise revenue   bad.
Speed cameras on expressways.   Should be coated with thick black paint or just stolen and destroyed...or just set to 160 km/h


Worst of all. The average speed cameras being installed in some places in the UK  that log you in an out of an area and compute your average speed.   The politicians who allow these should be fed their own balls deep fried with hot sauce.

I completely agree, in school, playground and secondary suburban streets, sure....put them on major roadways, thats BS and nothing more than a cash cow.

Just going to throw this out there... but, why are school zones such a sacred cow?

First of all, when school is getting in or out and there are kids all over the place, I find that 30 km/h is too fast: I'll crawl through at around 20 km/h, max.

But for the other 90% of the day, while all the kids are at their desks, the school zone is deserted. And it's usually pretty open around a school, so sight lines are clear for a hundred yards in any direction, so why the need to crawl through at a ridiculous 30 km/h? And then as soon as you leave the wide-open school zone, you're in a residential neighbourhood with trees and shrubs and parked cars for kids to hide behind, yet the speed limit becomes 50 km/h. How does that make any sense?

And of course the photo radar van loves to park in the school zone near my house, because I'd say about 95% of drivers cruise through there at a perfectly reasonable 40-50 km/h (in the middle of the day when nobody is around). If you're really serious about protecting the children, then have a uniformed cop there handing out draconian fines to the true morons who drive unsafely (and that includes parents illegally dropping off kids in "No Stopping" zones in front of crosswalks and such.)

Some very good points, but consider high schools where students often have "spare" periods, are skipping classes, or walking in late.  I live near one that is on the corner of a very, very busy street and there are restaurants across the intersection.  Kids get hit far too often (2-3 per year), and no, not just during the morning drop-off, afternoon pick-up, or lunch times.

[Cord]

Speed cameras in school zones good. 
Speed cameras on wide suburban roads to raise revenue   bad.
Speed cameras on expressways.   Should be coated with thick black paint or just stolen and destroyed...or just set to 160 km/h


Worst of all. The average speed cameras being installed in some places in the UK  that log you in an out of an area and compute your average speed.   The politicians who allow these should be fed their own balls deep fried with hot sauce.

I completely agree, in school, playground and secondary suburban streets, sure....put them on major roadways, thats BS and nothing more than a cash cow.

Just going to throw this out there... but, why are school zones such a sacred cow?

First of all, when school is getting in or out and there are kids all over the place, I find that 30 km/h is too fast: I'll crawl through at around 20 km/h, max.

But for the other 90% of the day, while all the kids are at their desks, the school zone is deserted. And it's usually pretty open around a school, so sight lines are clear for a hundred yards in any direction, so why the need to crawl through at a ridiculous 30 km/h? And then as soon as you leave the wide-open school zone, you're in a residential neighbourhood with trees and shrubs and parked cars for kids to hide behind, yet the speed limit becomes 50 km/h. How does that make any sense?

And of course the photo radar van loves to park in the school zone near my house, because I'd say about 95% of drivers cruise through there at a perfectly reasonable 40-50 km/h (in the middle of the day when nobody is around). If you're really serious about protecting the children, then have a uniformed cop there handing out draconian fines to the true morons who drive unsafely (and that includes parents illegally dropping off kids in "No Stopping" zones in front of crosswalks and such.)

Some very good points, but consider high schools where students often have "spare" periods, are skipping classes, or walking in late.  I live near one that is on the corner of a very, very busy street and there are restaurants across the intersection.  Kids get hit far too often (2-3 per year), and no, not just during the morning drop-off, afternoon pick-up, or lunch times.

In Edmonton, the school zones are only around elementary schools. High school age kids should know how to safely cross a street.

[rrocket]

High school age kids should know how to safely cross a street.

You mean head down while texting?   

[.l..]

BS - hasn't done a thing here and the city write HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS of tickets per year.

They don't do much here really, not enough to calm people down. Medicine Hat they do, and traffic speed is way more even.

They put the cameras on the bottom of the hills, well, because. I'd drive slow too. I hear even criminals will avoid MH (my bro does work in a local prison...was told by some inmates MH is to be avoided)

That they actually allow them to play with the yellow's in Canada, and we "let" them...grrrrrrrrrrrr...I thought we were above that. Thought that was an American problem. 

[X-Traction]

a clear, working majority are in favour of speed cameras

Which doesn't mean they are effective.

If speed cameras are ineffective, why does a certain subset of drivers have hissy fits about them?

Enforcement of speed limits would also greatly reduce carbon emissions as virtually all vehicles are about 20% more efficient at
100 kmh than at the 'accepted' cruising speed of 119.9999999999 kmh.

Even though I'm an auto enthusiast, as I log a lot of kms on my cars, I tend to drive quite slowly in order to conserve fuel and minimize emissions for the kms I do drive.

Excellent!  I wish more auto enthusiasts were equally sensible. 

Maybe we also need to make a distinction between driving enthusiasts and auto enthusiasts.  Obviously many, like you, are both.  But there could be enthusiasts who design cars but hate driving.  I'm interested in cars, but after about 30 minutes most driving is pretty well a total bore and waste of time.

[tpl]

Nothing wrong with enforcement of sensible speed limits, but first make the limits reasonable.    How about 130 on express-ways dropping to 120 in the winter   and 110 on the 2 lanes roads dropping to 90 in winter.  With of course lower limits where the volume of accidents makes it necessary....and by volume of accidents I don't mean 1 a year, I mean 1 a week with personal injury.  What the brits called an 'accident black spot'.

[Cord]

If speed cameras were effective shouldn't they consistently give out fewer and fewer tickets every year (factoring in changes in traffic volume)? Maybe I've missed it, but I've never seen any stats that show ticket numbers going down - only that more are needed to keep the road safe.

[Scarecrow]

If speed cameras were effective shouldn't they consistently give out fewer and fewer tickets every year (factoring in changes in traffic volume)? Maybe I've missed it, but I've never seen any stats that show ticket numbers going down - only that more are needed to keep the road safe.

^^^^

But they are somewhat effective, aren't they?  Effective at generating revenue.

[PJungnitsch]

If speed cameras were effective shouldn't they consistently give out fewer and fewer tickets every year (factoring in changes in traffic volume)? Maybe I've missed it, but I've never seen any stats that show ticket numbers going down - only that more are needed to keep the road safe.

It just takes 5X the tickets per person that Edmonton gives out, ie: (reposted)

Medicine Hat, with a population of 60,000 people, went from 45,000 tickets in 2012 down to 30,000 in 2014.

Edmonton on the other hand, with a population of 900,000 (1.3 million in the metro area), went from 220,000 tickets in 2008 up to 240,000 in 2012.

[mmret]

a clear, working majority are in favour of speed cameras

Which doesn't mean they are effective.

If speed cameras are ineffective, why does a certain subset of drivers have hissy fits about them?

Surely you are trolling, or are otherwise expressing in jest. But in case you are not, allow me to elaborate:

The effectiveness of speed cameras at their putative ultimate policy goal, presumably the reduction of danger, however defined, is neither the same as, nor does it in its absence preclude their "effectiveness" in their direct electromechanical function.

In an analogous example, and solely as an example, it is likely that the deliberate running down of cyclists in downtown Toronto would be simultaneously efficacious in causing injury and death among cyclists, leading to great discontentment, and ineffective at improving their on-road and in-traffic behaviour, which would be a laudable policy goal.

[Cord]

If speed cameras were effective shouldn't they consistently give out fewer and fewer tickets every year (factoring in changes in traffic volume)? Maybe I've missed it, but I've never seen any stats that show ticket numbers going down - only that more are needed to keep the road safe.

It just takes 5X the tickets per person that Edmonton gives out, ie: (reposted)

Medicine Hat, with a population of 60,000 people, went from 45,000 tickets in 2012 down to 30,000 in 2014.

Edmonton on the other hand, with a population of 900,000 (1.3 million in the metro area), went from 220,000 tickets in 2008 up to 240,000 in 2012.

But are those numbers based on valid statistical principles? Or are they just absolute numbers based on nothing? For example, is it known for either example whether the same number of cameras were used? In the same locations? For the same number of hours? Was Edmonton's increase merely due to more cars on the road?

The facile argument says that Edmonton drivers are speeding in increasing numbers which requires more enforcement. But those numbers are not evidence of that.

[mmret]

If speed cameras were effective shouldn't they consistently give out fewer and fewer tickets every year (factoring in changes in traffic volume)? Maybe I've missed it, but I've never seen any stats that show ticket numbers going down - only that more are needed to keep the road safe.

It just takes 5X the tickets per person that Edmonton gives out, ie: (reposted)

Medicine Hat, with a population of 60,000 people, went from 45,000 tickets in 2012 down to 30,000 in 2014.

Edmonton on the other hand, with a population of 900,000 (1.3 million in the metro area), went from 220,000 tickets in 2008 up to 240,000 in 2012.

But are those numbers based on valid statistical principles? Or are they just absolute numbers based on nothing? For example, is it known for either example whether the same number of cameras were used? In the same locations? For the same number of hours? Was Edmonton's increase merely due to more cars on the road?

The facile argument says that Edmonton drivers are speeding in increasing numbers which requires more enforcement. But those numbers are not evidence of that.

I agree with you, but the raw lies are good enough for politics.

[PJungnitsch]

Trust me, it's blindingly obvious when you've lived in both places.

When Edmonton starts setting up enough radar to give out 700,000 to 800,000 tickets a year at 10km/hr over, you can bet drivers will slow down.

You just cannot afford not to.

[johngenx]

Trust me, it's blindingly obvious when you've lived in both places.

When Edmonton starts setting up enough radar to give out 700,000 to 800,000 tickets a year at 10km/hr over, you can bet drivers will slow down.

You just cannot afford not to.

The question is that will a 10km/h drop in speeds mean fewer collisions?  Is the speed the main factor in the collision?  I bet not.  Tailgating, failure to yield (turning left in front of traffic, etc) and inattention appear to be major causes of collisions.  Do speed cameras change those behaviours?  Intuitively to me I would say no.

But those hundreds of thousands of tickets sure raise a lot of dough.  That they do FOR SURE.

[mixmanmash]

Trust me, it's blindingly obvious when you've lived in both places.

When Edmonton starts setting up enough radar to give out 700,000 to 800,000 tickets a year at 10km/hr over, you can bet drivers will slow down.

You just cannot afford not to.

The question is that will a 10km/h drop in speeds mean fewer collisions?  Is the speed the main factor in the collision?  I bet not.  Tailgating, failure to yield (turning left in front of traffic, etc) and inattention appear to be major causes of collisions.  Do speed cameras change those behaviours?  Intuitively to me I would say no.

But those hundreds of thousands of tickets sure raise a lot of dough.  That they do FOR SURE.

Got to pay for an arena somehow.  You know, the arena for millionaire players to play in for a team owned by a billionaire....

Sent from my LG-D852 using Tapatalk

[PJungnitsch]

Trust me, it's blindingly obvious when you've lived in both places.

When Edmonton starts setting up enough radar to give out 700,000 to 800,000 tickets a year at 10km/hr over, you can bet drivers will slow down.

You just cannot afford not to.

The question is that will a 10km/h drop in speeds mean fewer collisions?  Is the speed the main factor in the collision?  I bet not.  Tailgating, failure to yield (turning left in front of traffic, etc) and inattention appear to be major causes of collisions.  Do speed cameras change those behaviours?  Intuitively to me I would say no.

But those hundreds of thousands of tickets sure raise a lot of dough.  That they do FOR SURE.

Probably not a drop as much as getting speeds more even helps.

[Cord]

Trust me, it's blindingly obvious when you've lived in both places.

When Edmonton starts setting up enough radar to give out 700,000 to 800,000 tickets a year at 10km/hr over, you can bet drivers will slow down.

You just cannot afford not to.

So they become effective as we approach the point where every infraction results in a ticket. That's depressing.

[johngenx]

So they become effective as we approach the point where every infraction results in a ticket. That's depressing.

Indeed.  Might was well have Google self driving cars and transit.