Sky news vote. Speed cameras

Do the public agree with most of the forum members view on speed cameras?

Well so far on the sky news vote 72% of viewers don't think speed cameras reduce deaths on our roads.

Sounds like we are not alone.

100% of the people I have asked disagree.

micky_h wrote: Well I think it's rubbish too.Who did that lot ask, the camera partnership maybe?

Independent surveys of public opinion taken locally & nationally.
7 basic questions asked & changes in response observed over the four year period of CSP existence.

B 7 VP wrote: If you ask questions like" Do you agree that more Scams are required close to Schools" 80% will say yes.

Look at the actual questions asked rather than just assuming what they are.

Lumping together the K with the SI figures ALWAYS  can be proved to show the reduced Injuries MUST Also mean Deaths--SO we have % less this year-ALL due to the Magic Scams.The Truth is ignored, due to the Bite back factor--and this will never do.

What are you saying, reducing serious injury collisions is not a good thing ?

Fact - last year saw the lowest number of deaths on our roads since records began.

The figures at camera sites show that taking into account regression to the mean, trend etc there are still useful reductions in all types of collisions.

Take a look at the Police Federation,s  "Police" in house Magazine(you possibly have) and the comments by Vice Chairman Alan Gordon."Scamera,s are a complete Waste of time, Bad for safety, and Bad for policing" he adds that any money from Scams should be spent on extra Police. The biggest disaster in PR and trust in the BIB has now gone.

They are not a waste of time (& certainly not money) because they have contributed to there being fewer collisions on our roads. I don't disagree that there are other methods that can produce reductions in collisions as well. I fully support calls for more dedicated traffic Police, but that is no reason to get rid of a measure that also clearly provides useful reductions already. Those other methods should be used in conjunction with cameras to reduce collisions further. The good thing about cameras is that the law abiding don't have to fund it, only those breaking the law.

Safety aside, why shouldn't law breakers fear prosecution & be prsoecuted when they commit offences, speeding included ? Just like they do for no seat belt or using a hand held phone etc whilst driving.

I believe that you'll find that money from camera fines will no longer be exclusively used to fund cameras. The money will now be able to be used for other road safety initiatives.

Edited by livvy

livvy wrote: Safety aside, why shouldn't law breakers fear prosecution & be prsoecuted when they commit offences, speeding included ? Just like they do for no seat belt or using a hand held phone etc whilst driving.

NEWSFLASH FOR LIVVY: people don't fear prosecution for using a hand held while driving.

Rhys wrote: .and when was the last time you saw a private hire/taxi driver wearing a seatbelt? Or my father, in his 1963 Ford Anglia 105e (which doesn't have seatbelts and is exempt from having them fitted)

Well of course people who are exempt don't fear prosecution because it won't happen. People like taxi drivers who are exempt from wearing seatbelts.
Just as those who have an exemption from speed don't fear prosecution if they are using it (otherwise safely) within the law.

You will find Injury compensation payouts from insurance companies reduced to those who had seatbelts available, but chose to use their exemption instead of wearing the belt. This is irrespective of who's fault the collision may have been.

When hand held phone use becomes endorseable (which it will) that will start the bitching over that one as well.
People find the current fines issued for it an inconvenience, but it will be more than that when they start getting points as well. Just shows again though that it's the points (not the money) that matters to people really & in truth that's how people feel about speeding. The fact there are no points for using hand held phones at the momment means people are more prepared to take the risk of getting caught (as Spokey has identified), but when it includes points & getting caught starts to hurt, more will change their behaviour & more will bitch about it.
Remember mobile camera vans can & do detect offences other than speeding, offences such as using a phone.

They may complain it's about money because it's easy to, but offer them a choice of paying a much bigger fine but with no points & they'd bite your hand off. Conversely you would see very few take up any offer of no fine but double points, despite their protests of it's about income generation for the government

The sums gained by the government after netting off show it is not about that. �42million in four years is a paltry sum in terms of government budgets. There would be far easier, less confrontational , ways of raising sums like that, if it really was about income generation. It just illustrates further that it is about casualty reduction.

Three camera partnerships (Cheshire, Suffolk & London) ran at a loss last year. London had a deficit of �750k.
All about income generation indeed.
Try telling that to TFL (London Councils) & the Met who'll have to foot that bill.

The surveys took part in all the affected counties & there are of course varying responses between counties.

When it comes to who's views matter on our roads it's everyones, because we all use them (pedestrians, cyclists, equestrians etc included) not just drivers of performance vehicles. We all have to interract with each other on them safely.

As I've said before, those who want restrictions on speed have stolen a march on other groups. They campaigned & put forward compelling arguments for why & how keeping speed down will save lives & help prevent collisions.
Those with an opposite view instead focus on an "It's not fair" or "It's all about making money" argument instead of offering a positive realistic alternative.

They campaign from a position of strength, instead of sitting back & crying in their beer. They are winning the argument. Instead of resting with that though they will forge on and try to show other benefits such as environmental ones for keeping speeds limited.

Edited by livvy

Peter Fenwick wrote: On thing to bare in mind is that other polls were done a while ago, probably before many people got caught. Once they realised that the government and police were more interested in catching people comitting a victimless crime (ie doing 55 in a 50 zone etc) than chasing real bad drivers they probably reassessed their view.

The polls that are quoted in the report were conducted last year (& compared to polls over the previous two years). I think policy over cameras was pretty clear to everybody by last year don't you ?

The Police don't put a lot of resources into catching people for the "victimless" crime (as you call it) that is speeding. They put most of their resources & efforts into other things. If you do have some evidence that shows that the Police put most of their resources into speed enforcement I'd love to see it. Have you any ?

Speeding of course isn't the only "victimless" crime that the Police prosecute people for. There are lots of road traffic offences & some other criminal offences that require no victim, only the Crown to prosecute. That is what preventative legislation is all about, stopping people doing things that could potentially contribute towards harm or death before the harm or death occurs. Surely that is preferable.

Offensive weapon legislation for instance requires no victim.


Edited by livvy

Nigel wrote: OK peoples...who has ever been asked to contribite to these "official" polls, and what was asked ? Sorry Livvy, bit I've yet to come acrosss anyone who has ever been asked anything, I still think the people working for the authorities are asking their relatives.

The questions Agree/disagree with the following statements, percentages of those polled shown.


1. Cameras are meant to encourage drivers to stick to the limits, not punish them............Agree 75%
(Highest = Wilstshire 89%, Lowest = Staffordshire 41%)


2. Fewer collisions are likely to happen on roads where cameras are installed...........Agree 66%
(Highest = Wiltshire 89%, Lowest = Staffordshire 51%)


3. Cameras are an easy way of making money out of motorists..........Agree 55%
(Highest = Cleveland 74%, Lowest = West Yorkshire  15%)
 

4. Cameras mean that dangerous drivers are more likely to get caught.......Agree 60%
(Highest = Northumbria 80%, Lowest = Hertfordshire 44%)


5. The use of safety cameras should be supported as a method of reducing casualties..........Agree 82%
(Highest = Wiltshire 98% , Lowest = Norfolk 67%)


6. The primary aim of cameras is to save lives........Agree 71%
(Highest = Wilstshire 93%, Lowest = Hertfordshire 51%)


7. There are too many safety cameras in our local area........Agree 21%
(Highest = Bedfordshire 41%, Lowest = Hampshire 5%)


Edited by livvy

Nigel wrote: Who was polled ? ( I know you don't have the answer to that !) I have honestley NEVER met anyone that has been asked. You will get different answers if you ask different groups, would you like me to set up a poll on here using those self same questions ?

I agree it does depend who was polled, but how many of the potential tens of millions that could have been asked have you spoken to about it ?

The demographics here aren't going to be representative of the country as a whole, it's not from a wide enough base, too much of a vested interest.

The question is, whatever political party is in power, are that government going to change dramatically the current situation with cameras ?..........I personally think not.


Is anyone going to cast their vote solely on the issue of speed cameras ?..........I personally don't think many will.


Are cameras here to stay ?............I think so.


Do they contribute to reductions in death & injury on our roads ?.......I think they do.


Can we influence whether more are put up ?...........I think so.



Can we do that through going along the lines that cameras are a tax on motorists ?..........I think not.


Can we do that by working with the government to provide alternatives that can complement cameras, rather than calling for them to be uprooted..........I think we can.


Edited by livvy

Peter Fenwick wrote: Well the result of the poll so far is : http://www.sky.com/skynews/polls/displayresults/1,,91153-100 3258-2,00.html This post wasn't about what the results of goverment polls said, or the results of so called independant polls, it was about the sky news poll. All that I was saying was it does appear that at least 58% of people who watch sky news don't think speed camera save lives. On thing to bare in mind is that other polls were done a while ago, probably before many people got caught. Once they realised that the government and police were more interested in catching people comitting a victimless crime (ie doing 55 in a 50 zone etc) than chasing real bad drivers they probably reassessed their view. The sky vote is a represnetation of sky news veiwers opinions today

It's changed to 55% in favour this morning.