Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by janrinok on Tuesday November 21 2017, @07:25PM   Printer-friendly
from the er-yes-no-maybe dept.

Speed cameras have been the focus of motorists' anger and frustration for years, although we are told repeatedly that they are an effective means of reducing death and injury on the roads. But is this really the case?

Whether speed cameras actually do save lives seems an easy assertion to test: measure the numbers of casualties at a site over a period, say two years; introduce a speed camera; re-measure the number of casualties over an equal period, and any reduction is due to the camera. But it's not really that simple. Many other factors are at play that might make cameras appear to be more effective than they really are. And these factors are often ignored when evaluating the performance of speed cameras at improving road safety.

Do speed cameras actually save lives?

[...] In road safety data, there is a general tendency for collision incidents at a site to reduce anyway following a short-term rise in their number, without any treatment (such as a speed camera) being applied. In statistics, this is known as regression-to-the-mean (or RTM). We also know that the long-term trend in collisions has generally been downward due to factors such as improved vehicle safety and better driver education[PDF].

So if we observe a reduction in casualties at a site following the installation of a camera, we need to ask how much of this reduction would have happened anyway (the RTM effect)? How much is due to general trends in road safety? And how much can we actually attribute to the camera itself?

[...] To make matters worse, half of the UK's fixed speed cameras may not even be turned on. So the situation is far from simple.

Methods to accurately account for RTM and trend often require knowledge of advanced statistics which may not always be available within a road safety team, and so it is likely that these confounding factors are not being considered consistently across the country.

[...] So, do speed cameras save lives? The answer is almost certainly yes, but probably not always to the extent that people are led to believe.

https://theconversation.com/do-speed-cameras-really-save-lives-87701


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 21 2017, @09:04PM (4 children)

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 21 2017, @09:04PM (#599879)

    First off, red light cameras are intended to stop people from t-boning each other at the intersection. Running into the back of somebody isn't something that 3rd parties can solve, the solution is to not be in the next driver's underwear. Give it a couple seconds so that if something does happen you can brake in time.

    Secondly, the existence of a camera should be an indication that the authorities know that there's a speeding problem and to not speed. I'd love to see them position a few aircraft from time to time to nail people thinking they got off the hook by speeding up between the cameras.

    Lastly, the fact that you're not convinced indicates that you don't understand any of what's going on. An increase in rear-end collisions is evidence that people need to stop driving like jackasses as a rear end collision is the kind that gives the drivers the best chance of walking with no injuries. You can easily avoid the problem by using a safe following distance. If you get hit, you can sue and usually win as the driver behind has to prove that you were responsible not them for following too closely.

    Starting Score:    0  points
    Moderation   +1  
       Informative=1, Total=1
    Extra 'Informative' Modifier   0  

    Total Score:   1  
  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 21 2017, @09:58PM (3 children)

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 21 2017, @09:58PM (#599903)

    You know what also would do the trick? Longer Yellow light and delay on the green for the other traffic. And it wouldn't have the problems of the cameras.

    Also the camera will not stop the real cause of tboning, distracted driving.

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 21 2017, @11:27PM (2 children)

      by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 21 2017, @11:27PM (#599962)

      You can't increase the length of the yellow long enough. There are going to be people who would push it even if the yellow was a full minute long and I suspect there'd be people that aren't already pushing it doing so if it was that long.

      The cause of a t-bone crash is that somebody ran the light plain and simple. If nobody runs a light then you don't get a t-bone collision. Whether it's because they're distracted or just assholes doesn't much matter as either way somebody ran the light.

      Knowing that there's a camera catching everybody that runs the light serves as a deterrent to the distracted driving as well as assholes trying to push their luck.

      • (Score: 3, Funny) by DECbot on Wednesday November 22 2017, @12:29AM

        by DECbot (832) on Wednesday November 22 2017, @12:29AM (#599982) Journal

        You know what would really stop t-bone accidents, a retractable wall. You stop when you see the yellow light because the wall is being raised for your direction of traffic. If the wall is thick and high enough, you'll stop even when traveling 70mph into it.

        --
        cats~$ sudo chown -R us /home/base
      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 22 2017, @07:36PM

        by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 22 2017, @07:36PM (#600296)

        Knowing that there's a camera catching everybody that runs the light serves as a deterrent to the distracted driving as well as assholes trying to push their luck.

        Where's your evidence? Even if it is true, why are you okay with mass surveillance in the name of safety?