Axing speed cameras - result

[aussiblue]

What gets me is how they also use the Monash university to "prove" their agenda, I bet there is a lot of money changing hands in favor of the university for some of the stuff they "prove" correct.

No it's about getting objective, independent and published peer reviewed advice -the basis of all good science; i.e. having it peer reviewed to avoid errors and bias (including the type of corruption you are suggesting and published in science journals so others with expertise can also review it. Universities are usually also subject to reviews by various ethics committees, external Government auditors and the like so can be relied upon as a good source for objective research.

And as much as we may hate them, and as much as they are also a revenue generating device, the overwhelming objective evidence is that speed camera do result in a fall in accident rates and mortalities. Just enter the words"impact of speed camera on road accidents" into Google Scholar to find hundreds of independent research finding confirming this. It also intuitively correct; lets face it, without the deterrent of the speed camera and the hard evidence the provide to support a speeding prosecution a lot more irresponsible drivers would speed excessively.

And when it comes to speed limits you have to draw a line somewhere so it's 100 km/hr rather than 103 km/hr and most states already grade the related fines accordingly so the further over the specific limit you are the more it costs.

And yes I have sped and yes I have been caught by speed cameras so I know about the pain.

A more relevant question might be are speed cameras the most cost effective means of reducing speed related accidents and mortalities? Perhaps not; but would you prefer lots of speed bumps in low speed limt areas instead as one paper suggest these are more effective (see http://www.sciencedirect.com/science...f&searchtype=a)

Are speed enforcement cameras more effective than other speed management measures?: The impact of speed management schemes on 30 mph roads




References and further reading may be available for this article. To view references and further reading you must purchase this article.


L.J. Mountaina, , , W.M. Hirsta and M.J. Maherb

aDepartment of Civil Engineering, University of Liverpool, Brownlow Street, Liverpool, L69 3GQ, UK

bSchool of the Built Environment, Napier University, Edinburgh, UK

Received 15 March 2005; accepted 22 March 2005. Available online 10 May 2005.

Abstract
This paper presents the results of an evaluation of the impact of various types of speed management schemes on both traffic speeds and accidents. The study controls for general trends in accidents, regression-to-mean effects and migration, separately estimating the accident changes attributable to the impact of the schemes on traffic speed and on traffic volume. It was found that, when judged in absolute terms, all types of speed management scheme have remarkably similar effects on accidents, with an average fall in personal injury accidents of about 1 accident/km/year. In terms of the percentage accident reduction, however, engineering schemes incorporating vertical deflections (such as speed humps or cushions) offer the largest benefits: at 44%, the average reduction in personal injury accidents attributable to such schemes, is twice that at sites where safety cameras were used to control speeds (22%) and they were the only type of scheme to have a significant impact on fatal and serious accidents. Other types of engineering scheme (with a fall of 29% in personal injury accidents) were on average less effective in reducing accidents than schemes with vertical features but more effective than cameras. All types of scheme were generally effective in reducing speeds, with the largest reductions tending to be obtained with vertical deflections and the smallest with other types of engineering schemes.

Another fair question is the relative effectiveness of visible versus hidden cameras.