A9 Speed Camera Stats

[Rheghead]

The first stats have been published in the first 3 months of camera deployment on the A9.

In no particular order of importance.

1. Over 90% reduction of speeding offences
2. Journey time reliability has increased.
3. No fatalities (2006-2010 3 month average was 3-4)
4. Overall accidents are down.
5. Journey times between Perth and Inverness increase by 14 minutes.
6. No evidence that drivers are taking other routes.
7. Driver behavior improvement (eg. tailgating)

£3 million well spent? :confused

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-highlands-islands-30972743

[ywindythesecond]

The first stats have been published in the first 3 months of camera deployment on the A9.

In no particular order of importance.

1. Over 90% reduction of speeding offences
2. Journey time reliability has increased.
3. No fatalities (2006-2010 3 month average was 3-4)
4. Overall accidents are down.
5. Journey times between Perth and Inverness increase by 14 minutes.
6. No evidence that drivers are taking other routes.
7. Driver behavior improvement (eg. tailgating)

£3 million well spent? :confused

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-highlands-islands-30972743

It pains me but I agree with you. Not sure about the experimental 50mph limit on lorries. They have been travelling much faster safely for years and imposing a slow down(imposing the law) means that the speed limit on the A9 will be dictated by lorries, not cameras. I say raising the speed limit to 60mph for HGVs on the speed camera controlled part will put everyone on a level playing field and only nutters will feel compelled to overtake vehicles travelling at that speed.

[Green_not_greed]

.... and only nutters will feel compelled to overtake vehicles travelling at that speed.

You mean UKIP and the Greens then ?

[theone]

It does sound encouraging.

But something doesnt make sense.

"The A9 Safety Group, which involves Transport Scotland, police and road maintenance companies, said overall speeding was down from about one in three drivers to one in 20."

And

"the cameras - which have been introduced at 27 locations between Dunblane and Inverness - had detected 298 vehicles exceeding the speed limit over the first three months."


If 298 vehicles were speeding, and this is 1 in 20, it means less than 6000 vehicles used the road in 3 months (less than 70 a day)...........

[Bystander1]

But these figures have no doubt been massaged by the Scottish Gubmint and their PolisFarce - 'sums' are not their strong point

[theone]

I'm also wary of stats like "90% reduction in speeding offences".

If you look at the "safety camera" locations for this week, http://www.safetayside.co.uk/news.html and http://www.nscp.co.uk/news , there's NONE on the A9 between Inverness to Perth.

It's no surprise there's less offences if you take away the mobile speed cameras!

For the reduction in accidents, I'll wait until we've got longer term figures to look at before casting judgement. Summer traffic with tourists and caravans etc is very different to that in winter.

[davth]

I'm also wary of stats like "90% reduction in speeding offences".

If you look at the "safety camera" locations for this week, http://www.safetayside.co.uk/news.html and http://www.nscp.co.uk/news , there's NONE on the A9 between Inverness to Perth.

It's no surprise there's less offences if you take away the mobile speed cameras!

For the reduction in accidents, I'll wait until we've got longer term figures to look at before casting judgement. Summer traffic with tourists and caravans etc is very different to that in winter.

DUH

Why would you need the mobile cameras when there are the average speed cameras across the entire stretch of road?

[Jacobs@Scrabster]

Deleted - post in error

[theone]

DUH

Why would you need the mobile cameras when there are the average speed cameras across the entire stretch of road?

You're missing the point.

A significant number of people caught speeding previously would have been caught by police patrols or mobile cameras at "speeding hotspots", often on straight stretches of road or at the end of dual carriageways where people break the limit to overtake. They didn't necessarily break the limit averaged over their whole journey.

There will still be people doing this, if they're overtaking a lorry travelling at 50 they'll often exceed 60mph momentarily to get past. By removing the mobile cameras the figures will obviously fall, but to claim they are the purely result of the new average speed cameras is misleading.

[Metalman]

Any life saved is good I would have thought.

[Alrock]

Any life saved is good I would have thought.

Then you'd be all for going back to a 5mph speed limit with a person walking in front ringing a bell to warn other road users...

[grumpyhippo]

OK, I'll admit to being fairly sceptical about the cameras but if the figures suggest the accident rate has fallen then I have to accept that's a good thing. I've only gone from Inverness to Edinburgh once since the cameras were switched on and my journey time was more or less as before. This time last year coming North I ended up on the South side of an accident ( hgv x 2, nobody injured) and had to detour via Fort William ( the A9 was closed for 5 hours). Anything that keeps traffic flowing and saves lives must be considered a good thing.

I have to ask the question.... if the cameras are such a roaring success why did the authorities take so long to come up with the idea?

[Bill Fernie]

I have to ask the question.... if the cameras are such a roaring success why did the authorities take so long to come up with the idea?

It could be the £3 million price tag for speed cameras on that stretch of road. Further enhancements that will probably save lives are for example dualling the road from Perth to Inverness but the price tag may also be a hard one to swallow at £3 billion. Perhaps if the death rate is reduced due to they speed cameras they may decide not to dual all of it. Time will tell.

[Alrock]

...for example dualling the road from Perth to Inverness but the price tag may also be a hard one to swallow at £3 billion. Perhaps if the death rate is reduced due to they speed cameras they may decide not to dual all of it. Time will tell.

£3,000,000,000 to dual the road to prevent confusion over which side of the road to drive on, waste of money... Instead just paint arrows on the road every 100 yards or so to indicate direction of travel... Won't be cheap but I'm sure will be significantly cheaper than £3,000,000,000 & will be just as effective...

Then, with the change they could upgrade the road out west, disgusting in this day & age that the main route round the north & west coast is still largely single track.

[grumpyhippo]

It could be the £3 million price tag for speed cameras on that stretch of road. Further enhancements that will probably save lives are for example dualling the road from Perth to Inverness but the price tag may also be a hard one to swallow at £3 billion. Perhaps if the death rate is reduced due to they speed cameras they may decide not to dual all of it. Time will tell.

I recall reading, at least twenty years ago, that the RoSPA (Royal Society for Prevention of Accidents) put a price tag to society as a whole of £850 000 on each road accident death. So even if you ignore inflation I'd say £3 million is an absolute bargain and it could be claimed to have already paid for itself.