http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2013/ju...ious-accidents

Although roving reporter, Dale Maily, says otherwise:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...=feeds-newsxml

I love the fair and accurate reporting in the Hatemail article . 21 out of 551 cameras (4%) have a negative impact so they use that as the dominant story in their article. The overall 27% accident reduction gets an afterthought mention at the bottom.

It's important to recognise that cameras in the UK have always (ostensibly) been sited only in known accident-prone areas, and that for many years now they've been painted bright colours to increase their visibility. They've always been referred to, officially at lease, as 'safety' cameras and there have been many challenges to their use on occasions in non-dangerous areas.

So yes, in such circumstances they serve to unsure that cars slow down when approaching dangerous areas, and are given visible clues to do so, including repeated 'camera zone' signage. Thus it's no surprise that in those areas accidents will decline, but it's also worth noting that the recognition of an accident blackspot will also lead to other measures including increased signing and traffic-calming measures, and I don't think these factors have been eliminated from the study findings.

Anyway, for Swiss relevance, compare their use to the tendency to make cameras as small as possible, hide them as much as they can (witness a recently-new one hidden behind a tunnel end near Luzern, such that there's only the 15cm*3cm sticking-out but visible) and place them where they'll get the maximum numbers of speeders, i.e. where many people feel that they're safe driving at a higher speed than the limit.

Given that, I don't believe that cameras have, or will, lead to a similar accident reduction in Switzerland.

You are not wrong there mate.

My friend gets busted all the time, hates driving here. He is not even a speedster, but constantly caught out by these hidden cameras, that are moved around here doing a few kms over at best.

They don't believe me when I say the UK model is brilliant. First they are not allowed to hide them, second they put signs up to warn you ones near, then mark the road as you are approaching it. It is funny if you are elevated above the motorway watching the pattern of speed, speed, speed...............and brake for the camera, and speed up again, speed, speed, speed, all brake for the camera, repeat.

__________________
Small minds are concerned with the extraordinary, great minds with the ordinary, Blaise Pascal

I'm not a speedster either, yet have managed to only get caught 4 times in 150'000km. Maybe I drive less?

It's just a tax. Pay up, move on. You won't lose your license for a few infractions like you can in the UK.

Most accidents are caused by the speed differential not really the speed itself.
So basically old Mrs Granny Fussy is blustering along at 75km/h trying to keep up with the traffic doing 80km/h, this is pretty much fine. Now along comes a speed camera, or a change of speed limit sign and suddenly she slams on her brakes and drops her speed down to 50km/h, now the poor guy behind her still doing 80km/h is going to end up rear ending her, that is a dangerous situation.
This is why speed cameras can cause accidents.

Their job is to make sure that everyone does the same speed and doesn't go over that speed, it isn't to generate cash for the state by catching people speeding. A well placed speed camera can do wonders as already explained. A hidden or pop up speed camera will cause accidents and deaths.
This is a thing Switzerland does incredibly poorly. All the pedestrian crossings, random speed limit changes at very short intervals and the hidden speed cameras all increase the risk of an accident.

Not to mention all the frightened and insecure (and therefore dangerous) drivers created by stiff fines, sneaky enforcement tactics and the relentless propaganda about the oh-so-dangerous "Raser".

I don't drive, so am guilt free, but yeah, he racks up circa 400chf a month in fines.

I take your point, at least they don't ban you for these minor infringements, merely profit.

To be fair to the UK, if you are that moronic to get caught several times with all the signage, preparation road markings, and illuminous cameras that wave at you effectively to remind you to drop below the limit in the next 10 seconds, then you deserve a ban.

So what's that? 3 tickets a month?

I assume he's doing rather less than 100'000km per month, so what's he doing that I'm not? Is he less observant of what the limit is?

To get caught that often indicates, to me, that he's got a problem with a heavy left foot. Or he's a bit thick ;-)

Or simply got _far_ too much money and is happy to drive over the speed limit all the time and pay the 'tax' as and when it's due. Not a solution to which I'd subscribe, but I don't get upset with a couple of small ones a year, just pay them, move on. It's certainly not going to get me watching my speed all the time and ensuring I never creep a little over the limit just in case.

But yeah, 400 chuffs a month is a bit over the top, and implies that it's perhaps a bit more than occasionally creeping over the limit.

Maybe he's Christy Brown.

He's very helpful in running people around, to the airport etc, and is constantly caught out by the moving of different traps, etc.

I guess if money was a huge issue then it would be something to be more attentive of, but still is annoying to him none the less.

Your friend needs to learn how to drive then! If you cant work out the expected speed on roads here then you simply are not attentive enough in the years here I have been here caught zero times and i would not call myself slow but I at least pay attention to the road areas and only dpeed up where it is clear you can.

This is the well known camera fallacy.

They put new cameras in places that have an increased accident rate. After they installed the camera the accident rate falls back to "the old average" & they say "Wow, look at the effect of that camera".

In fact if they had put up a broomstick labelled camera it would have had the same non-effect.

Well you can hardly report a decrease if you are trying to show a ROI to the decision to instal them so you do whatever is possible to make damn sure the study shows a decrease in accidents since it would be against the public interest to only show an increase in revenue

We got stuck in a traffic jam on the motorway, coming back from Stuttgart about three weeks ago. Half an hour of slow, slow, movement.

This was a section of motorway where there are many kilometers of roadworks, and a contraflow was in operation (northbound carriageway was closed).

The cause of the traffic jam was an accident, three cars shunted up together, bang, bang, bang, under a bridge. Was just a metallic accident, didn't seem to be any biological injuries.

The cause of the accident? Well, right next to the accident scene (under the bridge) was a portable speed radar (speed limit was 80 km/h). Suffice to say, our conclusion was that the first driver saw it, panicked and braked suddenly - which may have been OK, save for the tailgaters..

Obviously, I don't know if the first car was actually speeding [I was doing 80-90 km/h prior to the start of the traffic jam in the same roadworks and there were many cars shooting past me at much higher speeds], but I think the effect of such 'almost hidden' cameras can be that people suddenly see it and instinctively brake, quite suddenly---even if they are not speeding.

__________________
- Thanks
Chris

Hidden speed cameras are a menace to other road users. You only need to to witness the skid marks on the road just before the camera. Cameras in Switzerland are just for revenue. Nothing to do with road safety.

On the weekend I was in Wallisellen for the first time near the train station, a road I have never driven on. Although traffic was light, there was a sign that said, that I was able to look over briefly, "be prepared to stop if you see a bus approach" or something like that. Well it was blinking yellow, and went directly to an immediate red. I literally had to slam on the brakes, to avoid a bus that was atleast 30 plus meters away, and the two cars behind me did their best to avoid a collision with me.

Near the border, on the autobahn there is speed change of 80, then quickly to 50, then to 10. The 50 to 10 are literally a few meters apart. And I have seen so many people, unsure of 10 speed or perhaps fear of drivers hurling out of the tunnel up their speed to 20 or so, and get a flash waiting for them. This is really dangerous, and really pointless.

I have had that alot in Switzerland, with the ridiculous constant speed changes. It's why I think I have racked up over 800 CHF in "speeding" tickets whenever I have driven through Basel in the last 8 years.

I agree with speed cameras to some extent, but their ideas of constantly changing the speed, and the direction of traffic they try to lead people through major cities, makes for a frustrating experience using a car here.

Gas is cheaper but speeding tickets levels that out against the rest of Europe on the toll and the gas.

I do a lot of motorway driving and see this all the time. People doing 120km suddenly hitting the brakes and near misses happening with the cars behind.

That's why the cameras should be as invisible as possible, so that nobody knows when and where. Just keep to the speed limit all the time. In 100k driven here I got flashed once for 1km above the limit, an I often drive a few km above the limit.

I don't know if w/o this heavy speed policing people would start driving like in Italy, but slower speeds generate less severe accidents - and I am pretty sure the stats of heavy accidents per driven amount of km per type of road would show that.