Safe Speed Forums

I just joined this forum. I am volunteer for a dutch website, similar to Safespeed: www.flitsservice.nl (not in english).

In Holland, we have many discussion about different aspects of speed camera policy (SCP).

One of the aspects I'm interested in is to discuss is the "costs" of this policy. In Holland, many advocates against SCP agetate that it has a great social cost. Police officers aren't trusted anymore, people see police personell as enemies and so on. Ofcourse, there's also the argument of, suppose a government creates a law, why not uphold it? This is a typical argument from our democratic Christian party. I would like to get some idea of how people in the UK think of these arguments.

_________________
www.beterveilig.nl

The following Safe Speed page...

http://www.safespeed.org.uk/dangers.html

... lists 18 known negative side effects of speed camera policy.

This page forms part of the Safe Speed "argument database" called the "claims" section. It is presently being updated and integrated with these new forums. Once the update is complete, the links will connect to individual forum topics associated with each and every numbered "claim".

_________________
Paul Smith
Our scrap speed cameras petition got over 28,000 sigs
The Safe Speed campaign demands a return to intelligent road safety

It would be interesting to play the Government at their own game, and actually produce a cost analysis of the deployment of speed cameras, taking into account all the "social" costs too.

Paul has already done some excellent research that links the number of speeding prosecutions with the number of additional fatalities that can be expected. For statistical purposes it is possible to put a "cost to the country" against a fatality, so therefore it should be possible to work out what the actual net profit (actually a loss I would think) is per prosecution.

If this were done carefully, with proper verifiable sources, it would be a very useful demonstration to the DfT that the cameras are actually costing them money, rather than generating it.

I have looked at this from time to time. It is a bit of a monster.

Problem 1. What assumptions does one make about the number of lives lost or saved? There's no single answer, yet the results depend entirely on this assumption.

Problem 2. There's a massive economic cost involved in slowing traffic. But we simply don't know how much effect they are having on taffic speed. VSGB is the primary reference source, but it fails to find any significant slow down. I have observed a slow down myself in certain circumstances, but that's hardly science.

Problem 3. When you have your numbers, there will be at least 6 assumptions underlying the result. The range of potential errors tend to render the result worthless.

Problem 4. We then get sniped at because it isn't PC to put a value to human life. We end up doing more harm than good.

I've seen this sort of argument in action in a room with 100 people, and let me tell you it didn't go down at all well. I recommend we leave well alone. I certainly won't touch it.

One subsiduary argument that has potential is to simply calculate the economic cost of slowing traffic. It's absolutely massive, and Idris has a set of credible assumptions that imply staggering numbers. I may well get that one written up for everyone to use.

_________________
Paul Smith
Our scrap speed cameras petition got over 28,000 sigs
The Safe Speed campaign demands a return to intelligent road safety

Fair enough. I suppose I was just brainstorming really!

Having said all that, it might be worth producing a "best guess" estimate, simply to use as a counter in the event of anyone claiming a cost benefit to speed cameras in similar terms.

This gets a bit like the "nuclear deterrent" principle!

I've noticed in various places that the camera lot make much less outrageous claims if it is robustly demonstrated to them that any such inaccurate claims will quickly and accurately be countered, and come back to haunt them. Our local scamera partnership are far less vocal and make far fewer exaggerated statements now that they have repeatedly been disproven in the local press and elsewhere.

I'd encourage everyone to object quickly and strongly to any inaccurate claims they see being made. The more this happens, the less misinformation will be propagated. And without misinformation the camera partnerships are absolutely doomed.

The strongest weapon we have is the truth. We don't need to exaggerate or distort anything. The simple plain truth is enough to destroy the camera partnerships if it can only reach a wide enough audience.

JT

The whole point about the scamships is how much dosh they are making! If you make argument that they run at loss - then our argument of "fleecing machines" and "Highway Robbery" (which is more accurate) falls flat!

You are right to say we should challenge their rather dubious and on aggregate exaggerated claims on the speed cam's contribution to reducing RTAs. Of course they will ramble on about the lives these cameras have saved! But this claim is open to doubt and conjecture - because the original accident willmost probably have been caused by another factor - driver error and/0r cyclist/pedestrian errors. The speed would, admittedly, have contributed to overall outcome - but not to same extent as we are led to believe! And a lot of the accidents at these sites have regressed to the mean anyway!


Probably overall cost of slowing down traffic to both economy and environment is worth investigating and examining.

However, as far as"politically incrorrect and walk- through minefields" cost of RTAs to NHS is concerned - the scamships have already pulled that one! You "speedsters" out there apparently cost us a fortune in treatments and ICU! (Except that what they do not mention is that NHS can and does apply to driver's insurance company to recoup as much cost as possible.


Have personal experience of this - or rather my wife (some of those PHers will know her as WildCat) has! She was unlucky enough to have been rear-ended at high speed a few years back due to a chap being taken fatally ill at wheel of his car. Once all insurance and damages were finally sorted out (took nearly 8 years), a sizeable chunk was repaid to NHS to contribute towards her intensive treatment!

I take your point, but I was sort of "aiming higher". Clearly the relationship between motorist and scammer is a one-sided fleecing one - they take revenue and yield no benefit. But if you look at the "bigger picture", the relationship between DfT and Government, it is becoming increasingly clear that the revenue collected by the SCPs is more than offset by the increased financial burden of the additional fatalities that the policy leads to. In bald terms its a tax drain on the treasury, rather than a form of income. I'm sure if this were realised - at that level - then there would be a whole different policy in place!

When all is said and done, there are two currencies that politicians deal in: revenue and votes. If it can be shown to the politicians that cameras cost them revenue and cost them votes, then they'll drop them like a hot potato - it would be political suicide to do otherwise.

(By the way MM, was that your letter in today's Westmorland Gazette, eloquently criticising the barmy new cycle lanes in Ambleside?)

Hi JT

Nope - I did not write the eloquent letter - but I know who did!!!!
Twas another "puss cat" on the net! (but not necessarily "she who wears the trousers! - there are others prowling around )

As said - most of financial burden of treating seriously injuried from RTA tends to be recouped from driver's insurance policy.

Most Trusts will apply for the refunds now! In the past - when we did not have "so many"!! (before scams) - they did not always!

Of course - if driver was uninsured then NHS (ie taxpayer) bears total cost - and sadly from what I hear - this is also increasing!

The scamships, of course, claim their cameras "save lives" - but simply whacking up a scam after a death is a bit like "closing the stable door after horse has bolted!", and a camera does not save a life. It only catches out someone who drives above its trig rate - which appears to be variable across the Scammers as well!

Lancs incoming wounded from RTAs - according to "shop floor gossip" have less to do with driving too fast and more to do with driving too drunk, or too inattentively! They even admit this on the official website The scams do not catch these offenders though! Nor do they prevent their accidents! Naturally - by removing trafpols and relying solely on tin boxes and talivans, the scammers are contributing to the increase in RTAs caused, not by speed alone, but by driver error and incompetence!

You could argue the case for loss of revenue in terms of loss of licence as this could lead to loss of job - and thus all form of contributions from direct and indirect taxation. In fact - the person would end up on benefit - and thus cost the Treasury! Know of one lady rep from up in Penrith who travels to somewhere near Preston daily -which means she passes 20 or so fixed scams in Lancs en route plus talivans. If she lost her licence she would be stuck! WildCat will probably encounter even more as she is based near Chester!

If either this lady or WildCat (unlikely - she 's quite tame really! ) got pinged 4 times then if you offset to £240 each against their earnings and bucketloads of tax - then the Treasury stands to lose more! - I think this is part of what you are saying? Which is a very fair point and a good argument against the scams!

Thank you for the link Paul. As you know, I talk to members of parlaiment a lot, and even our "friends" are sceptical to our arguments, for credibility's sake. My goal is to find thourough argumentation, to play the game of debate, to learn from our own discussions. I'll take a shot in advance, before the section is linked to the forum if you don't mind. I'll be a bit oversceptical, this because it is what we encounter at political discussions, even with friends. The debate is hard, even if you have credible evidence.



Does this have a causal relation with SCP? During the economic welfare of the 1990's, everybody was in a hurry, couldn't this be cause of this behaviour? In Holland, there are laws against both, with quite large penalties. Most politicians will claim that also these laws have to be upholded (ie if there is a causal relation, then upholding the other laws would be a measure of fighting symptoms). Also a sceptical question which is always being posted by someone is: how big is this problem and what are the consequences?



The worst argument against this is about the elderly. Lower speeds are desirabe as an older person would be frighted by someone taking over too rapidly. This is a highway argument.



Fully aggreed. In Holland there's a large public opinion investigation every three of four years. 61% of people sticking to the limit claim doing this because of their anxiety for a speed ticket. Less than 41% do it because of safety reasons. (PROV investigation 2001, about 14000 people questioned).



If there is any figure known for this argument, I would really like to hear it. I know it happens in Holland, but I don't know how big it is. The argument is extremely important, as dutch "scientific" investigation will proof (this year) that accidents went down with 17% on roads where there was speed control (project roads). Even if it is true, they don't give a figure for traffic intensity on the same roads.



We have a report on this. We don't know how big the problem is though. Is there a problem is the sceptical question we can post. Also there are people who claim - don't speed and you don't get killed this way.



This has been quantified by David Navon (highway speed paradox). This theory is based on Accident Prone Risc, which on highways would be present when taking over a car. The theory does unfortunately not address the extra risc when taking over with high speed difference. Also is there an assumption in the theory that drivers at the leftmost lane will stay there. In Holland they throw their car in front of you, just before you'd like to take over - this happens a lot. So the theory is not fully complete.



This is actually the main point I started this thread. I find it very interesting to explore this phenomena, as politicians are very sensitive for this argument, if it has thourough subarguments. In Holland, police-informers keep their mouths shut because they're angry about a speeding ticket. This was a typical Telegraph story and my estimation is that it is not a major problem. If it is, then SPC is actually detoriating proper functioning of the police by detoriating goodwill. Police needs public goodwill or it won't function anymore. One of my own arguments is, that police is becoming a ball in the game of political divide and conquor. People tend to focus on their own stakes and look for what others do wrong (according to the law). Instead of addressing their unsympathy to the government, they're addressing their own increased irritations to other citizens. This problem is so big, that our parlaiment has held a debate on vices and virtues this week. SPC is just part of this egoistic public attitude.



Typical argument against this is, that you cannot trust drivers to decide for themselves. 95% of all drivers think they belong to the 5% of good drivers. By the way, I am not a good driver, as the first criteria for this judgement is: sticks to all laws.

_________________
www.beterveilig.nl