Safe Speed Forums

on ho, this post is bigger than I thought. Oh well. Don't read this as nit-picking, I think this a thorough way of addressing all your points.




And the point of my post was to show how conveniently short parrot's data set was


The ensuing panic braking and distraction could also cost one, compounded if other drivers in close proximity are doing the same.


Empirical Bayes method (although you have to be careful of other undocumented influences on the data sets used)


I dunno, Safespeed came close with the recent moratorium. That’s one step…



No they don’t; we, the motorists, do


What? Yes there is. This is one reason why the speed camera policy really is losing lives. Had this resource been invested in other measures (top of my head - motorway tuition, road engineering, education [of all road users]) I will bet good money that the casualty figures would have been a lot less.


Yes, but look at the figures for the last 4-5 years (since the creation of the SCPs), would that not show that they are now doing something wrong?


That’s your opinion. Personally, I believe this is a good way to motivate the public in order to make the powers that be more accountable to us. WMD/Iraq War anyone?


http://www.rta.nsw.gov.au/roadsafety/sp ... dents.html
Gives nothing except some simple figures, probably subject to RTTM and ‘bias on selection’ (other undocumented safety measures applied at the camera sites).


http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/3807325.stm


<sigh>



edit removed

Ok I’ve done a bit of research and I’m all for the cameras now, this is why
“Overall, there are 32,897,000 vehicles registered for use on UK roads”
UK roads now have almost 33 million vehicles!
Number of cars increased by nearly 40% between 1990 and 2004”
Soo.
From the two simple figures, I see there are a massive number more cars now than in the early 90’s.
The increase in the number of motor vehicles, and the greater distances traveled by individuals, has led to large increases in the average daily flow of motor vehicles.

The United Kingdom has a good record for road safety compared with most European Union (EU) countries. In 1999 (After speed camera initiatives were introduced) the United Kingdom had the lowest road death rates per 100,000 populations in the EU, at 6 per 100,000 of population.
So were doing something right, regardless of how much we all moan.
We can argue till the cows come home about the reasons behind the improvement with stats on fatalities, but just remember, they are decreasing.
Getting rid of speed cameras is a very serious suggestion, especially when we have NOTHING to back up the claim, that they do not help, but plenty so suggest they do.
I’m not going to attempt to go through all your quotes, I agree with many, but disagree that the cameras cause people to jump on breaks.
Many are clearly posted as being ahead, this is also improving with eh new initiatives of painting them indigo and high viz.
Policing the roads is a difficult thing to do and this aid’s the Traffic Cops.
There are many stats to show the danger and fatality hotspots have changes significantly in the time the cameras were introduced and I can only look at what information I have, it’s easy to suggest otherwise without being able to back that up.
For the time being, unless evidence is put in front of me/other member’s of public with the same opinion, I’m all for the cameras and dead against the idea of a Safe Speed that people can choose themselves, very dangerous IMO.

There was still a significant downward trend at 1990, the very first speed camera was installed in 1992 – as a trial. The numbers in these early years were insignificant. I reckon the figures showing the last 5 years would be far more relevant (from when the SCPs were formed).


Had? What about now? You really should check the trend for the last 4-5 years showing before settling on an answer.


No there isn’t, even ‘parrot’ agrees with me there. All I see it RTTM and ‘bias on selection’.


WHAT?? That’s almost an understandable comment being as you are only 14, hence you’ve never driven so you don’t know what it’s like. I assure you, many people do panic brake. I have (once), many people whom I’ve travelled with also have. Look up TRL595


http://www.speedcam.co.uk/g177.jpg

http://www.speedcam.co.uk/game.htm
Don’t forget you’re at an advantage because you know there’s a cam in each photo.

Oh and given that fact that “Exceeding the speed limit was reported as a contributory factor in 5 per cent of all accidents.” (dft_transstats_612594 2006) and that figure includes joyriders and those improperly registered whom cameras cannot touch anyway, it really isn't reasonable to accept that speed cameras are having the claimed positive impact!

I know from the area I live in they all have high viz on the back of the cameras and plenty of signs warning of them up ahead.
Can’t speak for all areas, but mine at least, I’m certain they will follow trend in other areas as the claim of “revenue trap” is being blurted out left right and centre.
(Regardless of age, I travel as a passenger very often)

However, if you feel that these cameras make people slam on breaks and at camera sites cause accidents, perhaps you could point me in the right direction to the statistics that shows this?

All I can seem to find online are figures where previously accident hotspots are improving where there is a camera situated.

Regarding the statistics of speed is a contributing factor in 5/6% of accidents, is that before or after the camera’s were introduced??
As this is very important.

Because if it was a higher percentage before 1993 then perhaps that would suggest these cameras have helped reduce speed and speed related incidents.

I understand it is hard to prove they are helping with accidents on the roads they are situated, and it’s hard to say statistically how many accidents would have happened with or without them, but I see no way of measuring other than taking in to account the difference between accidents in hotspots with cameras and thoughs without.

I stand by my point, with nothing to provide me with evidence they do more harm than good, how can we justify getting rid of them, especially with fatalities, serious injuries down and being so good with road safety compared to other EU countries at present.

I’m by no means closed minded, show me the proof that suggest otherwise and I will change my mind/opinion.

You really are bordering on Troll behaviour.

My understanding of the aim of Safe Speed is to debunk the 'speed kills' myth and campaign for a more intellegent way of highway policing.

It isn't the 'anti camera' brigade to started all this. The original hypothesis was that 'Speed Kills' supported by camera enforcement. (although I suspect that the real issue is camera enforcement supported by 'speed kills')

When you are old enough to own a car and pay tax you will possibly come to realise that personal freedom to excercise judgement without undue state intervention is a valuable thing. Agressive, automated speed enforcement severely impinges upon this freedom and I for one don't take kindly to it, particularly when it's based on a false premise!

In fairness you raise a fair point about the rise in traffic volumes but they were rising at similar rates prior to the early nineties?

Also don't insult me by saying people don't panic brake. They do. I see it every day.

Conveniently there are none, just like there are no statistics for the casualty reduction effectiveness of newly installed: central reservations, pedestrian barriers/underpasses/zebra crossings, road surface/layout engineering, cycle lanes ………


Of course you would, that’s what the SCPs want you to believe, but thanks to RTTM we (now including you) know they are, at best, exaggerating.


That was released by the DfT this year, showing the contributory factors of accidents nationally for last year (2005). Do a google on the report to find and examine it for yourself.


Unfortunately no. Speed camera numbers/prosecution have increased exponentially from 1993, you would expect to see some form of exponential related trend in the accident stats, especially in the later years, but there’s no such trend even in the later years.


Not trying to be offensive but you are still at school. You’ll find many SS members are A-level/degree educated in subjects such as statistical maths (such as me). There are ways…

There has never been a complete, independent study of speed camera effectiveness (accounting for RTTM and ‘bias on selection’) simply because the public don’t have access to all the relevant data sets; that alone should be ringing your alarm bells. The only figures we see are those at camera sites and the national figure, the former shows 40-70% drop, the latter showing almost none – why the great disparity?


Conversely, how can we also justify keeping them?


Please qualify that; show me the trends for other EU countries against the UK since the creation of the SCPs (for the last 5 years).


I’ve shown you how speed cameras could only make a maximum of, well, not even 5% improvement. All that dedicated resource for less than 5% of the problem.......

Ok, first of all it is my understanding that this is a website to debate/discuss relevant safety issues for Britons roads.

The Chat room or Forum definition of a Troll is nothing like me = someone who offers a different opinion.
I could call everyone in here a Troll should they have a different understanding/opinion, but I have far better manners, social skills to get by with discussion.

Remember, its people who do not have extended knowledge of road safety laws/legislation/statistics etc. that need to know this stuff
They are the masses (me) the ones who need to know this stuff you claim is being sugar coated and passed over as fact.

Now I have NEVER said that the figures are certain and accurate, I have said the figures available for all to see on Google show that the cameras are effective.

However, I agree they can be selective with the input to give required results.

Again if I have proof that they don’t work and proof that they make people jump on breaks AND that in turn causes accidents (as I’m sure people do break, but who’s to say that it caused more accidents than it prevents)

It is my understanding that SS’s ideal scenario would be doing away with all cameras, raising speed limits in certain areas, increasing safety awareness and allowing people to form there own judgment considering the weather conditions etc, would that be correct, more or less?

Hmmm, the problem is I read your long winded posts and your recent childish display in your dealings with honest andy and all I can hear is noise!

There are loads of threads within this forum, start tailoring your posts to the specific thread and argue along specific points rather than sitting in here shouting.

What exactly is your point? is it that PCSO's are great? is it that speed really does kill? is it that Safe Speed are a bunch of dangerous subversives? Maybe it's that the stats don't stack up, maybe the reason for a hiatus in road safety improvement is due to greater affluence. Maybe it's all of these things. Or maybe you just want to contradict and play devils advocate. These are all fine by me but please tackle them one by one in the appropriate places.

If you have a point then post it and lets debate the specifics of that point!

<stuck record>
I don’t doubt the figures; what is in question is the relevance, meaning and interpretation of these figures. It is accepted these figures are subject to RTTM and ‘bias on selection’, hence the cameras are no at effective as presentation of the figures would suggest.
</stuck record>


Add real traffic police to control poor driving, and you don’t have to lose all cameras, then you would have the gist of (IMO) what many regulars would like to see.

**Mike** wrote:
Now I have NEVER said that the figures are certain and accurate, I have said the figures available for all to see on Google show that the cameras are effective.


BUT- "NEVER said that the figures are certain and accurate"

FFS - Man - make your mind up -

SS can give you figures to show the outside the camera sites they do nothing - would be better to (as one poster said , place a Garden Gnome there),and at camera sites all they do is deposite rubber over the markings, waiting for a rain shower to cuase more accidents.

Now the better deterent would be (as ONe police force - the one with the best safety record in the UK -Durham mean anything??) police patrols.

OH, but then that wouldn't tie in with the PC (NOT police constable ) idea that speed cameras reduce accidents.

Perhaps some compulsary reading for PVCSO candidates might be the relative safety records of the UK police forces, with an overall view as to how they propose to reduce traffic accidents.

Finally I have managed to have a sensible conversation about something (I openly admit) to not knowing much about other than a couple of nights research, then someone brings up bleeding Handy Andy and the PCSO thing.

If it makes you feel any better I hate PCSOs, ok.

Right back on subject, apologies if my post are longwinded, you’re the only person to tell me so, not devils advocate, a difference of opinion, which I believe is acceptable on this site.
However I shall try and keep my posts short and sweet, like everyone else.

So back to road safety.

I really have a genuine interest now, I hadn’t taken the RTTM thing in to consideration, but I have now.
You don’t have to jump in and rubbish everything I say.

I’m trying to understand both sides here.
I haven’t said that anyone is right or wrong, suggested pointing to available stats (which I agree may have flaws)

All I was attempting to say, was that, unless there is accurate figures to show the cameras cause more harm than good, it could be a very dangerous thing, to just do away with them.

However, I would agree with more traffic Cop’s are required, less speed traps that are placed in positions without history and painting them all high viz, with signs stating they are up ahead.

There should be better road safety education for younger people, driver test should be far more difficult.
I have friends who passed their driving test first time and they are complete numptys behind the wheel.
So I do feel we have some common ground.

Know, I’m going to look in to Durham.

I think the point you are missing **Mike** is that this thread is about PCSOs and roadside laser as they relate to prosecutions. You're taking it off at a tangent to discuss the efficacy (or otherwise) of camera enforcement. Please be assured that we are all willing to debate, but it'd probably be better done in a section of the forums related to that subject matter.

Perhaps a mod could split the thread? (there are many similar threads, but I don't recall seeing it debated for a while so it might be worth doing, rather than hiding the arguments away in a thread most users now have firmly in their 'ignore' list )

_________________
Less Kodak, more Kojak.
In times of deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.

Well I split it - I hope I didn't knock it stone dead in the process, it was just getting intereesting..

**Mike**, do you have trouble understanding how RTTM affects the figures in relation to camera sites?

I travel a stretch of road 6 days a week, and have done for over ten years, so when they introduced a speed limit on a straight section of road, as well as major traffic calming measures, I was somewhat surprised, as there had been few accidents.
Unfortunately, there had been fatal accidents, but in each case there had been a clear cut cause, and only one had involved a case of seriously excess speed.
It turned out that the Highways Agency had not introduced the limit on safety grounds because their experts thought it necessary - it was because local villagers had petitioned for it following an accident in which two motorcyclists died.
These two were related to our babysitter, so I had followed the case closely.
They were travelling in a line of slow moving traffic (below 40 mph on a NSL A-road) when a Czech driver in a hired minibus, also travelling in traffic at 40 mph, clipped the kerb, bounced out of control, and struck the oncoming motorcycle head on - killing them instantly. They had no warning, and no time to avoid the surprise event.

Now this was a very curious accident to use to champion a call for a reduced speed limit!!!

Following the introduction of the speed limit, there were two further accidents, in which people were seriously injured, so in 2003 the newly formed Cumbria Safety Camera Partnership, made this one of their sites.
However, once again, SPEED did NOT contribute to the two accidents, BOTH were vehicles travelling within the speed limit (now 40 mph) when the drivers were taken ill at the wheel - one stroke, and one heart attack - and the vehicles lost all control, and crashed violently.
The Cumbria partnership claims a 67% reduction in crashes at camera sites - which includes sites on the M6 where it passes through Cumbria.
Again, if you look at the causes of the accidents on the M6, you will be surprised to find that of 6 fatalities, three of them were pedestrians! One vehicle ploughed into the back of a slow moving mobile crane - while traveling below the limit - killing the driver. Another driver drove into a bridge pillar for no apparent reason.
For the Speed Camera partnership to claim credit for reducing these accidents, is morally wrong, and false. Neither the accidents, nor the lack of similar accident since have anything to do with the activities of the SCP, yet they are claiming the credit.

In the meantime, fatal accidents (the ones in which people die) remain high. Already this years total to date exceeds last years, as drivers stubbornly insist on having accidents randomly all over the county!
The speed cameras have been place where there have BEEN accidents, NOT where they are GOING to occur in the future.
At least policemen who see bad drivers stop them in the real hope of PREVENTING their behaviour from causing some of the accidents we see!

_________________
Time to take responsibility for our actions.. and don't be afraid of speaking out!

**mike** and others like him is the reason we have around 4 million CCTV surveillance cameras. This is because he believes all the bureaucracy tell him. Presumably if they 'proved' that a camera in every room of his house would 'save lives' he would believe this as well.

Like all of them, he will be 'hammered' one day by a camera, (not necessarily a speed camera), and will cry 'FOUL'. Well **mike** I for one will not hear your cries.

The fact is that we are here now in Winston Smith's 1984.

_________________
Good manners maketh a good motorist

**mike** --- Suggest you read the RTTM items on here , and DIGEST. SS has done his best to debunk the statistical misinterpretation of the data thrown up by the SCP.If you would read their side of the story , then read his side ( because there are TWO sides to every story ) . And then having read both sides of the story come back in and shout. I an certain that Paul, and others will be wiling to provide you with proof that most of the SCP info is hype- ( I have seen it in other Govt sites and how they try to ridicule those trying to get the truth out ----standard practice)

Well Mike,

You have called me wrong about PCSOs in my thread, and now you are upsetting people here..with your knowledge of safe speeds and road safety.

Try to interpret what people say to you. You CANNOT be right all the time !!!

I didnt know you were a road safety expert.. God how wrong I was about you !!!

From A Friend !