Safe Speed Forums

http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/05/566.asp

_________________
Speed camera policy Kills

So are you forwarding the idea that they increase speeds or decrease speed compliance?
Please give reasons and evidence.

You will probably forward the argument that they are causing a distraction. Personally I don't believe that this is enough to cause the results picked for the article. I use the word "picked" as this is an example of the selection of normally varying fatal figures at a specific point to show an apparent increase. Recent examples are the apparent miracle in Durham with no change in enforcement strategy producing a 24% (off the top of my head) drop in fatalities and the very careful choice of 2001 and 2002 fatality figures in Cumbria to show a rise in fatalities in 2003 and 2004, when the fatality figures are not outside of the maximum and minimum bounds of what was expected. This set against SS and members insistence that long term trends must be used to prove figures of significance.

The temptation must be too great to pass up and thankfully this is providing excellent material for the pro-camera people to dismiss your ranting as bunkum. Well done Gizmo, the standard of your logic is consistently helpful.

Is that the standard panic or the special P45 panic?

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

Safe Speed issued the following PR at 09:13 this morning:

PR224: Camera cause crashes - again

news: for immediate release

Figures available today reveal that crashes at the south end of the M11 have
increased substantially following the installation of a speed camera.

Paul Smith, founder of the Safe Speed road safety campaign
(www.safespeed.org.uk) said: "The public is now realising that we have been
sold a pup - far from reducing crashes on our roads, speed cameras are
directly and indirectly responsible for making our roads much more dangerous.
How much longer do we have to wait before ministers own up to the huge mistake
and get these damn distracting cameras off our roads?"

"Ministers will find it hard - and heads will roll - but we must get back to
the road safety policies that gave us the safest roads in the world in the
first place."

"Speed cameras are not magic accident reducing machines - they are weapons of
mass distraction."

<ends>

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

Well, Steve, we'd expect you to know all about that.

_________________
Make everything as simple as possible, but not simpler - Einstein

In just the same way as you use 'regression to the mean' to try to show an apparent improvement due to your useless silly cameras, then try to lie your way out of the mess you get yourselves into.
You are in a hole. Advice is to stop digging.

Yes, he's absolutely right.

Maybe he should raise this fatal flaw of cherry picking statistics with his superiors.

Seriously though Mr Camera Partnership man, how you have the nerve to write that bile astounds me. Your hypocrisy really does know no bounds.

The detailed accident figures for the M11 scamera are about half way down the page here:
http://www.parliament.the-stationery-of ... 720w28.htm

Absolutely outrageous that it hasn't been removed yet after causing all these unnecessary deaths and injuries.

Speed cameras on motorways and NSL dual carriageways are very worrying and must rank as the most stupid place to put them. Recently driving on the A1 everything was going nice and the road was flowing well. Just after it takes a sharp left turn after a roundabout(somewhere near Sherwood Forest - I'm not from the area) there are several speed cameras and a forest of brake lights appear with traffic bunching up. How can the idiots turn a lovely free flowing road into a hazerdous stretch like that? It's beyond belief.

JJ, how you have a nerve to post things like that...

YOUR POLICIES ARE KILLING PEOPLE

Can we make it any clearer? How can you sleep at night knowing you have blood on your hands?

"JJ" - err, why shouldn't someone quote 2001 and 2002 figures - it's the 2 years before you commenced in business...

You've just had a dreadful month for fatals; how would your cash collection programme have prevented these from happening?

Bunches of traffic at similar speeds across 2 or 3 lanes = increased risk of pile up. When will you grasp that, JJ?

Im new here, Hi all!
I dont know anyone yet or who's who, but if I may give my opinion on the above, I would say on the whole they do neither.
It could be argued though that some drivers will want to make up lost time after having slowed for a camera, in which case they would do both.
Sorry I dont have hard evidence, only years of observation.



So are you saying you think they cause a partial distraction, but not enough to be dangerous? If not, what in your opinion is "enough" to cause the results? If the results have been picked, can you show stats for the other side of the story please?



Pot, kettle.



Well that says alot about the lack of effectiveness of camera partnerships, although I wouldn't call it a miracle, just common sense.



I know nothing about how Cumbria enforce their speed limits, do they have a safety camera partnership as we have here in Somerset and do you know when it was introduced? If they do and it was 2002/03, that again would say a great deal about their lack of effectiveness.
You mention the bounds of what was expected, does this mean an increase in fatalities was expected?
These are fairly long term statistics, unlike the Wiltshire camera partnerships claims for the M4 last month!

Cheers,

Deeps

_________________
Deeps.

Hi Deeps. Welcome to the forums.

_________________
Make everything as simple as possible, but not simpler - Einstein

Inreresting , new to the forum and already sees JJ for what he/she/they represent.....

Yep, the SCP's amber 'CAREER DISASTER' warning indicator has definately illuminated. Give it a few months and the red caption accomanied by warning klaxons and attention getters will soon be going off

What a particularly stupid false dilemma that is.

Strict speed compliance has virtually no effect, but distraction has a major negative effect. Being distracted for just 0.75 secs has the same effect as travelling 10mph faster, in the event that avoiding action is needed.

In fact, it's closer to 0.25 seconds

Cheers
Peter

_________________
Only when ideology, prejudice and dogma are set aside does the truth emerge - Kepler

JJ's account was originally opened by one of the Cumbria so-called-safety camera Partnership staff. The original JJ was a fairly reasonable chap.

The account has since been hijacked by the Manager (for want of a better word) of the partnership who uses it to but in on discussions which he avoids as soon as anyone asks a tricky question.

Welcome to the forums.

When you put it like that it sounds like a soap opera!

Perhaps we need to write up the story so far somwhere. Or do a quick guide for new users.

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