Safe Speed Forums

But in the large part we even don't need speedos to drive safely. It's all pretty much a road safety red herring. And now you want to expend resources on smoking the red herring. It'll still be a red herring though.

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

I realise that many contributors believe that, but I believe that if we removed cameras, rates would rocket. This is because, over the last 25 years, driver standards have become poorer and poorer, especially over the last 10 years, while traffic has increased. Cameras and other measures redress the balance and keep the figures (more or less) stable. I also believe that any external force for safety is constrained to diminishing returns due to measures introduced earlier. One should not expect a linear effect as the curve bottoms out. If we had brought in cameras 10 years earlier, as they did in Germany, hundreds of lives would have been saved.

_________________
I stole this .sig

I too have noticed a reduction in driving standards over the last decade (but not over the decade before). One has to ask: why are standards declining?

And I blame that on road safety policy. In fact I'm personally CERTAIN that it's the fault of road safety policy. Try this piece I read out on the Jeremy Vine show:

"If sticking to the speed limit made the roads safe then speed cameras might have a purpose. But there?s so much more to safe driving than that.

Have spent more than 5,000 hours investigating the overall effects of speed cameras, I am now certain that they make the roads more dangerous.

Road safety is very far from a simple matter of physics. Accidents happen when road users make mistakes and those mistakes are not a matter of physics ? they are instead a matter of psychology.

And this is why speed cameras are wrong ? they attempt to address physics ? which wasn?t a problem in the first place -- while at the same time undermining road safety by adversely affecting driver psychology.

In the very simplest terms, we need drivers concentrating on driving safely, not concentrating on their speedometers.

This fundamental error is the result of oversimplified thinking at the highest level in UK road safety ? and the debate is usually dominated by dogma. It?s my job to change all that.

And what do we have to do?

We just have to get back to the methods and the thinking that gave us the safest roads in the World in the first place. We earned that crown long before we had speed cameras, and if we don?t get rid of all the cameras very soon we?ll lose it."

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

I am sorry, what planet have you been on. I passed my motorcycle test 4 years ago. I passed my driving test 30 years ago, the test standards have improved significantly. We now have theory tests and hazard awareness. Would you like to tell me on what basis you have decided that driving standards have become worse! What we have are minority anti-car pressure groups at work screwing up road traffic policy and promoting measures that are designed to make driving as unpleasant as possible. Any negative effect on road safety (responce times for emergency services and driver distraction) is ignored!

Eh?

You are arguing against yourself here.

The main point of your posts seem to be "If you don't want to get caught then don't speed" and "it's easy to stay within the limits" (I'm paraphrasing here).

Then you come out with the above.

So could you tell me then why it would be unreasonable to expect anyone not to exceed the limit.

Seems to me that you are arguing that going over the limit is dangerous, except when you do it.

:lol: This is a bit like someone with a crappy life still hanging on to their lucky four-leaf clover just in case chucking it would make things even worse.
I think that basingerk is right about driving standards, though for the wrong reasons. The change in policy has not encouraged drivers to drive safely, just to drive at a legal speed. Other forms of bad driving are such a low priorirty for TPTB that they go largely unpunished. The cameras, or rather the policy of over reliance on them, may have contributed to the decrease in driving standards. In other words, the net effect has been about square root of bugger all and the casualty curve got stuck in roughly the same place for years.
Alternatively we can believe that driving standards suddenly started getting bad in the early 90's and that this was totally spontaneous, casualties would have risen significantly but we got the cameras in just in time, and they've kept the situation fairly stable since then. Yeah, right. Any evidence that driver standards spontaneously deteriorated, or explanation as to why this happened? It seems that the decline in driver standards followed the introduction of cameras (and the scaling back of real policing) rather than preceded it, which would blow that idea out the water.
That makes sense, but I'm not sure what point are you making with it. Are you saying that by the time the cameras came along we'd already got as good as we were going to get? Doesn't seem to fit given your next remark is about more lives being saved if we'd introduced them earlier, but if it were true it would explain why the trend changed. It would also demolish the case for cameras if casualties were already as low as possible before their introduction. Well, the safety case anyway, there's still a few million quid involved.
Or are you saying that every time we have make a change that improves things we reduce the scope for improvement for the next positive change? That makes more sense, but nationwide the improvement since cameras came along has been marginal at best. Are we to believe that we couldn't have achieved better (as a %age rather than actual numbers)? That's pretty pessimistic.
I think this illustrates that the problem is not merely the presence of cameras but also the policy behind their use. I believe Germany has continued to enjoy reduced accident numbers while we have watched ours bump along at about the same level for years. AFAIK Germany doesn't subscribe to the oversimplified "speed kills" mantra the way our lot do, and also has unlimited sections of autobahn, tougher driving tests etc. There are differences between the UK and Germany, and one or more are clearly working in their favour (or against us depending on your point of view). If it was a simple as sticking cameras up all over the place we'd have got improvements. We didn't. We need to look at everything in both countries to work out what they're doing right and what we're doing wrong.

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

Quite alright, old chum.



I guess if I had to think about it, I’d say that several things have changed. A selfish "me me me" culture has taken over the nation. We have become less tolerant of delay due to our over-worked capitalist culture, which as dumbed us down to the point where we accept any old rubbish as the truth. The effects are all around us - more litter, more vandalism, more drug abuse, more loutishness, more pollution and more aggressive driving. Cheaper, safer cars have given people margin to make high speed screw ups and survive. Luckily, we still have a few people brave enough to stick their necks out and make some positive measures, such as better test standards and speed cameras.



People who speed generally don’t like cameras – that is why we have them! As for humps, - I don’t like humps any more, they break my suspension. I prefer cameras over humps.

_________________
I stole this .sig

In just the last 10 years or so? I'd say that that particular cultural shift has been with us since the 80s.




I see no evidence fo rthat statement, and also find it strange that you bring an economic system that is prevelant in the majority of the Western world into a debate about road safety. What next? Globalisation?




Now we are getting somewhere. Any old rubbish such as cameras save lives while reoad deaths are up, perchance?




There is no evidence of cause and effect. There is also less pollution now, not more. Again no evidence to support more aggressive driving, other than anecdotal I presume.




Perhaps. Safer cars have also contributed to a steady fall in road casualties over the last 40 years or so.




I'm with you on the standards, but can't see what positive measures cameras have brought. Road deaths are up and other casualties are only down by a few percentage points per annum, much less than we used to have.

Yes, its hard to explain it. I’ll use a hypothetical situation to show what I mean. If you start out with 1000 casualties per year, and introduce measures each year, which each cuts the fatalities by 10% each year, you would end up with a table like this



So, as you would expect, you get a diminishing return each year. But what is this ‘bad driving’ column, that has reduced the ‘Real Lives Saved’? It is ‘something else’ - atrocious bad driving, which is on the increase and is masked in the figures. So what you mistake as a decline in the reduction of road death due to cameras is really an massive increase due to to much increased bad driving. If we took away the cameras which control the bad driving, the figures would rocket up.

_________________
I stole this .sig

Presumably then, you have evidence to support the stance that "bad driving" is 100% related to driving in excess of the speed limit and thus being "controlled" by cameras.

If not, then I'm afraid you're just making stuff up.

I also notice that at no point does your "killed" column show a rise, as it does in real life.

So are you suggesting that the entire loss of trend AND the rise in casualties is purley down to "bad driving" and not fundamental changes in road safety policy?

Hard to see that.

If this was the case, then those areas with large numbers of cameras (Lancashire, Staffordshire, Essex etc) would have seen a far less negative trend in casualties than those that until recently have had few or no cameras (Shropshire, Cheshire, Cumbria, Durham etc). But no such trend is apparent from the figures, indeed some of the low camera areas have done better.

I agree that there has been some evident deterioration in driving standards (more of attitude than of skill) in the past ten years but agree with others that much of this has been caused by camera-based enforcement encouraging the mentality of "what can I get away with?"

_________________
"Show me someone who says that they have never exceeded a speed limit, and I'll show you a liar, or a menace." (Austin Williams - Director, Transport Research Group)

Any views expressed in this post are personal opinions and may not represent the views of Safe Speed

No need to be afraid, I am making it up, hence the word 'hypothetical', which means 'making it up', or something like that. But I think the reason for the stall in death rates at around the time of the introduction of cameras is due to another effect. In other words, I think that cameras are as effective as other measures, but another isssue is working independently to raise the death rate.

[quote="President Gas"]I also notice that at no point does your "killed" column show a rise, as it does in real life. So are you suggesting that the entire loss of trend AND the rise in casualties is purley down to "bad driving" and not fundamental changes in road safety policy?[quote]

I didn't put that column in due to lack of space. If you add the reduction in 'real lives saved', it moves up, I think, but I am making it up anyway.

_________________
I stole this .sig

Indeed the issues are related. A system based on fear and greed is bound to effect behaviour in many aspects of life.

_________________
I stole this .sig

Assumes everyone will be able to afford new cars with latest gimmicks. And given vandalism to traffic signs ....

So what about classic cars? My old Stag, the Moggies, and rest of this gang's collection - speedos are not accurate - in fact, both the Moggie's 30 mph feels like 40mph and is really 24mph according to the RA we put on the dash! Intrestin' drives though!



Most of the buses I see definitely ruin the planet



Well - you know what they say when you start sayin' "Things ain't what they used to be!"

Seriously - standards have declined - despite introduction of theory and hazard tests. I would say more so in last 10 years - because we do not see traffic police in numbers that we used to

Peter E is quite right when he says that it encourages the "what can I get away with" mentality.More take chances with drink,drugs and dodgy documents than ever before.

Cameras certainly do not control bad driving: they can only take a photo of a car which exceeds its "ping" setting - which is lower than it should be under some prats and higher than it should be under others!

And the scameras are not really getting the seriously bad drivers off our roads either. The normal no-accident realtively careful average Joe blips just over limit by margin, fails to see the scam - or thinks he is OK at his 10% (only he is Lancs or Cumbria these days) and he gets hammered!



That is why these things are so dangerous. Smiley Sid, backed up if need be by scamera (and Germany seem to be going down this route from my observation the other week - and off on jollies in a week or so - through Germany into Switzerland so will see more of the country and its scams! May have had them before UK - but they have less and seem to deploy within reason)



Driven in LA 'Orrid experience - full of numpty wannabes who cannot drive and are middle lane hoggers!

Would not recommend the experience - L'Etoile on a bad day has less numpties!

But no alternative has proved sustainable without coercion.

_________________
"Show me someone who says that they have never exceeded a speed limit, and I'll show you a liar, or a menace." (Austin Williams - Director, Transport Research Group)

Any views expressed in this post are personal opinions and may not represent the views of Safe Speed

Is it? I thought the law of diminishing returns was pretty straightfoward. The chart wasn't necessary and in any event it doesn't answer the question. Let me put it another way.

When the first cameras were installed, had we already got to the point where no further improvements would get a return? In other words, had we already reached the limit of what is achievable in reducing casualties?

If the answer is yes, then the cameras, and anything else for that matter, are a wasted effort. The law of diminishing returns means that we were as close to zero as we were ever going to get, and that isn't going to change whether we've got five thousand cameras or five million. I don't think either of us buy that. But if the answer is no, if we believe that there was still room to improve, then it's reasonable to ask why the cameras aren't delivering. Diminshing returns can't explain it, not wholly, unless we accept the very pessimistic idea that we had already hit the stops.

We've tried cameras, we've tried more cameras, and we've tried yet more camers. We've tried different sorts of cameras. We've tried dummy cameras. We've tried hiding them and we've tried making them easy to see. We've tried entirely automated ones, and we've tried mobiles and talivans. When all you've got is a hammer...

Perhaps it's time to see what else is in the toolbox.

OK. I'd go along with bad driving being on the rise.Nope. It is the policy of over reliance on cameras that is the problem. Quite an important distinction.Result. We agree! Now onto the next point. What's causing the increase in bad driving? Did it just happen all by itself because most drivers suddenly got crap almost overnight, or does the current policy mean there's now hardly any police enforcement of safety apart from speeding, and as a result drivers are placing speed at the top of the "worry about" list?
Do what? Cameras control bad driving? Give me a break.The whole bloody problem is that they do nothing about bad driving, except on the rare occasion someone happens to be driving badly past a camera and was also over the limit. Even then nothing is actually done about it for a :evil::evil::evil: ing fortnight! If the driving is so bloody bad then it needs to be stopped immediately. What'll be next? A :evil::evil::evil: ing postcard for armed robbery - wish you were here, love from all the screws at Parkhurst?
Is this suppostion or something more solid? Your own explanation of diminishing returns doesn't suggest this at all. You're excusing the cameras for giving a marginal to pathetic improvement, but saying that casualties would rocket up if you took them away? Can't have it both ways.

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

But no alternative (to fear and greed based political system) has proved sustainable without coercion.[/quote]

wrt poor labour laws, the US and Canada are the worst, we are not far behind, and much of Europe is in front of us.

_________________
I stole this .sig

Gatsobait, imagine two measures, say seat belts, and cameras. Lets say they are very effective, and observations in other coutries show they each cut death by 50%. Note that this is hypothetical, before President Gas chirps up. You can see that both measures offer the same improvement in percentage terms.

If I had 100 deaths, and I introduce belts, I would get 50 deaths after. If I then introduce cameras, I would not get zero deaths, I will get 25. We agree so far, I hope, that this is a diminishing return. You might conclude that cameras are less effective than belts, but this is wrong, as I'll show you now.

To show that they are as effective as each other, if I now scrap the measures in reverse order, first seat belts, I'd get 25 more deaths a year, then Cameras, which would give me another 50 deaths, making a total of 100. Note that suddenly, cameras are better than belts! How did it jump like that? You can see that both measures give different death counts even though they are exactly the same in terms of effectiveness!

What on earth is going on? The thing is that the death counts depend on the order they are introduced, but after they have been introduced, they are both exactly the same in terms of effectiveness and protection. This appears not to be considered mr Safe Speed, for some reason.

To demonstrate this one more time, we'll go through it again, introducing cameras first. If I had 100 deaths, and I introduce cameras, I would get 50 deaths after. If I then introduce belts, I would not get zero deaths, I will get 25. Now cameras suddenly save twice as many lives because they were introduced first!!! Absolute tripe because we know they work as well as belts.

_________________
I stole this .sig

Nice bit of statistical playing!

But look at it the way we are actually looking at the accident rate - in percentage terms.

Now in your example, we see that whichever order you introduce your two measures, each achieves a 50% reduction - from 100 to 50, then from 50 to 25. Likewise, removing each measure (in whichever order) would yield a 100% increase, from 25 to 50, then from 50 to 100.

We are not looking for a fixed sum of fatalities to save each year, we are looking for measures that reduce it in percentage terms. Thus the law of diminishing returns - at least as you define it - doesn't affect a thing.

_________________
CSCP Latin for beginners...
Ticketo ergo sum : I scam therefore I am!

basingwerk, you really don't need to explain diminshing returns. I do understand it. The point I am making is that, using your example, the seat belts have got their 50 reduction, fine. But the cameras have not got anywhere near as much as 25, with me? If they had got a similar reduction, in %age terms not plain numbers, to other safety measures then we wouldn't be having this conversation, but as it is their effect has been pretty lame. That's why I say diminishing returns do not adequately explain it.
Also, as I said above, if you choose to believe the poor camera performance is entirely due to diminishing returns it's hard to see how you conclude that removal of the cameras will cause the the figures to "rocket up".

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