Safe Speed Forums

Just got back from various car journeys up and down the country. It's not pretty out there.

I'm not at all surprised that the UK is falling behind, road safety-wise, compared with the rest of Europe.

I am unimpressed by the ‘arguments’ put forward by ndp.

ndp …. go out there and drive a couple of thousand miles, and then come back and tell us what’s what!

ndp reminds me of a close friend of mine who is an ‘educationalist’. We often have debates about psychology and the process of learning.

My friend, ( and he is really a good friend ) firmly believes that you can learn to drive safely by reading books and attending lectures. ( He also believes that you can learn to do watercolour painting by the same methods, but that’s a different thing …… or is it so different I wonder?)

I get the same feeling when I argue with my pal, as I do when I read ndp’s posts. It’s all theory, theory, theory.

Safe driving is practice, practice, practice.

Because, used appropriately, they work?



Which would be a valid point if data was all that was relied on - but it isn't. As I said earlier, the statistics provide the pointers towards how further investigations



I can't quantify it (hence may, as opposed to does) - but it is a possibility that needs to be considered.



As I've said, speed is focused on by all parties because cameras are contentious (and that largely because people don't like getting caught). Its also noticed more by "SafeSpeeders" for the same reason.

It would be interesting to perform a study to quantify how much publicity is given to various road safety issues, and compare this with SafeSpeeder's and the wider public's perception of this publicity.



Oh of course not. The possibility needs to be considered. But to throw your point back at you - can you quantify this? And wouldn't pedestrian accident rates be going up at camera sites if it were happening?



I don't suppose they do - but it would be bizarre for the Pedestrians Association to encourage a policy that is dangerous to the people they (claim to) represent. After all, why would they do that?

How do you know?

_________________
"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

Did anyone say otherwise? And why are we equating safe driving with traffic engineering?

And surely the fact that RoSPA, an organisation with a vast collective experience of advanced drivers (they do after all decide what constitutes an "advanced driver" for their tests), advocates the use of speed cameras and speed limits as a road safety tool speaks volumes? People seem to be saying (and quite rightly) that advanced drivers should be involved with traffic engineering - yet no-one has quite said what should happen when RoSPAs advice contradicts the opinions of "SafeSpeeders" - as is the case of:



or this from the same document:



So are advanced drivers - nay, people who decide who the advanced drivers are - to be heeded, or not?[/quote]

How do you know they aren't? I expect they are.

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

The advanced driving organisation say it, so it must be true

(See previous post for citation)

(Edited to correct typo)

It certainly isn't generally reflected in the camera site accident reports I've seen.



But given you're the one proposing a move from the status quo, can you provide anything to show that? (And hopefully something you feel more able to defend than your comments on 20 zones, cameras in motorway roadworks and the impressive fatality reductions observed in the Netherlands)

You're original claim wasn't qualified by 'constraints' - you brought those in later once your original statement had been shown to be nonsense.



There's nothing wrong with my analysis and observations. Thanks. I don't have to answer to you. If you want to carry out an honest discussion we can go into microscopic detail. As it is I see very little sign of an honest discussion. You would rather try and score points - and that simply doesn't interest me.



We've got 50 years of earlier history that says vehicle improvements aren't beaten by risk compensation.



Are you claiming that the serious injury stats are the best we have? <boggle>

So, no. It's a sensible process of evaluation of value of data.



Do you even drive? You CAN'T SEE the road ahead properly when you're looking at the speedo.



Plenty of anecdotal evidence. Nothing I'd really want to post a reference to. But the perception clearly exists.



I'm not surprised given the official claims. I'm not surprised that people want magic accident reducing machines. The shame is that there's no such thing.





Presumable because they are insufficiently expert in the driving process to recognise the flaws. The document cited on that page is so full of holes that it's a joke. See: http://www.safespeed.org.uk/pactsssi.html

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

That's about the stupidest claim you have made yet. The accident numbers are tiny and the changes are dominated by regression to the mean. You would need to evaluate at least - what - 200 sites? And you would need to estimate RTTM. Have you done that properly? Has anyone?

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

They might do.

But does the RoSPA advocate the use of speed cameras to the exclusion of almost everything else?

The Tory government of the early 90’s were justly accused of only using a ’one club’ economic policy ( that is, just using interest rates ) - with disastrous results, if I remember rightly.

Isn’t the present government also guilty of using just a ’one club’ road safety policy, that is, automated speed enforcement ?

But then again - are the scameras sited where pedestrians are nornally expected to be walking?

I do not think many pedestrians try to cross the urban duals in Lancs... after all - they have to clamber across steel barriers as there is no crossing near these scams.

There is one arguably sited well at one other site - about 10 yards from a pelican crossing... which is itself about 5 yards from a mini roundabout. Per Lancs website - this one in Chorley central had 10 fatalities pre-scam and 6 KSI post scam... this scam is not too far away from Chorley's A&E - and I asked a colleague consultant there ...who says that whilst he is unware of actual sites his incoming wounded and BIDS are from - he has higher frequency at night than during the day. And yep - drink and drugs ... do feature - "fairly often"


Er - how does a speed cam stop these? And if the scams are supposed to warn - how do you account for a driver pinged three times on one journey and then another time before even being informed of the first ones.. and by the way - we hear this person was copped at 35/36 mph and 48/49 mph in 40 mph zone on each ping respectively - some being hidden mobiles, one Truvelo, one Tempo and one Digital one per the descriptions given - admit this is third hand information - and astonishingly the person per a pal's account was pro-scam prior to this - but never really took much notice of what the scams look like as "she never speeds" - and regarded our family pal a bit of an "anorak and nerd"on topic of speed cams...

It seems she has now changed her mind.. Pal has tried to reassure that one of the pings should and hopefully - get her to the speed course - making her on 9 points...from two days of short distance journeys in neighbouring Kodak County....

_________________
If you want to get to heaven - you have to raise a little hell!

Smilies are contagious
They are just like the flu
We use our smilies on YOU today
Now Good Causes are smiling too!

KEEP SMILING
It makes folk wonder just what you REALLY got up to last night!

Smily to penny.. penny to pound
safespeed prospers-smiles all round! !
But the real message? SMILE.. GO ON ! DO IT! and the world will smile with you!
Enjoy life! You only have the one bite at it.

Hmme - both Wildy and self have gold stars from their test ... and we read the newsletters.

Basically - like the IAM, AA and RAC - they toe party line to certain extent - but they do not swallow the whole tablet with sugary coatings...

And certainly the drivers who make up the body of advanced and tested to their standards are sceptical of the camera's value - seeing training initiatives as being of more long term benefit.

PS - the web page you quote - not been updated since 2003

_________________
If you want to get to heaven - you have to raise a little hell!

Smilies are contagious
They are just like the flu
We use our smilies on YOU today
Now Good Causes are smiling too!

KEEP SMILING
It makes folk wonder just what you REALLY got up to last night!

Smily to penny.. penny to pound
safespeed prospers-smiles all round! !
But the real message? SMILE.. GO ON ! DO IT! and the world will smile with you!
Enjoy life! You only have the one bite at it.

Volumes? It just means that RoSPA officially aren't thinking for themselves. They are taking the easy option and following the DfT line. It's no big deal and it tells us nothing.

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

Yep - we walk less in towns and it's not just fear of traffic there - but also fear of yobs, happy slappers and so on. Something extraordinarily reassuring at being able to centrally lock doors and accelerate out of danger.

Also - on subject of school runs ..parents will send their kids to the school which "gives best results even if this means kid has to travel a bit.." and they invariably drop off on way to work too.

Another factor is the cost of the school bus

Saved a fortune last year when William drove them to school with him. Wa scheaper to buy and insure a car for him than pay the school fees for the bus service. Costs me almost £500 pa per child this year - and - um five of them trundle off to school each day.. and I have school fees and all the extras on top.. grrrrrrr.

Ah - but I love 'em really ....



Nightmare politics - bang on about danger long enough and people will come to believe it. But some nasty accidents happen in China .. millions of bikes..if they crash.. and in the incident in Bolton - despite wearing protective gear - the cyclist still sustained an SI when 30 cyclists toppled on top of him ...

So - do we ban all wheels... but then last century people died under hoof...

Humans have accidents and the only way we can really minimise is to develop their skills to perceive and avoid - and instil common sense and that good old fashioned dollop of being responsible for one's own safety - and this means everyone looking out for danger to themselves - which in turn leads to being aware of consideration to others around them. It's linked

_________________
If you want to get to heaven - you have to raise a little hell!

Smilies are contagious
They are just like the flu
We use our smilies on YOU today
Now Good Causes are smiling too!

KEEP SMILING
It makes folk wonder just what you REALLY got up to last night!

Smily to penny.. penny to pound
safespeed prospers-smiles all round! !
But the real message? SMILE.. GO ON ! DO IT! and the world will smile with you!
Enjoy life! You only have the one bite at it.

one aspect is that RoSPA's official view does not necessarily reflect that of those who pass the test; it reflects the views of those who form the decision making committees, as with many organisations.
Like the feline family i too passed with the gold star some years ago (am no longer a member) and i do not share the 'official' viewpoint either.
Additionally you should perhaps be aware that as many of the people who frequent this site have a genuine interest in improving road safety, there seems to be a higher proportion (than usual) who put their money and time where their mouth is and take the IAM and/or RoSPA tests in order to improve their own driving.

My question is, how do they work? By what mechanism?
This is a serious question - I would really like to know how cameras are supposed to reduce accidents/casualties.



What else is relied upon? What do the further investigations look for?
And if the statistics yield ambiguous results, or are open to interpretation, then what sort of pointers can they provide?



I'm really surprised that it hasn't yet been researched, if it's a significant possibility.
I have my doubts that it's a significant factor. The things which make cars safer are only really apparent when the limits of the envelope are reached, or when a crash occurs. The average driver isn't going to factor them into their driving, and I doubt that many people would take a chance in wrecking their expensive new cars just because they believe they're more likely to walk away.



Why should it be restricted to camera sites? And I only mentioned it because you did so in relation to drivers.



I trust you're not implying that SafeSpeed does.

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

Hopefully not, because when they are they have the effect of taking driver attention away from the pedestrian when it most needs to be on them, and they also mess up the flow of traffic to the point where it makes crossing the road harder than it'd be in the absence of the camera...


Before a recent change of company, I spent 6 years crossing the same single-carriageway A road to get to and from work. The crossing point next to the site entrance was a pedestrian island, unprotected by any traffic lights, but watched over in one direction by a gatso.

It was rarely a problem crossing the lane of traffic that the gatso *wasn't* monitoring, the traffic there was generaly nicely spaced out and free-flowing at/sightly above the limit, giving plenty of gaps long enough to safely cross. When it got busier and the gaps shortened, more often than not I wouldn't have to wait very long before someone noticed me and allowed a gap to open up.

Crossing the gatso-monitored lane, otoh, was a right pain in the whatsit. Traffic was bunched up just under the limit, gaps were practically non-existent, and drivers were more concerned about checking their speedos (yes, you could actually see some of them doing this as they approached) than noticing the poor pedestrian stuck at the side of the road for the last few minutes watchng a stream of nose to tail traffic go by with no chance of crossing... I considered an unusual day if anyone deliberately gave me an opportunity to cross, usually I'd either have to wait for the end of the queue to crawl by, or hope that the traffic came to a complete standstill. It was pure frustration, and I can easily imagine someone with less patience, or who was running on a tight schedule, might risk crossing that lane in a gap that was really a bit too short for comfort.

The road safety arms of RoSPA and the RoSPA Advanced Drivers' Association (RoADA) are quite separate sections, and there is nothing to say that official advice given by RoSPA represents either individually or collectively the views of RoADA members.

The IAM (which is purely an advanced driving organisation, and not part of something else) has expressed a considerable degree of scepticism about current speed camera and speed limit policy.

See, for example:

http://www.iam.org.uk/Pressroom/News_Re ... nr0517.pdf


I imagine if RoSPA had been taking an active interest in road safety in 1896 they would have expressed grave doubts about the repeal of the Red Flag Law.

(edited to add quote from IAM PR)

_________________
"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

Yes, some time ago I asked this question in a thread entitled something like "How are speed cameras meant to work?"

I've never had a satisfactory answer either here or anywhere else.

For a start, is their supposed effect primarily a site-specific one, or a system-wide one?

_________________
"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

Lets cut the crap.



Of course you don't *have* to answer to me. But if you expect to be taken seriously, then you should expect to have criticisms raised, and you should be willing and able to provide answers to those.

You have continually dodged these points. As I say, if you feel unable to provide answers, thats OK - but simply dodging the issue doesn't look to good, does it?

And in the event your reply is simply "tu quoque", I'd like to point out I'm just being an argumentative sod here - you're leading a "road safety" campaign demanding the withdrawl of current practise - the onus is therefore on *you* to state your case, on *you* to justify your claims and on *you* to offer something better.

You witter about the "failings" of current policy - but you haven't actually provided anything useful and better, have you? Hell, even when the government announced extra training for "white van man" you criticised them for it - despite (supposedly) campaining



You can't see the road ahead properly when checking your mirrors or blind spots.

Does SafeSpeed advocate people not checking their mirrors or blind spots, for the same reason?

Some selective answers now - selective because quite frankly I can't be bothered right now



The page Paul links hasn't been updated since 2004. I'm not sure why thats relevant.



A fair point - but as you point out the IAM are advanced drivers - and thats it. RoSPA (through is Road Safety and RoADA arms) has the experience from both the engineering and driving angles. Now, unless you are suggesting that these two arms never interact, it is therefore reasonable to suggest they are better place to give advice on engineering matters relating to road safety.

Additionally, the IAM (as you point out) don't offer much advice to engineers - and scepticism is not in itself useful.



As I say - people say listen to the advanced drivers - but when the one organisation involved in both the engineering and driving sides of things advocates speed cameras in its advice - and when the other advanced driving organisations don't provide much in the way of advice, what is supposed to be done?

You can't simply dismiss viewpoints as "not thinking for themselves" because you disagree with them.



Does anyone?



Have you? So are your claims merely supposition?



Do you seriously think "evaluation of data" is the be all and end all?



Maybe so (for at least a proportion of those drivers) - but surely they are less knowledgable and experienced than those who set the test?



I don't think anyone disagrees - however, say that is easy - implementing it isn't. After all, how do you get people to take up the training when people tend to think their driving is fine?



Agreed - however, won't these be formed of la créme de la créme ?




Given how everyone feels the need to give lectures on the subject of road safety engineering I presumably don't need to answer that, for you all already know....



Munich Taxi Driver experiment.



No implication was intended.

I would suggest given their opposing positions that one of the two is doing so.



Where drivers fail to drive at an appropriate speed, limits are set to legally require them to drive below a specified speed, as a way of mitigating this. Where drivers deliberately (and that bit is important - if people are simply underestimating their speed, VAS will work better) do not comply with the limit because eg they see no reason for it, cameras are used to give them a reason to obey the limit (eg threat of prosecution).

They can also be used to highlight those drivers who need excessive training with this aspect of driving - hence speed awareness courses.

Of course, they aren't a panacea by any means.

As an aside, people who consider cameras to be pushing out other measures should consider the relatively small number of camera sites in relation to anti-skid sites, warning sign sites etc.