Following on from my post above:
Oh dear, would you believe this gets better!
I’ve had another reply from Elihu. Two issues immediately jump out at me:
1) The rather obvious howler by the supposed UK expert
2) The fact that Elihu couldn’t directly furnish me with data to support his claim, instead he had to ask a third party. The facts given in his study are actually based on his personal ‘knowledge’ which is clearly erroneous (Google “West London speed camera demonstration project”)
The correspondence is below, latest last, edited as appropriate (I didn’t actually call myself smeggy)
I wrote:
Date: Thu, 2 Mar 2006 12:13:45 +0100 (MET)
From: "smeggy" <edited>
To: Elihu Richter <edited>
Subject: Re: Road safety
Hello Elihu.
Thank you so much for your reply; I especially appreciate the speed of your
response (no joke intended).
[edited]
I have read and analysed the documents you kindly sent. They appear to demonstrate a powerful argument for the benefit of rigorous speed enforcement to those not familiar with the history, but I have found some flaws in the arguments contained within.
Speed cameras were first trialled in the UK in 1992 (source
http://www.tfl.gov.uk/streets/lscp/came ... tory.shtml) and introduced in small numbers in 1993. Due to the slow, almost exponential, take-up of this new enforcement technology, it is reasonable to expect them to have an insignificant effect for a few years afterwards.
Hence we absolutely must disregard any data before 1993 and focus our analysis during the period after 1995: the graphs show no decline in fatalities or significant change of fatality rate between the UK and US during that period (jenifer-trendswithcolor.doc). Given the other accepted trends such as SUV use and congestion, I cannot agree that a significant correlation between rigorous speed enforcement and the fatality rate can be deduced.
Furthermore, it is accepted that DUI is a significant contributor to the level of road fatalities, but the analysis (US-UK-ajpm-final.pdf) does not have the data to appropriately factor in this contribution. I will agree that increased speed in combination with DUI should lead to a higher fatality rate, but the problem is one of impaired judgement, not of speed itself; rigorous speed enforcement will not solve that problem.
Therefore I tend to believe the analysis (US-UK-ajpm-final.pdf) is not accurate or complete enough to be considered acceptable as a comprehensive or conclusive scientific study.
I would like to understand your thoughts regarding my evaluation, would
You agree with it?
Thanks and regards,
smeggy
Elihu wrote:
From: Elihu Richter [mailto:edited]
Sent: 02 March 2006 12:07
To: frank Nunneley
Subject: Fwd: Re: Road safety
Frank, to my knowledge, speed cameras were already on the roads in 1990-1991. Can you verify?
Frank Nunneley wrote:
From: "Frank Nunneley" <edited>
To: "'Elihu Richter'" <edited>
Subject: RE: Re: Road safety
Date: Thu, 2 Mar 2006 14:04:03 -0000
Eli
The webpage he quotes at the beginning of his reply actually says that fixed cameras were first introduced into London in 1989.
Our first ones in Kent were in 1996 and we were relatively late! (The trouble was that it took us sometime to persuade both the Director of Highways and the Chief Constable that we should have them.)
Frank
P.S. I shall send some further comments on this man's statements if I find the time.
Elihu wrote:
From: Elihu Richter <edited>
To: "smeggy" <edited>
Copy: "Frank Nunneley" <edited>,
edited@sbcglobal.net,
edited@pob.huji.ac.ilSubject: Fwd: RE: Re: Road safety
Date: Fri, 03 Mar 2006 13:12:29 +0200
Mr smeggy; Here is Mr Frank Nunneley's reply. Mr Nunneley is one of the UK experts on the subject.
May I suggest that if you have further questions, send them in as letters orcomments to the journal? I also suggest that a careful reading of the paper will answer your concerns about DUI and SUV's.
Many thanks
Elihu D Richter
I will wait a few hours then reply to all pointing out their howler.
Would anyone like to add comments before I press send?
Login
Register
FAQ
Search
Members
