Speed Camera Cut Down

[vonhosen]

heebeegeetee said:

Dave Finney said:

Fascinating to see an entrenched opinion reacting against evidence.

My evidence is in line with official reports.
On the odd occasion when official reports "estimate" the effect of site-selection (RTM),
they find it might be the largest effect at camera sites (far greater than the camera effect).
And even then, when you look at the methods they use, they under-estimate the site-selection effect.
https://speedcamerareport.co.uk/official-reports/

All I did was completely remove the site-selection effect to produce the most accurate report possible.
Never been done before,
A world first!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-GqOm-keyss

Entrenched opinion? Dave, you're the one repeating the same thing, post after post after post. I'm just saying you've failed to convince me.

If you say you're a world first, there might be a reason why nobody else shares your opinion.

Evidence isn't only quantitative, it can be qualitative.
Dave's methodology doesn't account for that & I don't hear him calling for that to be considered either.

His method doesn't deal with the considerations other than the collisions at the sites. It doesn't look at any benefits in relation to traffic management, pollution etc that there may be.
Whether we should have them or not (cameras or even speed limits) is about far more than one facet.

[119]

heebeegeetee said:

bigothunter said:

119 said:

siremoon said:

You can indeed. Before the year is out no doubt millions of motorists will vote for a party that loves LTNs, congestion charges, environmental charges, school streets, 20 mph speed limits and all the other anti-car stuff. Then some of those motorists will inevitably come on here and moan about LTNs, congestion charges, environmental charges, school streets, 20 mph speed limits and all the other anti-car stuff. If you like driving then be careful what you wish for.

Not sure how any of those can affect ones enjoyment of driving.

Do you enjoy driving at 20 mph? Do you enjoy restricted access? Do you enjoy paying these extra financial charges?

I don't

I don't mind at all doing 20 mph where it's suitable (I also accept its not up to me to determine 'suitable'). I accept access has to be restricted - pedestrian zones have worked, for instance. I totally don't mind school streets. I don't mind the small environmental charges I choose to pay.

I have no desire nor am I so selfish to demand the right to drive wherever I want whenever I want.

I enjoy driving, but none of these have impacted my enjoyment whatsoever. Two things have impacted my enjoyment: 1. Us. There's far too many of us drivers. Together with the facts that UK policy restricts travel options to others, and our infrastructure being 50 years out if date, has resulted in the roads being absolutely swamped in traffic. Last week a 5 mile journey took us 45 mins, that's less than 7mph average. *None* of the things you mentioned caused that.

2. The law breaking of us drivers, of which I have played my part, particularly when I was young. fk me our lives would be easier if we just obeyed the rules.

Agreed.

[heebeegeetee]

bigothunter said:

Many of today's PH 'contributors' will inevitably come on here and applaud LTNs, congestion charges, environmental charges, school streets, 20 mph speed limits and all the other anti-car stuff.

I don't see it as anti-car, I see it as pro-people. I acknowledge, indeed consider it blindingly obvious, that there has to be traffic control.

The UK car-is-king policy simply hasn't worked for anyone, least of all us motorists.

[heebeegeetee]

CLK-GTR said:

That transformation in driving standards is more down to the standard of the roads than anything else. They are fast, safe and well maintained. Progress is rapid and comfortable so drivers can relax. Go into a congested city and watch it descend into chaos once again.


When I lived in Italy it was rare to see a camera that didn't have its lens spray painted. No idea why we don't do that in the UK. Quick, easy and almost impossible to catch.

Hmm, i don't follow. I think the roads of France and Germany were fine back in the 1980s.

Europe is also seeing major traffic congestion, indeed I think they get it far worse than us. I find I really need lane guidance on the Sat nav in Europe, such is the sheer complexity of some of the junctions. I don't/rarely need that in the UK.

I think it's attitudes that have changed, particularly when it comes to interacting with pedestrians and cyclists. There's been a huge change in that, I'm not at all clear why.

[Dave Finney]

vonhosen said:

heebeegeetee said:

Dave Finney said:

Fascinating to see an entrenched opinion reacting against evidence.

My evidence is in line with official reports.
On the odd occasion when official reports "estimate" the effect of site-selection (RTM),
they find it might be the largest effect at camera sites (far greater than the camera effect).
And even then, when you look at the methods they use, they under-estimate the site-selection effect.
https://speedcamerareport.co.uk/official-reports/

All I did was completely remove the site-selection effect to produce the most accurate report possible.
Never been done before,
A world first!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-GqOm-keyss

Entrenched opinion? Dave, you're the one repeating the same thing, post after post after post. I'm just saying you've failed to convince me.

If you say you're a world first, there might be a reason why nobody else shares your opinion.

Evidence isn't only quantitative, it can be qualitative.
Dave's methodology doesn't account for that & I don't hear him calling for that to be considered either.

His method doesn't deal with the considerations other than the collisions at the sites. It doesn't look at any benefits in relation to traffic management, pollution etc that there may be.
Whether we should have them or not (cameras or even speed limits) is about far more than one facet.

Yes, vonhosen, I agree and you're right.
Speed cameras may well help smooth traffic flow and reduce pollution etc.

Their primary purpose, though, is to save lives (read any official report),
yet the evidence suggests there are now more fatal and serious crashes as a result of their use.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-GqOm-keyss

What I find really interesting are the responses to scientific trials.
It's perhaps not surprising that the speed camera operators refuse to run scientific trials,
but I found that anti speed camera campaigners also actively argue against them.
https://speedcamerareport.co.uk/scientific-trials/

Both sides have formed entrenched opinions and neither of them want to be proved wrong!
and while everyone refuses to produce the gold standard evidence,
more people are killed.

[Gareth79]

Stick Legs said:

Don’t cut them down.

Take a piece of cardboard, cut out a square the size of the lens cover on a camera. Black spray paint applied standing up in the back of a pick up.

Takes them ages to work out why it’s not working.

That’s how I would do such a thing if I ever felt the need to.

They are basically thickos. I imagine they got caught by it a few times and, assuming they feel they *need* to do something in response, it's the only thing they can think of. They could probably cover the lens (or lamp) a dozen times and would get a slap on the wrist at worst, cutting it down indeed will definitely risk a few months inside.

bigothunter said:

119 said:

siremoon said:

You can indeed. Before the year is out no doubt millions of motorists will vote for a party that loves LTNs, congestion charges, environmental charges, school streets, 20 mph speed limits and all the other anti-car stuff. Then some of those motorists will inevitably come on here and moan about LTNs, congestion charges, environmental charges, school streets, 20 mph speed limits and all the other anti-car stuff. If you like driving then be careful what you wish for.

Not sure how any of those can affect ones enjoyment of driving.

Do you enjoy driving at 20 mph? Do you enjoy restricted access? Do you enjoy paying these extra financial charges?

I don't

Nobody ever "enjoyed" driving in built-up areas. Outside the built-up areas other than the few well-known speed camera locations speed enforcement is essentially unenforced by police, you could drive all day around here well over the limit and never get caught.

[Gareth79]

Dave Finney said:

What I find really interesting are the responses to scientific trials.
It's perhaps not surprising that the speed camera operators refuse to run scientific trials,
but I found that anti speed camera campaigners also actively argue against them.
https://speedcamerareport.co.uk/scientific-trials/

The late Paul Smith spoke often of RTTM and got similar responses.

20 years later collision data is much more accessible, and I think candidate sites for speed cameras (and removed cameras) do exist or could be obtained using FOI, so somebody with a hundred hours to spare (and statistics skills!) could probably come up with some interesting results.

[119]

Gareth79 said:

Nobody ever "enjoyed" driving in built-up areas. Outside the built-up areas other than the few well-known speed camera locations speed enforcement is essentially unenforced by police, you could drive all day around here well over the limit and never get caught.

Where is 'here'?

[heebeegeetee]

Dave Finney said:

Yes, vonhosen, I agree and you're right.
Speed cameras may well help smooth traffic flow and reduce pollution etc.

Their primary purpose, though, is to save lives (read any official report),
yet the evidence suggests there are now more fatal and serious crashes as a result of their use.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-GqOm-keyss

What I find really interesting are the responses to scientific trials.
It's perhaps not surprising that the speed camera operators refuse to run scientific trials,
but I found that anti speed camera campaigners also actively argue against them.
https://speedcamerareport.co.uk/scientific-trials/

Both sides have formed entrenched opinions and neither of them want to be proved wrong!
and while everyone refuses to produce the gold standard evidence,
more people are killed.

More people aren't being killed, the annual casualty rate largely only goes one way. I mean, I think a lot more could be done, I would like to see a return to police on the roads etc, I think there is a fixation on speed which prevents greater life savings, but nevertheless I think it's disingenuous to select just one facet of road safety and infer that they produce no effect whatsoever except to cause more casualties.

[Gareth79]

119 said:

Gareth79 said:

Nobody ever "enjoyed" driving in built-up areas. Outside the built-up areas other than the few well-known speed camera locations speed enforcement is essentially unenforced by police, you could drive all day around here well over the limit and never get caught.

Where is 'here'?

North East Hants/Surrey border.

[vonhosen]

Dave Finney said:

vonhosen said:

heebeegeetee said:

Dave Finney said:

Fascinating to see an entrenched opinion reacting against evidence.

My evidence is in line with official reports.
On the odd occasion when official reports "estimate" the effect of site-selection (RTM),
they find it might be the largest effect at camera sites (far greater than the camera effect).
And even then, when you look at the methods they use, they under-estimate the site-selection effect.
https://speedcamerareport.co.uk/official-reports/

All I did was completely remove the site-selection effect to produce the most accurate report possible.
Never been done before,
A world first!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-GqOm-keyss

Entrenched opinion? Dave, you're the one repeating the same thing, post after post after post. I'm just saying you've failed to convince me.

If you say you're a world first, there might be a reason why nobody else shares your opinion.

Evidence isn't only quantitative, it can be qualitative.
Dave's methodology doesn't account for that & I don't hear him calling for that to be considered either.

His method doesn't deal with the considerations other than the collisions at the sites. It doesn't look at any benefits in relation to traffic management, pollution etc that there may be.
Whether we should have them or not (cameras or even speed limits) is about far more than one facet.

Yes, vonhosen, I agree and you're right.
Speed cameras may well help smooth traffic flow and reduce pollution etc.

Their primary purpose, though, is to save lives (read any official report),
yet the evidence suggests there are now more fatal and serious crashes as a result of their use.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-GqOm-keyss

What I find really interesting are the responses to scientific trials.
It's perhaps not surprising that the speed camera operators refuse to run scientific trials,
but I found that anti speed camera campaigners also actively argue against them.
https://speedcamerareport.co.uk/scientific-trials/

Both sides have formed entrenched opinions and neither of them want to be proved wrong!
and while everyone refuses to produce the gold standard evidence,
more people are killed.

Speed limits are to help save lives, help traffic management & control pollution etc.
Enforcement of the limits is a necessity of their existence.
Sure have scientific trials, but make sure you are looking at all facets & outcomes, not just cherry picking what you fancy.
We are consistently one of the top performing countries globally when it comes to minimising road deaths with whichever metric you like (deaths per million population, per million vehicles or per billion miles).

[bigothunter]

vonhosen said:

Speed limits are to help save lives, help traffic management & control pollution etc.
Enforcement of the limits is a necessity of their existence.
Sure have scientific trials, but make sure you are looking at all facets & outcomes, not just cherry picking what you fancy.
We are consistently one of the top performing countries globally when it comes to minimising road deaths with whichever metric you like (deaths per million population, per million vehicles or per billion miles).

Our motorways are incredibly safe. I've seen a quoted figure of under 1.0 death per 1.0 billion vehicle-kms (not Smart motorways).

That's why there are so many speed cameras enforcing motorway limits

[vonhosen]

bigothunter said:

vonhosen said:

Speed limits are to help save lives, help traffic management & control pollution etc.
Enforcement of the limits is a necessity of their existence.
Sure have scientific trials, but make sure you are looking at all facets & outcomes, not just cherry picking what you fancy.
We are consistently one of the top performing countries globally when it comes to minimising road deaths with whichever metric you like (deaths per million population, per million vehicles or per billion miles).

Our motorways are incredibly safe. I've seen a quoted figure of under 1.0 death per 1.0 billion vehicle-kms (not Smart motorways).

That's why there are so many speed cameras enforcing motorway limits

And if everybody behaves those cameras won't be catching anybody.
If you have limits, you'll have enforcement. They go hand in hand.
There's no point putting a speed camera where there is no speed limit.
You don't get to legally exceed speed limits on the safest roads, you don't get to legally exceed them anywhere. That's what speed limits do, forbid it.
They clearly set out the permissible boundaries.

[bigothunter]

vonhosen said:

And if everybody behaves those cameras won't be catching anybody.
If you have limits, you'll have enforcement. They go hand in hand.
There's no point putting a speed camera where there is no speed limit.

You've captured it in a few words.

Key objective of motorway speed enforcement is mass compliance and conditioning. Mild example of dumbing down and public brainwashing that speed is evil. And it's effective - we are becoming a nation of sluggards.

Otherwise why focus so strongly on strict speed control of our safest roads?

[Debaser]

Every time I return from Europe I can't help but imagine how much better our motorways would be with no limits. I know it'll never happen, but it's a nice dream to have.

[vonhosen]

bigothunter said:

vonhosen said:

And if everybody behaves those cameras won't be catching anybody.
If you have limits, you'll have enforcement. They go hand in hand.
There's no point putting a speed camera where there is no speed limit.

You've captured it in a few words.

Key objective of motorway speed enforcement is mass compliance and conditioning. Mild example of dumbing down and public brainwashing that speed is evil. And it's effective - we are becoming a nation of sluggards.

Otherwise why focus so strongly on strict speed control of our safest roads?

You can have a higher limit, put your case to government.
But whatever the limit is set at you've got to expect enforcement of that limit, or there's no point in having it.

[bigothunter]

Debaser said:

Every time I return from Europe I can't help but imagine how much better our motorways would be with no limits. I know it'll never happen, but it's a nice dream to have.

No limits on UK motorways worked from 1959 to December 1965. But we lost the urge to travel quickly and efficiently.

[bigothunter]

vonhosen said:

bigothunter said:

vonhosen said:

And if everybody behaves those cameras won't be catching anybody.
If you have limits, you'll have enforcement. They go hand in hand.
There's no point putting a speed camera where there is no speed limit.

You've captured it in a few words.

Key objective of motorway speed enforcement is mass compliance and conditioning. Mild example of dumbing down and public brainwashing that speed is evil. And it's effective - we are becoming a nation of sluggards.

Otherwise why focus so strongly on strict speed control of our safest roads?

You can have a higher limit, put your case to government.
But whatever the limit is set at you've got to expect enforcement of that limit, or there's no point in having it.

Enforcement should be focused on achieving the most benefit not the least (ie on safe motorways).

[CLK-GTR]

Debaser said:

Every time I return from Europe I can't help but imagine how much better our motorways would be with no limits. I know it'll never happen, but it's a nice dream to have.

Germany is the example. Derestricted autobahns have lower accident rates than those with speed limits, however the accidents that do occur are more likely to cause injury.

To me there appears to very little argument against increasing speed limits on the quieter stretches of UK motorway other than it goes against the general anti-car ethos of the current government.

[vonhosen]

bigothunter said:

vonhosen said:

bigothunter said:

vonhosen said:

And if everybody behaves those cameras won't be catching anybody.
If you have limits, you'll have enforcement. They go hand in hand.
There's no point putting a speed camera where there is no speed limit.

You've captured it in a few words.

Key objective of motorway speed enforcement is mass compliance and conditioning. Mild example of dumbing down and public brainwashing that speed is evil. And it's effective - we are becoming a nation of sluggards.

Otherwise why focus so strongly on strict speed control of our safest roads?

You can have a higher limit, put your case to government.
But whatever the limit is set at you've got to expect enforcement of that limit, or there's no point in having it.

Enforcement should be focused on achieving the most benefit not the least (ie on safe motorways).

If you have a limit you have to have enforcement, whatever road type.
Otherwise what's the point in the limit being there?
Like I say, limits aren't written in stone, government can change them.
Make your case & give them your evidence as to why we are better off without speed limits on our motorways.
And remember limits aren't set at what they are set at for safety reasons only.