Speed cameras: Are we interested in evidence?
Discussion
heebeegeetee said:
What's causing the increase in collisions at the sites - indeed, do you mean at the actual speed camera sites, or somewhere nearto?
I'm puzzled by the whole thing - I can't see how a camera can cause someone to crash. Equally, I know some locations of popular camera van locations, as clearly do many other locals, and we all slow down and drive calmly as we approach. I guess this can cause problems when those not in the know approach at well over the speed limit and come into 'conflict' with law abiding traffic in front, but I don't see that as a reason to not enforce speed limits.
Yes, these are the "speed camera sites" as defined by the speed camera partnership, ie the stretch of road where the camera operates.I'm puzzled by the whole thing - I can't see how a camera can cause someone to crash. Equally, I know some locations of popular camera van locations, as clearly do many other locals, and we all slow down and drive calmly as we approach. I guess this can cause problems when those not in the know approach at well over the speed limit and come into 'conflict' with law abiding traffic in front, but I don't see that as a reason to not enforce speed limits.
Speed cameras can definitely lead to a collision, just as they can also prevent one.
https://speedcamerareport.co.uk/effects-of-speed-c...
The question is: do they lead to more than they avoid?
The evidence suggests that speed cameras lead to more fatal and serious collisions, than they prevent.
Video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-GqOm-keyss
DaiB said:
I don't understand the statement that accident rates increased because of the site selection process. I get that the site was selected thanks to an unusual increase in accidents and in that sense the high rate is self-selecting, but it's not the selection process itself that's the actual cause of those accidents, unless I'm missing something obvious.
So something else caused the spike in accidents that caused the site to be selected.
So firstly, you can't just dismiss that increase out of hand as irrelevant, and secondly you can't just assume that speed cameras are the cause of a variation in accident rates after installation.
You're on the right track.So something else caused the spike in accidents that caused the site to be selected.
So firstly, you can't just dismiss that increase out of hand as irrelevant, and secondly you can't just assume that speed cameras are the cause of a variation in accident rates after installation.
Yes you're right, it's not the site selection process that caused the accidents to occur,
but the site selection process tended to choose sites where an "abnormal" number had occurred during the SSP.
Outsite the SSP, the accident rate was "normal".
Hence why there was a sudden increase at the start of the SSP, and then sudden drop back to normal afterwards.
Think of it the other way round.
Imagine you selected sites that had 0 accidents in the last 3 years (so your SSP is the last 3 years).
Now wait some years and draw a graph of the accidents at your sites.
Your sites may have accidents before your SSP and after, but none within your SSP.
If you had a large enough number of sites, you'll find accidents occurred before your SSP at around their "normal" rate, but then they suddenly drop down to zero at the start of your SSP.
Then, at the end of your SSP, accidents suddenly increase back to around their "normal" rate again.
It is not your site selection process that prevented the accidents, it's just that you chose those sites where there hadn't been any during your SSP.
Try it for yourself.
Download the spreadsheet mentioned in my video here:
https://speedcamerareport.files.wordpress.com/2023...
Video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-GqOm-keyss
Greendubber said:
Griffith4ever said:
Greendubber said:
I'm guessing millions of motorists pass through that section every year without incident though, I know I have?
Bus comment stands I'm afraid, maybe he can blame his ridiculous exaggerations for that.
, Bus comment stands I'm afraid, maybe he can blame his ridiculous exaggerations for that.
..and I pass through that section without incident, all the time . I'm fairly local, I've not had a ticket for speeding in around 15 years,at least. But passing through a section of numerous speed limit changes with cameras without incident doesn't make it the same as if there were no cameras there... Do you see what I mean? It is distracting and fairly unpleasant, particularly at night in the rain where you want to be 100% focussed on the road ahead ,and not if the limit has suddenly changed down by 10mph.
There are plenty of people I know personally who describe the stretch of motorways as a spiders web of traps. It's a waste of resources and makes the local Avon and som constabulary look "opportunist" / abusing their position.
So again, if people cant simply read a great big illuminated sign then leave the car at home.
This is all just sounding like hyperbolic, lame excuses if I'm being honest.
vonhosen said:
Dave Finney said:
vonhosen said:
If the allegation is that an unintended consequence of the visible camera themselves, is an adverse effect on driver behaviour/safety ...
It's not an "allegation", it's evidence.And the evidence suggests that speed cameras are causing an increase in death and serious injuries.
Have you seen the video, or read the report?
No spike where the camera is then.
Be careful what you wish for.
And perhaps we can also agree that that means we need to run scientific trials to prove what effect they're having.
Only then should we decide what policies to pursue next, along with the evidence required to prove them.
It's good to see agreement every now and again
.Dave Finney said:
vonhosen said:
Dave Finney said:
vonhosen said:
If the allegation is that an unintended consequence of the visible camera themselves, is an adverse effect on driver behaviour/safety ...
It's not an "allegation", it's evidence.And the evidence suggests that speed cameras are causing an increase in death and serious injuries.
Have you seen the video, or read the report?
No spike where the camera is then.
Be careful what you wish for.
And perhaps we can also agree that that means we need to run scientific trials to prove what effect they're having.
Only then should we decide what policies to pursue next, along with the evidence required to prove them.
It's good to see agreement every now and again
.Dave Finney said:
heebeegeetee said:
What's causing the increase in collisions at the sites - indeed, do you mean at the actual speed camera sites, or somewhere nearto?
I'm puzzled by the whole thing - I can't see how a camera can cause someone to crash. Equally, I know some locations of popular camera van locations, as clearly do many other locals, and we all slow down and drive calmly as we approach. I guess this can cause problems when those not in the know approach at well over the speed limit and come into 'conflict' with law abiding traffic in front, but I don't see that as a reason to not enforce speed limits.
Yes, these are the "speed camera sites" as defined by the speed camera partnership, ie the stretch of road where the camera operates.I'm puzzled by the whole thing - I can't see how a camera can cause someone to crash. Equally, I know some locations of popular camera van locations, as clearly do many other locals, and we all slow down and drive calmly as we approach. I guess this can cause problems when those not in the know approach at well over the speed limit and come into 'conflict' with law abiding traffic in front, but I don't see that as a reason to not enforce speed limits.
Speed cameras can definitely lead to a collision, just as they can also prevent one.
https://speedcamerareport.co.uk/effects-of-speed-c...
The question is: do they lead to more than they avoid?
The evidence suggests that speed cameras lead to more fatal and serious collisions, than they prevent.
Video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-GqOm-keyss
I have always known the increased risk, been in cars when Van Man appeared on horizon to nearly bang my head on windscreen as passenger, seen cars, vans and HGV's slam brakes on approaching bright yellow average camera poles and end up in the opposing lane, had noted how common it is for thick black rubber tracks appear at some sites and poles, correct for cars and HGV's alike.
And remember more than one village where a fake camera or straw speed camera man was put in a homeowners garden, followed by clear rubber lines in the road from emergency braking, often weaving towards or onto a verge or pavement, one apparently resulting in a car going right up a verge, crashing into a tree branch and landing on it's roof.
Dave, I don't think you're on the right track. In a link you've posted you state "If speed limits do not accurately reflect the maximum safe speed for most conditions"
In the same link you tell us that people are crashing (to the degree of causing fatal or serious injuries) simply because they must obey a speed limit.
In no way are people who crash because they see a camera or speed limit sign in a position to judge the maximum safe speed for most conditions, indeed their maximum safe speed for most conditions must be very low.
Bad driving is causing these crashes.
If you truly believe cameras are causing crashes, then as VH says, hide the cameras. Job done.
In the same link you tell us that people are crashing (to the degree of causing fatal or serious injuries) simply because they must obey a speed limit.
In no way are people who crash because they see a camera or speed limit sign in a position to judge the maximum safe speed for most conditions, indeed their maximum safe speed for most conditions must be very low.
Bad driving is causing these crashes.
If you truly believe cameras are causing crashes, then as VH says, hide the cameras. Job done.
vonhosen said:
Dave Finney said:
vonhosen said:
Dave Finney said:
vonhosen said:
If the allegation is that an unintended consequence of the visible camera themselves, is an adverse effect on driver behaviour/safety ...
It's not an "allegation", it's evidence.And the evidence suggests that speed cameras are causing an increase in death and serious injuries.
Have you seen the video, or read the report?
No spike where the camera is then.
Be careful what you wish for.
And perhaps we can also agree that that means we need to run scientific trials to prove what effect they're having.
Only then should we decide what policies to pursue next, along with the evidence required to prove them.
It's good to see agreement every now and again
.The fatal & serious collisions have increased in "particular isolated areas" compared to elsewhere.
Those "particular isolated areas" are called "speed camera sites".
The speed cameras started operating, and fatal & serious collisions rose above the previous mean rate.
My report also checks speed camera sites, against all the other roads.
There is a lot more detail in my report than I could fit into my video.
My report: https://speedcamerareport.co.uk/08_mobile/
Dave Finney said:
Yes you are right.
The fatal & serious collisions have increased in "particular isolated areas" compared to elsewhere.
Those "particular isolated areas" are called "speed camera sites".
The speed cameras started operating, and fatal & serious collisions rose above the previous mean rate.
My report also checks speed camera sites, against all the other roads.
There is a lot more detail in my report than I could fit into my video.
My report: https://speedcamerareport.co.uk/08_mobile/
I don't see your report as evidence that cameras are a problem. I see it as evidence that bad driving is a problem, and its just high time that mandatory driver retraining is brought in, in various forms.The fatal & serious collisions have increased in "particular isolated areas" compared to elsewhere.
Those "particular isolated areas" are called "speed camera sites".
The speed cameras started operating, and fatal & serious collisions rose above the previous mean rate.
My report also checks speed camera sites, against all the other roads.
There is a lot more detail in my report than I could fit into my video.
My report: https://speedcamerareport.co.uk/08_mobile/
People who crash because of a camera or a speed limit sighn are going to crash somewhere sooner or later anyway. I don't want cameras or speed limits removed to assuage bad drivers.
We need bad drivers removed from the roads.
carlo996 said:
You’ll never get anyone associated with the police agreeing with you in respect to making progress. They are completely indoctrinated in ‘the law’. The placement of some of these revenue vans is outrageous. But there’s no recourse.
And that's where you're wrong. I speed all the time, I just don't winge about it when I'm caught as I knew the risks. 'Making progress' isn't some soet of right either, it's a conscious decision to ignore a limit which is fine as long as you know what might happen if you get pinched for doing it.
Greendubber said:
And that's where you're wrong.
I speed all the time, I just don't winge about it when I'm caught as I knew the risks. 'Making progress' isn't some soet of right either, it's a conscious decision to ignore a limit which is fine as long as you know what might happen if you get pinched for doing it.
It isn't about whinging, it's about the ridiculous notion that revenue vans are placed for safety. Which is complete BS. Show me where anyone said it was a 'right'?I speed all the time, I just don't winge about it when I'm caught as I knew the risks. 'Making progress' isn't some soet of right either, it's a conscious decision to ignore a limit which is fine as long as you know what might happen if you get pinched for doing it.
Griffith4ever said:
Greendubber said:
Griffith4ever said:
Greendubber said:
I'm guessing millions of motorists pass through that section every year without incident though, I know I have?
Bus comment stands I'm afraid, maybe he can blame his ridiculous exaggerations for that.
, Bus comment stands I'm afraid, maybe he can blame his ridiculous exaggerations for that.
..and I pass through that section without incident, all the time . I'm fairly local, I've not had a ticket for speeding in around 15 years,at least. But passing through a section of numerous speed limit changes with cameras without incident doesn't make it the same as if there were no cameras there... Do you see what I mean? It is distracting and fairly unpleasant, particularly at night in the rain where you want to be 100% focussed on the road ahead ,and not if the limit has suddenly changed down by 10mph.
There are plenty of people I know personally who describe the stretch of motorways as a spiders web of traps. It's a waste of resources and makes the local Avon and som constabulary look "opportunist" / abusing their position.
So again, if people cant simply read a great big illuminated sign then leave the car at home.
This is all just sounding like hyperbolic, lame excuses if I'm being honest.
As for A&S police resources, automated cameras and a civilian staffed office isn't going to free anyone up for anything else and with regard to 'opportunists' it's very easy to deny anyone's opportunity to prosecute you for speeding.
vonhosen said:
blueg33 said:
vonhosen said:
blueg33 said:
vonhosen said:
768 said:
But if you don't know which, it's not there for any of them.
It doesn't make any difference to the end user & the individual intention in that limit doesn't have to be justified to them.They simply have to observe & comply or face sanction.
Edited by vonhosen on Saturday 25th November 07:47
See my earlier example where you failed to give any justification for the change at the county line.
You aren't asked to only comply with limits that you personally think are appropriate & see a reason for.
You are told not to exceed them with threat of sanction if you do.
If the reason you shouldn't go faster there was obvious, then there'd be no need for a speed limit in the first place.
Speed limits are generally very conservatively set, because they are one limit that's permanently set & doesn't vary as conditions vary.
As such, by their very nature, a safe speed can often be far in excess of that speed limit. You are forbidden from going there though.
It's not a defence to say "I didn't think the limit was appropriately set".
It's a political/social control mechanism.
If it's only safe to do 20, it doesn't matter that the limit is 40 because it's not going to affect me it's irrelevant.
If it's safe to do 60 & the limit is 40 it does affect me, because I have to comply or face sanction.
Limits only come into effect when you think it's safe to go faster than them, but there isn't a legal justification to go faster than them.
Like all laws you get better compliance if people understand the reason.
But it's a different administrative area with different opinions/views etc, so it being different doesn't come as a great surprise. (Local limits set by local people).
So whilst it may not make sense to you, it does to them.
It's also not reasonable to justify every individual limit to every individual person.
Compliance is encouraged through enforcement because of that.
If you choose not to comply that's your look out, the same as it is for me if I choose not to.
Practically every limit looks wrong to me (if it's supposed to be telling me what is a maximum safe speed) because a lot of the time I'd happily drive faster than them.
I don't need or expect them to justify to me why it's what it is, because it'll change nothing. I'm just expected to comply with threat of sanction if I don't.
Because the limit is clear, as are the enforcement thresholds I know where I stand & can make my choice.
Edited by vonhosen on Saturday 25th November 14:27
heebeegeetee said:
I don't see your report as evidence that cameras are a problem. I see it as evidence that bad driving is a problem, and its just high time that mandatory driver retraining is brought in, in various forms.
People who crash because of a camera or a speed limit sighn are going to crash somewhere sooner or later anyway. I don't want cameras or speed limits removed to assuage bad drivers.
We need bad drivers removed from the roads.
We are, in essence, in agreement.People who crash because of a camera or a speed limit sighn are going to crash somewhere sooner or later anyway. I don't want cameras or speed limits removed to assuage bad drivers.
We need bad drivers removed from the roads.
I am in favour of speed cameras.
I am in favour of trying any new policy that might improve road safety, eg your "mandatory driver retraining".
I too want "bad drivers removed from the roads".
I would like us to achieve no deaths at all on the roads.
But I demand evidence.
Surely you agree with me that we will only ever achieve zero deaths if we ensure that we have the highest standard of evidence?
Video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-GqOm-keyss
Greendubber said:
All you're providing me with is stuff suggesting people can't concentrate enough to read a sign whilst driving and adjust their driving to suit. If they can't manage it, get someone else to drive it really isn't hard. We're not seeing multi car pileups on a daily basis near variable speed limits are we?
As for A&S police resources, automated cameras and a civilian staffed office isn't going to free anyone up for anything else and with regard to 'opportunists' it's very easy to deny anyone's opportunity to prosecute you for speeding.
I think you're closing your eyes and ears to the realities of driving now, compared to a decade ago for instance, because it suits your argument to do so. It's beyond obvious to anyone that more distractions equal less attention spent focussing on what's right in front of you. There's just no argument to be made against that fact that contains common sense.As for A&S police resources, automated cameras and a civilian staffed office isn't going to free anyone up for anything else and with regard to 'opportunists' it's very easy to deny anyone's opportunity to prosecute you for speeding.
Multiple people are pointing out rational and reasonable causes as to why just being able to concentrate on the act of driving is being compromised by unnecessary distractions. You clearly don't like that given that many of your responses are coming across as puerile and dismissive. Bad attitude to have in your line of work.
When ever I see discussions on speed cameras I think of a phrase used by my old physics master when talking about designing experiments, "Always measure what is important, not what is easy to measure".
Our local PCC when he took over from the previous PCC immediately cancelled the sponsership of further driver training & set up a fund for local road safety schemes. So far all the money spent from the fund has gone to installing speed cameras or providing speed guns to residents.
Our local PCC when he took over from the previous PCC immediately cancelled the sponsership of further driver training & set up a fund for local road safety schemes. So far all the money spent from the fund has gone to installing speed cameras or providing speed guns to residents.
Sporky said:
Can you define "natural safe speed"?
I'll go with the 85th percentile speed. The speed below which 85% of drivers would be if there was no speed limit.https://www.roads.org.uk/articles/limit/numbers-ga...
Dave Finney said:
vonhosen said:
Dave Finney said:
vonhosen said:
Dave Finney said:
vonhosen said:
If the allegation is that an unintended consequence of the visible camera themselves, is an adverse effect on driver behaviour/safety ...
It's not an "allegation", it's evidence.And the evidence suggests that speed cameras are causing an increase in death and serious injuries.
Have you seen the video, or read the report?
No spike where the camera is then.
Be careful what you wish for.
And perhaps we can also agree that that means we need to run scientific trials to prove what effect they're having.
Only then should we decide what policies to pursue next, along with the evidence required to prove them.
It's good to see agreement every now and again
.The fatal & serious collisions have increased in "particular isolated areas" compared to elsewhere.
Those "particular isolated areas" are called "speed camera sites".
The speed cameras started operating, and fatal & serious collisions rose above the previous mean rate.
My report also checks speed camera sites, against all the other roads.
There is a lot more detail in my report than I could fit into my video.
My report: https://speedcamerareport.co.uk/08_mobile/
Or is it only at a few camera sites?
carlo996 said:
Greendubber said:
And that's where you're wrong.
I speed all the time, I just don't winge about it when I'm caught as I knew the risks. 'Making progress' isn't some soet of right either, it's a conscious decision to ignore a limit which is fine as long as you know what might happen if you get pinched for doing it.
It isn't about whinging, it's about the ridiculous notion that revenue vans are placed for safety. Which is complete BS. Show me where anyone said it was a 'right'?I speed all the time, I just don't winge about it when I'm caught as I knew the risks. 'Making progress' isn't some soet of right either, it's a conscious decision to ignore a limit which is fine as long as you know what might happen if you get pinched for doing it.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff