Speed cameras: Are we interested in evidence?
Discussion
Cat said:
Nope, no NIPs for seatbelts and mobile phones. It even states it in the link you provided
You appear to have missed the last part:Dave Finney said:
So it's FPN rates, not NIP rates for seat belt and mobile phone. We have both learnt something! 
This discussion has at least benefitted both of us, thank you.bigothunter said:
Greendubber said:
Literally correcting the OP on something relevant to the thread, Cat couldn't be more on topic.
Prosecution via FPN or NIP is relevant to a thread about evidence on the effectiveness of speed cameras? 
You cannot be serious.
He may have sounded pedantic but, when discussing evidence, it is important to use the correct words and terms.
I stand corrected and thank him for his input, thanks Cat.
bigothunter said:
Heaveho said:
bigothunter said:
Getting back to the original question - all depends who you mean by 'we':
Contributors to this thread: I like to believe the overwhelming majority are interested in evidence but given many responses, I'm not sure that's true.
General Public: Not interested especially as most won't comprehend your analysis. They would rather believe common opinion driven by propaganda. Much easier than thinking for themselves.
Politicians and Councilors: Their motivation is driven by political manoeuvring, popular trends (vote winners), placating pressure groups and arse covering. Evidence is not necessary or wanted.
Sorry Dave but I think you are pursuing a lost cause
I think that is about as accurate a synopsis as you are likely to get op.Contributors to this thread: I like to believe the overwhelming majority are interested in evidence but given many responses, I'm not sure that's true.
General Public: Not interested especially as most won't comprehend your analysis. They would rather believe common opinion driven by propaganda. Much easier than thinking for themselves.
Politicians and Councilors: Their motivation is driven by political manoeuvring, popular trends (vote winners), placating pressure groups and arse covering. Evidence is not necessary or wanted.
Sorry Dave but I think you are pursuing a lost cause
blueg33 said:
In summary - the people who should be interested in the evidence are not interested because the evidence does not allow them the control they desire.
Those who are interested in the evidence are people who will accept the control more willingly if it is reasoned and justified.
Then you have the enforcers who don't care as long as they can get off by being given an excuse to look like they have power (they usually get a hat too)
Dave,Those who are interested in the evidence are people who will accept the control more willingly if it is reasoned and justified.
Then you have the enforcers who don't care as long as they can get off by being given an excuse to look like they have power (they usually get a hat too)
Heaveho, blueg33 and I commented on the broad interest in speed camera evidence. We raised particular concerns (as above). Hope you feel this is relevant.
Would appreciate your response please.
It can take years, or even decades to take effect.
It may often require a whole new generation unencumbered by the entrenched beliefs of the previous, for evidence to be understood.
Look at the evidence that the earth goes round the sun, it took many decades for that to be accepted!
There's been an increase in people killed and seriously injured at speed camera sites.
I found out and, if I remained silent, I would then bear some responsibility for that.
So I don't think I'm "pursuing a lost cause", I'm simply a messenger.
It's now for other people to make their choice: Act, or remain silent?
bigothunter said:
Which suggests your initiative is a moral crusade. Certainly interesting but little more than an academic exercise. Something to be filed away in the archives.
What a shame those in power are not listening
I wouldn't call it a "moral crusade" really, it's just basic safety engineering.What a shame those in power are not listening
What is surprising is that lots of highly qualified people all around the world have been paid to work out the effects of speed cameras, and yet none of them managed to do it.
What I did was plot the collisions on a graph.
Either no-one else thought to do that,
or they did do it, but failed to see what was, frankly, obvious.
Displaying data on a graph is hardly revolutionary, it's really what I would expect any competent person would do,
yet it does appear that I achieved a world first!
Video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-GqOm-keyss
blueg33 said:
If the evidence is there, I think you should get it peer reviewed and published. Then send a summary of the checked published paper to the media.
The only way to get people interested in the evidence is to give it to them in an irrefutable form.
The evidence is there and it is irrefutable, you can see it for yourself.The only way to get people interested in the evidence is to give it to them in an irrefutable form.
Everything is available on my website:
My video, my report, the original database, the searchable databases I created and the response from the speed camera partnership that supplied the data.
Complete transparency.
My report has been submitted, reviewed and accepted into the Road Safety Knowledge Centre:
https://www.roadsafetyknowledgecentre.org.uk/rskc-...
It takes a lot of time and effort to do the analysis, but it's interesting doing it.
The database is like a giant sudoku, except the answer could be something important, and it turned out to be something no-one had ever seen before.
But it takes longer to write up the report, and that bit I find tedious.
In fact I kept putting off writing the report until a phone call years later forced me to do it!
There are professionals all around the world that have been paid to do this work, and they failed to do what we paid them to do.
They thought it was impossible.
One said RTM (the effect of site selection) was no more than a statistical phenomenon that could not be proved outside of a mathematical formulae.
Yet I managed, without being paid, to achieve the apparently impossible.
I was the first person in the world to completely remove the effect of site selection (RTM) in a road safety report.
It had never been done before!
heebeegeetee said:
Dave Finney said:
The evidence is there and it is irrefutable, you can see it for yourself.
Everything is available on my website:
My video, my report, the original database, the searchable databases I created and the response from the speed camera partnership that supplied the data.
Complete transparency.
My report has been submitted, reviewed and accepted into the Road Safety Knowledge Centre:
https://www.roadsafetyknowledgecentre.org.uk/rskc-...
It takes a lot of time and effort to do the analysis, but it's interesting doing it.
The database is like a giant sudoku, except the answer could be something important, and it turned out to be something no-one had ever seen before.
But it takes longer to write up the report, and that bit I find tedious.
In fact I kept putting off writing the report until a phone call years later forced me to do it!
There are professionals all around the world that have been paid to do this work, and they failed to do what we paid them to do.
They thought it was impossible.
One said RTM (the effect of site selection) was no more than a statistical phenomenon that could not be proved outside of a mathematical formulae.
Yet I managed, without being paid, to achieve the apparently impossible.
I was the first person in the world to completely remove the effect of site selection (RTM) in a road safety report.
It had never been done before!
Is it not the case that while ksi statistics at camera sites may go up, within the science of very small numbers, the overall casualty rate goes down each year, by and large? Everything is available on my website:
My video, my report, the original database, the searchable databases I created and the response from the speed camera partnership that supplied the data.
Complete transparency.
My report has been submitted, reviewed and accepted into the Road Safety Knowledge Centre:
https://www.roadsafetyknowledgecentre.org.uk/rskc-...
It takes a lot of time and effort to do the analysis, but it's interesting doing it.
The database is like a giant sudoku, except the answer could be something important, and it turned out to be something no-one had ever seen before.
But it takes longer to write up the report, and that bit I find tedious.
In fact I kept putting off writing the report until a phone call years later forced me to do it!
There are professionals all around the world that have been paid to do this work, and they failed to do what we paid them to do.
They thought it was impossible.
One said RTM (the effect of site selection) was no more than a statistical phenomenon that could not be proved outside of a mathematical formulae.
Yet I managed, without being paid, to achieve the apparently impossible.
I was the first person in the world to completely remove the effect of site selection (RTM) in a road safety report.
It had never been done before!
What you're taliking about is the area-wide effects of cameras.
In the early days it was thought that speed cameras would have measurable area-wide effects.
So much so that, in the DfTs "two year pilot evaluation", it said: "Partnerships must collect ... hospital bed data."
But, 2 years later, in their "Four-year evaluation report" they realised that there were no identifiable area-wide benefits.
No-one has been able to establish an area-wide effect of speed cameras, probably because there are so many other factors influencing collision rates.
Certainly, any effect of speed cameras should be greatest where they are used, and the effects elsewhere less so.
heebeegeetee said:
And if the presence of speed cameras do make people crash, them obviously they have to go where it's safe to put them and not where we perhaps think they should go.
Yes, a good way forward but we need to ensure that we don't create an even bigger problem.First: investigate who, when and why people were killed at speed camera sites.
Second: using that information, formulate new policies to address the issues found.
Third: run our new policies within scientific trials.
vonhosen said:
But that's still lower than pre-pandemic levels.
Perhaps one answer to reduce road deaths then is to reduce the number of cars (& motorbikes) on the road & encourage other forms of transport.
Maybe more people working from home, is mileage driven lower?Perhaps one answer to reduce road deaths then is to reduce the number of cars (& motorbikes) on the road & encourage other forms of transport.
Why do people drive? Probably because it takes less time?
Other forms of transport might slow the economy thereby less cash for the NHS to save lives?
There are always negative side effects.
You could say the same for other transport types, eg one answer to reduce airplane deaths is to reduce the number of aircraft and encourage other forms of transport.
Those are political decisions, all I ask is competency and honesty, and I can't seem to get either of those!
This is from a comment on my video showing a collision scenario at a speed camera site.
We have a police van turn up every month and a woman was waiting to exit the post office car park. A car had passed the van and was flashing oncoming vehicles to warn them it was there, but the female driver thought she was being flashed out and out she came. Both cars were written off, and the drivers, plus the small child in the back of the woman's car ended up in A&E. The flashing driver was responsible, not the enforcement van.
We have a police van turn up every month and a woman was waiting to exit the post office car park. A car had passed the van and was flashing oncoming vehicles to warn them it was there, but the female driver thought she was being flashed out and out she came. Both cars were written off, and the drivers, plus the small child in the back of the woman's car ended up in A&E. The flashing driver was responsible, not the enforcement van.
Hi all, my video has now reached 1000 views.
That's probably about 500 who watched to the end (Google says: Average percentage viewed 51.1%).
A video explaining a technical report is hardly going to be particularly popular, especially as there isn't a cat in it.
When I published my report back in Nov 2012, I achieved something no-one had before:
I had completely removed the effect of site selection (aka "regression to the mean") from data at speed camera sites.
A world first.
And, still to this day, not a single official report has achieved this.
But I struggled to explain my "FTP method" or my report and so, eventually, I made the video.
It's the response that has surprised me, particularly here on PH.
To condense the problem afflicting every single official report on speed cameras in the world, down to a 5 minute video was not easy.
The fact that people who have viewed the video seem to understand the evidence, is just brilliant.
Thank you everyone.
Video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-GqOm-keyss
That's probably about 500 who watched to the end (Google says: Average percentage viewed 51.1%).
A video explaining a technical report is hardly going to be particularly popular, especially as there isn't a cat in it.
When I published my report back in Nov 2012, I achieved something no-one had before:
I had completely removed the effect of site selection (aka "regression to the mean") from data at speed camera sites.
A world first.
And, still to this day, not a single official report has achieved this.
But I struggled to explain my "FTP method" or my report and so, eventually, I made the video.
It's the response that has surprised me, particularly here on PH.
To condense the problem afflicting every single official report on speed cameras in the world, down to a 5 minute video was not easy.
The fact that people who have viewed the video seem to understand the evidence, is just brilliant.
Thank you everyone.
Video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-GqOm-keyss
blueg33 said:
Greendubber said:
I'll generally know how fast I'm going without having to panic break.
I agree, I generally know how fast I am going. First, you need to know your exact speed:
Your "general" speed is relative.
30 might feel lightening fast on a narrow road past pedestrians.
30 might feel ridiculously slow on an open road.
Second, you need to know what the speed limit is at that point in your journey.
On roads you travel frequently, you'll know the speed limit and where the cameras are or might be.
You can therefore look away from the road ahead to check your speed when it is safe, before any camera ahead.
But on roads you don't know, you have to notice the speed limit, remember it, then notice when it changes, remember the new limit, and repeat for all of your journey.
Plus you need to look away from the road ahead to ensure that you're below that limit often enough that you don't need to do it when there's a camera ahead.
I can see how speed cameras changing driver behaviour in that way might reduce some crashes, but how it can also increase other crashes.
My question, as an engineer, is:
What is the overall change in crashes that occurs as a result?
The answer is, in the most accurate reports, an overall increase in fatal and serious collisions.
Graveworm said:
I like to think I know how fast I am going and what the speed limit is and tech helps with both but I must admit I double check many times when I see camera or van, often when I see others hitting the brakes. this is going to be a slight distraction no matter how minor. Never caused anything close to an accident or danger though. I suppose it doesn't have to do much to nullify the equally negligible benefits from speed enforcement.
Yes, you have that spot on.The benefits and negative side effects of speed cameras are both extremely small, way below any personal experience we might have of them preventing or leading to crashes.
So we are looking for the difference between 2 very small numbers.
The best method is to run scientific trials, but they've never done this and point blank refuse to do so.
What we're left with, therefore, is before/after studies and the problem then is that we have to remove the big factors.
The biggest is the effect of site selection (aka RTM) but no official report anywhere in the world has ever managed to remove it (they thought doing that was impossible).
But I did it.
I developed my FTP method and applied it to real data.
My report on mobile speed cameras completely removed the effect of site selection from the results.
A world first.
And my FTP method has been repeated at other camera sites (all Fixed sites in Thames Valley, all Fixed in London, all Fixed and mobile in Wales).
And there were increases in fatal and serious collisions at those as well.
There are real problems in road safety, but the authorities refuse to acknowledge that there even is a problem.
Until that happens, more people will continue to be killed on our roads.
Video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-GqOm-keyss
NFT said:
Hey Dave,
Your sites "Examples of negative side effects:" link to Metro story of motorcyclist that died isn't working any longer,
Not sure if it was Timothy Roswell, but here is a working link.
https://www.dailyecho.co.uk/news/9212760.timothy-r...
Yes, that was the fatal motorbike collision on my website,Your sites "Examples of negative side effects:" link to Metro story of motorcyclist that died isn't working any longer,
Not sure if it was Timothy Roswell, but here is a working link.
https://www.dailyecho.co.uk/news/9212760.timothy-r...
and the other 2 links had broken as well.
All 3 new links inserted and, in case they break again, I've added a screen shot for each!
Thanks, NFT.
heebeegeetee said:
As for Dave's repeated insistence on scientific trials - I'm not buying it. For a proper scientific trial we'd need to start with no rules, or no speed limits, to prove the need for them in the first place.
What you're describing is what you do under laboratory conditions where you can control all the variables.But there is a scientific trial specifically designed for when you cannot control all the variables.
It's called a "randomised controlled trial".
It finds the effect of an "intervention" in a "complex environment".
Eg a new medical drug
https://speedcamerareport.co.uk/scientific-trials/
heebeegeetee said:
I am firmly of the opinion that if even just the mere presence of a speed camera "caused" someone to crash (which I for one thinks beggars belief) then that driver WILL crash somewhere or other if not at the camera location.
You're right, speed cameras don't "cause someone to crash",but they can contribute to a crash occurring by changing driver behaviour.
Drivers may: drive slower/drive faster/brake suddenly/divert their attention away from the road ahead/other/
And we know these collisions do occur because there are examples.
But switch it around, can speed cameras prevent crashes?
The Police, the speed camera operators, the Department for Transport and local council road safety departments
all say that even the collisions that led to cameras being deployed,
would not have been prevented had the cameras been there!
I believe that there must be examples of collisions that could have been prevented had a speed camera been there
but, like the authorities, I have yet to find any.
https://speedcamerareport.co.uk/effects-of-speed-c...
heebeegeetee said:
Okay, if road safety is politics, how does that affect us negatively?
Because the evidence suggests that there are more people dead and seriously injured as a result.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-GqOm-keyss
Pit Pony said:
Despite The NHS being f
ked, and the number of cars increasing by a zillion percent, the results have not gone up. Why is that?
Either most cars are much safer, having being given multiple airbags, and crumble zones that work, or there are less crashes at speeds likely to kill.
We need more data.
Things like:
Number of crashes above the speed limit, resulting in hospitalisation and/or death.
Time is took for the ambulance to arrive in all those cases.
Number of crashes where there is an insurance claim.
Number of speeding convictions.
Number of people on the road
Number of miles driven on the roads.
Thanks PP, glad to see someone else needing to see evidence. ked, and the number of cars increasing by a zillion percent, the results have not gone up. Why is that? Either most cars are much safer, having being given multiple airbags, and crumble zones that work, or there are less crashes at speeds likely to kill.
We need more data.
Things like:
Number of crashes above the speed limit, resulting in hospitalisation and/or death.
Time is took for the ambulance to arrive in all those cases.
Number of crashes where there is an insurance claim.
Number of speeding convictions.
Number of people on the road
Number of miles driven on the roads.
All that data does exist, and you could probably get hold of it.
But are you prepared to do the work to isolate what factors had what effect?
To help with your 1st data set:
https://speedcamerareport.co.uk/speeding/
heebeegeetee said:
I may as well say, I think that's highly skewed evidence to meet a certain viewpoint.
I don't think speed limits and enforcement result in more dead and seriously injured.
Thank you HbgT,I don't think speed limits and enforcement result in more dead and seriously injured.
you have made me realise something I hadn't spotted before.
Not only are my 3 reports the most accurate ever produced,
but they may also be the ONLY ones that provide all the raw data on which they are based!
Look at Figure 8.1
Those are the KSI collisions direct out of the database.
There is no manipulation or skewing of the data there or anywhere else.
(there are more graphs near the end of the main report)
https://speedcamerareport.co.uk/08_mobile/
If you don't believe the graphs in the reports,
you can download the raw data and draw your own graphs.
And I've even done 99% of that work for you.
You can download the database with the search features that I built and check everything for yourself.
https://speedcamerareport.co.uk/data/
And if you think I've made all of it up,
read the response from the speed camera partnership that supplied the database.
They checked the data in my report and found no errors.
https://speedcamerareport.files.wordpress.com/2024...
The fact you reject the most accurate evidence available suggests you must also reject all official reports.
And you even reject the gold standard (scientific trials).
You appear to have an entrenched opinion where nothing will ever show you what is really happening!
We are very different people.
vonhosen said:
Dave Finney said:
heebeegeetee said:
Hi Dave,
What do you think are the real problems with road safety?
That road safety is politics.What do you think are the real problems with road safety?
I believe road safety should be a branch of "safety engineering".
(IOW, it should be "evidence led").
They are a road management, pollution (noise, air, health), social tool too.
1. competency
2. honesty.
Are the benefits you hope to achieve using speed cameras worth there being more people killed and seriously injured?
heebeegeetee said:
Well, I'm very surprised how low the number is (2 million drivers have points for speeding), given the amount of driving above speed limits is taking place.
How much "driving above speed limits" do you think might be taking place?IOW, in your estimation, what percentage of all miles driven was above the speed limit?
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff