Speed cameras: Are we interested in evidence?
Discussion
KTMsm said:
Dave Finney said:
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?
Where it's possible - IE you're not stuck in traffic, I suggest it's somewhere around :IOW, in your estimation, what percentage of all miles driven was above the speed limit?
60% on country roads, including going through villages
40% in residential areas
20% on motorways - most traffic has slowed down since fuel prices increased some years ago
I'd estimate a bit less than that but, yes, somewhere in that area.
heebeegeetee said:
Okay, well due to congestion I dare say a lot lower than I might otherwise think.
Also, if there is an overall figure of all vehicles it will include billions of miles driven by speed limited HGVs etc running 24/7.
On clear, free flowing roads I think most vehicles able to do so drive above the speed limit, particularly in urban areas. It doesn't bother me, I'll be one of them too, but on some 30 and 40mph roads I'm thinking of, I think nigh on every vehicle will be above the speed limit.
So congestion, 0% speeding, but low number of milesAlso, if there is an overall figure of all vehicles it will include billions of miles driven by speed limited HGVs etc running 24/7.
On clear, free flowing roads I think most vehicles able to do so drive above the speed limit, particularly in urban areas. It doesn't bother me, I'll be one of them too, but on some 30 and 40mph roads I'm thinking of, I think nigh on every vehicle will be above the speed limit.
and HGVs on motorways, nearly 0% speeding with high number of miles.
elsewhere very high speeding rates.
So overall maybe you might estimate about 10% of all miles driven are above the speed limit?
I'd estimate a bit higher than that but, yes, we would agree somewhere in that area.
I'm guessing that most people would think between 10% and 15% of all miles driven are above the speed limit, just from their personal experience.
vonhosen said:
Until you identify the scope of & weight all the benefits achieved you can't know the answer.
Yes, I agree.and for that we need evidence.
Something that I have provided for the 1st time in my video!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-GqOm-keyss
Maybe you and I are of the few that would answer "Yes" to the thread title?
heebeegeetee said:
KTMsm said:
15% - no I'd think it's a lot higher
I mean exceeding it even by 1 MPH
If you try driving at the speed limit on most roads, there will soon be a queue behind you
Yes, correct, if you try to drive at speed limit you get tailgated. I mean exceeding it even by 1 MPH
If you try driving at the speed limit on most roads, there will soon be a queue behind you
If we think of how many vehicles will drive above speed limit at least once on each journey, the figure will be way over 15%. I'd have to have a think about how far over 50% I think it is.
Completely different question,
That's probably not far off 100%.
Peter3442 said:
Do we agree that the standard of driving is falling?
No, I don't think so,but it may appear to us as though it is.
1. Far greater traffic levels.
2. More driving laws and increasing restrictions.
3. devolved enforcement.
4. Health and safety culture.
1. If only 1% of drivers are of a poor standard but there's double the traffic levels,
we see double the number of bad drivers.
2. With new mobile phone laws, lower speed limits, more yellow box junctions, tighter parking regulations etc
we see an increase in "illegal actions".
3. With law enforcement delegated from the Police down to council officials and private companies using cameras, and enforcement cars, etc
we see an increase in the number of people penalised.
4. We used to drive without seat belts, airbags or ABS, and we were not worried.
Now, we are much more risk averse.
We would not consider buying a car without them, even if it were legal and a lot cheaper!
So the "the standard of driving" may be just the same as it ever was,
but our perception has changed.
Is there any way to provide evidence of the standard of driving falling?
Vipers said:
As my mate always said "We used to have children in coalmines", we used to have a lot of things, always rememember the one on seatbeslts, "My brother would have been killed if he had been WEARING his seat belt" apparantly in this incident his brother was able to lie down on the front seas as he skidded under an truck.
Yes, seat belts can lead to deaths sometimes, egopen-top cars that overturn,
cars that fall into deep water,
cars being crushed/going under trucks, etc.
There are examples of crashes where seat belts helped save lives (I know of one myself)
and examples where lives were not lost because a seat belt was not worn.
But overall seat belts save lives (although not as many as I had thought).
Speed cameras are supposed to save lives but can lead to deaths too.
Interestingly, there are examples of speed cameras leading to deaths,
but no examples of where they may save lives,
at least according to the Police, the speed camera operators, the Department for Transport and local council road safety departments.
Vipers said:
Dave Finney said:
Interestingly, there are examples of speed cameras leading to deaths.
Can hazard at one scenario, this happened to me, in cc spot on 70 decent distance between myself and car in front also doing 70, they rounded a slight bend on a dual carriageway, and anchored up.I slowed and as I got further along spotted a camera van in a layby, guessing driver had absolutely no idea what speed they were doing and anchored up just in case, a car driving closer may have had a collision.
and that occurred in 2 of the 3 examples on my "Effects of speed cameras" page.
https://speedcamerareport.co.uk/effects-of-speed-c...
Sudden braking can have 3 effects:
1. "loss of control" (the top contributory factor in fatal collisions)
2. the vehicle behind running into the back (because the driver behind looked down at the speedometer at the same time)
3. It can lead to another road user, seeing the slowing vehicle, to think they are allowing them out/across.
But there are other negative effects we might not have realised.
One collision at one of the fixed speed cameras in Thames Valley
involved a motorcyclist who, after slowing for a fixed camera, pulled a wheelie.
This was at night, so his headlight now pointed up at the sky.
A couple in a car were crossing the main road and did not see the bike.
All 3 were killed.
Muzzer79 said:
So, I'm clear........you're blaming the presence of a speed camera for an accident where a motorcyclist pulled a wheelie on a public road, thereby making his lights invisible, leading to a collision and death?
Of course not,simply stating what was reported.
A stated aim of the speed cameras is to cause behavioural change.
They are successful in doing this, but some of the changes may not be beneficial.
Muzzer79 said:
So you think the presence of a speed camera caused a motorcyclist to do a wheelie on a public road?
I'm confused by your example and it's relevance to your point about speed camera "behavioural change"
Speed cameras cause "behavioural change", it's even a stated objective.I'm confused by your example and it's relevance to your point about speed camera "behavioural change"
If that "behavioural change" leads to lives saved, great.
But they can lead to deaths that might not otherwise have occurred.
We cannot know how many of each of those,
but good quality research can tell us the nett effect (ie, one minus the other).
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-GqOm-keyss
vonhosen said:
The speed limit (or camera) didn't cause him to do a wheelie & cause three deaths. That happened because he was a 
It's speed limits that are to promote the behavioural change.
Enforcement (by whatever means) is simply a consequence of the speed limit existence.
The question is, are we better off with speed limits or without them?
On balance, I think with them.
If we have them, then we have to have enforcement.
May I ask, do you drive? It's speed limits that are to promote the behavioural change.
Enforcement (by whatever means) is simply a consequence of the speed limit existence.
The question is, are we better off with speed limits or without them?
On balance, I think with them.
If we have them, then we have to have enforcement.
Muzzer79 said:
Right, but I'm going to ask you to correlate the 'behavioural change' that has occurred, relevant to your example of a person pulling a wheelie on a motorbike.....?
When considering examples, we are discussing possibilities and people have differing opinions.So that's only really worthwhile, from a safety engineering perspective, once we have established what is happening.
Eg, if speed cameras saved lives, that's a very different discussion to if speed cameras are actually resulting in more deaths.
The first step in solving a problem, is to recognise that the problem exists.
The best evidence available suggests there are more people dead as a result of the use of speed cameras.
But we need to verify that.
We need to run scientific trials.
The problem is that the authorities refuse point blank to run them.
Muzzer79 said:
Please correlate the 'behavioural change' that has occurred in respect of your example of a person pulling a wheelie on a motorbike.
I don't quite understand what you're looking for.What do you think?
Did he pull the wheelie for reasons unrelated to the camera being there?
or did the camera trigger the response from him that caused the fatal collision?
Either way, what matters is the change in fatalities.
Once we know that, we can formulate how to solve the problem.
And that requires the answers to who, when and why are people being killed at camera sites?
heebeegeetee said:
I'm not persuaded Dave, sorry. Stupid people do all kinds of stupid stuff for stupid reasons. We ought to have scientific studies on allowing stupid people to drive.
These people crash into all kinds of things, be it trees or parked car or buildings or whatever, and undoubtedly loss of life occurs, like the 2 little girls killed when someone crashed into their school.
What you are doing is blaming the existence of these obstacles for these crashes and not the obviously very bad driving or behaviour resulting in these crashes.
These people crash into all kinds of things, be it trees or parked car or buildings or whatever, and undoubtedly loss of life occurs, like the 2 little girls killed when someone crashed into their school.
What you are doing is blaming the existence of these obstacles for these crashes and not the obviously very bad driving or behaviour resulting in these crashes.
Muzzer79 said:
A moronic person pulled an illegal move on his motorbike which led to three tragic deaths. That was his choice on that day. There are no excuses for making that choice - camera or not.
If the camera triggered the response from the biker that led to the fatal collision,the biker is still "to blame" for the collision, not the camera.
But if that's the extent of our analysis,
then we still have a problem and we are not fixing it.
Adverse reactions are the least of the negative side effects of cameras,
that I haven't even mentioned in "Effects of speed cameras".
That means we have people dead, and more are going to die.
Have you heard of the Milgram experiment?
Most people will do what authority says, but a few will question and refuse.
We need the people who comply (otherwise nothing would get done),
but we also need the people who rebel (otherwise we end up under a repressive regime).
In safety engineering, we need to recognise that society is full of all sorts of people,
and then design the system that works best for all on balance.
That requires competency and honesty,
both of which are in short supply in road safety.
Muzzer79 said:
What problem? What side effects?
I have provided the highest quality evidence possible, given the data available.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-GqOm-keyss
Cat said:
Dave Finney said:
I have provided the highest quality evidence possible, given the data available.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-GqOm-keyss
Have your reports and the evidence in them been published in any peer reviewed journals?https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-GqOm-keyss
How many other papers on the same field have referenced/cited your reports and evidence?
My mobile report was submitted, reviewed and accepted into the "Road Safety Knowledge Centre".
See link top left: https://speedcamerareport.co.uk/08_mobile_report/
My report "DOES REDUCING TRAFFIC SPEED USING SPEED CAMERAS REDUCE THE NUMBER OF COLLISIONS?"
was also submitted, reviewed and accepted into the "Road Safety Knowledge Centre".
See link top right: https://speedcamerareport.co.uk/07_5pc_per_1mph_re...
I'm not aware of other reports citing mine,
but I invented the term SSP (site selection period) and that is becoming standard now in other reports.
eg the RAC Foundation report into how to evaluate cameras, and also their report on average speed cameras.
heebeegeetee said:
Re Dave's thread, I fully admit I genuinely did not know, nor could ever imagine, that people are crashing so badly that loss of life and/or life changing injury is involved, *simply because they've seen a speed camera.* And Dave's blaming the camera?! Again, I think the world is going nuts.
Yes, after 20 years of being told that speed cameras save lives,discovering that that is completely false, is a difficult concept to take on board.
I didn't believe it at first.
I developed my FTP method back in 2008, and received the database in mid 2009.
I had the results by the end of 2009 but did not publish until over 2 years later.
It took a lot of work checking all the camera sites across the whole country where data was available,
and reading through all the reports showing why collisions occurred,
to finally understand that the results of my research were indeed correct.
So I do understand your struggle accepting the evidence.
heebeegeetee said:
It really really does seem now that any journey of any length I do is either delayed for me, or I see long queues on other side of road following an incident there... people are crashing just far too much. The costs associated must be enormous - the cost to the nation, the cost to businesses, the cost to our insurance premiums, and so on. Collectively, those figures amount to £billions, every single year.
It has got to stop. (Or significantly reduce).
Yes, you may be right,It has got to stop. (Or significantly reduce).
but the evidence suggests there are now more fatal and serious crashes as a result of speed cameras operating.
These are the very collisions that cause the roads to be closed,
contributing not only to the long delays,
but also the vast cost to us as tax payers that you mention.
How do you want road safety to be controlled?
Do you want officials to reject the best evidence and implement policies based on their opinions?
Well that's what you've got.
You can't then complain when the rejection of the best evidence leads to the very problems that you are so concerned about!
The ONLY way to be absolutely sure of the effects of ANY intervention,
speed cameras or anything else,
is to run scientific trials.
Officials have always refused to run scientific trials,
but that may be changing...
https://speedcamerareport.co.uk/scientific-trials/
Cat said:
The Road Safety Knowledge Centre is simply a repository of road safety information - it's not peer reviewed.
It is unusual that despite your reports apparently being "the most accurate ever produced", having "the highest quality evidence possible" and "my report presents the highest standard of evidence possible given the data available", they have not been subject to any peer review and the rest of the research in this area has not refered to them in over a decade since they were published.
Well, I don't know about other reports,It is unusual that despite your reports apparently being "the most accurate ever produced", having "the highest quality evidence possible" and "my report presents the highest standard of evidence possible given the data available", they have not been subject to any peer review and the rest of the research in this area has not refered to them in over a decade since they were published.
but my reports were very definitely reviewed by road safety experts
before being accepted into the Road Safety Knowledge Centre.
I know what the review of my 1st report said,
and I know who one of the expert reviewers was for my 2nd report.
Yes, but not that unusual considering the results are not politically acceptable.
Eg, one road safety researcher, having read my report with my new method for trend, and my new "FTP method",
then produced his own report using both of my 2 new methods,
but did not credit me for either of them.
My FTP method was also used in another report on average cameras,
but, again, I was not credited.
And there's another report that I can't find now,
but they used my FTP method, and credited the other researcher for it!
heebeegeetee said:
Dave Finney said:
Yes, you may be right,
but the evidence suggests there are now more fatal and serious crashes as a result of speed cameras operating.
On motorways and dual carriageways? but the evidence suggests there are now more fatal and serious crashes as a result of speed cameras operating.
The very last example at the bottom. That was a dual carriageway, wasn't it?
https://speedcamerareport.co.uk/effects-of-speed-c...
Greendubber said:
Interesting, I've been to far too many fatal and serious RTCs over the years and none of them were caused by a speed camera. In fact I don't ever recall there being one present at any of them.
Thanks for your hard work investigating RTCs.It's one area where the Police provide a really good service,
and they are rarely credited for the quality of that difficult work.
Thank you.
All of the collisions in the graphs in my reports are those recorded by Police,
they were there at the scene, even if you weren't one of them.
But even those Police won't see the full picture created by the data that they collect.
You have to plot that data onto graphs,
and then look at when rates changed.
That's why we collect data in the first place,
to provide the evidence to prove what is having what effect.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-GqOm-keyss
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff