Speed cameras: Are we interested in evidence?

You've got it spot on, vonhosen.
Road safety officials don't understand the system they're working on,
and that means more people seriously injured on our roads.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-GqOm-keyss

All my research really does, is point out that there is a problem,
and the problem is not speed cameras per se,
it's that the theories that support road safety policy are fundamentally flawed.

But road safety policy isn't removed from politics & isn't likely to be. Because enforcement, particularly with speed limits, doesn't exist solely on road safety grounds. Sure It's a consideration within a wider policy, but it's just one part of it.

Possibly.
The evidence does suggest that "more injuries occur because the cameras are being used".
IOW, if the cameras had not been used, there would have been fewer fatal and serious crashes.

You're right, this does point to "suboptimal use of the cameras",
IOW, there may be ways that cameras can be used that at least don't result in more fatal and serious crashes,
and could maybe even reduce them.

But that will never happen until the authorities recognise that there is a problem,
hence my video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-GqOm-keyss

You mean like hiding/disguising them so that drivers can't see them or know their locations?
Be careful what you wish for.

Possibly, but you have asked the question that I was asking in the title!
"Do the public support policies based on evidence?"

Suppose the public were told:
We are going to run hidden speed cameras in certain areas for 3 years within scientific trials.

If death and serious injuries are proven to be reduced, we may continue that policy.

But if death and serious injuries are proven to increase,
cameras will never be hidden again,
and ALL cameras will be required by law to be run within scientific trials.

Would the great British public support policies that are based on high-quality evidence?

On it's own (that is evidence in relation to deaths at speed camera sites), against a wider issue of speed limits & enforcement, I doubt it.
Also humans don't all deal with the world simply in terms of just data & evidence. How many people in this country (or indeed on this planet) believe in a God?

Whether speed cameras increase or decrease the number of road deaths isn’t the issue, it’s just the excuse being used by the government that they make roads safer therefore they need to be used.

We all know the reason they exist is revenue collection. Same with LTNs, ULEZ, bus gates and all the other revenue raising cameras being installed to squeeze money out of the motorist.

It’s a great idea: using whatever statistics you like, the govt can claim they make roads safer / cleaner / quieter or whatever else they choose that day, stick up cameras and a few signs and watch the £££s roll in. Interesting article out this week showing Hammersmith & Fulham making a million pounds a month from fines from making a single road an LTN.

It’s all about the money, sadly.

I expect the vast majority place far greater importance on the quality of policy decision making (largely a matter of opinion) than that of the underlying evidence.

The research only shows that there are increases, it does not show who or why..

You're still jumping to the conclusion that it is only "stupids" crashing at camera sites,
but it could be that otherwise safe and responsible people are also increasing the crash rate at camera sites.

Eg;
there is 1 FSC* every 3 years at camera sites**.
also around 8% of FSC involve a vehicle speeding***.

So cameras might be able to prevent 1 FSC every 37 years,
but, during that time, they may be changing the behaviour of most (nearly all?) drivers/riders,
even those who are not and would not have been speeding.

So the cameras may be resulting an extremely small increase in crash risk but multiplied by an extremely large number of drivers/riders,
to prevent an extremely small number of crashes involving speeding.

(* fatal or serious collision, ** on average in the TV database, *** exceeding the speed limit).

The public are mad Dave, I don't think they're interested in evidence, I think they just largely want to do whatever they want to do and sod the consequences. They want to drive where they want, when they want at whatever speed they want, and they don't give a stuff about anyone who may not want to or who cannot drive. And I dare say, when I was young I was in that group too.

One question from an above link, re "higher than normal collision rate during the SSP" - has that occurred at every site?