Speed Cameras, are they for safety, or revenue?

[Dammit]

Phatboy317 said:

Besides the fact that there's far too many individual circumstances, variables and confounding factors to draw reliable inferences from the national statistics - even given the large numbers involved, people are individuals, not statistics, and, likewise, accidents are individual events.

So the larger the sample set the less reliable the analysis?

Therefore, the most reliable analysis would be taken from a sample size of one?

I would suggest that you might want to look into this a little further, as currently you sound like a bit of a wally.

[Phatboy317]

vonhosen said:

But speed limits are a compromise of more than what the goals of the driver are so it isn't about just what they deem appropriate for safety for them (& speed limits aren't the only offence).

A compromise with what? For what reason?

And why do you seem to think that drivers are only concerned with their own safety? Drivers are also pedestrians, cyclists, fathers, mothers, brothers, sisters, sons, daughters, friends etc.

[Phatboy317]

Dammit said:

So the larger the sample set the less reliable the analysis?

Therefore, the most reliable analysis would be taken from a sample size of one?

I would suggest that you might want to look into this a little further, as currently you sound like a bit of a wally.

In case you hadn't noticed, I'm ignoring you - just as I ignore anyone who shows themselves to be only interested in confrontation and point-scoring, and not at all interested in sober, rational discussion.

So kindly keep your snarky, twisted misrepresentations to yourself.

[vonhosen]

Phatboy317 said:

vonhosen said:

But speed limits are a compromise of more than what the goals of the driver are so it isn't about just what they deem appropriate for safety for them (& speed limits aren't the only offence).

A compromise with what? For what reason?

As I've already said, noise, pollution etc as well as the driver's wishes.

Phatboy317 said:

And why do you seem to think that drivers are only concerned with their own safety? Drivers are also pedestrians, cyclists, fathers, mothers, brothers, sisters, sons, daughters, friends etc.

It's not just the consideration of the driver in what amounts to an appropriate speed. Those setting the limits have to take an overview of all interests when they dictate the range. Only then is it up to the driver to choose a safe appropriate speed within the dictated range.

Also drivers often forget they are also pedestrians at other times. Some people will behave in a discourteous manner in the car whilst at the same time abhorring those very traits in others when outside the car.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mZAZ_xu0DCg

Edited by vonhosen on Saturday 3rd January 21:42

[vonhosen]

Phatboy317 said:

vonhosen said:

But speed limits are a compromise of more than what the goals of the driver are so it isn't about just what they deem appropriate for safety for them (& speed limits aren't the only offence).

A compromise with what? For what reason?

As I've already said, noise, pollution etc as well as the driver's wishes.

Phatboy317 said:

And why do you seem to think that drivers are only concerned with their own safety? Drivers are also pedestrians, cyclists, fathers, mothers, brothers, sisters, sons, daughters, friends etc.

It's not just the consideration of the driver in what amounts to an appropriate speed. Those setting the limits (who will have more information in front of them than the passing driver) have to take an overview of all interests when they dictate the range. Only then is it up to the driver to choose a safe appropriate speed within the dictated range.

Also drivers often forget they are also pedestrians when they get in the car.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mZAZ_xu0DCg

Edited by vonhosen on Saturday 3rd January 21:49

[Rovinghawk]

vonhosen said:

Only then is it up to the driver to choose a safe appropriate speed within the dictated range.

Very often the safe appropriate speed is outside the dictated range.

[vonhosen]

Rovinghawk said:

vonhosen said:

Only then is it up to the driver to choose a safe appropriate speed within the dictated range.

Very often the safe appropriate speed is outside the dictated range.

Whilst we as individuals may think it is safe & appropriate to travel at a speed outside the range, it's not as defined by those who have been charged with deciding the acceptable range.

There will be relatively few circumstances where you could travel at what you consider a safe appropriate speed outside the range & not have been able to have travelled at a safe appropriate speed within the range instead.

[Phatboy317]

vonhosen said:

Also drivers often forget they are also pedestrians when they get in the car.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mZAZ_xu0DCg

An animated cartoon is evidence of what exactly?

[vonhosen]

Phatboy317 said:

vonhosen said:

Also drivers often forget they are also pedestrians when they get in the car.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mZAZ_xu0DCg

An animated cartoon is evidence of what exactly?

Not evidence, an illustration of the human condition that many will recognise in themselves or others.

[Dammit]

Phatboy317 said:

In case you hadn't noticed, I'm ignoring you - just as I ignore anyone who shows themselves to be only interested in confrontation and point-scoring, and not at all interested in sober, rational discussion.

So kindly keep your snarky, twisted misrepresentations to yourself.

I had noticed that you tend to ignore posts which you either can't answer, or to answer a point made in them means you have to admit that you made a stupid assertion.

BUT! You'll never learn, or develop past this rather juvenile and uneducated stage in your life if you don't engage with people who don't agree with you.

FYI - the larger the sample size the more reliable the conclusions reached, in general. You can't just deny this and then happily slip along to your next point.

To do so totally undermines your main point - which (is still) that you like breaking the law and see nothing wrong with it because reasons.

[Phatboy317]

vonhosen said:

Whilst we as individuals may think it is safe & appropriate to travel at a speed outside the range, it's not as defined by those who have been charged with deciding the acceptable range.

There will be relatively few circumstances where you could travel at what you consider a safe appropriate speed outside the range & not have been able to have travelled at a safe appropriate speed within the range instead.

Those Kremlin-style attempts at mass behaviour control is one of the reasons this country is in such a mess.

[vonhosen]

Phatboy317 said:

vonhosen said:

Whilst we as individuals may think it is safe & appropriate to travel at a speed outside the range, it's not as defined by those who have been charged with deciding the acceptable range.

There will be relatively few circumstances where you could travel at what you consider a safe appropriate speed outside the range & not have been able to have travelled at a safe appropriate speed within the range instead.

Those Kremlin-style attempts at mass behaviour control is one of the reasons this country is in such a mess.

Speed limits = Kremlin style mass behavioural control.

[Dammit]

Yes, it's rather pointless misrepresenting some of his finer posts as he does such a good job of sabotaging himself.



≠

Edited by Dammit on Saturday 3rd January 22:00

[Guybrush]

It's been mentioned many times that (many) survey results over the years clearly show accidents attributed to excess speed for the conditions account for only about 4% of all accidents. This fact has even been highlighted by senior police officers.

Cameras are placed where drivers are most likely to be caught, not where they are most likely to crash - and even if placed in the vicinity of areas where people are most likely to crash, there would be very little positive effect - why? - because the camera would be monitoring for a situation not usually related to why people crash.

[singlecoil]

Dammit said:

Phatboy317 said:

In case you hadn't noticed, I'm ignoring you - just as I ignore anyone who shows themselves to be only interested in confrontation and point-scoring, and not at all interested in sober, rational discussion.

So kindly keep your snarky, twisted misrepresentations to yourself.

I had noticed that you tend to ignore posts which you either can't answer, or to answer a point made in them means you have to admit that you made a stupid assertion.

BUT! You'll never learn, or develop past this rather juvenile and uneducated stage in your life if you don't engage with people who don't agree with you.

FYI - the larger the sample size the more reliable the conclusions reached, in general. You can't just deny this and then happily slip along to your next point.

To do so totally undermines your main point - which (is still) that you like breaking the law and see nothing wrong with it because reasons.

You've noticed that too! And then he claims that those people he can't answer are being 'snarky' whatever that means, I don't think it could be a Lewis Carroll reference but if it is he had better watch out for boojums.

[Phatboy317]

Dammit said:

I had noticed that you tend to ignore posts which you either can't answer, or to answer a point made in them means you have to admit that you made a stupid assertion.

BUT! You'll never learn, or develop past this rather juvenile and uneducated stage in your life if you don't engage with people who don't agree with you.

FYI - the larger the sample size the more reliable the conclusions reached, in general. You can't just deny this and then happily slip along to your next point.

To do so totally undermines your main point - which (is still) that you like breaking the law and see nothing wrong with it because reasons.

You're completely wrong and out of line on all counts.

FYI, for the sheer number of variables involved, the sample size - large as it may appear - is still several orders of magnitude too small.

Now go away and stop bothering me.

[Dammit]

^Back any of that up. I dare you.

Explain, evidence your theory, provide links to research that supports your assertions, or it's meaningless.

[Phatboy317]

vonhosen said:

Inappropriate speed limits set for political reasons= Kremlin style mass behavioural control.

There, fixed it for you

[vonhosen]

Guybrush said:

It's been mentioned many times that (many) survey results over the years clearly show accidents attributed to excess speed for the conditions account for only about 4% of all accidents. This fact has even been highlighted by senior police officers.

And a higher proportion of serious injury/fatality collisions.

Guybrush said:

Cameras are placed where drivers are most likely to be caught, not where they are most likely to crash - and even if placed in the vicinity of areas where people are most likely to crash, there would be very little positive effect - why? - because the camera would be monitoring for a situation not usually related to why people crash.

Cameras are about enforcing the limit.
If you want to uphold limits you need to enforce limits wherever driver's exceed them, not just where they crash. Police officers don't just report speeders at previous crash sites, why should cameras?

Speed limits (not the cameras that uphold limits) are a safety (& other) control measure.

[vonhosen]

Phatboy317 said:

vonhosen said:

Inappropriate speed limits set for political reasons= Kremlin style mass behavioural control.

There, fixed it for you

I'm not going to suggest that all speed limits are appropriate, mistakes will be made, but the numbers that are will be so relatively small as to not be a major concern.
Outside of that you are in a broad area where only those holding extreme views will consider most limits so wildly out as to be inappropriate. That's either too low for one extreme or too high for the other extreme view holders.