Speed cameras: Are we interested in evidence?

[blueg33]

Greendubber said:

I'll generally know how fast I'm going without having to panic break.

Is a panic break the same as an emergency rest?


I agree, I generally know how fast I am going.

[Graveworm]

blueg33 said:

Greendubber said:

I'll generally know how fast I'm going without having to panic break.

Is a panic break the same as an emergency rest?


I agree, I generally know how fast I am going.

I increasingly have symptoms of old man's bladder so can empathise.

[Dave Finney]

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.

But your general feeling of speed is not good enough for speed cameras.

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]

Dave Finney said:

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.

But your general feeling of speed is not good enough for speed cameras.

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.

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.

[bigothunter]

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.

Many accidents occur when compounded factors reach a threshold level beyond the driver's capability. Distraction due to the camera van absorbs more of this safety margin. For many drivers, this negative effect is significant.

Logically accident rate will increase in the vicinity of camera vans. Intrinsically they are an (additional) safety hazard.

[Dave Finney]

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]

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...

Also:

This is a lovely example of what can happen. Swiss police attributed Boris Maier's photo off the bike (at 66MPH in a 50) as due to locking up on seeing the speed camera.
https://www.asphaltandrubber.com/news/speed-camera...

Back to cars:

A UK driver also apparently ended up on roof on seeing the speed camera van, but car was gone on reporter attendance.
https://www.islandecho.co.uk/car-rolls-onto-roof-o...

A police officer, supposedly highly trained and firearms also lost control at 90 ish MPH in a 30 and crashed, very fast, but I still feel he lost control because of the camera.,
https://www.pistonheads.com/news/speed/speed-cam-c...

Hope it helps.

Edited by NFT on Tuesday 19th March 01:38

[KTMsm]

blueg33 said:

Greendubber said:

I'll generally know how fast I'm going without having to panic break.

Is a panic break the same as an emergency rest?


I agree, I generally know how fast I am going.

I generally know how fast I'm going too

Generally, over the limit, hence why I brake first and look at my speedo second as I don't want a break from driving

[bigothunter]

KTMsm said:

I generally know how fast I'm going too

Generally, over the limit, hence why I brake first and look at my speedo second as I don't want a break from driving

My natural speed is over the limit. But I'm careful to reel that back in urban environments.

Driving legally on the open road demands a great deal of restraint even in slow cars.

[heebeegeetee]

Hi Dave,

What do you think are the real problems with road safety?

[Pit Pony]

Castrol for a knave said:

Passing no view on camera vans, revenue generation, speed limits or whatever.

However, if the mere presence of a camera van becomes an instant CRM nightmare, then maybe it's time to book a skills lesson or buy a a nice drop handle with a razor blade seat. .

Wow.

[Pit Pony]

jm doc said:

bigothunter said:

heebeegeetee said:

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?

Road deaths have plateaued since 2010. Recent road safety measures are not working.

Yes, and limits have been massively reduced nationwide. So a large increase in enforcement, and a massive drop in speed limits, KSI's unchanged. Proof surely that finally shows the nonsense spouted about "speed kills"

Despite The NHS being fked, 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.

[KTMsm]

bigothunter said:

My natural speed is over the limit. But I'm careful to reel that back in urban environments.

Driving legally on the open road demands a great deal of restraint even in slow cars.

Most of the cameras I encounter are out on the open country roads - mostly the mobile vans

One summer night I saw 3 on an hour long drive !

[heebeegeetee]

There are other issues than safety that I don't think are being considered, indeed it *might* even be said that road safety isn't much of an issue in the UK.*

Which is: In my experience (but I don't have data) there are far too many accidents, collisions and incidents going on, which results in far too much delay and congestion.

My experience of recent years (with a lull in pandemic) is that now almost every road journey is delayed by one cause or another, and far too often through accidents or collisions.

Due to built in vehicle safety it may well be that a great many collisions no longer result in injury or death, but even with a minor rear ender drivers insist on sorting out details on the spot, delaying all other traffic at that location.

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.

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. That's not going to happen.

As for revenue raising, yes there is that but after 14 years of Tory governance councils are starved of cash so why not have the odd idiot tax?

• I don't think roads are safe or calm enough for proper levels of active travel in the UK, but that's probably best saved for another topic.

[NFT]

KTMsm said:

Most of the cameras I encounter are out on the open country roads - mostly the mobile vans

One summer night I saw 3 on an hour long drive !

Reminds me, I have seen a van, then 5 miles down the road when NSL goes to 30 with a short 40 buffer zone, an unmarked safety scheme car with gun out window, Just to get those who think they are now free of mobile camera risk.

[martinbiz]

NFT said:

KTMsm said:

Most of the cameras I encounter are out on the open country roads - mostly the mobile vans

One summer night I saw 3 on an hour long drive !

Reminds me, I have seen a van, then 5 miles down the road when NSL goes to 30 with a short 40 buffer zone, an unmarked safety scheme car with gun out window, Just to get those who think they are now free of mobile camera risk.

So just to get those that choose to carry on speeding regardless. That was what you meant to say wasn't it?

[NFT]

martinbiz said:

NFT said:

KTMsm said:

Most of the cameras I encounter are out on the open country roads - mostly the mobile vans

One summer night I saw 3 on an hour long drive !

Reminds me, I have seen a van, then 5 miles down the road when NSL goes to 30 with a short 40 buffer zone, an unmarked safety scheme car with gun out window, Just to get those who think they are now free of mobile camera risk.

So just to get those that choose to carry on speeding regardless. That was what you meant to say wasn't it?

No, as it also gets those who were trundling along then decide to up their speed thinking they are safe.

[Dave Finney]

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,
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.

[Dave Finney]

heebeegeetee said:

Hi Dave,
What do you think are the real problems with road safety?

That road safety is politics.

I believe road safety should be a branch of "safety engineering".
(IOW, it should be "evidence led").

[heebeegeetee]

Dave Finney said:

heebeegeetee said:

Hi Dave,
What do you think are the real problems with road safety?

That road safety is politics.

I believe road safety should be a branch of "safety engineering".
(IOW, it should be "evidence led").

Okay, if road safety is politics, how does that affect us negatively?

I would say that the greatest negative effect is that essentially we as drivers/road users won't obey the rules or law, and, we won't be honest about this.
(I know there are those that seek to do just that, but I consider them to negligible in number).

So where do we go from there? Who is doing the greater damage? Us not obeying rules and laws or the politicians that we place in the position of having to police the roads?

I don't think this is an honest conversation to begin with, never mind 'evidence-led." I believe the greater dishonesty comes from us the motorist.