Speed cameras: Are we interested in evidence?
Discussion
heebeegeetee said:
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.
Political objectives and honesty are not compatible. And most (possibly all) speed limits are politically driven.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.
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.
They're about absolutely anything and everything so there's no point questioning them because no one has a scoobie which of the reasons might be applicable to any limit. Except asserting control and revenue generation, they're definitely not about that.
Edited by 768 on Tuesday 19th March 21:56
768 said:
They're about absolutely anything and everything so there's no point questioning them because no one has a scoobie which of the reasons might be applicable to any limit. Except asserting control and revenue generation, they're definitely not about that.
They are definitely about exerting control, but they can't generate revenue because they can't force you to exceed them. You have control over the speed of your vehicle.vonhosen said:
They are definitely about exerting control, but they can't generate revenue because they can't force you to exceed them. You have control over the speed of your vehicle.
To the same extent that Coca cola isn't about revenue generation because they can't force you to buy a can.
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/
Dave Finney said:
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
I don't think speed limits and enforcement result in more dead and seriously injured. I think far more harm would be done without speed limits and enforcement.
Of all the problems on the roads, I'm not sure speed limit enforcement would make my list. On the whole I think it's done very fairly and I'm grateful for what we have.
I'm really not convinced that politics is overly involved in road safety at all. If anything, there's an argument that there isn't enough.
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.
768 said:
vonhosen said:
They are definitely about exerting control, but they can't generate revenue because they can't force you to exceed them. You have control over the speed of your vehicle.
To the same extent that Coca cola isn't about revenue generation because they can't force you to buy a can.But you can drive without partaking in providing revenue to camera partnerships. Plenty of people do just that, so the fact it exists is of little concern to them.
If the desire is truly to maximise income it's run incredibly inefficiently.
Giving people significant free tolerances before taking money, advertising where you are waiting to take their money & banning your best customers so they can't repeatedly pay is a crap business model.
Edited by vonhosen on Wednesday 20th March 19:33
768 said:
None of which changes the fact that they exist for revenue generation.
No that suggests their reason for existence is that & the evidence doesn't suggest that at all.Limits existed and were enforced before cameras existed. They are just another method of enforcement.
You can collect your tinfoil hat from the corner.
vonhosen said:
No that suggests their reason for existence is that & the evidence doesn't suggest that at all.
Limits existed and were enforced before cameras existed. They are just another method of enforcement.
You can collect your tinfoil hat from the corner.
There are over 2 million people with points for speeding now, wildly disproportionate because it's significant business now. No tin foil hat required to see that, just eyes.Limits existed and were enforced before cameras existed. They are just another method of enforcement.
You can collect your tinfoil hat from the corner.
768 said:
vonhosen said:
Giving people significant free tolerances before taking money, advertising where you are waiting to take their money & banning your best customers so they can't repeatedly pay is a crap business model.
No it's not. It's a perfectly good drug dealer's business model.768 said:
vonhosen said:
No that suggests their reason for existence is that & the evidence doesn't suggest that at all.
Limits existed and were enforced before cameras existed. They are just another method of enforcement.
You can collect your tinfoil hat from the corner.
There are over 2 million people with points for speeding now, wildly disproportionate because it's significant business now. No tin foil hat required to see that, just eyes.Limits existed and were enforced before cameras existed. They are just another method of enforcement.
You can collect your tinfoil hat from the corner.
From how many speeding offences committed is that?
Incredibly inefficient prosecution rates & not worth worrying about for the vast majority of drivers.
vonhosen said:
Yet easily avoidable if you choose to do so.
From how many speeding offences committed is that?
Incredibly inefficient prosecution rates & not worth worrying about for the vast majority of drivers.
Of course it's hardly any offences that are prosecuted. You can't chop the whole forest down or you lose your revenue stream from selling timber.From how many speeding offences committed is that?
Incredibly inefficient prosecution rates & not worth worrying about for the vast majority of drivers.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff