RE: Speed cams put kids at risk
Tuesday 6th June 2006
Scamera puts kids at risk?The Bristol Evening Post reports that the "War on speed cams is putting kids at risk". It is referring to speed camera vandalism near schools carried out by militant group 'Motorists Against Detection'. Road safety campaign Safe Speed said it doesn't condone camera vandalism, but "demands that speed cameras are urgently scrapped to be replaced with sound road safety policies".
Speed cams put kids at risk
More distraction for drivers
Scamera puts kids at risk?
Safe Speed said its research strongly suggested that speed cameras "have failed to make our roads safer but have replaced worthwhile road safety beliefs and policies and indirectly made our roads considerably more dangerous."
This is true at camera sites as well as elsewhere, according to Safe Speed, because cameras take precious driver attention away from the road ahead and squander it on the camera, the speed limit and the speedometer.
Safe Speed reiterated its warning to pedestrians not to cross the road near speed cameras because drivers will be paying less attention. This follows exclusive straw poll research that indicates extraordinary amounts of driver attention diverted from the road near cameras.
Paul Smith, founder of the Safe Speed road safety campaign, said: "The assumption that speed cameras make our roads safer in any general way is quite quite wrong. Real road safety depends on human factors - skills, attitudes and responsibilities. Far from improving road safety, speed camera erode the very qualities on which road safety depends.
"Far from saving lives, speed cameras are a deadly mistake and have caused road death reduction to stall. The last place in the world that I would place a speed camera is outside a school. We need drivers paying attention to kids, not cameras.
"All our speed cameras are in the wrong places. They should be in the scrap yard."
Links
Discussion
This follows exclusive straw poll research that indicates extraordinary amounts of driver attention diverted from the road near cameras.
Presumably this is published, together with its methodology, somewhere ? Or does the phrase 'straw poll' indicate you asked some people down the pub ?
Presumably this is published, together with its methodology, somewhere ? Or does the phrase 'straw poll' indicate you asked some people down the pub ?
J111 said:
This follows exclusive straw poll research that indicates extraordinary amounts of driver attention diverted from the road near cameras.
Presumably this is published, together with its methodology, somewhere ? Or does the phrase 'straw poll' indicate you asked some people down the pub ?
Presumably this is published, together with its methodology, somewhere ? Or does the phrase 'straw poll' indicate you asked some people down the pub ?
By 'you' I assume you're referring to SafeSpeed, in which case the SafeSpeed web site would be the obvious place to look for the supporting data behind this claim.
What a pity it is that the authorities are unable to use their heads.
When they knacker the camera outside the school near my neck of the woods, you can't tell it's been done so you slow down just the same. Therefore exactly the same effect (apart from the cash element).
Presumably these people have discovered tons of people suddenly get knocked down the instant the camera is destroyed, then sweetness and light returns once again when it's fixed.
Imbeciles.
SM
Presumably these people have discovered tons of people suddenly get knocked down the instant the camera is destroyed, then sweetness and light returns once again when it's fixed.
Imbeciles.
SM
GreenV8S said:
By 'you' I assume you're referring to SafeSpeed
I was referring to the author of the article.
GreenV8S said:
in which case the SafeSpeed web site would be the obvious place to look for the supporting data behind this claim.
Thanks, I found it. It's self reported to his forum. Even assuming this to be a representative sample, the methodology only carries any validity if drivers check the speedo metronomically, without reference to the prevailing driving conditions. It also makes some big assumptions about the degree of 'processing' needed to determine the time from a moving second hand, as opposed to what is being indicated on on the speedometer.
J111 said:
GreenV8S said:
By 'you' I assume you're referring to SafeSpeed
I was referring to the author of the article.
GreenV8S said:
in which case the SafeSpeed web site would be the obvious place to look for the supporting data behind this claim.
Thanks, I found it. It's self reported to his forum. Even assuming this to be a representative sample, the methodology only carries any validity if drivers check the speedo metronomically, without reference to the prevailing driving conditions. It also makes some big assumptions about the degree of 'processing' needed to determine the time from a moving second hand, as opposed to what is being indicated on on the speedometer.
I don't believe Paul has ever claimed that the poll had any rigorous scientific basis, it was, as is stated in the article, merely a straw poll, the results of which, while certainly not conclusive, give some cause for concern. You apparently think that speed cameras do not cause any deleterious loss of attention to more important safety factors than speed, you are of course entitled to this opinion, you do not however appear to have even a straw poll of however dubious method, to support your opinion.
I agree that speed cameras outside schools are dubious, I know I end up looking at the speedo at the critical moment when I should be looking for kids running out in front of me.
Having said that, Safe Speed cannot expect to be taken seriously using straw polls as "evidence". Paul spends enough time moaning about how the government lies its way through the statistics, there's no need for him to stoop to their level.
Having said that, Safe Speed cannot expect to be taken seriously using straw polls as "evidence". Paul spends enough time moaning about how the government lies its way through the statistics, there's no need for him to stoop to their level.
Closest I've come to an accident in recent years was by a speed camera. It was at the exit from the local collecge, put there because of the number of accidents, normally students pulling out into non-existant gaps.
Approached camera, looked down to check speed, look up to see idiot student in usual Micra has just pulled out in front of me into a non-existant gap, and fialed to accelerate. I dop the anchors, and avoid the tail end of his car by about a foot. Much closer than I'd like. Near miss caused by me not looking where I'm going, because of the camera, and an 18 year old with insufficient road awareness.
Camera has since been removed and replaced with a junction, where the students now drive through red lights.
Edited coz I can't type
Approached camera, looked down to check speed, look up to see idiot student in usual Micra has just pulled out in front of me into a non-existant gap, and fialed to accelerate. I dop the anchors, and avoid the tail end of his car by about a foot. Much closer than I'd like. Near miss caused by me not looking where I'm going, because of the camera, and an 18 year old with insufficient road awareness.
Camera has since been removed and replaced with a junction, where the students now drive through red lights.
Edited coz I can't type
Edited by tubbinthug on Tuesday 6th June 15:11
Einion Yrth said:
You apparently think that speed cameras do not cause any deleterious loss of attention to more important safety factors than speed
I don't (and there is nothing to support that in my post), I'd just like someone who purports to be a researcher to do some meaningful research, rather than publishing straw polls and statistically unfounded twaddle like this:
plucas1 said:
Having said that, Safe Speed cannot expect to be taken seriously using straw polls as "evidence". Paul spends enough time moaning about how the government lies its way through the statistics, there's no need for him to stoop to their level.
Exactly. Moreover, if there is no rigour in his methods, his PR will get little further than being parroted here.
Edited by J111 on Tuesday 6th June 15:17
tubbinthug said:
Closest I've come to an accident in recent years was by a speed camera. It was at the exit from the local collecge, put there because of the number of accidents, normally students pulling out into non-existant gaps.
Approached camera, looked down to check speed, look up to see idiot student in usual Micra has just pulled out in front of me into a non-existant gap, and fialed to accelerate. I dop the anchors, and avoid the tail end of his car by about a foot. Much closer than I'd like. Near miss caused by me not looking where I'm going, because of the camera, and an 18 year old with insufficient road awareness.
Camera has since been removed and replaced with a junction, where the students now drive through red lights.
Edited coz I can't type
Approached camera, looked down to check speed, look up to see idiot student in usual Micra has just pulled out in front of me into a non-existant gap, and fialed to accelerate. I dop the anchors, and avoid the tail end of his car by about a foot. Much closer than I'd like. Near miss caused by me not looking where I'm going, because of the camera, and an 18 year old with insufficient road awareness.
Camera has since been removed and replaced with a junction, where the students now drive through red lights.
Edited coz I can't type
Edited by tubbinthug on Tuesday 6th June 15:11
But they're not breaking the speed limit so are therefore perfectly safe.
J111 said:
This follows exclusive straw poll research that indicates extraordinary amounts of driver attention diverted from the road near cameras.
Presumably this is published, together with its methodology, somewhere ? Or does the phrase 'straw poll' indicate you asked some people down the pub ?
Presumably this is published, together with its methodology, somewhere ? Or does the phrase 'straw poll' indicate you asked some people down the pub ?
www.safespeed.org.uk/speedo.html
It might be a straw poll (it is), but it's ALSO the best data we have on the subject.
plucas1 said:
Having said that, Safe Speed cannot expect to be taken seriously using straw polls as "evidence". Paul spends enough time moaning about how the government lies its way through the statistics, there's no need for him to stoop to their level.
Absolute nonsense. Someone has to identify areas that need detailled research. That's exactly what I have done here. It is 'proper science' at the level of setting research objectives.
J111 said:
I don't (and there is nothing to support that in my post), I'd just like someone who purports to be a researcher to do some meaningful research, rather than publishing straw polls and statistically unfounded twaddle like this:
It certainly is not statistically unfounded. The basis for considering the data presented as important is available on the page you took the graph from: www.safespeed.org.uk/effects.html
Why EXACTLY do you think it is 'statistically unfounded'?
J111 said:
safespeed said:
It is 'proper science' at the level of setting research objectives.
Acknowledging its value only as setting objectives is rather disingenuous, given that the contention the results are being used to make.
Rubbish. It's the best data we have. Find something better.
safespeed said:
Why EXACTLY do you think it is 'statistically unfounded'?
Because, to produce the yellow line, it takes the common fallacy that you can determine a trend of a non-linear graph by taking the mean change over an extended period. If you take the rate of decline in road deaths 1978 to 1994, there is a reduction in the rate of change year on year. The red line is, in fact, very close to that one would expect from a continued year on year reduction in that rate of change.
safespeed said:
J111 said:
safespeed said:
It is 'proper science' at the level of setting research objectives.
Acknowledging its value only as setting objectives is rather disingenuous, given that the contention the results are being used to make.
Rubbish. It's the best data we have. Find something better.
The lack of better data is not the issue, as well you know.
Edited by J111 on Tuesday 6th June 16:17
plucas1 said:
I agree that speed cameras outside schools are dubious, I know I end up looking at the speedo at the critical moment when I should be looking for kids running out in front of me.
Why ?
If there are kids around & they are a threat, your speed should be less than 30mph. Your speedo checks & the camera don't then come into the equation as neither are a threat to you.
You should only be doing 30mph in optimal conditions & in optimal conditions there should be no immeadiate threat. In those circumstances (where it is safe for you to travel at the limit) cehcking the speedo to comply with the limit poses no threat..
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff