Speed Camera Loophole Exposed

[robinessex]

OTBC said:

"Speed is a relatively minor issue in road safety terms, particularly for drivers aged 25 and over. 2% of road accidents are caused by this group"

Complete nonsense, that's why you cite no sources.

This fallacious myth is regularly trotted out. It's complete rubbish, based on a misreading of the stats, only the crackpot ABD cite this mendacious falsehood, and they've been roundly criticised for it.

This use of statistics has been described by a professional statistician as "extremely naughty" and by the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions as "mischievous".

http://www.fonant.co.uk/wcc/cuttings/2001-03-19-A1...


Among the TRL reports the ABD does not like to cite is TRL 421, "The effects of drivers' speed on the frequency of road accidents" published in March 2000. Unlike TRL 323, this study was designed to discover the speed-crash relationship.

The authors looked at 300 sections of road, made 2 million observations of speed and got 10,000 drivers to complete questionnaires. They found that

the faster the traffic moves on average, the more crashes there are (and crash frequency increases approximately with the square of average traffic speed)
the larger the spread of speeds around the average, the more crashes there are
Significantly for the ABDs argument, and for the rest of us, they also found that:

drivers who choose speeds above the average on some roads tend also to do so on all roads
higher speed drivers are associated with a significantly greater crash involvement than are slower drivers
For these reasons they conclude that the speed of the fastest drivers (those travelling faster than the average for the road) should be reduced. The study confirmed what is described as a 'robust general rule' relating crash reductions to speed reductions: for every I mph reduction average speed, crashes are reduced by between 2-7%. More specifically, the crash reduction figure is around

6% for urban roads with low average speeds
4% for medium speed urban roads and lower speed rural main roads
3% for higher speed urban roads and rural main roads
To put the dangerousness of speed into perspective, how many drivers care about or would notice a 2mph reduction in their average speed? Yet, averaged across the entire road network, a mere 2mph reduction in average speeds would prevent more than 200 deaths and 3,500 serious casualties a year. The authors of TRL 421 suggest that this target (about a sixth of the overall speed related casualty figure) is a 'reasonable minimum' to aim for. More importantly they use it to show "the sensitivity of accident numbers to a small change in average speed". In other words, speeds that might not seem excessive. Speeds that TRL323's methodology wouldn't even record.

TRL 323 is not a study of crash causation. It is a study of how to collect data.

bks. Unless you're an idiot

TRL 421 has so many holes in it, it's worse than gorgonzola cheese. ABD and Safe Speed have torn it to shreds

[robinessex]

Points arrising from S172

This I believe is a true story. I tried to find ref on the internet, but failed.

Two guys, drunk in a car, one driving. Runs over and kills a pedestrian on the pavement. Both run away from the accident scene. Police catch up with them a few days later. Neither will admit anything. Police drop case due to lack of evidence.

Hypothetical situation(s)

Nut case stalks celebrity. Celebrity gets restraining order. Stalker seeks revenge. Gets identical vehicle to celeb. Clones number plate. Follows celeb. Celeb goes through speed camera at legal speed. Ten seconds later, stalker goes through same speed camera at excessive speed. How does celeb get out of that? The same could be done to a Magistrate as well.

A picture of a suspect for a criminal offence is shown on Crime Watch. Mrs Snoopy a few doors down the road says 'that looks like the guy at no 3.' Informs police. Police knock on no 3. Guy says 'Wasn't me, I can proove it. At the time of the offence, I was 200 miles away in Edinburgh. Went through a speed camera, sent of my S172, got a fixed penalty fine.' 'Oh really' says officer at the door. 'how do we know it was you driving the car?'.

[turbobloke]

Breadvan72 said:

I am surprised that tb hasn't come back on the stats. I must say that the figures he put forward seemed a tad counter intuitive, given what we know about human reaction times and the physics of lumps of metal moving about.

The figures belong to other people, do they need to come forward?

Sources were cited.

There's nothing counter-intuitive about the figures. Motorways are our fastest and safest roads.

[anonymous-user]

That's because people travel in streams at relatively similar speeds, and the people going the other way are behind a barrier. Motorway speed limits are aguably too low. The picture may be rather different when you look at a country road with corners, hedges, and people going in both directions, or a road through a residential area with parked cars, pedestrians, obstructions to vision and so on.

[robinessex]

Breadvan72 said:

That's because people travel in streams at relatively similar speeds, and the people going the other way are behind a barrier. Motorway speed limits are aguably too low. The picture may be rather different when you look at a country road with corners, hedges, and people going in both directions, or a road through a residential area with parked cars, pedestrians, obstructions to vision and so on.

I think BV you have illustrated the nonsense of arbitary speed limits. As you say, on motorways, high speeds are permisable. On other roads, with many and various hazards, a fixed/maximum speed limit is nonesense. A good driver will adjust his speed TO SUIT THE CONDIIONS AT THE TIME. I seem to remember a trial in the USA where speed limits were suspended, and car speedos were tapped up. Virtualy all the participents in the trial drove slower. And hasn't a trial in Holland, where all the safety furniture in the high street has been removed, and cars and pedestrians mix, the car speeds have decreased, and accidents (car/pedestrian) have dropped. Funny buggers human beings. We don't seem to know the 'rules' so we do the 'wrong' thing, and screw up the predicted outcome.

[turbobloke]

"higher speed drivers are associated with a significantly greater crash involvement than are slower drivers"

"for these reasons they conclude that the speed of the fastest drivers (those travelling faster than the average for the road) should be reduced"

Crash involvement rates decrease from a point well above the average speed, not the average, as known for 50 years (Solomon 1964 and Cirillo 1968).

Lower speed limits don't work well in that regard, i.e. reducing vehicle speeds. This has been known since at least 1986 (Dudek and Ulman), there may be previous studies. Not that the original statement about an average speed is correct in the first place.

On the other hand, there's credible evidence that raising speed limits in urban areas has little effect on the 85%ile of speed (Spitz 1984).

Modern political correctness as a context for vehicle speed considerations and enforcement approaches is irrational, and does nothing to refute either the data known for decades nor the conclusions rightly derived from it by use of reason rather than emotion.

[jm doc]

Zeeky said:

ECHR dissenting Judge Pavlovschi said:

...In my opinion, if there are so many breaches of a prohibition, it clearly means that something is wrong with the prohibition. It means that the prohibition does not reflect a pressing social need, given that so many people choose to breach it even under the threat of criminal prosecution.

This reasoning is flawed. It presupposes that the criminal law can only prohibit conduct which is morally wrong. The purpose of regulations is to control conduct in certain circumstances to achieve desirable outcomes. Regulations are often, but not necessarily, amoral.

I thought the point was that attempts to control people's freedom to choose should only happen when there is a pressing need, any law or regulation that is universally flouted to varying degrees is hopelessly and fatally flawed. When that law or regulation then proceeds to criminalise millions of otherwise largely law abiding people, those that defend it should hang their heads in shame

[Toltec]

OTBC said:

For these reasons they conclude that the speed of the fastest drivers (those travelling faster than the average for the road) should be reduced.

I think you said it best yourself-

OTBC said:

Complete nonsense

What you describe is a curve asymptotic to the speed of the slowest vehicle.

[anonymous-user]

Zeeky said:

Deadly Dog said:

...Perhaps you should have familiarised yourself with the Martin Parker study before passing comment.

That is an argument against the benefits to road safety of reducing speed. Governments are not bound by any particular evidence when making policy driven regulations. It doesn't affect the law.

Deadly Dog said:

...

Zeeky said:

If that objective is achieved the fact of mass contravention is irrelevant unless one believes the criminal law should only be used to prohibit behaviour that the vast majority of people choose not to do without the prohibition.

If that were the case the amount of taxation the Treasury receives would reflect what the vast majority of people would choose to pay, absent any regulation to the contrary.

That is a complete and utter non sequitur. You cannot possibly compare the complex cognitive demands of driving to paying taxes! Contrary to myth, when drivers transgress a speed limit, it is not normally done as a conscious act of selfish and wilful negligence.

The comparison is simply to illustrate that regulations do not need to be complied with by the vast majority of people to be beneficial in achieving their objective.

Of course regulations deal with different subject matter but that doesn't alter the principle that it is the objective that is relevant, not the morality of the conduct being controlled.

I agree with Zeeky. The issue here is, given that we do have speed control (whether wisely or not is another issue), is it appropriate to make provision for the keeper of a vehicle to disclose the name of the person driving the vehicle when it was allegedly involved in a breach of that control? This seems to me mainly a debate about utilitarian policy setting, and not one that is worth becoming emotional and shrill about.

Edited by anonymous-user on Monday 18th August 07:45

[anonymous-user]

turbobloke said:

A far better solution is to use methods which identify the driver at the time of an offence but that wouldn't allow for lazy policing based on an arbitrary number and it would reduce cashflow.

Yes, now where's that few billion £ for more officers.

turbobloke said:

Your other comment assumes more police are needed. There are enough police overseeing the roads, they just need better leadership.

A lack of leadership is what prevents the 30-odd million vehicles being policed to the degree S.172 could be removed? I don't think so.

Breadvan72 said:

robinessex said:

First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Socialist.

Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Trade Unionist.

Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Jew.

Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me.

You get a million Godwin points for that, and minus a billion points for having any sense of proportion. Look around the world at real tyrannies. S 172 is a First World Problem that bothers whingy and entitled middle class motorists, but is it really such a big deal? We have had it for ages and haven't descended into Totalitarianism in consequence.

As for Magna Carta, that was mostly repealed ages ago. The sky did not fall in.

[turbobloke]

Breadvan72 said:

The comparison is simply to illustrate that regulations do not need to be complied with by the vast majority of people to be beneficial in achieving their objective.

Of course regulations deal with different subject matter but that doesn't alter the principle that it is the objective that is relevant, not the morality of the conduct being controlled.

Not being totally sure I've got the stick by the right end here, so do point it out if not, but how are speed limits and current enforcement practices capable of achieving a road safety improvement objective when limits are no longer set using safety criteria (85%ile primarily) and research shows clearly that lowering speed limits doesn't lower vehicle speeds effectively while raising limits doesn't turn drivers into missiles? If the objective is to prosecute large numbers of motorists driving safely then I would agree that speed limits and current enforcement methods are achieving their objective.

Given the lack of any worthwhile basis or positive outcome, any forced self-incrimination or confession will remain disproportionate, together with the penalties, and both need revision.

[turbobloke]

La Liga said:

turbobloke said:

A far better solution is to use methods which identify the driver at the time of an offence but that wouldn't allow for lazy policing based on an arbitrary number and it would reduce cashflow.

Yes, now where's that few billion £ for more officers.

That point was addressed earlier, there's no need for more traffic police, those that exist need better leadership and direction, as you point out by subsequently quoting that part of an earlier post.

Your comment about what the lack of leadership prevents is not what I said, so it must be what you mistakenly thought I said or what you wished I had said.

[anonymous-user]

The words you quote are Zeeky's words, not my words, but I agree with the point that he was making, which was nothing to do with road safety. He was responding to another poster who had failed to understand an earlier point made by Zeeky about the objectives that rules may serve (thinking that Zeeky was comparing driving with paying tax, which he obviously wasn't).

As for road safety, you appear confidently to assert that speed limits have no appreciable impact on safety, but the figures you rely are on put in issue by another poster above, so the premise for your contention is, I suggest, not yet established.

Edited by anonymous-user on Monday 18th August 07:53

[tenpenceshort]

I suspect the issue 172 naysayers have here is really to do with speeding and their desire to do it unopposed and little to do with the principle of the 172 itself. Were 172 requests use to trace hit and run drivers and not speeders, I doubt they'd find the principle so offensive.

Of course, they could get their way and 172 requests regards speeding could be abolished. Then they would be replaced by automatic liability on behalf of the registered keeper, as per local authority parking tickets here and some other EU countries.

What won't happen is the abandonment of responsibility on behalf of the registered keeper, and nor should it.

[turbobloke]

tenpenceshort said:

I suspect the issue 172 naysayers have here is really to do with speeding and their desire to do it unopposed and little to do with the principle of the 172 itself.

Right at the outset you suspect wrongly. Nothing I've read on this thread supports such a conjecture.

What's being said relates to improving road safety, as opposed to ineffective interventions in terms of the current position around speed limit setting and enforcement.

If you've been reading the posts, you'll have seen mention of use of vehicle speed to get dangerous drivers off the roads including where that speed is below the posted limit but unsafe for the conditions. Inevitably it will also include vehicle speeds above the posted limit.

It should be about safety and proportionality, which is not what the current approach is achieving.

[tenpenceshort]

turbobloke said:

Right at the outset you suspect wrongly. Nothing I've read on this thread supports such a conjecture.

What's being said relates to improving road safety, as opposed to ineffective interventions in terms of the current position around speed limit setting and enforcement.

If you've been reading the posts, you'll have seen mention of use of vehicle speed to get dangerous drivers off the roads including where that speed is below the posted limit but unsafe for the conditions. Inevitably it will also include vehicle speeds above the posted limit.

It should be about safety and proportionality, which is not what the current approach is achieving.

Come off it, TB. This isn't NP&E. The thread is clearly a debate about speed limits, thinly veiled as a concern about self incrimination.

[turbobloke]

tenpenceshort said:

turbobloke said:

Right at the outset you suspect wrongly. Nothing I've read on this thread supports such a conjecture.

What's being said relates to improving road safety, as opposed to ineffective interventions in terms of the current position around speed limit setting and enforcement.

If you've been reading the posts, you'll have seen mention of use of vehicle speed to get dangerous drivers off the roads including where that speed is below the posted limit but unsafe for the conditions. Inevitably it will also include vehicle speeds above the posted limit.

It should be about safety and proportionality, which is not what the current approach is achieving.

Come off it, TB. This isn't NP&E. The thread is clearly a debate about speed limits, thinly veiled as a concern about self incrimination.

Come off what? I'm not on anything. What you just said bears little if any relation to what I said.

My post was entirely about speed (limits) and proportionality (S172) there is no thin veil over anything least of all regarding the pointlessness and ineffectiveness of the current misplaced focus on vehicle speed.

Nobody on this thread has advocated a free for all. There is no expressed wish that I've seen to drive at dangerous speeds without consequences in law, or anything remotely close.

The approach I'm replying to involves painting a false picture which is easier to argue against than the reality, and it's a personal angle as well in terms of attributing false motives to people who disagree with you for genuinely held and supportable reasons.

[tenpenceshort]

The 172 does not relate only to speeding offences and predates the proliferation of automated enforcement.

The increase in automated speed enforcement and your suggestion that there's an over-importance given to speeding offences these days is therefore irrelevant in respect of the 172.

I repeat, this is a debate about speeding and a small number of people wanting to do it with impunity and nothing to do with how just or otherwise a 172 request is.

[turbobloke]

tenpenceshort said:

The 172 does not relate only to speeding offences and predates the proliferation of automated enforcement.

Agreed, but then again, where has that been disputed? It's the application you refer to where the disproportionality arises.

tenpenceshort said:

The increase in automated speed enforcement and your suggestion that there's an over-importance given to speeding offences these days is therefore irrelevant in respect of the 172.

Not if the conditions of self-incrimination or confession arise as a result, but I did manage to mention that the speed issue of itself relates to safety and the related but separate matter of S172 relates to proportionality.

tenpenceshort said:

I repeat, this is a debate about speeding and a small number of people wanting to do it with impunity and nothing to do with how just or otherwise a 172 request is.

Where are those people? They're not on this thread. Repeat yourself as often as you see fit, it won't make what you allege any less false. Unless you're trolling at this stage, there must be doubt that previous posts have been read.

[anonymous-user]

turbobloke said:

That point was addressed earlier, there's no need for more traffic police, those that exist need better leadership and direction, as you point out by subsequently quoting that part of an earlier post.

Your comment about what the lack of leadership prevents is not what I said, so it must be what you mistakenly thought I said or what you wished I had said.

I see, "addressing it" is done by a generic statement. You should apply the same solutions to the NHS. They can bring more people back to health through "better leadership and direction". Brilliant and really helpful. What do you actually mean by "better leadership"? Why would "better leadership" involve significant redeployment from greater areas of risk to one with less risk? If KSIs have continued to fall despite fewer traffic officers than ever before, why would that indicate that the greatest reductions in risk and harm come from active policing of the roads as oppose to other areas?

So where do you take the other officers from to achieve what you've stated here?

turbobloke said:

A far better solution is to use methods which identify the driver at the time of an offence but that wouldn't allow for lazy policing based on an arbitrary number and it would reduce cashflow.

What are these methods? On what scale do you think they are and which areas of risk do you take from to provide for the unspecified methods? Why wouldn't you need additional police officers? "Better leadership" isn't a substitute for a proper answer.