Speed Camera Loophole Exposed
Discussion
La Liga said:
So where do you take the other officers from to achieve this?
There can't be much hope that another restatement will be read and understood any more than on previous occasions, but as stated previously, it's about the direction and priorities given to existing front line officers by senior ranks. There's no need to take other officers from other duties.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.
What are these methods?La Liga said:
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.
Already answered, see above and in previous posts.
I think BV hit the nail on the head earlier.
I'll rephrase and elaborate in my own direction.
The speed limits and laws and prosecutions are all part of having a driving licence. If you have a licence then you are effectively agreeing to the terms and conditions of driving.
If you want to play the game you have to play by their rules.
The rules for driving and breaking driving rules are different to the criminal laws.
If you really want your liberty and freedom then don't get a driving licence in the first place.
If you want to make your own decision about speed safety then make your own decisions about MOT's, insurance, red lights, the side you drive and whether to wear axseat belt.
You don't get to just ignore some rules.
I think many speed limits are too low, I think a lot of the system is flawed.
But I still have to abide by the rules if I ChHOOSE to drive.
I'll rephrase and elaborate in my own direction.
The speed limits and laws and prosecutions are all part of having a driving licence. If you have a licence then you are effectively agreeing to the terms and conditions of driving.
If you want to play the game you have to play by their rules.
The rules for driving and breaking driving rules are different to the criminal laws.
If you really want your liberty and freedom then don't get a driving licence in the first place.
If you want to make your own decision about speed safety then make your own decisions about MOT's, insurance, red lights, the side you drive and whether to wear axseat belt.
You don't get to just ignore some rules.
I think many speed limits are too low, I think a lot of the system is flawed.
But I still have to abide by the rules if I ChHOOSE to drive.
If those rules result in prosecution of safe behaviour - a fundamental injustice - are set and enforced without due consideration of safety criteria, and limits are ineffective in changing driver behaviour, that response boils down to 'the law is the law is the law'. However there is a beneficial legacy or two in the history of repeal and revision of bad laws.
The thread title contains the words Speed Camera Loophole. The debate around speed and limits and automated enforcement then arises naturally when S172 is considered in the context of the thread title and various parallel carve-outs from privilege against self-incrimination. When those conparisons are made, the disproportionate nature of privilege removal in this context is apparent.
The thread title contains the words Speed Camera Loophole. The debate around speed and limits and automated enforcement then arises naturally when S172 is considered in the context of the thread title and various parallel carve-outs from privilege against self-incrimination. When those conparisons are made, the disproportionate nature of privilege removal in this context is apparent.
turbobloke said:
There can't be much hope that another restatement will be read and understood any more than on previous occasions, but as stated previously, it's about the direction and priorities given to existing front line officers by senior ranks.
You can state that all you want, it doesn't actually answer the question or justify the conclusion. You'd look good in a presentation:TB: "My proposal is to create an environment so the same reductions in risk offered by S.172 can be achieved without having S.172 in existence."
Other: "How?"
Tb: "Through greater police leadership and direction!"
Other: "Yes, but practically how?"
TB: "I've already said! Do I need to repeat myself? They need to refocus their priorities."
Other: "Do you have the experience and knowledge of policing strategy in order to make that assessment and draw those conclusions, and justify taking time from one area to another? Are you privy to all the current risks, threats and potential harms and where the greatest and most efficient opportunities for reduction are in order to prioritise deployments and time spent? Have you read the national, force-specific and BCU specific control strategies? What do you know that experienced police commanders in strategic roles supported an entire department made-up of data analysts dedicated to continuous threat, risk analysis and prioritisation don't? What makes you more qualified than them when you have no experience of the subject matter they've dedicated their careers to?"
TB: "I'll get my coat."
turbobloke said:
There's no need to take other officers from other duties.
Impossible. Focusing on one thing comes at the expense of another. Obviously. turbobloke said:
Focusing on road users driving dangerously below the speed limit as well as above and using dangerous driving prosecutions to remove dangerous drivers form the roads, rather than fining another set of drivers for behaving safely in contravention of an arbitary number.
Dangerous driving is a minority event and statistical extreme. >99.99% of the time the population on the roads aren't driving dangerously. The probability of a police officer seeing dangerous driving is very low. It would remain very low even with a shift in priorities and the increased risk and harm to other areas you'd be taking time from wouldn't justify the change. What kind of intelligent and rational person would justify something that would have little or no impact at the expense of another area where there would be an at least reasonable impact with the same time spent? Especially since road use is increasing and KSIs are falling.
La Liga said:
turbobloke said:
There can't be much hope that another restatement will be read and understood any more than on previous occasions, but as stated previously, it's about the direction and priorities given to existing front line officers by senior ranks.
You can state that all you want, it doesn't actually answer the question or justify the conclusion. You'd look good in a presentation:TB: "My proposal is to create an environment so the same reductions in risk offered by S.172 can be achieved without having S.172 in existence."
Other: "How?"
Tb: "Through greater police leadership and direction!"
Other: "Yes, but practically how?"
TB: "I've already said! Do I need to repeat myself? They need to refocus their priorities."
Etc
La Liga said:
turbobloke said:
There's no need to take other officers from other duties.
Impossible. Focusing on one thing comes at the expense of another. Obviously.La Liga said:
turbobloke said:
Focusing on road users driving dangerously below the speed limit as well as above and using dangerous driving prosecutions to remove dangerous drivers form the roads, rather than fining another set of drivers for behaving safely in contravention of an arbitary number.
]Dangerous driving is a minority event and statistical extreme.La Liga said:
99.99% of the time the population on the roads aren't driving dangerously.
And yet they have points on their licence from safe behaviour. An excellent shot to your foot there.La Liga said:
The probability of a police officer seeing dangerous driving is very low.
It's difficult to see when looking at the narrow field of view in the sights of a speed gun. Otherwise, the dangerous road behaviour seen by others must somehow be deemed to be unworthy of attention by BiB, given existing priorities from on high.
If I remember correctly, the relevant description is "driving which falls far below what would be expected of a competent and careful driver, and it would be obvious to a competent and careful driver that driving in that way would be dangerous."
There's a lot of it about, including below any arbitrary speed limit, but I agree that it goes unpunished a lot of the time.
La Liga said:
What kind of intelligent and rational person would justify something that would have little or no impact at the expense of another area where there would be an at least reasonable impact with the same time spent?
A superb argument against automated enforcement of arbitrary speed limits which criminalise safe driver behaviour. The irony gets deeper.On the other hand, how anyone can consider removing dangerous drivers from the roads as having little or no impact on safety is baffling.
Edited to fix quotes.
Edited by turbobloke on Monday 18th August 10:38
turbobloke said:
A better example of putting words into another PHer's mouth could not possibly exist. You can create positions for others all you like, the fundamental flaw of ignoring what is actually said and replacing it with something easier to argue against will remain.
I've put no such words in your mouth. You've repeatedly said things like: turbobloke said:
There are enough police overseeing the roads, they just need better leadership.
What's your experience with policing strategy / risk-analysis and prioritisation to conclude the leadership is lacking or inadequate? Do you have the information and knowledge to draw such conclusions? If so what is it? Why do you know better than the commanders and risk-analysis teams when it comes to police priority setting? I expect you'll ignore this again as you know you've over-extended yourself here and that in reality you really have no idea what you're talking and have no basis to draw such a conclusion.
turbobloke said:
In other words a lot of it goes unnoticed and/or unpunished.
No, it's a statistical minority event, like I said. Most of the time people aren't driving dangerously. Perhaps to your standards they are, but not to the legal one. turbobloke said:
And yet they have points on their licence from safe behaviour. An excellent shot to your foot there.
Is dangerous driving is the only driving standards offence? Does only dangerous driving presents risk? Why bother giving people points for driving otherwise than in accordance with their licence? They aren't driving dangerously, either. It's not unsafe behaviour. turbobloke said:
It's difficult to see when looking at the narrow field of view in the sights of a speed gun.
Nearly all police officers aren't speed gun trained, and those that are rarely use them as they have higher priorities. turbobloke said:
Otherwise, the dangerous road behaviour seen by others must somehow be deemed to be unworthy of attention by BiB, given existing priorities from on high.
It's not unworthy of attention, it's a low-probability occurrence amongst an enormous sample which means the sheer numbers of hours that need to be spent spotting an occurrence aren't justified vs the harm-reduction the hours could be spent elsewhere. This isn't hard to understand. turbobloke said:
If I remember correctly, the relevant description is "driving which falls far below what would be expected of a competent and careful driver, and it would be obvious to a competent and careful driver that driving in that way would be dangerous."
There's a lot of it about, including below any arbitrary speed limit, but I agree that it goes unpunished a lot of the time.
There isn't lots of dangerous driving around. Again, perhaps in your mind, but not that of the law. There's a lot of it about, including below any arbitrary speed limit, but I agree that it goes unpunished a lot of the time.
turbobloke said:
A superb argument against automated enforcement of arbitrary speed limits which criminalise safe driver behaviour. The irony gets deeper.
Automated enforcement doesn't have great finesse. It's like a big fishing net that catches risky behaviour X % of the time. The argument is that the net reduction in risk is worth the intrusion. KSIs have fallen steadily (for a variety of treasons, of course), so how can we not consider there to be a link? Just because you don't like something doesn't mean it doesn't have a positive impact. turbobloke said:
On the other hand, how anyone can consider removing dangerous drivers from the roads as having little or no impact on safety is baffling.
Who said removing dangerous drivers has little or no impact? If you could magically remove people who drive dangerously - perhaps the same magic that increases the policing priority with impact on other areas you suggested - then that would be great (although what % of KSIs are caused by dangerous behaviour? Not that facts and data matter to you drawing conclusions). What I spoke about was time / priority vs benefit. You'd have to spend a lot of shifts and probably hundreds of hours to be 'fortunate' enough to witness a dangerous driving offence, since nearly all the time people would not be driving dangerously. The expense of this would be everything else such as domestic violence, other violent crime, burglaries, robberies, thefts, weapons, drugs, mental health, weapons etc isn't justified as the net reduction in harm is with giving the latter the attention. It really is as simple as that.
La Liga said:
I've put no such words in your mouth
Oh really. As to your earlier questions:"Do you have the experience and knowledge of policing strategy in order to make that assessment and draw those conclusions"
There's no requirement for that, except within your pejorative assumption that there should be one. Iin terms of knowledge of policing strategy, we get to see this first hand on the roads anyway, and beyond that, viritually no politician has been a police officer yet they generate our laws including on vehicle speed and PSI. In a similar vein may doctors have never suffered from ailments they correctly diagnose and treat, and in the same vein people who have spent many years studying the research on vehicle speed, speed limits and enforcement approaches -nas well as time spent discussing the same issues with senior police officers - are perfectly capable of holding informed positions on those topics.
"Justify taking time from one area to another"
Another repetition of the same non-point already answered several times. There's no need to take officers from one area to another.
"Are you privy to all the current risks, threats and potential harms and where the greatest and most efficient opportunities for reduction are in order to prioritise deployments and time spent?"
Having reviewed the available research and allied evidence available from studies of those matters spanning decades, yes. This was seen by others as sufficient to be invited to be interviewed and participate in discussions in national/local TV and radio studios in the past. More pertinently for this thread I've repeatedly referenced the evidence in post content. Where's the same from you?
"Have you read the national, force-specific and BCU specific control strategies?"
Over the years I've read numerous official police documentation and operational manuals on these topics where they're available online or through contacts, in more recent years I've focused on reviewing research evidence available rather than police manuals and the like.
"What do you know that experienced police commanders in strategic roles supported an entire department made-up of data analysts dedicated to continuous threat, risk analysis and prioritisation don't?"
If there's any point to the sarcasm in that remark then the answer would be that, if they don't read the research literature available to them, or aren't capable of undersdtanding its implications, quite a lot. However as you will have seen from quotes adduced earlier in this very thread, a lot of experienced police commanders agree more closely with my position than yours. See below for more on this, which you apparently missed last time around.
"What makes you more qualified than them when you have no experience of the subject matter they've dedicated their careers to?"
As far as I can see, most if not all police officers lack any qualifications in those matters, and they can move between operational areas within their careers. They may or may not make themselves familiar with the sum total of credible evidence available, that's a matter for them not me. In discussion with them at seminars and meetings, they hold reasonable views by and large but cannot for career reasons speak out openly until near retirement or after retirement. Some do demonstrate courage and speak out at other times, examples of both have been posted in this thread. As you don't appear to be reading posts too closely, preferring to put elements of fiction into another person's mouth, here you go again with a bonus or two.
"I want my traffic policing to target the dangerous drivers, the road hogs, and the menaces who are driving unlicensed and uninsured.”
Sir John Stevens as Metropolitan Police Commissioner
“There is a perception that people who commit criminal offences and who, quite properly and according to guidelines, get a caution, get an easier ride than those who speed at the lower end. Whilst clearly the comparison is not a helpful one, I do nevertheless have some very real sympathy for this perception. Any criminal justice system to be effective has to be seen to be fair. It just cannot be right when people feel that our response within that system is disproportionate.”
Paul Stephenson as Chief Constable of Lancashire Constabulary
“It is a fact that everyone who has a car will speed. I have broken the speed limit and I defy anyone to say that they haven't. The point is that often speed limits are broken without people having accidents. What we have to focus on is where speed is actually causing accidents.”
Steve Mortimore as Assistant Chief Constable of Avon and Somerset Police
“Speed cameras don't reduce casualties — they are just for revenue generation.”
Chief Inspector Paul Gilroy of Northumbria Police
“We do not believe in pursuing speed enforcement for the sake of it as this could alienate members of the public, potential witnesses and future employees.”
Michael Todd as Assistant Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police
“I fear that if we prosecute more and more motorists and people have a perception that we are being unreasonable then there will be a backlash. We police by consent and need people to have confidence in the criminal justice system. We rely on people to report offences, to be witnesses and to be jurors in the fight against crime. Anything that undermines that support concerns me.”
Michael Todd as Chief Constable of Greater Manchester Police
“Exceeding the speed limit related to just 60 collisions per year out of a total of 1,900 collisions in the Durham area, that's about 3%.”
Paul Garvin as Chief Constable of Durham Constabulary
“We ought to be altering driver behaviour, rather than adopting a blanket speed camera approach that doesn`t effectively tackle the problem.”
Paul Garvin as Chief Constable of Durham Constabulary
“The pro-camera lobby, and a lot of the safety partnerships, deliberately misquote the statistics to try and mislead people to try and justify their position. I think it is disingenuous if we are really intent on reducing casualties on the road - as opposed to enforcing speed limits and dishing out lots of tickets. More accidents are caused by inattention, drink driving, or nowadays, more by driving under the influence of drugs...The speed cameras issue is not a point of principle, it is a fact that they are pointless.”
Paul Garvin as Chief Constable of Durham Constabulary
“Every one of us can think of a speed limit that appears to be completely barmy, utterly bonkers. And if you think it?s bonkers you are much less likely to comply with it. What we need are speed limits that have credibility in the public mind.”
Richard Brunstrom as Chief Constable of North Wales Police.
“We are in danger of alienating the public. We must not lose public support. People are becoming cynical about what is going on with speed cameras.
I went all over Europe and the rest of the world to look at the problem. I was responsible for getting them approved here — but now I say it has gone too far.”
Peter Joslin former Chief Constable of Warwickshire Police
“With more than 20 years as a traffic inspector and chief inspector, I always thought that, when decisions were made to prosecute motorists, the police had to prove the offence beyond all reasonable doubt - and that they also had to use a certain amount of discretion and commonsense. Now I believe those basic principles are being ignored in pursuit of revenue.”
Neil Longsden, former Chief Inspector, Greater Manchester Police Motorway Group
“The criminal justice system has got it all out of kilter. We treat the motorist like a pariah and the burglar like a victim”
Glen Smythe, Metropolitan Police Federation
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.
The issue with Section 172 is a historical one which originated around 2000 and was driven primarily by S172's apparent critical role in the "success" of the so-called hypothecation trials. Essex Police were one of hypothecation's leading players and, after 9 months of operating the trial, had generated some £3.6 million in speeding fines. However the Government set them a £4.6 Million threshold which they had to exceed before they could retain the proceeds from the Fixed Penalty Notices.How did they manage to engineer what they called "success"? Well, very easily. All enforcement was carried out on roads with limits that were previously 40mph but were then deliberately lowered to 30mph just before the start of the trial. The Martin Parker study I previously referenced demonstrates exactly what happens when drivers are faced with unrealistically low limits. Quite simply drivers were set up for failure.
Hypothecation may have since died along with New Labour, but at the time it was perceived as a very real threat, particularly if it had been expanded to a nationwide programme.
tenpenceshort said:
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.
However, it it appears that it is not Section 172 that forces self-incrimination when allegations of speeding are made via automated enforcement. It is actually Section 12 of the Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988. Observer2 provided this neat explanation back in 2007: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.
Observer2 said:
Section 172 (or equivalent) has been around since the 1930s. It was introduced when remote detection and automated enforcement of speeding law was unimaginable and (I would guess) was a response to hit and run offences. So - it's not s.172 that's the problem.
The piece of law that underpins speed camera enforcement is s.12 Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988. That is what allows the written (self-incriminating) response to a written s.172 request to be used in evidence (although only for summary offences).
Curiously, although s.12 arrived in 1988, it was not until 1991 that ss.172 (7) RTA 1988 (the section that specifically authorises a written s.172 request) was inserted by s.21 RTA 1991 - three years after it appears to have been contemplated by s.12 RTOA (and note this coincides qute precisely with the introduction of speed cameras).
Perhaps if the original PACE letter had been configured more towards Section 12 than Section 172, it may have stood a better chance of a sustained impact. The piece of law that underpins speed camera enforcement is s.12 Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988. That is what allows the written (self-incriminating) response to a written s.172 request to be used in evidence (although only for summary offences).
Curiously, although s.12 arrived in 1988, it was not until 1991 that ss.172 (7) RTA 1988 (the section that specifically authorises a written s.172 request) was inserted by s.21 RTA 1991 - three years after it appears to have been contemplated by s.12 RTOA (and note this coincides qute precisely with the introduction of speed cameras).
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.Edited by Deadly Dog on Tuesday 19th August 00:14
turbobloke said:
"Do you have the experience and knowledge of policing strategy in order to make that assessment and draw those conclusions"
There's no requirement for that, except within your pejorative assumption that there should be one.
I think it's a reasonable assumption to make that those who should be creating the policing strategy should have some experience and knowledge of policing strategies. There's no requirement for that, except within your pejorative assumption that there should be one.
turbobloke said:
and in the same vein people who have spent many years studying the research on vehicle speed, speed limits and enforcement approaches -nas well as time spent discussing the same issues with senior police officers - are perfectly capable of holding informed positions on those topics.
Yes they are, if they actually have knowledge of the complete picture, not just one specific they look at. By "enforcement approach" you basically mean you want officers to drive around more, at the expense of other areas you have no information about, and look for an offence you've grossly over-estimated the frequency of. That doesn't sound like much study to me.
turbobloke said:
Another repetition of the same non-point already answered several times. There's no need to take officers from one area to another.
But you are taking them from one "area" to another by definition. When someone is doing one thing, it comes at the expense of another. You can't be attending a domestic violence incident when you're only tasked with driving around looking for a statistically improbable event, for example. turbobloke said:
"Are you privy to all the current risks, threats and potential harms and where the greatest and most efficient opportunities for reduction are in order to prioritise deployments and time spent?"
Having reviewed the available research and allied evidence available from studies of those matters spanning decades, yes. This was seen by others as sufficient to be invited to be interviewed and participate in discussions in national/local TV and radio studios in the past. More pertinently for this thread I've repeatedly referenced the evidence in post content.
So no, then. I'm not talking about you thinking speed cameras not working, I'm talking about the bigger picture of policing activity and where the greatest and most optimum opportunities exist for harm reduction. You have no idea how the other risks weigh up against what you perceive as being more important. And since you don't know how they compare you're unable to justifiably suggest a re-shuffle of priorities. Having reviewed the available research and allied evidence available from studies of those matters spanning decades, yes. This was seen by others as sufficient to be invited to be interviewed and participate in discussions in national/local TV and radio studios in the past. More pertinently for this thread I've repeatedly referenced the evidence in post content.
I'm being repetitive but you cannot say one thing should go over another when you have little to no information on the 'another'. It really is that simple.
It's like Coca Cola saying the most important market to them is Europe and that they need to focus more of their efforts on it without knowing what all their other markets are doing.
turbobloke said:
Where's the same from you?
I've worked with the department that creates the policing strategy, including priorities on long, medium and shorter time frames and on levels 3, 2 and 1 scales (multi-constabulary, individual constabulary and Basic Command Unit level). I know how the data is devised, processed and how risk is assessed as to where the greatest reductions in harm can be achieved relative to levels of resources available and the cost-benefit of focusing on one area over another. I've also attended all the review meetings and seen the process to manage emerging threats and risks and how it's gone about to change prioritisation and the assessment of the impact on other areas judged to be less important. Having officers focus on driving aimlessly (not targeted, specific or intelligence driven) doesn't offer a sufficient cost / benefit over having them spend the same time doing other activities. I'm pretty good with data, analysis and statistics as a reasonable amount of my education involved that, but some of the people I observed in these departments were really top notch.
There's a surprising amount of deviation between come constabularies around how they go about this process in terms of the processes they go through. Surprising how all 43 independent analytical departments disagree with you. It couldn't possibly because you're mistaken, could it?
turbobloke said:
"What makes you more qualified than them when you have no experience of the subject matter they've dedicated their careers to?"
As far as I can see, most if not all police officers lack any qualifications in those matters, and they can move between operational areas within their careers.
Strategy and performance is fundamental to any senior role. Experience, along with the right support outweighs formal qualifications. Although I believe all strategic roles require on-going education and qualification provided by the CMI. You're not more qualified than them is the simple answer, and not in a position to make any judgements. As far as I can see, most if not all police officers lack any qualifications in those matters, and they can move between operational areas within their careers.
turbobloke said:
They may or may not make themselves familiar with the sum total of credible evidence available, that's a matter for them not me.
Or they may reach a conclusion that you don't agree with based on information you don't have. Credible evidence? 
Just look how wrong the approach to road safety has been! Quick, let's fix it! What a massive red flag of risk where we should not consider all other areas of policing and prioritise driving around looking for improbable occurrences.
turbobloke said:
here you go again with a bonus or two.
I don't disagree with a lot of what they've said. I haven't said speed cameras are perfect. But we're not talking about cameras, we're talking about you trying to justify changing priorities and focus and making accusations of a lack of leadership when you're not in a position in which to do so. You're also having your cake and eating it. You're happy to discredit the validity of senior police officers when it suits you (lack of qualifications, get moved round different departments, ignore credible evidence), but when they say things you like it's naturally OK and credible, of course.
Deadly Dog said:
It is nothing of the sort. It is a comprehensive and impartial study of driver behaviour and accident frequency when speed limits are raised and lowered. Nothing more, nothing less. It has absolutely no agenda. As per my previous recommendation, why not actually read and assimilate the contents of the document before passing comment.
Here's an impartial one by Prof Richard Allsop, whose data analysis is on a different level to every study I've ever seen linked here: Exec summary: http://www.racfoundation.org/assets/rac_foundation...
Full report: http://www.racfoundation.org/assets/rac_foundation...
Some methodology (quite hard-going in places): http://www.racfoundation.org/assets/rac_foundation...
I assume Turboman has read the above, too.
The fictional conversation you posted assumed the worst in a set-up job prefacing misplaced attempts at ridicule and sarcasm. There was also an assumption regarding the views of senior police officers, an approach which isn't working for you as seen from my previous post. There are many senior police officers who have spoken a lot of sense on speed, speed limits, automated enforcement and the lack of relevance to safety, also the disproportionate nature of the approach being taken, all based on credible evidence. Presumably you would regard them as qualified in some way. Statements from these 'qualified' senior police officers agree more closely with my take on this than with yours. So does the data, which is the most important aspect.
This may be of interest to those who missed what happened to road accident casualty data in the speed enforcement proliferation years which coincided with the management by numbers approach of Labour public sector targets, through the nineties and noughties.
Briefing from the Statistics Commissioner said:
There is known undercounting of road accidents in police statistics which are used to monitor a Public Sector Agreement (PSA) target and inform policies on traffic safety.
From police stats, government targets for reducing road accident casualties would have been met. However, figures from hospital admissions show that the figures remained broadly constant over the period in quesiton.Media coverage said:
If the hospital statistics were used as the benchmark, the government would be missing its 2010 target of a 40 per cent reduction in road deaths and serious injuries by a long way.
Clearly if you want to know the reality about RTA data and the effectiveness of a speed-obsessed policy over the past 20 years, ask a . . . medic.turbobloke said:
The fictional conversation you posted assumed the worst in a set-up job prefacing misplaced attempts at ridicule and sarcasm. There was also an assumption regarding the views of senior police officers, an approach which isn't working for you as seen from my previous post. There are many senior police officers who have spoken a lot of sense on speed, speed limits, automated enforcement and the lack of relevance to safety, also the disproportionate nature of the approach being taken, all based on credible evidence. Presumably you would regard them as qualified in some way. Statements from these 'qualified' senior police officers agree more closely with my take on this than with yours.
I know some senior officers disagree with one another. They are, by definition, a statistical minority here, but that doesn't mean their views are invalid. There are a handful of senior officers who think the 'war on drugs' is crazy and the wrong approach. I happen to agree with with them. That's not really relevant, though. You've subtly changed the reference point, framing it as I am wholly supporting the current automated infrastructure and that's the point of disagreement between you and I. It isn't, and wasn't. It was you saying and repeating this and similar:
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.
I have no problem with you disagreeing with road safety and the way it's enforced, I do have a problem with you thinking you're in a position to judge police leadership upon one area you think should be enforced to a greater degree when you aren't privy too all the other competing demands, assessments and rationale and the intensity in which they do so.Again, we've been in a down-trend since measurements began with road deaths, despite and up-trend of road users, and saw an increased rate of death reduction between 2006 and 2010. That's quite consistent over a 40 year period and indicates the overall road-safety strategy (including local authorities creating better road, higher-standards of driving tests and legislation to make cars safer etc) to be working, does it not? If the trend were the other way (at some point it may be as we hit a saturation point) then an increase in road deaths would highlight the need to consider how that harm fits in within policing priorities.
turbobloke said:
So does the data, which is the most important aspect.
Not the data here, or do you disregard this report / conclusions because it doesn't suit the outcome you want? If not, why are the conclusions of this report wrong? Exec summary: http://www.racfoundation.org/assets/rac_foundation...
Full report: http://www.racfoundation.org/assets/rac_foundation...
Some methodology (quite hard-going in places): http://www.racfoundation.org/assets/rac_foundation...
turbobloke said:
From police stats, government targets for reducing road accident casualties would have been met. However, figures from hospital admissions show that the figures remained broadly constant over the period in quesiton.
How do we manage to not record this data accurately, out of interest? 
La Liga said:
I have no problem with you disagreeing with road safety and the way it's enforced, I do have a problem with you thinking you're in a position to judge police leadership upon one area you think should be enforced to a greater degree when you aren't privy too all the other competing demands, assessments and rationale and the intensity in which they do so.
I'm in a very good position, having discussed these issues with senior police officers, discussions in which I don't recall major disagreement in private (as reflected in the public comments I cited earlier) and with the shadow minister for transport in the HoC at the time of the Labour govenrment in order to offer information while gaining insights into the politics side...not to mention having a close understanding of what the available data and information is telling us.
What I'm suggesting is that officers on speed gun duty, or talivan duty where these are police officers, and any officers tasked with running speed awarenss courses, are instead required by their leaders to direct their attention to policing the more helpful and safety-related aspect of dangerous driving, as per the policy adopted by Sir John Stevens as Metropolitan Police Commissioner, which was revealed in a quote from another previous post you appear not to have read.
"I want my traffic policing to target the dangerous drivers, the road hogs, and the menaces who are driving unlicensed and uninsured."
Your comment on other demands appears to maintain your false assumption that officers need to be diverted from completely different areas of policing, which is not the case.
La Liga said:
turbobloke said:
So does the data, which is the most important aspect.
Not the data here, or do you disregard this report / conclusions because it doesn't suit the outcome you want? If not, why are the conclusions of this report wrong? Exec summary: http://www.racfoundation.org/assets/rac_foundation...
Etc
Briefing from the Statistics Commissioner said:
There is known undercounting of road accidents in police statistics which are used to monitor a Public Sector Agreement (PSA) target and inform policies on traffic safety.
Figures from hospital admissions show that RTA casualty figures remained broadly constant over the period in quesiton. The RAC Report is basing its findings on data which is not fit for purpose, and on top of that it has the sense of humour to say "Allowance for regression to the mean (RTM) is important but hard to estimate". Quite! When it's done properly, the claimed safety gains from speed cameras are as illusory as police reported reductions in SI (as part of KSI) from STATS19 forms. Under speed camera siting rules, expected RTM has been shown to be in the range 20% to 36%. Anything at or below that level is not sufficient to ascribe safety gains to speed cameras.
http://www.safespeed.org.uk/rttm.html
The RAC approach has been dissected in this report.
http://www.abd.org.uk/downloads/EffSpeedCamReview....
The DfT data (chart) on p20 of the pdf file at the above link is telling for those who can discern and understant changes in trends. It shows another failure in the attempt to portray fatality reductions as due to the era of speed obsession and automated enforcement.
The fatality chart posted earlier at http://thumbsnap.com/sc/oWCyxuYb.png shows reducing fatalities, but needs to be reviewed in the light of the chart on p20 of the pdf file. Reductions have arisen from continuous improvements in car design for occupants and pedestrians as well as better medevac facilities, with some effects due to the recession.
Road Deaths Fall as Recession Cuts Car Use
Any claim that the reduction is speed camera related is simplistic and nonsensical as demonstrated by the analyses above.
RTM effect shown in spurious camera safety claims for London, following proliferation of automated enforcement after a bad year.
Year / Fatalities
1997 / 276
1998 / 226
This 18% drop was attributed to speed cameras. The bigger picture tells a different story.
1994 / 270
1995 / 214
1996 / 251
1997 / 276
1998 / 226
1999 / 264
Back to 264 from 226, curiously this jump wasn't attributed to the continued presence of speed cameras. So one year later, fatalities increased significantly and the overall situation is near to stasis with 1999 similar to 1994 and the data showing little but the usual variation expected in data of this kind.
The original year-on-year reduction of less than 20% is well within RTM expectation and had nothing to do with any speed camera plague.
Year / Fatalities
1997 / 276
1998 / 226
This 18% drop was attributed to speed cameras. The bigger picture tells a different story.
1994 / 270
1995 / 214
1996 / 251
1997 / 276
1998 / 226
1999 / 264
Back to 264 from 226, curiously this jump wasn't attributed to the continued presence of speed cameras. So one year later, fatalities increased significantly and the overall situation is near to stasis with 1999 similar to 1994 and the data showing little but the usual variation expected in data of this kind.
The original year-on-year reduction of less than 20% is well within RTM expectation and had nothing to do with any speed camera plague.
turbobloke said:
What I'm suggesting is that officers on speed gun duty, or talivan duty where these are police officers, and any officers tasked with running speed awarenss courses, are instead required by their leaders to direct their attention to policing the more helpful and safety-related aspect of dangerous driving, as per the policy adopted by Sir John Stevens as Metropolitan Police Commissioner, which was revealed in a quote from another previous post you appear not to have read.
I read all the quotes and previously said I agree with a lot written. In a previous post I said there are very few officers are speed gun trained, and the ones that are spend time an extremely small amount of time using them. Camera vans are civilian operated and I don't believe any serving officers do the SACs. Speed-gun trained officers, if and when they actually use their equipment, are more likely to target inappropriate speed for the circumstances where there's actual of risk. If that's the case, and I know they do do this, isn't that helping to achieve what you want?
I don't like crude risk-management tools and the punishments of safe behaviours, and am not making a case for speed cameras or automated enforcement. I'm simply saying that you can't say police leadership is lacking when it comes to priorities. You may not like the police support for automated enforcement, but that has nothing to do with front-line police time, since if there weren't cameras, there wouldn't be extra officers as the funding and part of the road safety grant is made up of the revenue generated from automated enforcement.
turbobloke said:
Your comment on other demands appears to maintain your false assumption that officers need to be diverted from completely different areas of policing, which is not the case.
As above, so few officers spend so little time in doing what you think they do, therefore there's only a small amount total time you'd have them doing something else. Such a small time it would have any impact if you want them to drive around looking for dangerous drivers, a statistically improbable event. Most traffic officers I know in their "down time" are using their ANPR to deal with uninsured / unlicensed vehicles or crime-related matters on the road network, or supporting district resources. 20% cuts are biting front line resources and the lowest ever fatalities on our roads on the back of a consistent downtrend isn't really crying out for attention as much as other areas.
turbobloke said:
It really does look as though you're not reading posts but replying in a knee-jerk fashion. My post immediately prior to this one showed that the reductions in casualties to 2005 is illusory.
You're mixing two things up. I asked if the fatal figures are incorrect, not general KSI data, since there's not much room for interpretation when someone's dead as oppose to SI. I suggested it's a good indication of the overall road safety strategy. Is it not? If not, why has it consistently gone down over time? Are the fatal figures are wrong? Are fatal RTCs being missed by the police and the bodies managing to to find their way into the hospitals without them knowing? Or have we an accurate down trend over time?
I also understand RTTM and how it works. People who are interested in the speed camera debate think it's some big, magic-bullet discovery when really it's GCSE level statistics.
La Liga said:
I also understand RTTM and how it works. People who are interested in the speed camera debate think it's some big, magic-bullet discovery when really it's GCSE level statistics.
It's a pity that those responsible for the speed camera hypothecation trials of 1999/2000 didn't share our knowledge of GCSE statistics - and whatever level it's at it blows a hole in speed camera spin. Their response to the data and claims arising from it were risible. It's also a pity that the RACF and those it relied upon in their 2010 report weren't professional enough to keep up-to-date with road casualty information released several years earlier by the Statistics Commissioner and the BMJ (2006) demonstrating that the data behind their speed camera report was unfit for purpose, and that as a result the conclusions derived are not valid. There remains no credible data in support of speed cameras having any causal effect in terms of road safety improvements. Now that the speed mania era is passing albeit too slowly we can only hope for better leadership at all levels so that scarce resources are better directed.
turbobloke said:
“Every one of us can think of a speed limit that appears to be completely barmy, utterly bonkers. And if you think it?s bonkers you are much less likely to comply with it. What we need are speed limits that have credibility in the public mind.”
Richard Brunstrom as Chief Constable of North Wales Police.
Oh, but come on, he's just a petrolhead who wants drivers to be able to go "as fast as they want" (©2010-4 breadvan72).Richard Brunstrom as Chief Constable of North Wales Police.
Thanks for the list of most quotable quotes.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff