Speed Cameras, are they for safety, or revenue?

[singlecoil]

rewc said:

I've got a SID near me which says 'Thank You' in big letters when passing at 30mph and below. It says 'slow down' when doing 31mph and above. The authorities must think 30mph is ok as they thank you for it, it appears it is they who are setting it as a target.

Sounds more like a limit than a target to me. Thank you for keeping to it, disapproval for not. Yep, that's a limit.

[vonhosen]

Phatboy317 said:

vonhosen said:

It's not the target, it's sometimes a limit.
Sometimes I drive below, sometimes at & sometimes above. Depends on what I'm trying to achieve. It's not the target though, the reasons I'm doing that speed are the target.

If the limit is set to below the speed which most people would choose to drive at in the absence of the limit, then they will treat the limit as a target.

Their targets are progress & legal compliance, the limit dictates the maximum they can achieve with their combined goals.

[2013BRM]

singlecoil said:

2013BRM said:

It was intended to be anecdotal hence my introduction to the post 'all I can say is what I see', you demand evidence but the posts offering evidence are contested and rebuffed with contrary evidence which is either ignored or countered with yet more evidence. All anyone can do, therefor, is offer experience and experience is what we humans use, ultimately to guide us. At least Vonhosen didn't simply deny my experience as he usually does. Your stats can be and are contested because you choose them , as the human condition dictates, to support your global view on the subject. Despite me being a long serving member of this website I try my best to be objective. Admittedly this was not always the case. Your claim that our roads are the safest is based on KSIs but that means more survive a crash not that there are fewer crashes, and if my post is incredibly ironic yours is incredibly arrogant to simply dismiss ones experience, but then, it doesn't fit with your point of view does it

That could certainly be applied to each 'side' of this discussion

of course, that's why I rely on experience rather than stats

[Phatboy317]

vonhosen said:

Their targets are progress & legal compliance, the limit dictates the maximum they can achieve with their combined goals.

If you want to be pedantic then you'll be wanting to take it up with those who coined the phrase in the first place.

[vonhosen]

Phatboy317 said:

vonhosen said:

Their targets are progress & legal compliance, the limit dictates the maximum they can achieve with their combined goals.

If you want to be pedantic then you'll be wanting to take it up with those who coined the phrase in the first place.

What phrase?
Limit?
Limit doesn't mean target.

[Phatboy317]

vonhosen said:

What phrase?
Limit?
Limit doesn't mean target.

Amongst others, "The speed limit is a limit not a target"

[vonhosen]

Phatboy317 said:

vonhosen said:

What phrase?
Limit?
Limit doesn't mean target.

Amongst others, "The speed limit is a limit not a target"

Yes, as I said the speed limit is a limit, not a target.
You're the one saying it's a target.

[Phatboy317]

vonhosen said:

Phatboy317 said:

vonhosen said:

What phrase?
Limit?
Limit doesn't mean target.

Amongst others, "The speed limit is a limit not a target"

Yes, as I said the speed limit is a limit, not a target.
You're the one saying it's a target.

The word 'target', within that context, is both intended and understood to mean 'target speed'.

[vonhosen]

Phatboy317 said:

vonhosen said:

Phatboy317 said:

vonhosen said:

What phrase?
Limit?
Limit doesn't mean target.

Amongst others, "The speed limit is a limit not a target"

Yes, as I said the speed limit is a limit, not a target.
You're the one saying it's a target.

The word 'target', within that context, is both intended and understood to mean 'target speed'.

You're the only one claiming the target is the speed.

[Phatboy317]

vonhosen said:

Phatboy317 said:

vonhosen said:

Phatboy317 said:

vonhosen said:

What phrase?
Limit?
Limit doesn't mean target.

Amongst others, "The speed limit is a limit not a target"

Yes, as I said the speed limit is a limit, not a target.
You're the one saying it's a target.

The word 'target', within that context, is both intended and understood to mean 'target speed'.

You're the only one claiming the target is the speed.

bks

[Devil2575]

2013BRM said:

It was intended to be anecdotal hence my introduction to the post 'all I can say is what I see', you demand evidence but the posts offering evidence are contested and rebuffed with contrary evidence which is either ignored or countered with yet more evidence. All anyone can do, therefor, is offer experience and experience is what we humans use, ultimately to guide us. At least Vonhosen didn't simply deny my experience as he usually does. Your stats can be and are contested because you choose them , as the human condition dictates, to support your global view on the subject. Despite me being a long serving member of this website I try my best to be objective. Admittedly this was not always the case. Your claim that our roads are the safest is based on KSIs but that means more survive a crash not that there are fewer crashes, and if my post is incredibly ironic yours is incredibly arrogant to simply dismiss ones experience, but then, it doesn't fit with your point of view does it

Edited by 2013BRM on Sunday 25th January 14:47

So are you saying that you don't agree with UK and global KSI stats?

KSI means more survive and less are seriously injured. Insurance claims are falling according to the insurance industry.

http://www.insuranceage.co.uk/insurance-age/news/2...

Do you contest the insurance industry stats too?

This is the basis for my argument. Our roads are getting safer - less people are killed and less are injured and less people are crashing.

Your evidence is personal experience which if anything can only be used as the basis for a hypothesis; a supposition or proposed explanation made on the basis of limited evidence as a starting point for further investigation.
Given that less people are killed and seriously injured and less accidents are happening you need to come up with something better than personal experiences to support your case.

No where in credible research is personal experience used to provide data.

[Devil2575]

Phatboy317 said:

vonhosen said:

So when I set & forget with my cruise control how am I now concentrating on my speed so that I don't exceed the limit?
It's not something I'm focusing on at all is it?
What I'm doing is looking for/managing hazards.

You've just provided a good example of the dumbing down that's being discussed.
A good part of the process of driving safely is actively adjusting your speed according to conditions, and not just setting your cruise control to some arbitrary speed and forgetting about it.
Besides which, it's only really on largely empty roads when you can use cruise control for long periods,
and in those conditions your speed is largely irrelevant from the safety aspect.

My car doesn't have cruise control but I don't have an issue sticking at or below the limit for long periods of time without the need to constantly look at my speedometer. Once you get used to your car I find it actually quite straight forward to know how fast I'm travelling without based on gear, engine revs and road noise. In fact I never had trouble sticking to speed limits even when I started driving, when I went faster it was a conscious decision. Speed limits have always been there (when I've been driving anyway) even if cameras haven't and there has always been the risk of being pulled over by the Police.

[Phatboy317]

Devil2575 said:

Phatboy317 said:

vonhosen said:

So when I set & forget with my cruise control how am I now concentrating on my speed so that I don't exceed the limit?
It's not something I'm focusing on at all is it?
What I'm doing is looking for/managing hazards.

You've just provided a good example of the dumbing down that's being discussed.
A good part of the process of driving safely is actively adjusting your speed according to conditions, and not just setting your cruise control to some arbitrary speed and forgetting about it.
Besides which, it's only really on largely empty roads when you can use cruise control for long periods,
and in those conditions your speed is largely irrelevant from the safety aspect.

My car doesn't have cruise control but I don't have an issue sticking at or below the limit for long periods of time without the need to constantly look at my speedometer. Once you get used to your car I find it actually quite straight forward to know how fast I'm travelling without based on gear, engine revs and road noise. In fact I never had trouble sticking to speed limits even when I started driving, when I went faster it was a conscious decision. Speed limits have always been there (when I've been driving anyway) even if cameras haven't and there has always been the risk of being pulled over by the Police.

You've missed the point by about a million miles. I suggest you read before commenting.

[Rovinghawk]

singlecoil said:

“As you can see there has been no meaningful difference between the rate at which KSI fell at your [camera] sites and the rate at which they fell elsewhere,”

Excellent example of what I was talking about earlier, and of course this is how speed cameras are meant to work, not just at the sites, but everywhere. And they do.

If speed cameras work even where there are no cameras, as you've just said, then let's have one outside a school and get rid of the rest. Simple.

[singlecoil]

Rovinghawk said:

singlecoil said:

“As you can see there has been no meaningful difference between the rate at which KSI fell at your [camera] sites and the rate at which they fell elsewhere,”

Excellent example of what I was talking about earlier, and of course this is how speed cameras are meant to work, not just at the sites, but everywhere. And they do.

If speed cameras work even where there are no cameras, as you've just said, then let's have one outside a school and get rid of the rest. Simple.

It should be obvious that you need to have quite a few cameras for them to be effective. In fact, come to think of it, it is obvious, even to those that have an axe to grind

[Devil2575]

Phatboy317 said:

Devil2575 said:

Phatboy317 said:

vonhosen said:

So when I set & forget with my cruise control how am I now concentrating on my speed so that I don't exceed the limit?
It's not something I'm focusing on at all is it?
What I'm doing is looking for/managing hazards.

You've just provided a good example of the dumbing down that's being discussed.
A good part of the process of driving safely is actively adjusting your speed according to conditions, and not just setting your cruise control to some arbitrary speed and forgetting about it.
Besides which, it's only really on largely empty roads when you can use cruise control for long periods,
and in those conditions your speed is largely irrelevant from the safety aspect.

My car doesn't have cruise control but I don't have an issue sticking at or below the limit for long periods of time without the need to constantly look at my speedometer. Once you get used to your car I find it actually quite straight forward to know how fast I'm travelling without based on gear, engine revs and road noise. In fact I never had trouble sticking to speed limits even when I started driving, when I went faster it was a conscious decision. Speed limits have always been there (when I've been driving anyway) even if cameras haven't and there has always been the risk of being pulled over by the Police.

You've missed the point by about a million miles. I suggest you read before commenting.

My point was that I've had to stick to an arbitrary speed ever since I started driving. Cruise control has also been around for years and using it is hardly a case of dumbing down.

[Phatboy317]

Devil2575 said:

Phatboy317 said:

Devil2575 said:

Phatboy317 said:

vonhosen said:

So when I set & forget with my cruise control how am I now concentrating on my speed so that I don't exceed the limit?
It's not something I'm focusing on at all is it?
What I'm doing is looking for/managing hazards.

You've just provided a good example of the dumbing down that's being discussed.
A good part of the process of driving safely is actively adjusting your speed according to conditions, and not just setting your cruise control to some arbitrary speed and forgetting about it.
Besides which, it's only really on largely empty roads when you can use cruise control for long periods,
and in those conditions your speed is largely irrelevant from the safety aspect.

My car doesn't have cruise control but I don't have an issue sticking at or below the limit for long periods of time without the need to constantly look at my speedometer. Once you get used to your car I find it actually quite straight forward to know how fast I'm travelling without based on gear, engine revs and road noise. In fact I never had trouble sticking to speed limits even when I started driving, when I went faster it was a conscious decision. Speed limits have always been there (when I've been driving anyway) even if cameras haven't and there has always been the risk of being pulled over by the Police.

You've missed the point by about a million miles. I suggest you read before commenting.

My point was that I've had to stick to an arbitrary speed ever since I started driving. Cruise control has also been around for years and using it is hardly a case of dumbing down.

Well why didn't you say so?

[singlecoil]

Phatboy317 said:

Well why didn't you say so?

He did.

[woof]

It's difficult to find actual current figures of how many motorist are being fined for speeding in recent years but in 2007 it was 1.9 million (in 1997 it was just 700,000) and from the current increase in new digital speed cameras tickets being issued in this "new war on motorists" I expect to see that figure be close to 4 million and raising something in the region of £500,000,000 in revenue.

In the news today More than 500 speeding drivers have been caught by new cameras on the M4 in just five days.
Partnership manager Chris Hume said: "There is a clear indication that there has been a decrease in the numbers of people exceeding the limit.

"Excessive and inappropriate speed remains a factor in collisions and associated fatalities and serious injuries on our roads in Wales.

"Our main priority is to continue to educate motorists about the effect of inappropriate speed with enforcement being the last resort after engineering solutions are considered."

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-south-east-wale...

[Deadly Dog]

Devil2575 said:

I don't think it is being passed off as absolute causation. The limitations of the study are clearly pointed as, as you have seen.

What I have seen is that the author has failed to point out some critical failings of the methodology used. The bottom line is the study is completely worthless. It provides no demonstrable evidence that camera deployment can influence the reduction of injury collisions. Any suggestion otherwise is conjecture. I'll explain why.

Devil2575 said:

Given that roads and speed cameras don't exist in a lab do you actually think it possible that you could ever determine absolute causation? The real world changes all the time and any data is always going to be subect to external factors

Yes, I do. At the very least it is possible to obtain a level of knowledge and understanding that enables the implementation of effective and appropriate improvements.

Of course conditions are going to be subject to change and external factors, and that is the very reason why you cannot blindly apply common cause solutions to special cause incidents. However, should an underlying persistent causal or contributory factor be identified at a specific site, appropriate corrective measures can then be applied to reduce or eliminate the effects that particular factor. Data gathered from other sites can be examined and compared for a possible shared common cause. This in turn may lead to opportunity for the justifiable and legitimate deployment of the same corrective measure elsewhere.

Devil2575 said:

I don't agree that each site needs looking at in detail because the overall data shows a statisticaly significant variation.

Firstly, what is supposed to be the underlying, fundamental objective here? Let's assume it's to understand why accidents are occurring at particular locations so genuine and effective safety improvements can be made. Therefore, if you're going to do the job with honesty and integrity, each site most certainly needs to be examined in detail. This is how special cause investigations are properly managed. Working with honesty and integrity does not involve cynically manipulating data to fit the deployment criteria of a "preferred" corrective measure or, in other words, engineering a problem to fit a solution.

Secondly, the overall data in this report does not show statistically significant variation. It merely imparts an illusion of statistically significant variation. The figures that appear to demonstrate this seemingly impressive reduction are derived from amplified selective bias. When multiple sites are chosen using selective bias, the aggregated before and after data will always appear substantially different.

However, the most glaring fault of all is the apparent lack of real-world control data for performance comparison - an utterly unforgivable omission. There should have been a similar number of control sites monitored during the study. The control sites should have been identified using the exact same criteria that qualified road sections for camera deployment, but no automated enforcement system would have been installed.

Devil2575 said:

It's a fairly crude analysis but it has value IMHO and the fact that it supports the conclusions of a number of other reports also goes in it's favour.

To say it's a fairly crude analysis is very polite understatement. However, given that all the other reports are based upon the same bent statistical methodology, it's hardly surprising they all come to a similar conclusion. However these reports have be cited by some as unequivocal evidence of speed camera effectiveness and subsequently used to justify their proliferation. Now that is a major problem.