Speed Cameras, are they for safety, or revenue?
Poll: Speed Cameras, are they for safety, or revenue?
Total Members Polled: 478
Discussion
Phatboy317 said:
vonhosen said:
Phatboy317 said:
vonhosen said:
Surely the aim has been that the combination of measures reduce KSIs (amongst other goals) against increasing use.
It's been working.
That wouldn't be conjecture now, would it?It's been working.
The stats show they've been reducing.
Show me a clear and unambiguous quantification of the role of cameras in that.
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.It's not something I'm focusing on at all is it?
What I'm doing is looking for/managing hazards.
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.
vonhosen said:
You adjust your speed with cruise control. As I said you've just limited the upper limit so that there is no monitoring of exceeding that, you still look out for hazards & adjust down where necessary, then when it's safe to return to the limit it's resume.
I thought you said that limits aren't a target?TfL dismisses criticism of speed camera policy preferring spin to sound analysis
Transport for London has rejected claims that its speed camera investment programme is based on a flawed understanding of the evidence about their effectiveness in reducing casualties. TfL reported last November that speed cameras helped prevent 500 deaths or serious injuries on London’s roads each year, based on data showing that KSIs had fallen by 58% where cameras were installed (LTT 14 Nov 14). The figures, however, ignore the influence of factors such as regression to the mean and trend.
Idris Francis, an engineer who has spent much of his retirement examining speed camera casualty data, wrote to Leon Daniels, TfL’s managing director of surface transport, challenging the claim. The Sunday Telegraph, covered Francis’s criticisms last month (LTT 09 Jan).
Daniels, however, has rejected the criticisms, telling Francis in a letter: “The effectiveness of safety cameras in reducing casualties at the locations where they are implemented is well established. Our position is supported by a number of studies, including the detailed four-year evaluation of the National Safety Camera Programme, produced for the DfT by University College London and Dr Mountain of Liverpool University in 2005. Importantly, this study shows that safety cameras are effective in reducing casualties, even after trend effects and regression towards the mean are taken into account.”
In a response to Daniels, Francis presents a graph, plotting the decline in reported fatal and serious injuries across London and at camera sites. “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,” he says. “What is more, your senior officials have been fully aware of that at least since September, yet did nothing to block your ludicrous plan to spend tens of millions of more pounds of taxpayers’ money to achieve nothing at all.”
Based on LTT coverage, with my emphasis.
Transport for London has rejected claims that its speed camera investment programme is based on a flawed understanding of the evidence about their effectiveness in reducing casualties. TfL reported last November that speed cameras helped prevent 500 deaths or serious injuries on London’s roads each year, based on data showing that KSIs had fallen by 58% where cameras were installed (LTT 14 Nov 14). The figures, however, ignore the influence of factors such as regression to the mean and trend.
Idris Francis, an engineer who has spent much of his retirement examining speed camera casualty data, wrote to Leon Daniels, TfL’s managing director of surface transport, challenging the claim. The Sunday Telegraph, covered Francis’s criticisms last month (LTT 09 Jan).
Daniels, however, has rejected the criticisms, telling Francis in a letter: “The effectiveness of safety cameras in reducing casualties at the locations where they are implemented is well established. Our position is supported by a number of studies, including the detailed four-year evaluation of the National Safety Camera Programme, produced for the DfT by University College London and Dr Mountain of Liverpool University in 2005. Importantly, this study shows that safety cameras are effective in reducing casualties, even after trend effects and regression towards the mean are taken into account.”
In a response to Daniels, Francis presents a graph, plotting the decline in reported fatal and serious injuries across London and at camera sites. “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,” he says. “What is more, your senior officials have been fully aware of that at least since September, yet did nothing to block your ludicrous plan to spend tens of millions of more pounds of taxpayers’ money to achieve nothing at all.”
Based on LTT coverage, with my emphasis.
“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.
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.
Devil2575 said:
2013BRM said:
The topic has almost gained religious levels of belief, just as a challenged Christian uses the standard 'it is not given to us to understand' the speed camera supporter says 'well anyone who is posting on a motoring forum cannot be objective' You simply will not budge them.
All I can do is repeat what I see. Most of my working week consists of being driven from Duxford in an executive car to an airport, driving around Europe then coming back for the weekend. Speeding occurs everywhere and cameras used to catch them, the UK seems to be on a par with Holland and Germany on the amount apart from SPECS, we love those over here.
There are 2 main differences to me, 1 is the standard of driving and the other the abilty to simply get anywhere. Driving standards here are appalling and not getting better. Nearly every trip to and from a UK airport involves delay due to an accident and a weekend drive the same. Yesterday I was rerouted due to an accident on A505, saw a woman nearly cause one by doing a 3 point turn on the same road and another collision closing the Sawston bypass.
I cant recall the last time that happened whilst driving abroad
A perfect example of anecdotal evidence to prove driving standards are poor.All I can do is repeat what I see. Most of my working week consists of being driven from Duxford in an executive car to an airport, driving around Europe then coming back for the weekend. Speeding occurs everywhere and cameras used to catch them, the UK seems to be on a par with Holland and Germany on the amount apart from SPECS, we love those over here.
There are 2 main differences to me, 1 is the standard of driving and the other the abilty to simply get anywhere. Driving standards here are appalling and not getting better. Nearly every trip to and from a UK airport involves delay due to an accident and a weekend drive the same. Yesterday I was rerouted due to an accident on A505, saw a woman nearly cause one by doing a 3 point turn on the same road and another collision closing the Sawston bypass.
I cant recall the last time that happened whilst driving abroad
I could equally say that my sister lived in Germany near a unrestricted section of autobahn and commented on how often it was closed due to accidents.
Both are equally meaningless in the absence of data.
How do Ksi stats in the Uk compare to our European neighbours?
I despair slightly when I hear all this talk of poor driving standards. We have some of the world's safest roads and they are getting safer. These are facts backed up by real data.
Your comment about religious belief is incredibly ironic given that I yet to see any proper evidence to support any of the claims being made. A Christian might say God is real because I felt his presence. This is a perfect example of using personal experience as evidence. It's no different to "I know driving standards are declining because I've been driving for 30 years and seen it".
Edited by 2013BRM on Sunday 25th January 14:47
Phatboy317 said:
vonhosen said:
You adjust your speed with cruise control. As I said you've just limited the upper limit so that there is no monitoring of exceeding that, you still look out for hazards & adjust down where necessary, then when it's safe to return to the limit it's resume.
I thought you said that limits aren't a target?Phatboy317 said:
vonhosen said:
Cameras are just enforcement of limits, it's limits that provide benefits.
Ok, then show me a clear and unambiguous quantification of the role of limits in that, in addition to clear and unambiguous evidence of the effectiveness of cameras in enforcing said limits.Of course if you want to change the policy & remove speed limits you'll have to show clear & unambiguous evidence that that will improve things further (for the combination of reasons that we have limits i.e. not just safety).
vonhosen said:
Phatboy317 said:
vonhosen said:
You adjust your speed with cruise control. As I said you've just limited the upper limit so that there is no monitoring of exceeding that, you still look out for hazards & adjust down where necessary, then when it's safe to return to the limit it's resume.
I thought you said that limits aren't a target?Phatboy317 said:
vonhosen said:
Phatboy317 said:
vonhosen said:
You adjust your speed with cruise control. As I said you've just limited the upper limit so that there is no monitoring of exceeding that, you still look out for hazards & adjust down where necessary, then when it's safe to return to the limit it's resume.
I thought you said that limits aren't a target?vonhosen said:
Phatboy317 said:
vonhosen said:
Cameras are just enforcement of limits, it's limits that provide benefits.
Ok, then show me a clear and unambiguous quantification of the role of limits in that, in addition to clear and unambiguous evidence of the effectiveness of cameras in enforcing said limits.vonhosen said:
Of course if you want to change the policy & remove speed limits you'll have to show clear & unambiguous evidence that that will improve things further (for the combination of reasons that we have limits i.e. not just safety).
Strawman2013BRM 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 
vonhosen said:
Phatboy317 said:
vonhosen said:
Phatboy317 said:
vonhosen said:
You adjust your speed with cruise control. As I said you've just limited the upper limit so that there is no monitoring of exceeding that, you still look out for hazards & adjust down where necessary, then when it's safe to return to the limit it's resume.
I thought you said that limits aren't a target?You now say that the purpose is not to avoid prosecution.
What other purpose is served by not driving above the limit when it's safe to do so?
Phatboy317 said:
vonhosen said:
Phatboy317 said:
vonhosen said:
Phatboy317 said:
vonhosen said:
You adjust your speed with cruise control. As I said you've just limited the upper limit so that there is no monitoring of exceeding that, you still look out for hazards & adjust down where necessary, then when it's safe to return to the limit it's resume.
I thought you said that limits aren't a target?You now say that the purpose is not to avoid prosecution.
What other purpose is served by not driving above the limit when it's safe to do so?
I said they're not but that I drive at them because it serves my purpose.
You said to avoid prosecution?
I said no, I can avoid prosecution below them.
The purpose I drive at them is not that they are a target but that it serves my purpose of progress.
The reason I choose not to exceed is to avoid prosecution (amongst others), that's not the reason I drive at them though, it's for a combination of reasons.
Edited by vonhosen on Sunday 25th January 16:44
vonhosen said:
Phatboy317 said:
vonhosen said:
Phatboy317 said:
vonhosen said:
Phatboy317 said:
vonhosen said:
You adjust your speed with cruise control. As I said you've just limited the upper limit so that there is no monitoring of exceeding that, you still look out for hazards & adjust down where necessary, then when it's safe to return to the limit it's resume.
I thought you said that limits aren't a target?You now say that the purpose is not to avoid prosecution.
What other purpose is served by not driving above the limit when it's safe to do so?
I said they're not but that I drive at them because it serves my purpose.
You said to avoid prosecution?
I said no, I can avoid prosecution below them.
The purpose I drive at them is not that they are a target but that it serves my purpose of progress.
The reason I choose not to exceed is to avoid prosecution (amongst others), that's not the reason I drive at them though, it's for a combination of reasons.
Edited by vonhosen on Sunday 25th January 16:44
But it still doesn't alter the fact that if you choose to drive at the limit then you are, by definition, treating the limit as a target - whatever your reasons.
Phatboy317 said:
vonhosen said:
Phatboy317 said:
vonhosen said:
Phatboy317 said:
vonhosen said:
Phatboy317 said:
vonhosen said:
You adjust your speed with cruise control. As I said you've just limited the upper limit so that there is no monitoring of exceeding that, you still look out for hazards & adjust down where necessary, then when it's safe to return to the limit it's resume.
I thought you said that limits aren't a target?You now say that the purpose is not to avoid prosecution.
What other purpose is served by not driving above the limit when it's safe to do so?
I said they're not but that I drive at them because it serves my purpose.
You said to avoid prosecution?
I said no, I can avoid prosecution below them.
The purpose I drive at them is not that they are a target but that it serves my purpose of progress.
The reason I choose not to exceed is to avoid prosecution (amongst others), that's not the reason I drive at them though, it's for a combination of reasons.
Edited by vonhosen on Sunday 25th January 16:44
But it still doesn't alter the fact that if you choose to drive at the limit then you are, by definition, treating the limit as a target - whatever your reasons.
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 that you're trying to achieve.
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.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.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff