The new Average speed cameras on the A40 /westway West Lond
Discussion
Slaav said:
DonkeyApple said:
Dave Finney said:
DonkeyApple said:
Is now the time to head out for a new Polish War Memorial to Hanger Lane PB?
Probably not, the time was perhaps 2 decades ago! 
But at least 20 years ago you could find the west way with no traffic on it. But legally, if all the Gatsos are gone and the new system has publicly announced it won't be enforcing until the 26th, what is currently enforcing speeding?
vonhosen said:
Dave Finney said:
vonhosen said:
1) Anywhere speed limits apply enforcement of those limits is justified (limits are pointless if there is no possibility of enforcement anytime anywhere). The only sensible argument is against the suitability of a speed limit, not the enforcement of it once it's there.
2) You can take fewer Traffic Police as a given, irrespective of speed cameras. More cuts are coming with funding cutbacks.
That may be your opinion but doesn't the government claim only to prosecute citizens (for any law) when it's "in the public interest" to do so?2) You can take fewer Traffic Police as a given, irrespective of speed cameras. More cuts are coming with funding cutbacks.
More speed cameras = fewer traffic Police (or less of something else or a higher cost to society)
And what about the dishonesty of those who run speed cameras? Shouldn't we demand the same competence and honesty from the government, as we do in any other area of safety engineering?
There is a second public interest question in relation to case disposal of those caught exceeding the limit & there is an established well trodden path with that. It's hardly a secret or surprise & is graduated with severity of offence.
Traffic Police numbers aren't tied to speed cameras, they are tied to budgets & they are steadily shrinking.
I'm not sure what dishonesty you are talking about.
Are they falsifying evidence against people who were not speeding?
An example of dishonesty by TfL was posted earlier:
Dave Finney said:
robinessex said:
Shaoxter said:
Why, just WHY???!!!
Safety cameras have proved successful in reducing road casualties in recent years. At locations where safety cameras operate in the capital, research shows that the number of people killed or seriously injured (KSI) fell by an average of 58 per cent, meaning that the cameras help to prevent 500 deaths or serious injuries each year. Didn't you know that ?
This problem is easy to resolve. All TfL have to do is deploy their speed cameras within simple scientific trials:
http://speedcamerareport.co.uk/02_scientific_trial...
Note: the A40 average speed cameras could easily have been deployed within a scientific trial, but TfL decided against performing proper tests.
Dave Finney said:
vonhosen said:
Dave Finney said:
vonhosen said:
1) Anywhere speed limits apply enforcement of those limits is justified (limits are pointless if there is no possibility of enforcement anytime anywhere). The only sensible argument is against the suitability of a speed limit, not the enforcement of it once it's there.
2) You can take fewer Traffic Police as a given, irrespective of speed cameras. More cuts are coming with funding cutbacks.
That may be your opinion but doesn't the government claim only to prosecute citizens (for any law) when it's "in the public interest" to do so?2) You can take fewer Traffic Police as a given, irrespective of speed cameras. More cuts are coming with funding cutbacks.
More speed cameras = fewer traffic Police (or less of something else or a higher cost to society)
And what about the dishonesty of those who run speed cameras? Shouldn't we demand the same competence and honesty from the government, as we do in any other area of safety engineering?
There is a second public interest question in relation to case disposal of those caught exceeding the limit & there is an established well trodden path with that. It's hardly a secret or surprise & is graduated with severity of offence.
Traffic Police numbers aren't tied to speed cameras, they are tied to budgets & they are steadily shrinking.
I'm not sure what dishonesty you are talking about.
Are they falsifying evidence against people who were not speeding?
Not everybody 1mph over the limit is prosecuted. There are graduated disposals dependent on the level of offending.
Dave Finney said:
An example of dishonesty by TfL was posted earlier:
Didn't you know that ?That's a quote from Transport for London's (TfL) website but it is misleading and/or false. What TfL don't tell their citizens is that the 58% KSI reduction was not due to the speed cameras but was due to a combination of several factors, the largest of which is probably site-selection effects (or RTM). TfL have not measured any of the factors therefore we don't know if the KSI reduction would have been greater without the speed cameras, lower, or if it would have been the same.
This problem is easy to resolve. All TfL have to do is deploy their speed cameras within simple scientific trials:
http://speedcamerareport.co.uk/02_scientific_trial...
Note: the A40 average speed cameras could easily have been deployed within a scientific trial, but TfL decided against performing proper tests.
There isn't any need for a scientific trial in relation to speed cameras specifically.Dave Finney said:
robinessex said:
Shaoxter said:
Why, just WHY???!!!
Safety cameras have proved successful in reducing road casualties in recent years. At locations where safety cameras operate in the capital, research shows that the number of people killed or seriously injured (KSI) fell by an average of 58 per cent, meaning that the cameras help to prevent 500 deaths or serious injuries each year. Didn't you know that ?
This problem is easy to resolve. All TfL have to do is deploy their speed cameras within simple scientific trials:
http://speedcamerareport.co.uk/02_scientific_trial...
Note: the A40 average speed cameras could easily have been deployed within a scientific trial, but TfL decided against performing proper tests.
Their purpose is to enforce a limit (that is encourage compliance & catch those who don't comply).
It's the limit that requires justification, not the camera enforcing it.
The question is 'do speed limits help in limiting or reducing casualty/fatality numbers?'
Are there other positive benefits from limiting speed (other than casualty/fatality numbers)?
They don't have to be the only thing responsible for limiting or reducing casualty/fatality reduction & that doesn't have to be their only raison d'être. Limits just have to, on balance, provide a reasonable compromise & contribute positively to that.
If we have speed limits, we have to have enforcement.
If we then have both, I don't think a clearly communicated graduated penalty system to deal with those breaking them is an unreasonable action by the authorities.
vonhosen said:
There isn't any need for a scientific trial in relation to speed cameras specifically.
Their purpose is to enforce a limit (that is encourage compliance & catch those who don't comply).
It's the limit that requires justification, not the camera enforcing it.
The question is 'do speed limits help in limiting or reducing casualty/fatality numbers?'
Are there other positive benefits from limiting speed (other than casualty/fatality numbers)?
They don't have to be the only thing responsible for limiting or reducing casualty/fatality reduction & that doesn't have to be their only raison d'être. Limits just have to, on balance, provide a reasonable compromise & contribute positively to that.
If we have speed limits, we have to have enforcement.
If we then have both, I don't think a clearly communicated graduated penalty system to deal with those breaking them is an unreasonable action by the authorities.
Your position seems to be that speed limits must be rigidly enforced so may I ask:Their purpose is to enforce a limit (that is encourage compliance & catch those who don't comply).
It's the limit that requires justification, not the camera enforcing it.
The question is 'do speed limits help in limiting or reducing casualty/fatality numbers?'
Are there other positive benefits from limiting speed (other than casualty/fatality numbers)?
They don't have to be the only thing responsible for limiting or reducing casualty/fatality reduction & that doesn't have to be their only raison d'être. Limits just have to, on balance, provide a reasonable compromise & contribute positively to that.
If we have speed limits, we have to have enforcement.
If we then have both, I don't think a clearly communicated graduated penalty system to deal with those breaking them is an unreasonable action by the authorities.
1) Do you think that all laws should be rigidly enforced?
2) If all laws, do you mean just in Britain, or worldwide?
3) If all laws, do you mean just now, or all through history?
4) If just speed limits, what makes speeding any different to all other laws?
You do seem to have taken a view consistent with many in authority, though that's not what the authorities claim they are doing.
Dave Finney said:
vonhosen said:
There isn't any need for a scientific trial in relation to speed cameras specifically.
Their purpose is to enforce a limit (that is encourage compliance & catch those who don't comply).
It's the limit that requires justification, not the camera enforcing it.
The question is 'do speed limits help in limiting or reducing casualty/fatality numbers?'
Are there other positive benefits from limiting speed (other than casualty/fatality numbers)?
They don't have to be the only thing responsible for limiting or reducing casualty/fatality reduction & that doesn't have to be their only raison d'être. Limits just have to, on balance, provide a reasonable compromise & contribute positively to that.
If we have speed limits, we have to have enforcement.
If we then have both, I don't think a clearly communicated graduated penalty system to deal with those breaking them is an unreasonable action by the authorities.
Your position seems to be that speed limits must be rigidly enforced so may I ask:Their purpose is to enforce a limit (that is encourage compliance & catch those who don't comply).
It's the limit that requires justification, not the camera enforcing it.
The question is 'do speed limits help in limiting or reducing casualty/fatality numbers?'
Are there other positive benefits from limiting speed (other than casualty/fatality numbers)?
They don't have to be the only thing responsible for limiting or reducing casualty/fatality reduction & that doesn't have to be their only raison d'être. Limits just have to, on balance, provide a reasonable compromise & contribute positively to that.
If we have speed limits, we have to have enforcement.
If we then have both, I don't think a clearly communicated graduated penalty system to deal with those breaking them is an unreasonable action by the authorities.
1) Do you think that all laws should be rigidly enforced?
2) If all laws, do you mean just in Britain, or worldwide?
3) If all laws, do you mean just now, or all through history?
4) If just speed limits, what makes speeding any different to all other laws?
You do seem to have taken a view consistent with many in authority, though that's not what the authorities claim they are doing.
I've clearly stated it's not that they must be rigidly enforced or that rigidly enforced is what actually happens.
No action is taken for very minor breaches & a graduated system is in place to deal with offending beyond that. My position is that a clearly communicated graduated system is not an unreasonable step for a government that has imposed speed limits.
Edited by vonhosen on Tuesday 20th October 22:30
Dave Finney said:
If it's all so reasonable, why do TfL feel they need to deceive both politicians and citizens in order to justify the A40 average speed camera installation?
If the data is correct they haven't deceived with the statement quoted. They've given the data for reduction (that's true or not) & they haven't claimed that cameras are solely responsible for that. They have claimed that they've helped.As I've repeatedly said, as far as i'm concerned it's not about the cameras. The method of enforcement is neither here nor there.
It's about limits. If limits are justified then by association enforcement in upholding that limit is justified. A graduated system in dealing with offending is reasonable & serves the public interest.
An average system helps in avoiding prosecuting people for a momentary spike in speed & ensures compliance over a wider area. Isn't that a win for the driver & the authorities as far as speed enforcement is concerned?
Edited by vonhosen on Tuesday 20th October 23:06
vonhosen said:
Dave Finney said:
If it's all so reasonable, why do TfL feel they need to deceive both politicians and citizens in order to justify the A40 average speed camera installation?
If the data is correct they haven't deceived with the statement quoted. They've given the data for reduction (that's true or not) & they haven't claimed that cameras are solely responsible for that. They have claimed that they've helped.As I've repeatedly said, as far as i'm concerned it's not about the cameras. The method of enforcement is neither here nor there.
It's about limits. If limits are justified then by association enforcement in upholding that limit is justified. A graduated system in dealing with offending is reasonable & serves the public interest.
An average system helps in avoiding prosecuting people for a momentary spike in speed & ensures compliance over a wider area. Isn't that a win for the driver & the authorities as far as speed enforcement is concerned?
Edited by vonhosen on Tuesday 20th October 23:06
Site-selection effects have been measured in independent reports. It was found that site-selection effects were responsible for the entire reduction in KSI at speed camera sites, and that that reduction occurred a long time before the speed cameras were deployed. Speed cameras have not been found, therefore, to have even "helped" cause reductions. TfL are misleading people.
Is it a win for the driver & the authorities under any circumstances? Suppose the average speed cameras result in more deaths and injuries?
I don't object to speed cameras, I do object to the failure to run scientific trials and the subsequent dishonesty regarding their effect.
Dave Finney said:
vonhosen said:
Dave Finney said:
If it's all so reasonable, why do TfL feel they need to deceive both politicians and citizens in order to justify the A40 average speed camera installation?
If the data is correct they haven't deceived with the statement quoted. They've given the data for reduction (that's true or not) & they haven't claimed that cameras are solely responsible for that. They have claimed that they've helped.As I've repeatedly said, as far as i'm concerned it's not about the cameras. The method of enforcement is neither here nor there.
It's about limits. If limits are justified then by association enforcement in upholding that limit is justified. A graduated system in dealing with offending is reasonable & serves the public interest.
An average system helps in avoiding prosecuting people for a momentary spike in speed & ensures compliance over a wider area. Isn't that a win for the driver & the authorities as far as speed enforcement is concerned?
Edited by vonhosen on Tuesday 20th October 23:06
Site-selection effects have been measured in independent reports. It was found that site-selection effects were responsible for the entire reduction in KSI at speed camera sites, and that that reduction occurred a long time before the speed cameras were deployed. Speed cameras have not been found, therefore, to have even "helped" cause reductions. TfL are misleading people.
Is it a win for the driver & the authorities under any circumstances? Suppose the average speed cameras result in more deaths and injuries?
I don't object to speed cameras, I do object to the failure to run scientific trials and the subsequent dishonesty regarding their effect.
What matters is whether limits help or not. If, on balance, they do, then we have to put up with enforcement & the means of detection don't matter, because detections from whatever source are dealt with using a graduated system.
If limits don't help, then we don't need them. But the consideration isn't only about whether they help solely in casualty/fatality limitation or reduction. it's about all the things they effect.
I see what you are doing Dave as have been revisiting and trying to do the same since I'd long treated their claims of being 'only concerned with safety' with a pinch of salt the size of Anglesey! The actions rarely matched the emotive statements in my view - there was just this today: http://www.walesonline.co.uk/news/wales-news/wales...
They have made a fortune there as natural decent drivers sometimes creep up to 35mph there as it doesn't feel wrong or dangerous on a wide 6 lane non residential road. I could quote something about the 85th percentile but their accountants have long since over-ridden that.
And its an absolute isn't it and they cant lose - even if the limit is 'wrong'. And it will get steadily worse as its big business with so many vested interests. But I still want to believe them. I'd LOVE to believe them.
And I want 6 preset buttons on my steering wheel 20/30/40/50/60/70 to end this one trick pony of punitive distraction via speedo centred paranoia - because its an absolute. And we cant 'win'. And we will always be 'wrong'.
They have made a fortune there as natural decent drivers sometimes creep up to 35mph there as it doesn't feel wrong or dangerous on a wide 6 lane non residential road. I could quote something about the 85th percentile but their accountants have long since over-ridden that.
And its an absolute isn't it and they cant lose - even if the limit is 'wrong'. And it will get steadily worse as its big business with so many vested interests. But I still want to believe them. I'd LOVE to believe them.
And I want 6 preset buttons on my steering wheel 20/30/40/50/60/70 to end this one trick pony of punitive distraction via speedo centred paranoia - because its an absolute. And we cant 'win'. And we will always be 'wrong'.
Dave Finney said:
vonhosen said:
Of course it's not a win in any circumstances...
Under what circumstances are speed cameras not a win, then?I trust you understand that I'm trying to find common ground.
If for instance people are panic braking because they spot a camera remove the problem. Hide the camera so they can't see it to panic brake for it, for example, or even relocate it.
fergus said:
Slaav said:
DonkeyApple said:
Dave Finney said:
DonkeyApple said:
Is now the time to head out for a new Polish War Memorial to Hanger Lane PB?
Probably not, the time was perhaps 2 decades ago! But at least 20 years ago you could find the west way with no traffic on it. But legally, if all the Gatsos are gone and the new system has publicly announced it won't be enforcing until the 26th, what is currently enforcing speeding?
http://www.ebay.co.uk/ulk/itm/151849584852
I suspect quite a few chaps have self qualified to be honest.
vonhosen said:
Dave Finney said:
vonhosen said:
Of course it's not a win in any circumstances...
Under what circumstances are speed cameras not a win, then?I trust you understand that I'm trying to find common ground.
If for instance people are panic braking because they spot a camera remove the problem. Hide the camera so they can't see it to panic brake for it, for example, or even relocate it.
You seem to be letting yourself be led by the questions and not considering other reasons to install average speed cameras.
There is abosolutely no reason why enforcement equipment cannot be installed by roads authorities to manage speed and traffic flow. I have no knowledge of why the cameras have been deployed on the A40 in London but can say that there is no need for TfL to justify them on casualty grounds. If TfL wish to manage traffic flow and encourage adherence to the speed limit they can and that is justification enough.
If someone is detected speeding on the A40 then a prosecution is justified because the limit is 40 and the driver subject to that prosecution has been informed what the limit is before it is broken.
It really is about time drivers realised that limits are not conditional and that enforcement of them is not subject to justifications that are pure fantasy.
Edited by tapereel on Wednesday 21st October 21:39
vonhosen said:
Dave Finney said:
vonhosen said:
Of course it's not a win in any circumstances...
Under what circumstances are speed cameras not a win, then?I trust you understand that I'm trying to find common ground.
If for instance people are panic braking because they spot a camera remove the problem. Hide the camera so they can't see it to panic brake for it, for example, or even relocate it.
1) The authorities still haven't managed to determine what effect speed cameras are having overall, so how would they be able to determine if any specific speed camera is resulting in deaths or injuries?
2) Even if they could, why would they suddenly decide to be honest with that speed camera and not all of the others?
3) What if covert speed cameras do no better than current speed cameras and result in more deaths or injuries?
The central problem in all of this is the dishonesty of the authorities. If they were to start being honest we could make progress and start actually saving lives.
Dave Finney said:
vonhosen said:
Dave Finney said:
vonhosen said:
Of course it's not a win in any circumstances...
Under what circumstances are speed cameras not a win, then?I trust you understand that I'm trying to find common ground.
If for instance people are panic braking because they spot a camera remove the problem. Hide the camera so they can't see it to panic brake for it, for example, or even relocate it.
1) The authorities still haven't managed to determine what effect speed cameras are having overall, so how would they be able to determine if any specific speed camera is resulting in deaths or injuries?
2) Even if they could, why would they suddenly decide to be honest with that speed camera and not all of the others?
3) What if covert speed cameras do no better than current speed cameras and result in more deaths or injuries?
The central problem in all of this is the dishonesty of the authorities. If they were to start being honest we could make progress and start actually saving lives.
The main question though is not about speed cameras, it's about limits (as I keep saying).
It's the benefits (or not) of speed limits that matters. if they outweigh the negatives of enforcement then enforcement is still worthwhile because of the net gain.
If we decide we want speed limits we have to accept speed enforcement, because limits without the possibility of enforcement anytime anywhere is pointless.
vonhosen said:
You gave an example, such as if the siting of a camera is causing deaths/injuries.
If for instance people are panic braking because they spot a camera remove the problem. Hide the camera so they can't see it to panic brake for it, for example, or even relocate it.
What about average speed enforcement creating a conveyor belt of cars with very low speed differentials encouraging much closer driving and inability to deal with shocks and surprises, such as people changing lane rapidly near junctions: something which happens rather frequently on the A40.If for instance people are panic braking because they spot a camera remove the problem. Hide the camera so they can't see it to panic brake for it, for example, or even relocate it.
People aren't very good drivers, even when they are trying, which isn't most of the time. Having them focus on something other than safety probably isn't a good idea.
tapereel said:
vonhosen said:
Dave Finney said:
vonhosen said:
Of course it's not a win in any circumstances...
Under what circumstances are speed cameras not a win, then?I trust you understand that I'm trying to find common ground.
If for instance people are panic braking because they spot a camera remove the problem. Hide the camera so they can't see it to panic brake for it, for example, or even relocate it.
You seem to be letting yourself be led by the questions and not considering other reasons to install average speed cameras.
There is abosolutely no reason why enforcement equipment cannot be installed by roads authorities to manage speed and traffic flow. I have no knowledge of why the cameras have been deployed on the A40 in London but can say that there is no need for TfL to justify them on casualty grounds. If TfL wish to manage traffic flow and encourage adherence to the speed limit they can and that is justification enough.
If someone is detected speeding on the A40 then a prosecution is justified because the limit is 40 and the driver subject to that prosecution has been informed what the limit is before it is broken.
It really is about time drivers realised that limits are not conditional and that enforcement of them is not subject to justifications that are pure fantasy.
My suggestion of, where it can be shown that a camera is contributing to collisions, finding an alternative enforcement solution, isn't moving away from that.
It's achieving the objective whilst minimising loss at the same time.
7db said:
vonhosen said:
You gave an example, such as if the siting of a camera is causing deaths/injuries.
If for instance people are panic braking because they spot a camera remove the problem. Hide the camera so they can't see it to panic brake for it, for example, or even relocate it.
What about average speed enforcement creating a conveyor belt of cars with very low speed differentials encouraging much closer driving and inability to deal with shocks and surprises, such as people changing lane rapidly near junctions: something which happens rather frequently on the A40.If for instance people are panic braking because they spot a camera remove the problem. Hide the camera so they can't see it to panic brake for it, for example, or even relocate it.
People aren't very good drivers, even when they are trying, which isn't most of the time. Having them focus on something other than safety probably isn't a good idea.
tapereel said:
If someone is detected speeding on the A40 then a prosecution is justified because the limit is 40 and the driver subject to that prosecution has been informed what the limit is before it is broken.
It really is about time drivers realised that limits are not conditional and that enforcement of them is not subject to justifications that are pure fantasy.
A really clear position. And about an absolute. So by that definition, say by 10 years time would you be perfectly OK with a connected black box type device in your vehicle that would ping a central server every time you break a speed limit and automatically add points to your licence and hit your bank account with a a direct debit? It is the logical conclusion to your statement. But is that really your vision for the greater good and a better society?It really is about time drivers realised that limits are not conditional and that enforcement of them is not subject to justifications that are pure fantasy.
Edited by tapereel on Wednesday 21st October 21:39
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff