Helicopter on A40 for collision within average speed cameras
Discussion
TwigtheWonderkid said:
CGJJ said:
"I've seen a deer on the road at Hanger Lane".
Best post ever in support of average speed cameras.
Daftest post considering I don't support average speed cameras. I just don't support stupid, brain dead and downright lazy arguments against them. It's the idiots with their rubbish arguments against that make the job so easy for the pro speed camera lobby.Best post ever in support of average speed cameras.
Either the facts are supported by the ubiquitous conclusion or the contra view is usually taken by cranks. Reports that conclude against the support for traffic regulation are not challenging...so far.
vonhosen said:
Pete317 said:
vonhosen said:
Pete317 said:
vonhosen said:
Where there is danger you should be slow, not that that means slow is dangerous. Slow is, just, slow.
So yes we can say that
danger = slow
not that
slow = danger
I didn't say that.So yes we can say that
danger = slow
not that
slow = danger
You said that fast doesn't equal dangerous & slow doesn't equal safe.
I'm saying it's also true that fast doesn't equal safe & slow doesn't equal dangerous.
The circumstances matter for that.
Speed limits or their enforcement aren't tied to that, because speed limits aren't about defining when safe becomes dangerous or prosecuting on that basis.
They are a blunt control measure within which people are expected to choose a safe speed for the circumstances. They merely limit the parameters of socially acceptable norms by defining the operating boundaries for a regulated activity.
What I am saying is that it's right and natural to slow down for danger.
But when and where there is no danger then speed is largely immaterial.
Leaving aside speeds which could lead directly to loss of control etc, there's no inherent danger in speed - neither is there inherent safety in slowness.
All of which has nothing much to do with defined socially acceptable boundaries for a regulated activity.
On the other hand, you'll have no problem finding people who believe to some extent that speed equals danger and/or slow equals safe.
And that belief will probably have had some influence in the setting of the aforementioned socially acceptable boundaries.
TwigtheWonderkid said:
Pete317 said:
- neither is there inherent safety in slowness.
But there is. If we had a max speed of 5mph and everyone stuck to it, we could probably reduce the death toll on our roads from about 1800/year down to single figures. But the country would grind to a halt, the economy would collapse etc. So we have to find a balance, between allowing greater speeds that are inherently more dangerous and keeping everyone moving and the wheels of industry turning.TwigtheWonderkid said:
Pete317 said:
- neither is there inherent safety in slowness.
But there is. If we had a max speed of 5mph and everyone stuck to it, we could probably reduce the death toll on our roads from about 1800/year down to single figures. But the country would grind to a halt, the economy would collapse etc. So we have to find a balance, between allowing greater speeds that are inherently more dangerous and keeping everyone moving and the wheels of industry turning.When you're driving along the 3 lane stretch of the A40 at 3am and you're stuck at 40 mph due to average speed cameras, it's going to be frustrating. But even at that time, something can always go wrong, a puncture, a deer running out or whatever ( I've seen a deer on the A40 by Hanger Lane). If that happens, you're better off doing 40 than 70.
And let's not forget, for 95% of the time, you'll never get close to 40mph on the stretch of road in question, because it's rammed with traffic.
And you're missing the point.
When something happens like a deer running out or a puncture, that's where the danger comes from, not from the speed you're doing.
And when and where there is danger, it's probably best to slow down - as I said, but going slowly doesn't make the danger go away, and going slowly does not guarantee that you're not going to have an accident. Going slowly might well only serve to lessen the damage.
But, when there's no danger, going slowly isn't going to make you any safer than you were.
What you seem to be saying is that you should be driving slowly during the 99.999999999% of the time when there's no danger, purely because of the 0.000000001% chance that some danger might present itself.
Pete317 said:
You don't prove anything by reducing an argument to the ridiculous.
What you seem to be saying is that you should be driving slowly during the 99.999999999% of the time when there's no danger, purely because of the 0.000000001% chance that some danger might present itself.
Another irony metre explodes!What you seem to be saying is that you should be driving slowly during the 99.999999999% of the time when there's no danger, purely because of the 0.000000001% chance that some danger might present itself.
Sorry to take issue with your carefully researched percentages, but when driving on a public road of any kind, there is a chance of something going wrong 100% of the time. The possibility of danger is ever present.
TwigtheWonderkid said:
Pete317 said:
You don't prove anything by reducing an argument to the ridiculous.
What you seem to be saying is that you should be driving slowly during the 99.999999999% of the time when there's no danger, purely because of the 0.000000001% chance that some danger might present itself.
Another irony metre explodes!What you seem to be saying is that you should be driving slowly during the 99.999999999% of the time when there's no danger, purely because of the 0.000000001% chance that some danger might present itself.
Sorry to take issue with your carefully researched percentages, but when driving on a public road of any kind, there is a chance of something going wrong 100% of the time. The possibility of danger is ever present.
How many years have you been driving?
How many times have you had a deer, or anything else, running out in front of you and forcing you to take avoiding action?
How many times have you had a sudden puncture?
How many times has some danger presented itself ahead of you without warning? How many times has something taken you by surprise that you couldn't have seen coming in good time to slow down?
Edited by Pete317 on Friday 27th November 10:31
Pete317 said:
How many times has some danger presented itself ahead of you without warning? How many times has something taken you by surprise that you couldn't have seen coming in good time to slow down?
You should see the a
holes who used to do 70 passing the RAF and Ruislip exit only to be forced to slam their brakes on because of traffic around the bend due to 3 lanes turning into 2.These idiots seem to get surprised even though they probably use the same road at the same time EVERY DAY.
People like this cannot be educated, they're too stupid - enforcement is the only way.
As I mentioned, my experience of coming into London of an evening is that traffic FLOW has improved significantly since the introduction of the cameras.
Vee said:
Pete317 said:
How many times has some danger presented itself ahead of you without warning? How many times has something taken you by surprise that you couldn't have seen coming in good time to slow down?
You should see the aholes who used to do 70 passing the RAF and Ruislip exit only to be forced to slam their brakes on because of traffic around the bend due to 3 lanes turning into 2.These idiots seem to get surprised even though they probably use the same road at the same time EVERY DAY.
People like this cannot be educated, they're too stupid - enforcement is the only way.
As I mentioned, my experience of coming into London of an evening is that traffic FLOW has improved significantly since the introduction of the cameras.
holes weren't slowing down for a danger which they knew to exist.And they would probably still have been slamming on their brakes every day even if they weren't doing 70.
Edited by Pete317 on Friday 27th November 10:38
tapereel said:
TwigtheWonderkid said:
CGJJ said:
"I've seen a deer on the road at Hanger Lane".
Best post ever in support of average speed cameras.
Daftest post considering I don't support average speed cameras. I just don't support stupid, brain dead and downright lazy arguments against them. It's the idiots with their rubbish arguments against that make the job so easy for the pro speed camera lobby.Best post ever in support of average speed cameras.
Either the facts are supported by the ubiquitous conclusion or the contra view is usually taken by cranks. Reports that conclude against the support for traffic regulation are not challenging...so far.
We know KSI have reduced at speed camera sites, but we also know that the reduction was not caused by the speed cameras. The primary reason that KSI have reduced has been the "site-selection" effect (often referred to as "regression towards the mean") yet no official report has managed to either measure this effect, or to fully exclude it from their final results. The effect of speed cameras, therefore, has not been established in official reports.
Independent reports, OTOH, have managed to produce results that do not contain any site-selection effects. They found that the entire KSI reduction was due to the effect of site-selection and that there was no KSI reduction after speed cameras were deployed.
Right now, therefore, the most accurate evidence available suggests speed cameras do not save lives, and do not prevent serious injuries.
It's a sad reflection of modern political Britain that we now have a "pro speed camera lobby" and an "anti speed-camera lobby". Why can't citizens be independent, unbiased and simply examine the evidence?
Dave Finney said:
tapereel said:
TwigtheWonderkid said:
CGJJ said:
"I've seen a deer on the road at Hanger Lane".
Best post ever in support of average speed cameras.
Daftest post considering I don't support average speed cameras. I just don't support stupid, brain dead and downright lazy arguments against them. It's the idiots with their rubbish arguments against that make the job so easy for the pro speed camera lobby.Best post ever in support of average speed cameras.
Either the facts are supported by the ubiquitous conclusion or the contra view is usually taken by cranks. Reports that conclude against the support for traffic regulation are not challenging...so far.
We know KSI have reduced at speed camera sites, but we also know that the reduction was not caused by the speed cameras. The primary reason that KSI have reduced has been the "site-selection" effect (often referred to as "regression towards the mean") yet no official report has managed to either measure this effect, or to fully exclude it from their final results. The effect of speed cameras, therefore, has not been established in official reports.
Independent reports, OTOH, have managed to produce results that do not contain any site-selection effects. They found that the entire KSI reduction was due to the effect of site-selection and that there was no KSI reduction after speed cameras were deployed.
Right now, therefore, the most accurate evidence available suggests speed cameras do not save lives, and do not prevent serious injuries.
It's a sad reflection of modern political Britain that we now have a "pro speed camera lobby" and an "anti speed-camera lobby". Why can't citizens be independent, unbiased and simply examine the evidence?
It's looking at speed limits that matters.
If we have speed limits, we have to accept enforcement & consequences of that enforcement.
The question therefore is about the benefits of speed limits over & above any consequences of their enforcement.
No benefit, no enforcement, because there'd be no speed limits to enforce.
Dave Finney said:
It's a sad reflection of modern political Britain that we now have a "pro speed camera lobby" and an "anti speed-camera lobby". Why can't citizens be independent, unbiased and simply examine the evidence?
This is a strange comment.Of course peop,e cna be independant and unbiased. What does the existance of a lobby have to do with that? There have alwasy been lobby groups, they aren't a recent invention.
However the fact is that many people are not unbiased and they don't examine the evidence, they believe what fits with their exisiting prejudices.
For example someone who is in an area that has a planning application in for a wind farm is far more likely to believe the 'evidence' that they are a waste of money etc etc. People's politics frequently informs their interpretation of the evidence.
Dave Finney said:
Independent reports, OTOH, have managed to produce results that do not contain any site-selection effects. They found that the entire KSI reduction was due to the effect of site-selection and that there was no KSI reduction after speed cameras were deployed.
Care to link to these reports?Dave Finney said:
Those are interesting opinions which may be quite widely held. This might suggest that the authorities have been quite successful in deceiving the public into believing that speed cameras do improve improve road safety, even though there isn't any good quality evidence for that.
We know KSI have reduced at speed camera sites, but we also know that the reduction was not caused by the speed cameras. The primary reason that KSI have reduced has been the "site-selection" effect (often referred to as "regression towards the mean") yet no official report has managed to either measure this effect, or to fully exclude it from their final results. The effect of speed cameras, therefore, has not been established in official reports.
Independent reports, OTOH, have managed to produce results that do not contain any site-selection effects. They found that the entire KSI reduction was due to the effect of site-selection and that there was no KSI reduction after speed cameras were deployed.
Right now, therefore, the most accurate evidence available suggests speed cameras do not save lives, and do not prevent serious injuries.
It's a sad reflection of modern political Britain that we now have a "pro speed camera lobby" and an "anti speed-camera lobby". Why can't citizens be independent, unbiased and simply examine the evidence?
If you keep typing things often enough some people will start to quote you and your made-up guff will have some Internet generated validation.We know KSI have reduced at speed camera sites, but we also know that the reduction was not caused by the speed cameras. The primary reason that KSI have reduced has been the "site-selection" effect (often referred to as "regression towards the mean") yet no official report has managed to either measure this effect, or to fully exclude it from their final results. The effect of speed cameras, therefore, has not been established in official reports.
Independent reports, OTOH, have managed to produce results that do not contain any site-selection effects. They found that the entire KSI reduction was due to the effect of site-selection and that there was no KSI reduction after speed cameras were deployed.
Right now, therefore, the most accurate evidence available suggests speed cameras do not save lives, and do not prevent serious injuries.
It's a sad reflection of modern political Britain that we now have a "pro speed camera lobby" and an "anti speed-camera lobby". Why can't citizens be independent, unbiased and simply examine the evidence?
There has been some reporting that quantifies RTTM and has found benefits in the UK safety Camera system; you siply ignore or deny that.
Your reports have no authority or sound basis and the claims you make are almost always without reference. So I say you are typing rubbish and, hey, no references from me either.
vonhosen said:
Dave Finney said:
tapereel said:
TwigtheWonderkid said:
CGJJ said:
"I've seen a deer on the road at Hanger Lane".
Best post ever in support of average speed cameras.
Daftest post considering I don't support average speed cameras. I just don't support stupid, brain dead and downright lazy arguments against them. It's the idiots with their rubbish arguments against that make the job so easy for the pro speed camera lobby.Best post ever in support of average speed cameras.
Either the facts are supported by the ubiquitous conclusion or the contra view is usually taken by cranks. Reports that conclude against the support for traffic regulation are not challenging...so far.
We know KSI have reduced at speed camera sites, but we also know that the reduction was not caused by the speed cameras. The primary reason that KSI have reduced has been the "site-selection" effect (often referred to as "regression towards the mean") yet no official report has managed to either measure this effect, or to fully exclude it from their final results. The effect of speed cameras, therefore, has not been established in official reports.
Independent reports, OTOH, have managed to produce results that do not contain any site-selection effects. They found that the entire KSI reduction was due to the effect of site-selection and that there was no KSI reduction after speed cameras were deployed.
Right now, therefore, the most accurate evidence available suggests speed cameras do not save lives, and do not prevent serious injuries.
It's a sad reflection of modern political Britain that we now have a "pro speed camera lobby" and an "anti speed-camera lobby". Why can't citizens be independent, unbiased and simply examine the evidence?
It's looking at speed limits that matters.
If we have speed limits, we have to accept enforcement & consequences of that enforcement.
The question therefore is about the benefits of speed limits over & above any consequences of their enforcement.
No benefit, no enforcement, because there'd be no speed limits to enforce.
1) self enforced
2) enforced by Police
3) enforced by speed camera
4) other (CSW etc)
Each type of speed enforcement may have different effects and we can have a little, lots or none of each.
We know that self enforcement definitely occurs. When speed limits are changed by 10mph, average speeds change by 1-3 mph. This has been done thousands of times and the results are consistent. And this is without any change in enforcement levels.
When Police enforce motoring laws they will include speeding but they tend to prosecute when the speed is unreasonable for the conditions or when associated with other infringements, IOW: when it is in the public interest to do so.
Enforcement by speed camera is fundamentally different to the two above. Prosecutions are pursued whether in the public interest or not, there have never been any scientific trials, the most accurate evidence suggests that they do not save lives or prevent serious injuries, the authorities have deceived the British public about the effects of speed cameras and we've had to reduce Police numbers because of the cost to society of running speed cameras.
We need two things from the authorities:
1) honesty
2) speed cameras deployed within scientific trials (the best quality evidence)
The problem is that we have not had either of these for over 20 years now. Time for change.
Dave Finney said:
vonhosen said:
Dave Finney said:
tapereel said:
TwigtheWonderkid said:
CGJJ said:
"I've seen a deer on the road at Hanger Lane".
Best post ever in support of average speed cameras.
Daftest post considering I don't support average speed cameras. I just don't support stupid, brain dead and downright lazy arguments against them. It's the idiots with their rubbish arguments against that make the job so easy for the pro speed camera lobby.Best post ever in support of average speed cameras.
Either the facts are supported by the ubiquitous conclusion or the contra view is usually taken by cranks. Reports that conclude against the support for traffic regulation are not challenging...so far.
We know KSI have reduced at speed camera sites, but we also know that the reduction was not caused by the speed cameras. The primary reason that KSI have reduced has been the "site-selection" effect (often referred to as "regression towards the mean") yet no official report has managed to either measure this effect, or to fully exclude it from their final results. The effect of speed cameras, therefore, has not been established in official reports.
Independent reports, OTOH, have managed to produce results that do not contain any site-selection effects. They found that the entire KSI reduction was due to the effect of site-selection and that there was no KSI reduction after speed cameras were deployed.
Right now, therefore, the most accurate evidence available suggests speed cameras do not save lives, and do not prevent serious injuries.
It's a sad reflection of modern political Britain that we now have a "pro speed camera lobby" and an "anti speed-camera lobby". Why can't citizens be independent, unbiased and simply examine the evidence?
It's looking at speed limits that matters.
If we have speed limits, we have to accept enforcement & consequences of that enforcement.
The question therefore is about the benefits of speed limits over & above any consequences of their enforcement.
No benefit, no enforcement, because there'd be no speed limits to enforce.
1) self enforced
2) enforced by Police
3) enforced by speed camera
4) other (CSW etc)
Each type of speed enforcement may have different effects and we can have a little, lots or none of each.
We know that self enforcement definitely occurs. When speed limits are changed by 10mph, average speeds change by 1-3 mph. This has been done thousands of times and the results are consistent. And this is without any change in enforcement levels.
When Police enforce motoring laws they will include speeding but they tend to prosecute when the speed is unreasonable for the conditions or when associated with other infringements, IOW: when it is in the public interest to do so.
Enforcement by speed camera is fundamentally different to the two above. Prosecutions are pursued whether in the public interest or not, there have never been any scientific trials, the most accurate evidence suggests that they do not save lives or prevent serious injuries, the authorities have deceived the British public about the effects of speed cameras and we've had to reduce Police numbers because of the cost to society of running speed cameras.
We need two things from the authorities:
1) honesty
2) speed cameras deployed within scientific trials (the best quality evidence)
The problem is that we have not had either of these for over 20 years now. Time for change.
I think however you are living in a dream world if you think that Police speed enforcement is/was only ever done where the speed is unsuitable for the circumstances. I was in the Police for over 30 years & can assure you that isn't/wasn't the case. Police prosecuted simple technical breaches again & again. After all it's in the public interest to encourage compliance with limits through enforcement if there is a net gain from having speed limits & observance of them. If you only prosecute where there is danger present it isn't about enforcing the limit & it becomes the norm that as long as the speed isn't dangerous then it's OK. That isn't speed enforcement. It is also inevitable that where Road policing numbers drop that other methods will be deployed in order to provide that deterrent factor.
Undoubtedly each type of enforcement may result in differing consequences, but there is still either going to be a net gain or not from the speed limits & their subsequent enforcement. A net gain is a net gain.
Other inevitablities in this financial climate are that fiscal considerations will play a part in the methodology used (but if it's still providing a net gain it's still a net gain) & also that methodology will change with technological development.
Edited by vonhosen on Friday 27th November 20:21
Devil2575 said:
Dave Finney said:
Independent reports, OTOH, have managed to produce results that do not contain any site-selection effects. They found that the entire KSI reduction was due to the effect of site-selection and that there was no KSI reduction after speed cameras were deployed.
Care to link to these reports?http://speedcamerareport.co.uk/08_mobile.htm
This was the second report to have fully excluded the effect of site-selection from the final results:
http://speedcamerareport.co.uk/09_fixed.htm
Dave Finney said:
Devil2575 said:
Dave Finney said:
Independent reports, OTOH, have managed to produce results that do not contain any site-selection effects. They found that the entire KSI reduction was due to the effect of site-selection and that there was no KSI reduction after speed cameras were deployed.
Care to link to these reports?http://speedcamerareport.co.uk/08_mobile.htm
This was the second report to have fully excluded the effect of site-selection from the final results:
http://speedcamerareport.co.uk/09_fixed.htm
Dave Finney said:
Devil2575 said:
Dave Finney said:
Independent reports, OTOH, have managed to produce results that do not contain any site-selection effects. They found that the entire KSI reduction was due to the effect of site-selection and that there was no KSI reduction after speed cameras were deployed.
Care to link to these reports?http://speedcamerareport.co.uk/08_mobile.htm
This was the second report to have fully excluded the effect of site-selection from the final results:
http://speedcamerareport.co.uk/09_fixed.htm
I found this report...
http://www.racfoundation.org/assets/rac_foundation...
Devil2575 said:
Dave Finney said:
Devil2575 said:
Dave Finney said:
Independent reports, OTOH, have managed to produce results that do not contain any site-selection effects. They found that the entire KSI reduction was due to the effect of site-selection and that there was no KSI reduction after speed cameras were deployed.
Care to link to these reports?http://speedcamerareport.co.uk/08_mobile.htm
This was the second report to have fully excluded the effect of site-selection from the final results:
http://speedcamerareport.co.uk/09_fixed.htm
I found this report...
http://www.racfoundation.org/assets/rac_foundation...
In the first 3 NSCP reports, the authorities tried to claim that site selection had no effect at all but, in the 4th, they estimated that site selection might be a larger influence on KSI rates than all other factors combined.
What you've found is Professor Allsop's 2010 report for the RAC Foundation, which I think was the authorities 2nd attempt at estimating site selection effects (or RTM). You'll notice that the method used is in 2 parts, the 1st part could have been accurate but the actual SSP has since been found to be substantially longer than was assumed. The 2nd part is a model that turns out to be incorrect for speed cameras.
As accuracy has increased, site selection has been found to have a greater influence than was first thought. When site selection was eventually measured, it was found to be responsible for the entire KSI reduction, with the speed cameras not demonstrated to have saved any lives, and not demonstrated to have prevented any serious injuries.
There is an easy solution: run speed cameras within simple scientific trials.
Dave Finney said:
Devil2575 said:
Dave Finney said:
Devil2575 said:
Dave Finney said:
Independent reports, OTOH, have managed to produce results that do not contain any site-selection effects. They found that the entire KSI reduction was due to the effect of site-selection and that there was no KSI reduction after speed cameras were deployed.
Care to link to these reports?http://speedcamerareport.co.uk/08_mobile.htm
This was the second report to have fully excluded the effect of site-selection from the final results:
http://speedcamerareport.co.uk/09_fixed.htm
I found this report...
http://www.racfoundation.org/assets/rac_foundation...
In the first 3 NSCP reports, the authorities tried to claim that site selection had no effect at all but, in the 4th, they estimated that site selection might be a larger influence on KSI rates than all other factors combined.
What you've found is Professor Allsop's 2010 report for the RAC Foundation, which I think was the authorities 2nd attempt at estimating site selection effects (or RTM). You'll notice that the method used is in 2 parts, the 1st part could have been accurate but the actual SSP has since been found to be substantially longer than was assumed. The 2nd part is a model that turns out to be incorrect for speed cameras.
As accuracy has increased, site selection has been found to have a greater influence than was first thought. When site selection was eventually measured, it was found to be responsible for the entire KSI reduction, with the speed cameras not demonstrated to have saved any lives, and not demonstrated to have prevented any serious injuries.
There is an easy solution: run speed cameras within simple scientific trials.
Speed cameras are just a method of enforcing the speed limit (which is supposed to save the lives amongst other things). Enforcement being a necessity if we are to have speed limits.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff