Ministers question Speed Awareness Course effectiveness.

[The Surveyor]

0000 said:

I'm not really claiming it would be more effective without them. You asked how the system could be better without them and at the very least, notwithstanding other aspects, a simpler system is always a better system. As such the onus should be on SACs to prove they make the system better, not the other way around.

If you are not claiming it would be effective without them, then surly you are supportive that the SAC's are a positive contribution?

Also, I'd disagree that a simpler system is always a better system, especially if you are using that argument to dismiss any educational value that good SAC's can bring.

You are also missing the point about needs to prove that SAC's make the system better. The SAC providers such as AA Drivetec need to deliver a course that meets their brief. They only need to show that they are delivering an effective course, not that the course is effective at making the system better.

[Dave Finney]

GroundEffect said:

Dave Finney said:

It would be easy enough to determine the effect of courses, just run scientific trials.

But since the authorities refuse to run scientific trials for speed cameras, I would be surprised if they really did want evidence of courses, and for that evidence to be public!

How do you perform a double-blind study on this..........?

Yes, there are many that don't understand what RCT scientific trials are. The "double-blind study" is a particular form of RCT scientific trial often used to test new drugs.

Clearly speed cameras cannot be subject to a "double-blind study", but they can be deployed (or removed) within RCT scientific trials.

Does this explanation help? http://speedcamerareport.co.uk/02_scientific_trial...

[Dave Finney]

Gavia said:

singlecoil said:

Dave Finney said:

Gavia said:

Dave Finney said:

The reductions in serious crashes at speed camera sites are NOT due to the speed cameras, they are due to many effects including site-selection (or RTM), trends, other factors and the speed cameras.

No official report has managed to separate out the effect of the speed cameras, but independent reports have.

The most accurate evidence available to date suggests that speed cameras have increased deaths and resulted in more serious injuries.

There is a solution though, and it's simple, cheap and accurate:

Just run all speed cameras within scientific trials.

Who instructed these independent reports? Did they have a vested interest in the findings coming out in their favour?

I don't believe that speed cameras have increased death / injury severity.

What are these scientific trials? Will they involve people getting injured / dying to provide a cohort? If so, they are simply unacceptable.

In order:
Nobody. No.
The evidence suggests that speed cameras have led to more deaths and more serious injuries, but you can choose not to allow evidence to influence you.
http://speedcamerareport.co.uk/02_scientific_trial... Scientific trials involve counting the number of deaths and injuries, as do all road safety reports.

Gavia, bear in mind the site linked to is Dave's own.

so it's totally independent then and not written by anyone with a vested interest in the outcome

That's right. I developed the most accurate method to eliminate site-selection effects and produced the world's 1st report using it.

It's not just my reports, there have been other reports also using my method and the evidence produced suggests that:

Speed cameras lead to more deaths and more serious injuries.

[0000]

The Surveyor said:

0000 said:

I'm not really claiming it would be more effective without them. You asked how the system could be better without them and at the very least, notwithstanding other aspects, a simpler system is always a better system. As such the onus should be on SACs to prove they make the system better, not the other way around.

If you are not claiming it would be effective without them, then surly you are supportive that the SAC's are a positive contribution?

I make no claim either way because they don't release any data suitable for basing a claim on. Conveniently, perhaps.

The Surveyor said:

Also, I'd disagree that a simpler system is always a better system, especially if you are using that argument to dismiss any educational value that good SAC's can bring.

I'm not saying a simpler system is always better. I'm saying it's better in the absence of any information to the contrary.

The Surveyor said:

You are also missing the point about needs to prove that SAC's make the system better. The SAC providers such as AA Drivetec need to deliver a course that meets their brief. They only need to show that they are delivering an effective course, not that the course is effective at making the system better.

Sure, the course providers are working to the extent they're compelled to, to their own interests. Nothing wrong with that, questionable lobbying from individuals aside. It's up to government to ensure their existence is justified, which is presumably why MPs are questioning it.

[singlecoil]

Dave Finney said:

Speed cameras lead to more deaths and more serious injuries.

bks

[4040vision]

singlecoil said:

Dave Finney said:

Speed cameras lead to more deaths and more serious injuries.

bks

+1
Yeah...wot he said.

[Gavia]

Dave Finney said:

That's right. I developed the most accurate method to eliminate site-selection effects and produced the world's 1st report using it.

It's not just my reports, there have been other reports also using my method and the evidence produced suggests that:

Speed cameras lead to more deaths and more serious injuries.

That's a load of crap. You wanted a specific outcome and you made sure you got it. There is no way they cause more accidents

[JNW1]

singlecoil said:

Dave Finney said:

Speed cameras lead to more deaths and more serious injuries.

bks

I would also take some persuading that cameras lead to more deaths and serious injuries; however, I've also yet to see any evidence that they've made our roads safer which was supposedly the reason for their introduction. From what I can see they've just been used to increase the level of enforcement of arbitrary and in some cases outdated speed limits with a lot of otherwise law abiding citizens made criminals as a result - some may regard that as a positive outcome but I'm afraid I don't.

[vonhosen]

Engineer792 said:

vonhosen said:

0000 said:

vonhosen said:

0000 said:

vonhosen said:

Not really very interesting.
Their best performing years were before all that with lower speed limits (65mph) & secondary seat belt law.
Rather than snapshot selective data that those who like to quote the 'Montana paradox' use, you can look at more detailed more encompassing info.
It started to go wrong when they messed about with 'reasonable & prudent', 'no limit' & 'higher national limits'


http://www.mdt.mt.gov/publications/docs/brochures/...
(Graph on Page 9).

If best performing is just fewest fatalities we may as well go back to a time before cars in Montana, or anywhere else, covered a single mile.

The graph on page 14 is far more useful for anyone who isn't completely anti-car at all cost and it doesn't paint the same picture.

The measure chosen was that chosen by those espousing the 'montana paradox' i.e. fatalities.
The graph on page 9 shows trend & when various measures were implemented, the messing about & following higher limits is when trend started rising.
That's not anti car, there is utility in vehicle transport & the graph is against a backdrop of rising vehicle use (even when there was a downward fatality trend). It's surely preferable for fewer fatalities & a slightly lower limit, than a rising trend along with no or a slightly higher limit, no?

No, the vehicle use increase isn't consistent enough to wave your hand and say that and the graph on page 14 shows that's incorrect. The trend you think you see is not there when you account for vehicle use.

You're saying it's not preferable to have a 65mph limit & fewer fatalities than a 75 limit & higher fatalities?
Them's the figures.
As I said those supporting the 'Montana paradox' chose the unit of measure (i.e. fatalities per year).
Your graph on page 14 shows a sharp spike & higher fatality levels during the 'reasonable & prudent' & higher limit periods.

The graph on page 14 shows little or no statistically significant difference in trend between Montana and the rest of the country.

The sharp spike of which you speak is probably no more than statistical noise.

It certainly doesn't support a 'Montana paradox' (which is what I've been addressing with this).

[vonhosen]

JNW1 said:

singlecoil said:

Dave Finney said:

Speed cameras lead to more deaths and more serious injuries.

bks

I would also take some persuading that cameras lead to more deaths and serious injuries; however, I've also yet to see any evidence that they've made our roads safer which was supposedly the reason for their introduction. From what I can see they've just been used to increase the level of enforcement of arbitrary and in some cases outdated speed limits with a lot of otherwise law abiding citizens made criminals as a result - some may regard that as a positive outcome but I'm afraid I don't.

It's not them that is supposed to make our roads safer, it's the limits that are.
They are just a means to enforce the limit (enforcement being a necessity if we are to have limits) & they make more financial/resource sense than using expensive resources like Police officers in cars to do it (which are also better deployed/utilised elsewhere on other jobs).

[singlecoil]

JNW1 said:

singlecoil said:

Dave Finney said:

Speed cameras lead to more deaths and more serious injuries.

bks

I would also take some persuading that cameras lead to more deaths and serious injuries; however, I've also yet to see any evidence that they've made our roads safer which was supposedly the reason for their introduction. From what I can see they've just been used to increase the level of enforcement of arbitrary and in some cases outdated speed limits with a lot of otherwise law abiding citizens made criminals as a result - some may regard that as a positive outcome but I'm afraid I don't.

There's a fault in your logic. A citizen is either law abiding or he isn't. It's not the cameras that cause him to break the law (become a criminal) he's already doing that by exceeding the speed limit.

[JNW1]

vonhosen said:

JNW1 said:

singlecoil said:

Dave Finney said:

Speed cameras lead to more deaths and more serious injuries.

bks

I would also take some persuading that cameras lead to more deaths and serious injuries; however, I've also yet to see any evidence that they've made our roads safer which was supposedly the reason for their introduction. From what I can see they've just been used to increase the level of enforcement of arbitrary and in some cases outdated speed limits with a lot of otherwise law abiding citizens made criminals as a result - some may regard that as a positive outcome but I'm afraid I don't.

It's not them that is supposed to make our roads safer, it's the limits that are.
They are just a means to enforce the limit (enforcement being a necessity if we are to have limits) & they make more financial sense than using expensive resources like Police officers in cars to do it (which are also better deployed/utilised elsewhere on other jobs).

So is there any evidence to show that increased enforcement of the limits via the use of cameras has made our roads safer? I admit I've only looked at the statistics for the county in which I live but by reference to the established measures such as fatalities and serious injuries the local Safety Camera Partnership has achieved nothing (unless you count criminalising a lot of otherwise law abiding citizens, in which case it's been quite successful).

[Gavia]

JNW1 said:

I would also take some persuading that cameras lead to more deaths and serious injuries; however, I've also yet to see any evidence that they've made our roads safer which was supposedly the reason for their introduction. From what I can see they've just been used to increase the level of enforcement of arbitrary and in some cases outdated speed limits with a lot of otherwise law abiding citizens made criminals as a result - some may regard that as a positive outcome but I'm afraid I don't.

Two things

Why are they making people criminals? You don't get a criminal record for speeding offences.

I love this "otherwise law abiding" aspect. Other than the knife I carry, I'm otherwise law abiding. Other than the kiddy fiddling aspect, Jimmy Saville was a law abifpding citizen, other than the prostitiures he killed, Peter Sutclifee was a law abiding citizen and so on.

We might all ignore speed limits to some extent, but that's a conscious decision and we must face the consequences of those decisions if (and it's a huge if) we get caught.

[singlecoil]

JNW1 said:

So is there any evidence to show that increased enforcement of the limits via the use of cameras has made our roads safer? I admit I've only looked at the statistics for the county in which I live but by reference to the established measures such as fatalities and serious injuries the local Safety Camera Partnership has achieved nothing (unless you count criminalising a lot of otherwise law abiding citizens, in which case it's been quite successful).

You are still not quite getting it. It's not the enforcement (by whatever means) that makes roads safer, it's the speed limits themselves.

[vonhosen]

JNW1 said:

vonhosen said:

JNW1 said:

singlecoil said:

Dave Finney said:

Speed cameras lead to more deaths and more serious injuries.

bks

I would also take some persuading that cameras lead to more deaths and serious injuries; however, I've also yet to see any evidence that they've made our roads safer which was supposedly the reason for their introduction. From what I can see they've just been used to increase the level of enforcement of arbitrary and in some cases outdated speed limits with a lot of otherwise law abiding citizens made criminals as a result - some may regard that as a positive outcome but I'm afraid I don't.

It's not them that is supposed to make our roads safer, it's the limits that are.
They are just a means to enforce the limit (enforcement being a necessity if we are to have limits) & they make more financial sense than using expensive resources like Police officers in cars to do it (which are also better deployed/utilised elsewhere on other jobs).

So is there any evidence to show that increased enforcement of the limits via the use of cameras has made our roads safer? I admit I've only looked at the statistics for the county in which I live but by reference to the established measures such as fatalities and serious injuries the local Safety Camera Partnership has achieved nothing (unless you count criminalising a lot of otherwise law abiding citizens, in which case it's been quite successful).

1) Limits aren't only about safety, they are about addressing other concerns too.
2) As said their purpose isn't to make our roads safer (that's the job of limits, amongst other things), their purpose is to influence speed choice & provide evidence of those who don't adhere to them. They are arguably more successful at that than Police officers in cars.

If you want to measure if speed limits are effective, you look to see whether they help in addressing the issues they are in place for (safety, traffic management, environmental concerns etc).
If you want to measure if cameras are effective you look to see if they are in what they set out to do (influence speed choice & provide evidence of offenders).

I drove nearly 200 miles on the motorway today (also through quite a bit of 50 limits with average speeds cameras).
I'm seeing less speeding on the roads, didn't see anyone doing big speeds on the entire journey & very little speeding at all in the average camera areas.

[JNW1]

singlecoil said:

JNW1 said:

So is there any evidence to show that increased enforcement of the limits via the use of cameras has made our roads safer? I admit I've only looked at the statistics for the county in which I live but by reference to the established measures such as fatalities and serious injuries the local Safety Camera Partnership has achieved nothing (unless you count criminalising a lot of otherwise law abiding citizens, in which case it's been quite successful).

You are still not quite getting it. It's not the enforcement (by whatever means) that makes roads safer, it's the speed limits themselves.

How can speed limits make roads safer unless they're enforced?

[vonhosen]

JNW1 said:

singlecoil said:

JNW1 said:

So is there any evidence to show that increased enforcement of the limits via the use of cameras has made our roads safer? I admit I've only looked at the statistics for the county in which I live but by reference to the established measures such as fatalities and serious injuries the local Safety Camera Partnership has achieved nothing (unless you count criminalising a lot of otherwise law abiding citizens, in which case it's been quite successful).

You are still not quite getting it. It's not the enforcement (by whatever means) that makes roads safer, it's the speed limits themselves.

How can speed limits make roads safer unless they're enforced?

I adhered the limits where there was no enforcement today. I did so because there may have been at any point along my journey. There will have actually been enforcement covering only a minute fraction of my journey, but because it existed & the potential for it existing anywhere along the journey, the effects went far beyond where only the enforcement actually was.

[JNW1]

Gavia said:

JNW1 said:

I would also take some persuading that cameras lead to more deaths and serious injuries; however, I've also yet to see any evidence that they've made our roads safer which was supposedly the reason for their introduction. From what I can see they've just been used to increase the level of enforcement of arbitrary and in some cases outdated speed limits with a lot of otherwise law abiding citizens made criminals as a result - some may regard that as a positive outcome but I'm afraid I don't.

Two things

Why are they making people criminals? You don't get a criminal record for speeding offences.

I love this "otherwise law abiding" aspect. Other than the knife I carry, I'm otherwise law abiding. Other than the kiddy fiddling aspect, Jimmy Saville was a law abifpding citizen, other than the prostitiures he killed, Peter Sutclifee was a law abiding citizen and so on.

We might all ignore speed limits to some extent, but that's a conscious decision and we must face the consequences of those decisions if (and it's a huge if) we get caught.

Ok, what I'm saying is that the current method of enforcement is causing lots of people to fall foul of the law who would otherwise never do so. I would also venture to suggest that at the speed they're doing many of these people probably wouldn't attract the attention of a traffic policeman either; highly unlikely you'd be pulled over by one of them for doing 80mph on a dual carriageway but NIP time if you pass a camera van at that speed.

[JNW1]

vonhosen said:

JNW1 said:

singlecoil said:

JNW1 said:

So is there any evidence to show that increased enforcement of the limits via the use of cameras has made our roads safer? I admit I've only looked at the statistics for the county in which I live but by reference to the established measures such as fatalities and serious injuries the local Safety Camera Partnership has achieved nothing (unless you count criminalising a lot of otherwise law abiding citizens, in which case it's been quite successful).

You are still not quite getting it. It's not the enforcement (by whatever means) that makes roads safer, it's the speed limits themselves.

How can speed limits make roads safer unless they're enforced?

I adhered the limits where there was no enforcement today. I did so because there may have been at any point along my journey. There will have actually been enforcement covering only a minute fraction of my journey, but because it existed & the potential for it existing anywhere along the journey, the effects went far beyond where only the enforcement actually was.

That seems like you're saying you obey the limits because you know they're enforced (i.e. you don't drive at the limits because you think they're always inherently safe per se, you drive to them because you realise you may get prosecuted if you don't).

[singlecoil]

JNW1 said:

That seems like you're saying you obey the limits because you know they're enforced (i.e. you don't drive at the limits because you think they're always inherently safe per se, you drive to them because you realise you may get prosecuted if you don't).

Well, you've certainly described me there, apart from the strawman about limits being safe. Safety is a thing that exists in degrees, not absolutes. Limits are where the line has been drawn by the relevant authority as the best compromise between the competing criteria.