Speed cameras: Are we interested in evidence?

[Cat]

Dave Finney said:

Thank you for trying, want to have another go?
Can you find a single one of your possibly hundreds of speed camera studies,
that has removed the effect of site selection (IOW without making estimates)?

So if your method removes the effects of site selection/RTM, an issue which studies acknowledge needs addressing, and makes reports the most accurate ever, why after over 10 years have your reports never been cited in any other research? Why, if your methodolgy is as good as you say, has your method not been universally adopted by all researchers working in this area?

As I posted previously I find it highly unlikely, if your research is the gold standard you say it is, that the rest of academia carrying out research in this area would have ignored it for as long as they have. Have any other studies used your methods and confirmed your results? Have any other academics involved with research in this field acknowledged that you reports are the "most accurate ever produced"?

Cat

[jm doc]

Cat said:

Dave Finney said:

Yes, but not that unusual considering the results are not politically acceptable.

That's really weak reasoning for why the reports have not been cited by others. In the years since you produced the reports there have been dozens, if not hundreds, of studies by academics into speed cameras and their effects on collision rates and severities. To suggest that none have cited your reports, that are apparently "the most accurate ever produced", because the conclusions are not politically acceptable is not credible.

Cat

You can't seriously believe that. Our politicians and civil servants are the most duplicitous people in our society. Have you not read what's going on at the post office, most recently revealed to have spent £100 million of public funds prosecuting people whilst being fully aware that these prosecutions were based on false evidence? Are you not aware that £38 billion, yes £38 billion disappeared from public funds in the covid crisis with absolutely no accountability?

Ignoring evidence because it's not politically acceptable? All day, every day.

[jm doc]

Dave Finney said:

nute said:

Dave Finney said:

I have provided the highest quality evidence possible, given the data available.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-GqOm-keyss

Thank you for that, very informative and I appreciate the time and effort which has gone into it.

Thanks nute,
I find the research relatively easy, but presenting the results is much more difficult.

It's nice to get confirmation that my video might explain the evidence in a way that most people can understand.
Thanks again.

Yes Dave, great posts and great thread, well done and keep going!

[Cat]

jm doc said:

You can't seriously believe that. Our politicians and civil servants are the most duplicitous people in our society. Have you not read what's going on at the post office, most recently revealed to have spent £100 million of public funds prosecuting people whilst being fully aware that these prosecutions were based on false evidence? Are you not aware that £38 billion, yes £38 billion disappeared from public funds in the covid crisis with absolutely no accountability?

Ignoring evidence because it's not politically acceptable? All day, every day.

I think you need to read what I actually wrote rather than what you think I wrote.

I'm not talking about politicians and civil servants. I don't doubt for one minute that they can ignore evidence that doesn't suit their agenda.

What I am sceptical about is why academics engaged in research in this area have ignored Dave's reports and methodology for removing RTM for a decade plus despite his methods apparently producing reports that are the most accurate ever produced.

Cat

[jm doc]

Cat said:

jm doc said:

You can't seriously believe that. Our politicians and civil servants are the most duplicitous people in our society. Have you not read what's going on at the post office, most recently revealed to have spent £100 million of public funds prosecuting people whilst being fully aware that these prosecutions were based on false evidence? Are you not aware that £38 billion, yes £38 billion disappeared from public funds in the covid crisis with absolutely no accountability?

Ignoring evidence because it's not politically acceptable? All day, every day.

I think you need to read what I actually wrote rather than what you think I wrote.

I'm not talking about politicians and civil servants. I don't doubt for one minute that they can ignore evidence that doesn't suit their agenda.

What I am sceptical about is why academics engaged in research in this area have ignored Dave's reports and methodology for removing RTM for a decade plus despite his methods apparently producing reports that are the most accurate ever produced.

Cat

See above, they know which side the bread is buttered on.

[Cat]

jm doc said:

See above, they know which side the bread is buttered on.

Cat

[Dave Finney]

Cat said:

So if your method removes the effects of site selection/RTM, an issue which studies acknowledge needs addressing, and makes reports the most accurate ever, why after over 10 years have your reports never been cited in any other research? Why, if your methodolgy is as good as you say, has your method not been universally adopted by all researchers working in this area?

My new methods and terminology are being used/misused but I'm not being credited and my reports are not cited.
I think I know why but I'm not saying here.

When I first presented my research, my target audience was road safety professionals.
After speaking with hundreds of people working in and around the area of road safety,
I came to realise that they were not interested in evidence,
because road safety is not safety engineering,
it's politics dressed up to look like safety engineering.

So I changed tak.
My target audience now is the general public.
I massively cut down my website, removing a lot of the detail, to make it easier to read,
(except the 3 reports on the TV database, they are unchanged)
and produced the video.

I am asking you, Cat, please think for yourself.
There's a limit to what I can do to help you.
I say I have "completely removed the effect of site selection".

What do YOU think?
Watch my video, read the report.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-GqOm-keyss
https://speedcamerareport.co.uk/08_mobile_report/

Do you understand what the SSP is, and how to identify it in the data?
And do you understand why using the data outside the SSP does establish what the collision rate would have been without the cameras?
And that this works without using estimates?
https://speedcamerareport.co.uk/rtm-regression-to-...

Have I demonstrated to your satisfaction that what I say is true?

[heebeegeetee]

Dave Finney said:

My new methods and terminology are being used/misused but I'm not being credited and my reports are not cited.
I think I know why but I'm not saying here.

When I first presented my research, my target audience was road safety professionals.
After speaking with hundreds of people working in and around the area of road safety,
I came to realise that they were not interested in evidence,
because road safety is not safety engineering,
it's politics dressed up to look like safety engineering.

So I changed tak.
My target audience now is the general public.
I massively cut down my website, removing a lot of the detail, to make it easier to read,
(except the 3 reports on the TV database, they are unchanged)
and produced the video.

I am asking you, Cat, please think for yourself.
There's a limit to what I can do to help you.
I say I have "completely removed the effect of site selection".

What do YOU think?
Watch my video, read the report.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-GqOm-keyss
https://speedcamerareport.co.uk/08_mobile_report/

Do you understand what the SSP is, and how to identify it in the data?
And do you understand why using the data outside the SSP does establish what the collision rate would have been without the cameras?
And that this works without using estimates?
https://speedcamerareport.co.uk/rtm-regression-to-...

Have I demonstrated to your satisfaction that what I say is true?

Not to me unfortunately.
You've highlighted that there are some shockingly bad drivers out there, in shockingly maintained cars, thinking of that Skoda Fabia (was the guy even wearing a seat belt, to die at such low speed?) but I think speed enforcement and law enforcement has an overall effect and reduces casualties.

I live on the edge of Brum and the West Mids. Driving standards in the city are laughable, it's as if there are almost no rules. (Tbf I have seen far far worse in foreign cities in past decades).

If people are crashing badly because they see cameras, then hide the cameras, however I don't want that and I would rather take my chances with the people crashing.

I think you're dealing in the science of low numbers, Dave.

Btw, do you have any more links to crashes at camera sights, I find them rather fascinating, it's an insight to how badly some people conduct their lives, imo.

ETA, sorry getting my crashes mixed up, the one I'm referring to was on the A9.
Tyre smoke and car veering to side, where was the ABS?

Edited by heebeegeetee on Friday 29th March 09:49

[KTMsm]

Dave Finney said:

I came to realise that they were not interested in evidence,
because road safety is not safety engineering,
it's politics dressed up to look like safety engineering.

Agreed

It's like the motorway signs that repeatedly change the speed limit for no reason whatsoever

Yet do so with alarming regularity, they can't be that incompetent so it must be on purpose - to justify the expenditure

Locally a lane has gone from NSL to 40 to 20 !

There are around 20 houses on it, I presume one of them houses an MP because there is no other logical reason but the local mum's net morons constantly bay for lower and lower limits for 'safety reasons'

[vonhosen]

Dave Finney said:

I came to realise that they were not interested in evidence,
because road safety is not safety engineering,
it's politics dressed up to look like safety engineering.

They don't have to just consider deaths in isolation.
That is one facet of the compromise.
It goes without saying that speed limits (& their enforcement by whatever means) are a political solution to a variety of political problems.

[Dave Finney]

heebeegeetee said:

Not to me unfortunately.

I started this topic because I'd made a video and wanted to know
have I explained the SSP, how to establish the "mean" rate and, therefore, what effect the cameras have,
well enough that someone who is not a road safety expert can understand it?

I am generally very pleased with the response to the video,
it's better than anything I'd tried before.

Even if I haven't explained that well enough for you,
you must surely be able to see that the big collision reduction at the camera sites,
(the reduction that the officials suggested was due to the cameras)
had already occurred a full year BEFORE the cameras started operating?

The cameras cannot go back in time,
so it is physically impossible for the cameras to have caused that reduction.

You must at least be able to see that?

[heebeegeetee]

Dave Finney said:

I started this topic because I'd made a video and wanted to know
have I explained the SSP, how to establish the "mean" rate and, therefore, what effect the cameras have,
well enough that someone who is not a road safety expert can understand it?

I am generally very pleased with the response to the video,
it's better than anything I'd tried before.

Even if I haven't explained that well enough for you,
you must surely be able to see that the big collision reduction at the camera sites,
(the reduction that the officials suggested was due to the cameras)
had already occurred a full year BEFORE the cameras started operating?

The cameras cannot go back in time,
so it is physically impossible for the cameras to have caused that reduction.

You must at least be able to see that?

As I said, I think you're in the science of small numbers, it rarely proves anything.
Maybe the camera partnerships are also involved with small numbers too.

I expect there to be rules, I expect there to be enforcement, I don't think there's enough enforcement.

I expect there to be cameras out there because it's the technology we have nowadays. I would agree that everyone can argue till the cows come home about camera locations, and anyone of a mind to do so could 'prove' the cameras are in the wrong place.

I'm not persuaded the cameras are causing more problems than they're solving. I always think, as motorists we could decide to just follow the rules of the road, I honestly don't think that would be a great hardship, and I think would actually make our lives immeasurably easier.

We just then need UK policy to not be 50 years out of date, and if we could just stop people crashing unnecessarily so much, life would be much easier.

[Vipers]

heebeegeetee said:

As I said, I think you're in the science of small numbers, it rarely proves anything.
Maybe the camera partnerships are also involved with small numbers too.

I expect there to be rules, I expect there to be enforcement, I don't think there's enough enforcement.

I expect there to be cameras out there because it's the technology we have nowadays. I would agree that everyone can argue till the cows come home about camera locations, and anyone of a mind to do so could 'prove' the cameras are in the wrong place.

I'm not persuaded the cameras are causing more problems than they're solving. I always think, as motorists we could decide to just follow the rules of the road, I honestly don't think that would be a great hardship, and I think would actually make our lives immeasurably easier.

We just then need UK policy to not be 50 years out of date, and if we could just stop people crashing unnecessarily so much, life would be much easier.

I for one are quite happy to sick to the rules as you say, and go with the flow on motorways as not to impeed others, within reason, saying that before someone asks if I stick to 70 on motorways, one thing we should is increase driving standards for persons sitting and passing a driving test.

[Dave Finney]

heebeegeetee said:

I expect there to be rules, I expect there to be enforcement, I don't think there's enough enforcement.

I'm not persuaded the cameras are causing more problems than they're solving. I always think, as motorists we could decide to just follow the rules of the road, I honestly don't think that would be a great hardship, and I think would actually make our lives immeasurably easier.

We just then need UK policy to not be 50 years out of date, and if we could just stop people crashing unnecessarily so much, life would be much easier.

I can't believe you reject evidence for every issue.
It seems likely you reject evidence either for

1) road safety (speed cameras, why crashes occur etc) and maybe some other select topics
or
2) anything that challenges the official narrative.

I also agree that we should "not be 50 years out of date".
My solution to that is to start using an evidence-led approach,
and that then ensures that our policies actually achieve their stated aims.

And the gold standard in evidence is scientific trials.
https://speedcamerareport.co.uk/scientific-trials/

[Dave Finney]

jm doc said:

Dave Finney said:

nute said:

Dave Finney said:

I have provided the highest quality evidence possible, given the data available.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-GqOm-keyss

Thank you for that, very informative and I appreciate the time and effort which has gone into it.

Thanks nute,
I find the research relatively easy, but presenting the results is much more difficult.

It's nice to get confirmation that my video might explain the evidence in a way that most people can understand.
Thanks again.

Yes Dave, great posts and great thread, well done and keep going!

Thanks for your support jm doc,
I am finding it very interesting seeing what people think of evidence,
especially when it clashes with long held opinions or the authority narrative.

Before researching road safety, I had never really discussed evidence outside work, and certainly never with officials.
I've since heard all sorts of opinions but I never expected people to just reject evidence outright in an area of public safety,
especially by those in charge of policy!

I can see why the authorities carried on saying the earth was at the centre of the universe,
even after Galileo provided the evidence that they were wrong!
They and others still seem to have the same mindset to this day!

[vonhosen]

Dave Finney said:

jm doc said:

Dave Finney said:

nute said:

Dave Finney said:

I have provided the highest quality evidence possible, given the data available.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-GqOm-keyss

Thank you for that, very informative and I appreciate the time and effort which has gone into it.

Thanks nute,
I find the research relatively easy, but presenting the results is much more difficult.

It's nice to get confirmation that my video might explain the evidence in a way that most people can understand.
Thanks again.

Yes Dave, great posts and great thread, well done and keep going!

Thanks for your support jm doc,
I am finding it very interesting seeing what people think of evidence,
especially when it clashes with long held opinions or the authority narrative.

Before researching road safety, I had never really discussed evidence outside work, and certainly never with officials.
I've since heard all sorts of opinions but I never expected people to just reject evidence outright in an area of public safety,
especially by those in charge of policy!

I can see why the authorities carried on saying the earth was at the centre of the universe,
even after Galileo provided the evidence that they were wrong!
They and others still seem to have the same mindset to this day!

But why do you think they'll remove speed cameras if their presence shows a small number of deaths, down to the reactions of people due to them being at that location?
Particularly when a lot of the behaviours resulting in those deaths are the reactions of stupids (like the motorcyclist)?
Would they get rid of marked Police cars because people behave stupidly when they see them?

[heebeegeetee]

Dave Finney said:

Thanks for your support jm doc,
I am finding it very interesting seeing what people think of evidence,
especially when it clashes with long held opinions or the authority narrative.

Before researching road safety, I had never really discussed evidence outside work, and certainly never with officials.
I've since heard all sorts of opinions but I never expected people to just reject evidence outright in an area of public safety,
especially by those in charge of policy!

I can see why the authorities carried on saying the earth was at the centre of the universe,
even after Galileo provided the evidence that they were wrong!
They and others still seem to have the same mindset to this day!

I think all you've proven is a very low number of complete incompetents have crashed their cars at specific locations.
The numbers are very low indeed and it's a an aspect of road safety that affects such a low number of people that I challenge you to express it as a percentage.
That's it Dave, that's all you've proven.

It's s one hell of a stretch to be comparing it to the known universe.

That

[Dave Finney]

heebeegeetee said:

I think all you've proven is a very low number of complete incompetents have crashed their cars at specific locations.
The numbers are very low indeed and it's a an aspect of road safety that affects such a low number of people that I challenge you to express it as a percentage.
That's it Dave, that's all you've proven.

It's s one hell of a stretch to be comparing it to the known universe.

I agree with you that the evidence "proves beyond a reasonable doubt",
that the use of speed cameras
has resulted in more people being killed or seriously injured.

You're asking: "how many more, as a % of the whole TV area?"
In my report, Table 8.4 shows an increase of 23 KSI in 13 collisions over the first 3 years.
That's against around 1200 KSI pa over the whole TV area.

So that's an increase of less than 1% (about 0.6%),
and the changes in KSI each year in the whole area were always greater in magnitude than the yearly average increase at the camera sites.
So you can see how the damage caused gets hidden amongst all the other factors.

So again, I agree with you.
The numbers are low, but it is still 3 more people dead each year.

[heebeegeetee]

Dave Finney said:

I agree with you that the evidence "proves beyond a reasonable doubt",
that the use of speed cameras
has resulted in more people being killed or seriously injured.

You're asking: "how many more, as a % of the whole TV area?"
In my report, Table 8.4 shows an increase of 23 KSI in 13 collisions over the first 3 years.
That's against around 1200 KSI pa over the whole TV area.

So that's an increase of less than 1% (about 0.6%),
and the changes in KSI each year in the whole area were always greater in magnitude than the yearly average increase at the camera sites.
So you can see how the damage caused gets hidden amongst all the other factors.

So again, I agree with you.
The numbers are low, but it is still 3 more people dead each year.

And just to be clear, it's a study of low numbers from 20 years ago?

[vonhosen]

heebeegeetee said:

Dave Finney said:

I agree with you that the evidence "proves beyond a reasonable doubt",
that the use of speed cameras
has resulted in more people being killed or seriously injured.

You're asking: "how many more, as a % of the whole TV area?"
In my report, Table 8.4 shows an increase of 23 KSI in 13 collisions over the first 3 years.
That's against around 1200 KSI pa over the whole TV area.

So that's an increase of less than 1% (about 0.6%),
and the changes in KSI each year in the whole area were always greater in magnitude than the yearly average increase at the camera sites.
So you can see how the damage caused gets hidden amongst all the other factors.

So again, I agree with you.
The numbers are low, but it is still 3 more people dead each year.

And just to be clear, it's a study of low numbers from 20 years ago?

I don't think that's his point. so much (the figures).
I think the point is an illustration of the methodology & call for a science based approached on that methodology.
I'm just not sure that it will result in what he wants, because it isn't as narrow a consideration as that when it comes to speed limits & their enforcement.