Speed cameras: Are we interested in evidence?

[heebeegeetee]

bigothunter said:

Jack Sears in the AC Coupe. 185 mph on a deserted M1 at 4:30 in the morning

https://www.chronomaddox.com/motorin/185mph_on_the...


But Hansard confirms 70 limit was a reaction to multiple pile-ups in thick fog when more than 30 mph was lethal. Pure political gesturing

Nigh on every country in the world has motorway speed limits mostly in the 70-80 region, are they all wrong?

And as is being repeatedly stated and repeatedly ignored, it's not just about safety either, there is noise, pollution and the numbers of vehicles required to be squeezed onto roads (higher speeds need more space) to consider.

[Muzzer79]

Dave Finney said:

Muzzer79 said:

Right, but I'm going to ask you to correlate the 'behavioural change' that has occurred, relevant to your example of a person pulling a wheelie on a motorbike.....?

When considering examples, we are discussing possibilities and people have differing opinions.
So that's only really worthwhile, from a safety engineering perspective, once we have established what is happening.

Eg, if speed cameras saved lives, that's a very different discussion to if speed cameras are actually resulting in more deaths.

The first step in solving a problem, is to recognise that the problem exists.
The best evidence available suggests there are more people dead as a result of the use of speed cameras.
But we need to verify that.
We need to run scientific trials.
The problem is that the authorities refuse point blank to run them.

Now you’re avoiding the question.

Please correlate the 'behavioural change' that has occurred in respect of your example of a person pulling a wheelie on a motorbike.

[Dave Finney]

Muzzer79 said:

Please correlate the 'behavioural change' that has occurred in respect of your example of a person pulling a wheelie on a motorbike.

I don't quite understand what you're looking for.
What do you think?
Did he pull the wheelie for reasons unrelated to the camera being there?
or did the camera trigger the response from him that caused the fatal collision?

Either way, what matters is the change in fatalities.
Once we know that, we can formulate how to solve the problem.
And that requires the answers to who, when and why are people being killed at camera sites?

[siremoon]

Vipers said:

Can hazard at one scenario, this happened to me, in cc spot on 70 decent distance between myself and car in front also doing 70, they rounded a slight bend on a dual carriageway, and anchored up.

I slowed and as I got further along spotted a camera van in a layby, guessing driver had absolutely no idea what speed they were doing and anchored up just in case, a car driving closer may have had a collision.

I see cars at or just below the limit braking at a speed camera quite often. Most commonly on a single carriageway NSL, presumably because they think the limit is 50 not 60. There are a few average speed camera sections in my neck of the woods and the other favourite for not having a clue is people who hammer past and brake for each camera in those. I often wonder how many get tickets and can't understand why.

[vonhosen]

Dave Finney said:

Muzzer79 said:

Please correlate the 'behavioural change' that has occurred in respect of your example of a person pulling a wheelie on a motorbike.

I don't quite understand what you're looking for.
What do you think?
Did he pull the wheelie for reasons unrelated to the camera being there?
or did the camera trigger the response from him that caused the fatal collision?

Either way, what matters is the change in fatalities.
Once we know that, we can formulate how to solve the problem.
And that requires the answers to who, when and why are people being killed at camera sites?

What matters is the balance.
We as a society accept fatalities (as unpalatable as that may sound, but it's true), if we didn't we wouldn't allow the use of motor vehicles.
We're not going to get rid of motor vehicles completely for social utility or economic reasons.
So it's not just about fatalities.
And we aren't realistically going to get rid of speed limits either, so enforcement is here to stay too.

Edited by vonhosen on Tuesday 26th March 08:42

[heebeegeetee]

Dave Finney said:

I don't quite understand what you're looking for.
What do you think?
Did he pull the wheelie for reasons unrelated to the camera being there?
or did the camera trigger the response from him that caused the fatal collision?

Either way, what matters is the change in fatalities.
Once we know that, we can formulate how to solve the problem.
And that requires the answers to who, when and why are people being killed at camera sites?

I'm not persuaded Dave, sorry. Stupid people do all kinds of stupid stuff for stupid reasons. We ought to have scientific studies on allowing stupid people to drive.

These people crash into all kinds of things, be it trees or parked car or buildings or whatever, and undoubtedly loss of life occurs, like the 2 little girls killed when someone crashed into their school.

What you are doing is blaming the existence of these obstacles for these crashes and not the obviously very bad driving or behaviour resulting in these crashes.

I just think there's plenty of things to hold scientific studies about before speed cameras - I guess scientific studies would be needed to list them.

Id sooner see scientific studies on not having regular driver restraining, or not having the levels of traffic police that we used to, or even the freely allowing of powerful cars etc, probably a long list studies; indeed the scientific studies would need to include there not being blanket speed or average speed cameras, if people are being taken by surprise by the existence of the occasional camera...
as I say, scientific studies would be needed to draw up the list first

I just think you happen to have a bee in your bonnet about speed cameras, Dave , and I think you're wasting your time unfortunately.

[Vipers]

siremoon said:

I see cars at or just below the limit braking at a speed camera quite often. Most commonly on a single carriageway NSL, presumably because they think the limit is 50 not 60.

Similar when the odd two lane dual carriageway looses the central reservation for a while, many have no idea the NSL isn’t 70!

[heebeegeetee]

Vipers said:

siremoon said:

I see cars at or just below the limit braking at a speed camera quite often. Most commonly on a single carriageway NSL, presumably because they think the limit is 50 not 60.

Similar when the odd two lane dual carriageway looses the central reservation for a while, many have no idea the NSL isn’t 70!

Tbf I do think speed limits could be better signed. I think the French are quite good at this, with the word Rappel (Reminder) underneath.

[Muzzer79]

Dave Finney said:

Muzzer79 said:

Please correlate the 'behavioural change' that has occurred in respect of your example of a person pulling a wheelie on a motorbike.

I don't quite understand what you're looking for.
What do you think?
Did he pull the wheelie for reasons unrelated to the camera being there?
or did the camera trigger the response from him that caused the fatal collision?

Either way, what matters is the change in fatalities.
Once we know that, we can formulate how to solve the problem.
And that requires the answers to who, when and why are people being killed at camera sites?

Let's recap

You said

Dave Finney said:

But there are other negative effects we might not have realised.

One collision at one of the fixed speed cameras in Thames Valley involved a motorcyclist who, after slowing for a fixed camera, pulled a wheelie.
This was at night, so his headlight now pointed up at the sky.
A couple in a car were crossing the main road and did not see the bike.
All 3 were killed.

To which I responded and you said

Dave Finney said:

Muzzer79 said:

So, I'm clear........you're blaming the presence of a speed camera for an accident where a motorcyclist pulled a wheelie on a public road, thereby making his lights invisible, leading to a collision and death?

Of course not,
simply stating what was reported.

A stated aim of the speed cameras is to cause behavioural change.
They are successful in doing this, but some of the changes may not be beneficial.

The above implies that you think the speed camera caused a behavioural change involving the motorcyclist who pulled a wheelie after slowing down for a fixed camera.

I'm curious as to what you think that behavioural change was.

We will never know what caused him to pull that wheelie on that day. But, regardless of whether it was in reaction to slowing down for the speed camera or not, it is preposterous to cite this as an example of a camera inflicting a negative behavioural change.

A moronic person pulled an illegal move on his motorbike which led to three tragic deaths. That was his choice on that day. There are no excuses for making that choice - camera or not.

[Dave Finney]

heebeegeetee said:

I'm not persuaded Dave, sorry. Stupid people do all kinds of stupid stuff for stupid reasons. We ought to have scientific studies on allowing stupid people to drive.
These people crash into all kinds of things, be it trees or parked car or buildings or whatever, and undoubtedly loss of life occurs, like the 2 little girls killed when someone crashed into their school.
What you are doing is blaming the existence of these obstacles for these crashes and not the obviously very bad driving or behaviour resulting in these crashes.

Muzzer79 said:

A moronic person pulled an illegal move on his motorbike which led to three tragic deaths. That was his choice on that day. There are no excuses for making that choice - camera or not.

If the camera triggered the response from the biker that led to the fatal collision,
the biker is still "to blame" for the collision, not the camera.

But if that's the extent of our analysis,
then we still have a problem and we are not fixing it.
Adverse reactions are the least of the negative side effects of cameras,
that I haven't even mentioned in "Effects of speed cameras".
That means we have people dead, and more are going to die.

Have you heard of the Milgram experiment?
Most people will do what authority says, but a few will question and refuse.

We need the people who comply (otherwise nothing would get done),
but we also need the people who rebel (otherwise we end up under a repressive regime).

In safety engineering, we need to recognise that society is full of all sorts of people,
and then design the system that works best for all on balance.

That requires competency and honesty,
both of which are in short supply in road safety.

[Vipers]

heebeegeetee said:

Vipers said:

siremoon said:

I see cars at or just below the limit braking at a speed camera quite often. Most commonly on a single carriageway NSL, presumably because they think the limit is 50 not 60.

Similar when the odd two lane dual carriageway looses the central reservation for a while, many have no idea the NSL isn’t 70!

Tbf I do think speed limits could be better signed. I think the French are quite good at this, with the word Rappel (Reminder) underneath.

Would help a lot but let’s be honest, drivers should at least know some basic stuff from the HC.

[Muzzer79]

Dave Finney said:

heebeegeetee said:

I'm not persuaded Dave, sorry. Stupid people do all kinds of stupid stuff for stupid reasons. We ought to have scientific studies on allowing stupid people to drive.
These people crash into all kinds of things, be it trees or parked car or buildings or whatever, and undoubtedly loss of life occurs, like the 2 little girls killed when someone crashed into their school.
What you are doing is blaming the existence of these obstacles for these crashes and not the obviously very bad driving or behaviour resulting in these crashes.

Muzzer79 said:

A moronic person pulled an illegal move on his motorbike which led to three tragic deaths. That was his choice on that day. There are no excuses for making that choice - camera or not.

If the camera triggered the response from the biker that led to the fatal collision,
the biker is still "to blame" for the collision, not the camera.

But if that's the extent of our analysis,
then we still have a problem and we are not fixing it.
Adverse reactions are the least of the negative side effects of cameras,
that I haven't even mentioned in "Effects of speed cameras".
That means we have people dead, and more are going to die.

What problem? What side effects?

TBH, it sounds like you are assuming there is a problem and/or conflating seperate incidents with speed cameras that needs looking in to, rather than actually having worthwhile evidence to point to an issue.

I hate speed cameras as much as the next man - they're a scourge on our land which, as a society, we have permitted.

But the simple operational fact with them is that if you don't speed then they won't catch you. As a motorist, you shouldn't be speeding and should be able to monitor your speed.

[heebeegeetee]

Vipers said:

Would help a lot but let’s be honest, drivers should at least know some basic stuff from the HC.

Agreed, but if the last speed sign you saw was quite some distance before, you can forget what it was, especially nowadays where single carriageway can frequently change between 50 & 60 mph.

It's like the system is geared to what people would/should do in a perfect world as opposed to what they actually do in the real world, for all sorts of reasons.

[heebeegeetee]

Muzzer79 said:

I hate speed cameras as much as the next man - they're a scourge on our land which, as a society, we have permitted.

But the simple operational fact with them is that if you don't speed then they won't catch you. As a motorist, you shouldn't be speeding and should be able to monitor your speed.

Agreed, with my proviso posted above.

[Dave Finney]

Muzzer79 said:

What problem? What side effects?

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

[Cat]

Dave Finney said:

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

Have your reports and the evidence in them been published in any peer reviewed journals?

How many other papers on the same field have referenced/cited your reports and evidence?

Cat

[bigothunter]

heebeegeetee said:

bigothunter said:

Jack Sears in the AC Coupe. 185 mph on a deserted M1 at 4:30 in the morning

https://www.chronomaddox.com/motorin/185mph_on_the...


But Hansard confirms 70 limit was a reaction to multiple pile-ups in thick fog when more than 30 mph was lethal. Pure political gesturing

Nigh on every country in the world has motorway speed limits mostly in the 70-80 region, are they all wrong?

And as is being repeatedly stated and repeatedly ignored, it's not just about safety either, there is noise, pollution and the numbers of vehicles required to be squeezed onto roads (higher speeds need more space) to consider.

My comment related to December 1965. I thought that was clear. The reason given for imposing the 70 limit was safety. It was nonsense.

Some people embrace unnecessary restrictions. Others are less keen.


Correlation between death rate and motorway speed limits shown below. Draw your own conclusions.

[heebeegeetee]

bigothunter said:

My comment related to December 1965. I thought that was clear. The reason given for imposing the 70 limit was safety. It was nonsense.

Some people embrace unnecessary restrictions. Others are less keen.


Correlation between death rate and motorway speed limits shown below. Draw your own conclusions.

Was is that graph supposed to be showing me... it appears to be dated 1990, and those figures for Spain don't look at all right to me...

In 1965 the cars were death traps relative to today and the all accident/casualty figures were higher, apart from numbers of vehicles and miles driven.

I don't think having a speed limit was a nonsense, we could argue til the cows come home whether the figure was right for 1965 but I don't think it would be far out... and it has no relevance to today.

As others are saying, the debate is no longer centred solely on safety, and those still banging on about safety are out of touch imo.

And on that note, yesterday, yet again, I have a journey delayed by a crash. I need to do an easy journey from nr Brum, on M6/A14 and a couple of junctions down M11. A14 is closed at J25 due to a crash https://www.cambridge-news.co.uk/news/local-news/e...
so instead it's down M1 and hack across country. For the return journey Google Maps showed A14 was now viable, so we did it and passed the crash scene, the opposite carriageway is still being cleared up and being resurfaced some 11 hours after the crash, and we saw the huge queues still, on the other side, whereby all traffic inc big numbers of HGVs of course, were having to use that bit of road parallel to the A14 near Cambridge services. Misery for countless people and likewise for all those in the area. Luckily the kids are off school otherwise traffic would have been much heavier.

From that link above I see the A14 had been closed a few days before, in a crash just before evening rush hour involving seven injured, road closed for six hours, twenty firefighters involved... it's ridiculous. https://www.cambridge-news.co.uk/news/local-news/s...

It really really does seem now that any journey of any length I do is either delayed for me, or I see long queues on other side of road following an incident there. Undoubtedly the safety built-in to cars nowadays means casualty figures are reduced, but that doesn't alter the fact that people are crashing just far too much. The costs associated must be enormous - the cost to the nation, the cost to businesses, the cost to our insurance premiums, and so on. Collectively, those figures amount to £billions, every single year.

I sometimes have to do a journey nipping round the M42 around Birmingham, the road is now near permanent 50mph limit due to never ending road works (and presumably HS2 works), the traffic is always very heavy, and it takes just one minor collision to bring it all to a halt, and in very short time queues for miles develop.

It has got to stop. (Or significantly reduce).

Further: I happened to take a glance at a car magazine in a store yesterday, they had an article about driver distraction due to the utterly st design of car controls nowadays. I couldn't believe my eyes and took a snapshot... Eyes Off The Road for 6.7 secs to change a radio station on one car, or 10.9 secs JUST TO CHANGE THE TEMPERATURE!! on another car, or hey, if you use voice control it's only 7.1 secs with eyes off the road.

I can do it by muscle memory on the old car sitting on my drive! WTF is the world coming too?

Re Dave's thread, I fully admit I genuinely did not know, nor could ever imagine, that people are crashing so badly that loss of life and/or life changing injury is involved, *simply because they've seen a speed camera.* And Dave's blaming the camera?! Again, I think the world is going nuts.

So, by all means post graphs from 1990 if you wish, but I'm saying the primary things affecting my motoring nowadays is not speed enforcement, not the policing of the roads which is way, way less than it used to be... (yes speed limits are too low for my liking but hey, people keep fecking crashing, and it's not just about safety, there is noise, air quality and there are others to consider too, such as residents and vulnerable road users), the no.1 thing involving my motoring nowadays is the sheer unreliability of journey times. (I'm still scarred by the journey I did from Dover to Sutton Coldfield a year or so ago that took 8 hours instead of the usual 4).

Edited by heebeegeetee on Wednesday 27th March 09:18

[Dave Finney]

Cat said:

Dave Finney said:

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

Have your reports and the evidence in them been published in any peer reviewed journals?

How many other papers on the same field have referenced/cited your reports and evidence?

Hi Cat, long tome no see!
My mobile report was submitted, reviewed and accepted into the "Road Safety Knowledge Centre".
See link top left: https://speedcamerareport.co.uk/08_mobile_report/

My report "DOES REDUCING TRAFFIC SPEED USING SPEED CAMERAS REDUCE THE NUMBER OF COLLISIONS?"
was also submitted, reviewed and accepted into the "Road Safety Knowledge Centre".
See link top right: https://speedcamerareport.co.uk/07_5pc_per_1mph_re...

I'm not aware of other reports citing mine,
but I invented the term SSP (site selection period) and that is becoming standard now in other reports.
eg the RAC Foundation report into how to evaluate cameras, and also their report on average speed cameras.

[Dave Finney]

heebeegeetee said:

Re Dave's thread, I fully admit I genuinely did not know, nor could ever imagine, that people are crashing so badly that loss of life and/or life changing injury is involved, *simply because they've seen a speed camera.* And Dave's blaming the camera?! Again, I think the world is going nuts.

Yes, after 20 years of being told that speed cameras save lives,
discovering that that is completely false, is a difficult concept to take on board.

I didn't believe it at first.
I developed my FTP method back in 2008, and received the database in mid 2009.
I had the results by the end of 2009 but did not publish until over 2 years later.

It took a lot of work checking all the camera sites across the whole country where data was available,
and reading through all the reports showing why collisions occurred,
to finally understand that the results of my research were indeed correct.

So I do understand your struggle accepting the evidence.