RE: Cameras cut death in Scotland, continue in England
Discussion
f111lover said:
Personally I think the drop is due to people slowing down due to the cost of fuel, rather than the camera effect.
latest figures that I could find:Road Safety Research Report 87 - May 2008-08-12
crash factors for 2006 data:
'Exceeding speed limit' = 2% for age 26+, 7% for 17-19's.
'Travelling too fast for conditions' = 4% for age 26+, 13% for 17-19's.
So if everyone always drove within the speed limits would reduce casualties by considerably less than 2/3.
So something other than speed above the speed limit (the only thing detected by speed cameras) must be causing the 'accidents'. What a surprise.
Edited by Glosphil on Friday 3rd August 13:07
'Cameras cut deaths in Scotland..'
I agree that Pistonheads should be ashamed repeating this outrageous propaganda. Even if these 'statistics' are correct, the change is surely more attributable to improvements in car's inbuilt safety measures. Over this period (2007 - 2010) most cars are now fitted with ABS and multiple airbags and are substantially stronger. For Pistonheads to repeat this in support of whatever pressure group is peddling this nonsense is a disgrace.
I agree that Pistonheads should be ashamed repeating this outrageous propaganda. Even if these 'statistics' are correct, the change is surely more attributable to improvements in car's inbuilt safety measures. Over this period (2007 - 2010) most cars are now fitted with ABS and multiple airbags and are substantially stronger. For Pistonheads to repeat this in support of whatever pressure group is peddling this nonsense is a disgrace.
Auspuff said:
'Cameras cut deaths in Scotland..'
I agree that Pistonheads should be ashamed repeating this outrageous propaganda. Even if these 'statistics' are correct, the change is surely more attributable to improvements in car's inbuilt safety measures. Over this period (2007 - 2010) most cars are now fitted with ABS and multiple airbags and are substantially stronger. For Pistonheads to repeat this in support of whatever pressure group is peddling this nonsense is a disgrace.
"the change is surely more attributable to improvements in car's inbuilt safety measures"I agree that Pistonheads should be ashamed repeating this outrageous propaganda. Even if these 'statistics' are correct, the change is surely more attributable to improvements in car's inbuilt safety measures. Over this period (2007 - 2010) most cars are now fitted with ABS and multiple airbags and are substantially stronger. For Pistonheads to repeat this in support of whatever pressure group is peddling this nonsense is a disgrace.
If this was due why haven't road deaths in the rest of the UK fallen by a similar amount? However, I don't believe that speed cameras can take all, or even more than a tiny amount, of the credit for reduced accidents.
king leathered.I personally don't think you can attribute anything to such a reduction, albeit a high percentage, when it is across such a small sample?
RTA's and the unfortunate resultant fatalities are "pretty much" all accidents and unintentional, so such numbers are purely down to luck (or the lack of it) IMVHO?
RTA's and the unfortunate resultant fatalities are "pretty much" all accidents and unintentional, so such numbers are purely down to luck (or the lack of it) IMVHO?
Casualties fell - great!
<rant>
So what about the total number of accidents, cars on the road, average number of miles driven, etc...? Maybe if they provided some actual analysis instead of parrotting headline number this might MEAN more - especially when we can see whether or not, for example, the number of accidents per casualty has fallen by the same number!
I know I don't post much, but bad science really pisses me off!
</rant>
<rant>
So what about the total number of accidents, cars on the road, average number of miles driven, etc...? Maybe if they provided some actual analysis instead of parrotting headline number this might MEAN more - especially when we can see whether or not, for example, the number of accidents per casualty has fallen by the same number!
I know I don't post much, but bad science really pisses me off!
</rant>
durbster said:
Hang on, I've just realised I might actually be responsible for the casualty reduction.
Obviously there may be other factors involved so I won't take all the credit, but the facts speak for themselves:
Durbster you are an idiot. This is NOTHING to do with your age its totally unrealted. Obviously there may be other factors involved so I won't take all the credit, but the facts speak for themselves:
This is all about people rushing home to watch Big Brother.
The below graph shows a positive correlation between the two which is undeniable, Our best bet as a nation to reduce road deaths is to ban big brother with immediate affect. Figures taken from Wikipedia so may need double checking.
)
Alfanatic said:
It doesn't say when the cameras were introduced in Scotland so it's hard to judge what safety developments have been made on cars in the interim.
Oh, Paul Smith - if only you hadn't left us so suddenly with your work still incomplete.I'm recollecting the first speed cameras went up here in Scotland over 10 years ago now - probably longer as there are still some of the first casings (pre the requirements for them to be day-glo visible) standing in Glasgow that are rusty and tattered looking (probably not used anymore to actually host cameras but left up as a deterrent).
The simple argument of correlation not being the same as causation applies here. The most significant factors in the reduction in road deaths in that time are almost certainly the upgrading/dualling of many of Scotland's main routes (A/M74 for example) and the closing of gaps in older dual carriageways such as along the length of the A90. That explains rather simply and obviously why the 'improvements' have been unique to Scotland.
To claim it was the speed cameras that did it is typical political lies.
Edited by r11co on Friday 3rd August 14:21
AER said:
GTiFrank said:
Prof Prolapse said:
Epic science fail, causality does not equal causation.
ThisYou mean correlation does not equal causation...?
Terrifyingly I'm a scientist as well... And after mocking the government for a science failure... I'll get my coat.
Because there are so many variables to throw into the argument against speed camera statistics, it's obvious that any stat or argument FOR speed cameras is going to spectacularly fail on a site like Pistonheads. Regardless of whether or not speed cameras were actually causing a drop in road deaths.
It's perfectly fair to say there are too many variables involved, which means arguing against the effectiveness of speed cameras is just as redundant as arguing for the effectiveness of speed cameras.
That is all.
It's perfectly fair to say there are too many variables involved, which means arguing against the effectiveness of speed cameras is just as redundant as arguing for the effectiveness of speed cameras.
That is all.
Hellbound said:
It's perfectly fair to say there are too many variables involved, which means arguing against the effectiveness of speed cameras is just as redundant as arguing for the effectiveness of speed cameras.
That is all.
As my post is supposed to illustrate, in this case it is actually quite easy to establish another factor as the cause by looking at what is unique about the Scottish situation (where there has been reported a significant drop) compared to the rest of the UK (where there hasn't).That is all.
Paul Smith (of Safespeed) would have made great capital of this story. He had the tenacity to look for the science in the figures and this report would have been a gift to him. He would have dug out some pictures of Alex Salmond or some other Scottish Executive goon proudly opening another section of upgraded road and placed it in a timely press release to co-incide with this piece of propaganda, with the facts to put doubt in the minds of the public - he had a style!
Edited by r11co on Friday 3rd August 14:53
Gassing Station | Motoring News | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff