Safespeed on R4 Today prog
Discussion
see
www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/today/reports/politics/speedcameras2_20040624.shtml
In my opinion Paul Smith won more rounds than the face value of the article suggests.
Jus one example placing of speed cameras at sites where there had been a "blip" of accidents may account for a significant part of the result due to the ending of the "blip". The Prof accepted and agreed that.
On the speed humps issue on yesterday's prog it seemed to me that Prof Stone shot himself in the foot. He denied that it was possible to claim displacement of accidents to other sites because of "the overall statistical noise." (quote/unquote) Then didn't explain why the overall rate had gone up. Same argument could be applied to cameras.
Again from what I heard no discussion of effects due to "coincidental" road engineering improvements and camera placement.
One thing in both cases seemed to be agreed was that the Govt statistics are.... er.... crap.
FiF
V8 Archie said:
...they also show that visible cameras only slow cameras (sic) down for a few hundred metres...
I think we should do more about these irresposible cameras speeding all over the country.
not to mention those irresponsible cameras
[/silly friday mode off]
Link seems to work OK for me but there is definitely more info on the page regarding the speed hump investigation. maybe the camera page will be similarly updated.
Having read the road hump submission documents from both Mr Gifford and Mr Smith. Gifford goes onto claim good research into hump effectiveness and immediately veers off at a tangent into 20mph zone schemes. Eh?
I fail to see how Prof Stone reached the conclusion he did unless he's sitting there with his thumb up his rear end.
Oh sorry forgot, he's a statistician, that explains it then.
Two ace comments from Paul Smith's submission paper.
Having read the road hump submission documents from both Mr Gifford and Mr Smith. Gifford goes onto claim good research into hump effectiveness and immediately veers off at a tangent into 20mph zone schemes. Eh?
I fail to see how Prof Stone reached the conclusion he did unless he's sitting there with his thumb up his rear end.
Oh sorry forgot, he's a statistician, that explains it then.
Two ace comments from Paul Smith's submission paper.
safespeed said:
When failures in road safety result from drivers failing to properly deal with hazards, does it make any sense to improve road safety by adding road hazards?
and
The author considers road humps as inverted potholes.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff