Discussion
www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/today/reports/politics/speedcameras2_20040624.shtml
Says:
An independent report commissioned by the BBC has made serious criticisms of the government's speed camera policy.
The report says that although cameras do save lives, the claims for cameras in the UK might have been exaggerated. It says more lives could be saved if cameras were hidden, not painted yellow.
It says cameras should not be predominantly concentrated on proven accident blackspots because it means more people will be killed on dangerous stretches of road which don't yet qualify for a camera because there have not been enough accidents recently.
The report was commissioned by the Today Programme / the BBC from Mervyn Stone, Emeritus Professor of Statistics at University College London.
He took evidence over a two-month period from anti-camera campaigner Paul Smith and pro-camera campaigner Robert Gifford. He cross-examined them both in a tribunal.
His report criticises the way Britain?s statistics on cameras have been collected and analysed. He says when the camera programme was set up it should have been done as a scientific experiment so the benefits could be properly measured.
This failure means that the data from speed cameras has been sub-standard. That may have led independent analysts brought in to review government figures to take a somewhat optimistic view of the cameras? success.
Professor Stone says that better-conducted studies from Wales, Norway and New Zealand clearly show that cameras do save many lives. But they also show that visible cameras only slow cameras down for a few hundred metres, and that hidden cameras are more effective.
The implication, he says, is that the government should put rows of cameras on dangerous roads, or abandon the policy of painting cameras yellow. He criticises the government's decision to agree to road lobby demands to place 85% of cameras on sites where at least four people have been killed or seriously hurt in the past three years. This, he says, is illogical and may be costing lives.
It means some roads got a speed camera because of crashes not definitely associated with speed, while other highly dangerous roads won't qualify for a camera until enough people get killed.
The government said it had no plans to stop painting cameras yellow. It said the recent 3-year review of camera statistics was conducted by independent academics and consultants who reject the implication that their figures are distorted.
======================================
Would anyone who has read the Stone Report care to comment on this BBC piece?
Says:
An independent report commissioned by the BBC has made serious criticisms of the government's speed camera policy.
The report says that although cameras do save lives, the claims for cameras in the UK might have been exaggerated. It says more lives could be saved if cameras were hidden, not painted yellow.
It says cameras should not be predominantly concentrated on proven accident blackspots because it means more people will be killed on dangerous stretches of road which don't yet qualify for a camera because there have not been enough accidents recently.
The report was commissioned by the Today Programme / the BBC from Mervyn Stone, Emeritus Professor of Statistics at University College London.
He took evidence over a two-month period from anti-camera campaigner Paul Smith and pro-camera campaigner Robert Gifford. He cross-examined them both in a tribunal.
His report criticises the way Britain?s statistics on cameras have been collected and analysed. He says when the camera programme was set up it should have been done as a scientific experiment so the benefits could be properly measured.
This failure means that the data from speed cameras has been sub-standard. That may have led independent analysts brought in to review government figures to take a somewhat optimistic view of the cameras? success.
Professor Stone says that better-conducted studies from Wales, Norway and New Zealand clearly show that cameras do save many lives. But they also show that visible cameras only slow cameras down for a few hundred metres, and that hidden cameras are more effective.
The implication, he says, is that the government should put rows of cameras on dangerous roads, or abandon the policy of painting cameras yellow. He criticises the government's decision to agree to road lobby demands to place 85% of cameras on sites where at least four people have been killed or seriously hurt in the past three years. This, he says, is illogical and may be costing lives.
It means some roads got a speed camera because of crashes not definitely associated with speed, while other highly dangerous roads won't qualify for a camera until enough people get killed.
The government said it had no plans to stop painting cameras yellow. It said the recent 3-year review of camera statistics was conducted by independent academics and consultants who reject the implication that their figures are distorted.
======================================
Would anyone who has read the Stone Report care to comment on this BBC piece?
Spin spin spin........ Just proving it's the bLiar broadcasting company.
I don't recall anywhere in Prof. Stone's report were he mentions advocating the use of hidden cameras. The only bit I can find is this one:
I don't recall anywhere in Prof. Stone's report were he mentions advocating the use of hidden cameras. The only bit I can find is this one:
Prof. Stone said:Which he states should be run by police officers who can use their discretion, unlike these hidden talivans who zap everyone 5mph over the limit where it's safe to do so or not.
This reservoir of public favour is there to be drawn on for law enforcement by hidden technologies of one sort or another fixed or mobile, random or discriminating. Such enforcement should, as all participants on the tribunal day agreed, be monitored by a reconstituted traffic-police force that could exercise some discretion in how it is applied.
bbc said:
But they also show that visible cameras only slow cameras down for a few hundred metres
bbc said:
He criticises the government's decision to agree to road lobby demands to place 85% of cameras on sites where at least four people have been killed or seriously hurt in the past three years. This, he says, is illogical and may be costing lives.
It means some roads got a speed camera because of crashes not definitely associated with speed, while other highly dangerous roads won't qualify for a camera until enough people get killed.
So how does Prof Stone propose that they identify these "dangerous roads" that speed cameras should be place on, if it's not by the number of accidents on them?
This thead discusses the Stone report: www.pistonheads.com/gassing/topic.asp?t=108732&f=10&h=0
Paul Smith has already created a precis. One interesting comment in the report is that only 2.9% of accidents happen at speed camera sites! I think the BBC's report is certainly reading the report selectively.
On the other hand, any local will tell you of roads which are known to be potentially dangerous but where there haven't been any deaths. Just using one measure of danger is liable to miss the point -- as is borne out in the report.
Paul Smith has already created a precis. One interesting comment in the report is that only 2.9% of accidents happen at speed camera sites! I think the BBC's report is certainly reading the report selectively.
On the other hand, any local will tell you of roads which are known to be potentially dangerous but where there haven't been any deaths. Just using one measure of danger is liable to miss the point -- as is borne out in the report.
My coment? "Bloody journalists. Too damn stupid."
Actually, given the way Stone slags off executive summaries, the BBC's attempt at a precis is bloody funny.
I just read Prof Stone's report and the one thing he clearly didn't do was trot out a load of policy recommendations. He calls for a rethink of the whole approach to cameras.
Must say, I thought it was wonderfully written. Witty, precise and even-handed. Stone clearly has a very powerful intellect.
The primary thing I took from the report is that the implementation of speed cameras in the UK has been botched. No proper analysis was performed in advance, and most of the post-implementation studies have been feeble and statistically unconvincing. Result? A mess. No clear objective for the policy. Cameras implemented in an illogical way. No public debate about how the balance should be struck between the competing goods of reducing risk versus freedom.
Actually, given the way Stone slags off executive summaries, the BBC's attempt at a precis is bloody funny.
I just read Prof Stone's report and the one thing he clearly didn't do was trot out a load of policy recommendations. He calls for a rethink of the whole approach to cameras.
Must say, I thought it was wonderfully written. Witty, precise and even-handed. Stone clearly has a very powerful intellect.
The primary thing I took from the report is that the implementation of speed cameras in the UK has been botched. No proper analysis was performed in advance, and most of the post-implementation studies have been feeble and statistically unconvincing. Result? A mess. No clear objective for the policy. Cameras implemented in an illogical way. No public debate about how the balance should be struck between the competing goods of reducing risk versus freedom.
I reckon its gotta be illegal to install hidden scams. I reckon visible ones are just as illegal too.
My reasons relate to article 6 of the ECHR legislation, which off-hand i cant remember but im sure has something like the following in there; " to travel unhindered and without fear"
Well scamspotters, im in fear everytime i drive...arent you? Im fearful of being arseboned by a hidden scamsucka for £60, im in fear of some goggle-eyed speedo watcher (also in fear himself) running into me cos he's in fear of being arseboned too.
In fact im in fear of big nasty yellow boxes on a stick full stop! They look like a banana thats been genetically modified to conform to some EC specification..
Are YOU in fear?
My reasons relate to article 6 of the ECHR legislation, which off-hand i cant remember but im sure has something like the following in there; " to travel unhindered and without fear"
Well scamspotters, im in fear everytime i drive...arent you? Im fearful of being arseboned by a hidden scamsucka for £60, im in fear of some goggle-eyed speedo watcher (also in fear himself) running into me cos he's in fear of being arseboned too.
In fact im in fear of big nasty yellow boxes on a stick full stop! They look like a banana thats been genetically modified to conform to some EC specification..
Are YOU in fear?
safespeed said:
Would anyone who has read the Stone Report care to comment on this BBC piece?
Comment Here:
www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/today/contact/
My comment:
www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/today/reports/politics/speedcameras2_20040624.shtml
Could Mr Harrabin be asked to actually read Professor Stone's report and rewrite his own report to actually reflect the truth please.
eg Harrabin:
It says more lives could be saved if cameras were hidden, not painted yellow ... better-conducted studies from ..... New Zealand clearly show that cameras do save many lives. But they also show that visible cameras only slow cameras down for a few hundred metres, and that hidden cameras are more effective ....
Stone:
only 2.9% of all crashes [PIAs]in South Wales occurred within a 500 metre route of [101] mobile speed camera sites ... the effect across the entire area would be expected to be a 1.5% overall reduction, .... well within year-to-year variability .... However, what the New Zealand study really shows is that a hidden camera has a greater potentiality for speed and accident reduction than a camera that is clearly visible .... The study set out to be a scientifcally designed trial" of the effectiveness of hidden, as opposed to visible, cameras. But ..... it ended up with no element of experimental randomization .... These "percentage reductions" are in quotes because they can be easily misinterpreted. They are percentage changes ...... where that ratio has been estimated by a sophisticated mathematical model of the apparent effect of the hidden camera programme ....... has to be regarded as a fragile thing influenceable by factors that come and go ..... downward trend until two months after the introduction of hidden cameras in the trial area, followed by a much larger increase above that trend than in the trial area ......not studies of the value of cameras themselves but of the relative value of keeping them hidden. Accident numbers may have gone up in both trial and control areas but that would not be revealed by the "percentage reduction".
On my travels this week I came across a Local paper, which was reporting that "residents" had complained of speeding cars on three roads in the area.
One of these roads is the town bypass (50 mph) and was shown in a photograph in the paper.The article goes on to say that the local police and SCP are to "Target" the road with mobile units in response to "requests" from said resedents.
The section of road in question is approx 2 miles long with an intersecting road and traffic lights halfway along. It has NO accident history! The first half is flanked by a grass verge (no footpath) then hedges and then......farmers fields at a slightly lower level.
The second section, has a grass verge, no footpath, hedges, tree's and then a golf club grounds,wasteland, some distant playing fields........in short, NOTHING. The road is essentially straight...throughout.
There are NO houses, Pedestrians, kids, or even stray dogs along the whole 2 mile section of accident free road!!! So WHY THE BLOODY SPEED CAMERA'S. Where do these complaining residents live? in the roadside hedges?
It just goes to show that if there isn't a reason! They'll F
ing invent one!!! 
One of these roads is the town bypass (50 mph) and was shown in a photograph in the paper.The article goes on to say that the local police and SCP are to "Target" the road with mobile units in response to "requests" from said resedents.
The section of road in question is approx 2 miles long with an intersecting road and traffic lights halfway along. It has NO accident history! The first half is flanked by a grass verge (no footpath) then hedges and then......farmers fields at a slightly lower level.
The second section, has a grass verge, no footpath, hedges, tree's and then a golf club grounds,wasteland, some distant playing fields........in short, NOTHING. The road is essentially straight...throughout.
There are NO houses, Pedestrians, kids, or even stray dogs along the whole 2 mile section of accident free road!!! So WHY THE BLOODY SPEED CAMERA'S. Where do these complaining residents live? in the roadside hedges?
It just goes to show that if there isn't a reason! They'll F
ing invent one!!! Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff