RE: Radar detector company pulled up for 'misleading'
Friday 10th September 2004
Radar detector company pulled up for 'misleading'
Detectors don't make you a safer driver
Radar detector company Performance Products (PP) was told by the Advertising Standards Authority that its leaflet claiming that "radar detector users have 24 per cent fewer accidents" was misleading.
PP said in the same leaflet that the GPS-based Snooper radar detector 'provides advanced warning of most fixed and mobile speed monitoring systems', a claim the ASA also said was misleading. Complaints were upheld because:
- The leaflet referred to MORI research which indicated that radar detector users travelled on average 24 per cent more miles between accidents than non-users, not that 24 per cent of radar detector users were safer drivers
- The company could not substantiate the claim that its warned of most cameras when it excluded mobile speed guns.
Full ruling is here.
Discussion
Looking at the ruling they appear to have them bang to rights on the 24% figure. They claim that their MORI poll says that drivers with camera detectors are 24% safer.
The MORI poll actually showed that detector owning drivers go 24% further between accidents than the rest. So the best that you could claim is that detector owners have 24% less accidents per mile.
As a concrete example, if you had an old granny who drove 1,000 miles a year and had an accident once every ten years, she would drive 10,000 miles between accidents. Now take a detector owning rep driving 20,000 a year, having one accident a year.
The rep will manage 20,000 miles between accidents to the granny's 10,000 , so by the advertisers reckoning be a safer driver.
I think they have been harshly treated on the other point though. The advertiser claims that the detector detects most monitoring systems. The detector they are referring to detects fix cameras via GPS and also has laser and radar detectors as well. That only leaves the police in car systems that it can't warn you about.
So their claim of detecting most monitoring systems isn't misleading as the ASA said.
The MORI poll actually showed that detector owning drivers go 24% further between accidents than the rest. So the best that you could claim is that detector owners have 24% less accidents per mile.
As a concrete example, if you had an old granny who drove 1,000 miles a year and had an accident once every ten years, she would drive 10,000 miles between accidents. Now take a detector owning rep driving 20,000 a year, having one accident a year.
The rep will manage 20,000 miles between accidents to the granny's 10,000 , so by the advertisers reckoning be a safer driver.
I think they have been harshly treated on the other point though. The advertiser claims that the detector detects most monitoring systems. The detector they are referring to detects fix cameras via GPS and also has laser and radar detectors as well. That only leaves the police in car systems that it can't warn you about.
So their claim of detecting most monitoring systems isn't misleading as the ASA said.
andynormancx said:
Looking at the ruling they appear to have them bang to rights on the 24% figure. They claim that their MORI poll says that drivers with camera detectors are 24% safer.
Being pedantic, they don't actually claim they are 24% safer.
Performance Products leaflet said:
"radar detector users have 24 per cent fewer accidents"
ASA said:
The leaflet referred to MORI research which indicated that radar detector users travelled on average 24 per cent more miles between accidents than non-users, not that 24 per cent of radar detector users were safer drivers
The crucial difference is that PP are claiming that detector users have 24% fewer accidents in total, whereas the 'research' shows detector users travel 24% more distance for the same number of accidents. This means their accident rate is 100-(100/124)* 100 = 19.35% lower per unit distance travelled compared to drivers without radar detectors.
Of course it's all a load of bollocks anyway, radar detectors are about as much use as chocolate fireguard these days, and any correlation to accident rate is likely due to most detector owners doing high motorway mileage and being more experienced drivers anyway.
>> Edited by Mr2Mike on Saturday 11th September 12:49
don't know about radar detectors, but I use a Tom Tom navigator, with a speed camera overlay.
It's saved my bacon many times by telling me about cameras hidden behind trees or bridge supports etc. (like on the three lane 50mph stretch of the A20) and also by telling me about bends and junctions in country lanes that I might not otherwise have noticed (one incident with a tractor and a give way sign hidden in a bush would have been fatal, if I hadn't had the GPS).
Everywhere there is a speed camera, I reduce my speed to the required limit, in order to avoid a fine.
Without the warning from the GPS, I would, at least in some cases, have merrily sped through these danger areas. It goes without saying that the GPS has helped me stay both within the law and observe the speed limit in 'danger areas'.
Banning speed camera warning systems, specifically GPS systems, would necessarily lead to an increase (however slight) in people speeding through danger areas, and of course an increase in revenue.
Just my 2p.
It's saved my bacon many times by telling me about cameras hidden behind trees or bridge supports etc. (like on the three lane 50mph stretch of the A20) and also by telling me about bends and junctions in country lanes that I might not otherwise have noticed (one incident with a tractor and a give way sign hidden in a bush would have been fatal, if I hadn't had the GPS).
Everywhere there is a speed camera, I reduce my speed to the required limit, in order to avoid a fine.
Without the warning from the GPS, I would, at least in some cases, have merrily sped through these danger areas. It goes without saying that the GPS has helped me stay both within the law and observe the speed limit in 'danger areas'.
Banning speed camera warning systems, specifically GPS systems, would necessarily lead to an increase (however slight) in people speeding through danger areas, and of course an increase in revenue.
Just my 2p.
[quote=
Banning speed camera warning systems, specifically GPS systems, would necessarily lead to an increase (however slight) in people speeding through danger areas, and of course an increase in revenue.
In practice it would be impossible to bag GPS operated camera locator systems. They are not DETECTORS, they aer LOCATORS.
The positions of all fixed cameras is information which is in the public domain, so anyone can take that data and add it to a GPS navigation system. It would be impossible to make such data illegal.
However, although it has not happened yet, it may be possible to make laser-jamers illegal, although the policing of this would be difficult as at each laser somewhat negates the advantage of static laser camera units. After all, if you knew you had jammed a Talivan and were not stopped at the time, surely you would remove your jammer for a couple of weeks in case Plod came around looking, I know I would.
Banning speed camera warning systems, specifically GPS systems, would necessarily lead to an increase (however slight) in people speeding through danger areas, and of course an increase in revenue.
In practice it would be impossible to bag GPS operated camera locator systems. They are not DETECTORS, they aer LOCATORS.
The positions of all fixed cameras is information which is in the public domain, so anyone can take that data and add it to a GPS navigation system. It would be impossible to make such data illegal.
However, although it has not happened yet, it may be possible to make laser-jamers illegal, although the policing of this would be difficult as at each laser somewhat negates the advantage of static laser camera units. After all, if you knew you had jammed a Talivan and were not stopped at the time, surely you would remove your jammer for a couple of weeks in case Plod came around looking, I know I would.
The thing that worries me with this is that the best/easiest solution to GPS locators, from the govt's point of view, is to remove the camera location information from the public domain. And then remove the clause that says they have to be visible. If they do that, GPS devices would become more and more irrelevant as new devices pop up all over the place.
jeremyadamson said:....then Ted will have to devote a section of PistonHeads such that everyone can report in positions of new scamera locations.
The thing that worries me with this is that the best/easiest solution to GPS locators, from the govt's point of view, is to remove the camera location information from the public domain. And then remove the clause that says they have to be visible. If they do that, GPS devices would become more and more irrelevant as new devices pop up all over the place.
Then all GPS users can regularly update their systems…….But then how long would it be before our own government will follow the Chinese philosophy of shutting down 'subversive' websites? You've hit the nail on the head there, mate. When you actually sit back and think about some of the things that are going on.....it's scarey. And you just know that the government will just do whatever they like regardless of what we think/want. I know the tories were bad......but I don't remember them ever intruding on our lives and liberties like the current lot do. A few months ago, I read 1984 for the first time since I was at school. When I was at school, I was very glad that our democratic society wasn't like that. Having read it again, there's some worrying signs there - the Ministry of Truth is most definitely analagous to Alastair Campbell and his ilk.
so if these detectors tell you that a danger spot is approaching and you can become aware that is not making you a safer driver, sounds like the same logic thats driving (excuse the pun) the camera policy so lets get this right there are accident black spots but they are no sign posted but just have hidden cameras, so if u r lucky you only get a 60 quid fine and points, but if u r unlucky you get to crash, but hey? the death rate has gone up, that surely must mean our luck has run out?
jeremyadamson said:
The thing that worries me with this is that the best/easiest solution to GPS locators, from the govt's point of view, is to remove the camera location information from the public domain. And then remove the clause that says they have to be visible. If they do that, GPS devices would become more and more irrelevant as new devices pop up all over the place.
And more and more people would have missing or damaged number plates...
The government aren't planning to ban GPS based location systems.
They have announced they are planning legislation against laser and radar detectors and particularly laser jammers.
GPS based systems highlight locations where safety cameras are likely to be located and this is regarded as a positive feature of GPS locators as this is exactly what safety camera partnerships are trying to do. Highlight accident hot-spots and slow down vehicles in these areas. So GPS locators do just that. Let's fit them as standard equipment.
What the advertising Standards Agency have done is found that the claim that the users of Laser and Radar have 24% fewer accident is unfounded and that would seem to be a fair decision cos it just aint true.
>> Edited by SteveCallaghan on Wednesday 15th September 23:50
>> Edited by SteveCallaghan on Wednesday 15th September 23:52
They have announced they are planning legislation against laser and radar detectors and particularly laser jammers.
GPS based systems highlight locations where safety cameras are likely to be located and this is regarded as a positive feature of GPS locators as this is exactly what safety camera partnerships are trying to do. Highlight accident hot-spots and slow down vehicles in these areas. So GPS locators do just that. Let's fit them as standard equipment.
What the advertising Standards Agency have done is found that the claim that the users of Laser and Radar have 24% fewer accident is unfounded and that would seem to be a fair decision cos it just aint true.
>> Edited by SteveCallaghan on Wednesday 15th September 23:50
>> Edited by SteveCallaghan on Wednesday 15th September 23:52
SteveCallaghan said:
GPS based systems highlight locations where safety cameras are likely to be located and this is regarded as a positive feature of GPS locators as this is exactly what safety camera partnerships are trying to do. Highlight accident hot-spots and slow down vehicles in these areas. So GPS locators do just that. Let's fit them as standard equipment.
If fixed speed cameras are indeed located at areas of KSI, would this regarded as an accident blackspot? If so, why is use of a laser/radar detector planned to be made illegal when it clearly has the effect of doing what you have described? (above). If KSI location is not regarded as an accident blackspot, then how can you justify the placement of a camera?
I grant the fact that a jammer is just a little bit different from this
SteveCallaghan said:Strictly speaking that is incorrect, they said it was 'misleading', but the principle is still correct: drivers can do more milage between accidents, that implies 'less accidents' to me......
What the advertising Standards Agency have done is found that the claim that the users of Laser and Radar have 24% fewer accident is unfounded.........
SteveCallaghan said:
GPS based systems highlight locations where safety cameras are likely to be located and this is regarded as a positive feature of GPS locators as this is exactly what safety camera partnerships are trying to do. Highlight accident hot-spots and slow down vehicles in these areas. So GPS locators do just that. Let's fit them as standard equipment.
Liebchen - so long as I can keep my little b2 on the dash I am happy.
So long as they do not expect me to have little black box so that they can track my every movement - I am happy. Do not want spy in my car - had enough of men in raincoats in Leipzig..... in 1980s....
Liebchen - glad you have stayed for a bit more chat this time. We are not so bad - you know
SteveCallaghan said:Hi Steve.
GPS based systems highlight locations where safety cameras are likely to be located and this is regarded as a positive feature of GPS locators as this is exactly what safety camera partnerships are trying to do. Highlight accident hot-spots and slow down vehicles in these areas. So GPS locators do just that. Let's fit them as standard equipment.
Can you answer a question that is puzzling me, even though I am not in your neck of the woods:-
On my run to work on the A5, I have seen camera vans in two places which to my knowledge ( and I have travelled that route over a thousand times ) have never had ANY kind of accident, let alone a KSI. Can you explain why it might be, that they park the van on the opposite carriageway and point the camera at the brow of a hill on the other side. Th elimit is 60 and most people seem to be within that. The van would have to have driven to the next roundabout and CROSSED OVER THE CENTRAL RESERVATION to be parked where they are.
The other van has been seen in a lay by in a section that has NO SIDE ROADS whatsoever and is very open and there again there have been no accidents. Can the vans park where they want to, if this is the case what is your criteria for choosing a place to park?
blademan said:
Hi Steve.
Can you answer a question that is puzzling me, even though I am not in your neck of the woods:-
On my run to work on the A5, I have seen camera vans in two places which to my knowledge ( and I have travelled that route over a thousand times ) have never had ANY kind of accident, let alone a KSI. Can you explain why it might be, that they park the van on the opposite carriageway and point the camera at the brow of a hill on the other side. Th elimit is 60 and most people seem to be within that. The van would have to have driven to the next roundabout and CROSSED OVER THE CENTRAL RESERVATION to be parked where they are.
The other van has been seen in a lay by in a section that has NO SIDE ROADS whatsoever and is very open and there again there have been no accidents. Can the vans park where they want to, if this is the case what is your criteria for choosing a place to park?
I don't know the area as well as you but there are a few possibilities for parking in these locations, here's 2:
1. There may be no place on the side of the road to park so they have crossed over to an existing lay-by/parking spot. This prevents the expense of constructing one.
2. Perhaps they are having a parking place constructed but it isn't ready yet. We do this as it takes Councils and HA quite a time to get the planning and the drwaings complete as well as safety audits etc.
The claim that there has been no accidents on camera locations is common. We get this quite a lot from our feedback but all of our sites have an accident history in excess of the DfT requirements.
I have driven several roads every day for years in Cumbria, some of which are camera sistes, and I have never seen an accident on most of them. BUT accidents there have been as our collision mapping system attests. Just because you don't remember them doesn't mean there has been none.
Having said that I would not deny that there are some camera sistes that have been set up that do not have an accident history. These are usually legacy sites and were set up before the accident requirements were developed and the Safety Camera System began. The quandry this leaves the Camera Partnerships in that have legacy sites is this:
1. Take out the cameras - Later an accident occurs resulting in serious injury or death. Who accepts the responsibility?
2. Leave the cameras in - This, in general, slows down the traffic in the vicinity of the camera and reduces the severity of accidents in that location and you take a bit of flack for having a camera there.
OK, I accept that they wouldn't stop 100% of accidents and the criminal driver who is almost immune from the safety camera effect but most drivers do slow for the cameras, Don't They?
We usually try to get our camera sites exactly where the accidents are occuring but some practical limitations apply:
1. If the accident hot-spot is in a series of bends we put the camera at either side on the approaches to slow the traffic before it gets to the hazard. We couldn't park in the bends.
2. Sometimes the road is just too narrow to park in so we need to go as close as we can.
3. We always surround the hazard site with fixed camera signs.
4. We always have a safety audit before the site is constructed to ensure we present no hazard to traffic or to our operators.
As far as control of site for parking and enforcement is concerned, we have fixed locations in which we carry out speed enforcement. These are published and we publish what roads we are enforcing on. The exact location isn't published as this shortens the zone of compliance. For instance we have about 10 sites on the A66 but all we say is that we are enforcing on the A66 today and those that choose to receive the information comply at all A66 sites.
We can, should we choose to do so, enforce between sites at safe parking locations, to increase the deterrent effect, the regular recipient of teh locations information will get a bulletin saying we will be operating between sites. That way we increase deterrence into a wider area. We will be doing this during teh next 12 months in Cumbria.
As far as the legalities of parking is concerned we come under the same laws as anyone else I think so we obey them when parking the vans. Should anyone see our vans in an illegal parking spot we ask to be informed immediately.
Hope this helps
SteveC
SteveCallaghan said:
BUT accidents there have been as our collision mapping system attests.
What exactly is collision mapping Steve?
SteveCallaghan said:
Just because you don't remember them doesn't mean there has been none.
Point taken. I guess they could have happened later in the day
SteveCallaghan said:
Having said that I would not deny that there are some camera sistes that have been set up that do not have an accident history.
Thanks for being honest.
SteveCallaghan said:
but most drivers do slow for the cameras, Don't They?
Only because they dont want to pay £60 or lose their licence. Is this REALLY improving road safety, because it is not educating motorists in the way you would like
SteveCallaghan said:
1. If the accident hot-spot is in a series of bends we put the camera at either side on the approaches to slow the traffic before it gets to the hazard. We couldn't park in the bends.
2. Sometimes the road is just too narrow to park in so we need to go as close as we can.
3. We always surround the hazard site with fixed camera signs.
4. We always have a safety audit before the site is constructed to ensure we present no hazard to traffic or to our operators.
I understand your quandry, but motorists perceive some locations as having no benefit to safety, but worthwhile to collect revenue
SteveCallaghan said:
Should anyone see our vans in an illegal parking spot we ask to be informed immediately.
I reckon if I had parked in the place in my first example, the Police would have nicked me. Perhaps next time I should call them if the van is parked in the same place. Not sure if there would be much response now would there?
Thanks for taking the time to answer. I am trying (really I am ) to see thinks from the SCP point of view, but I would be more convinced of their intentions if I saw cameras in busy high streets, outside schools etc. Where I live there is only ONE camera in the entire town, but their should be others in places that have a huge danger POTENTIAL. eg At school chucking out time, there are literally hundreds of kids outside shops and bus stops which has a potential for nasty accidents. There are no cameras there. The one camera IS in a sensible position, but try to see things from the motorists point of view. If you couple together my above comments you will surely see that the cameras are placed where motorists will be caught speeding and not always where they should be.
Thanks again
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff