Which article (warning - scan - slow load)

[safespeed]

Here's the full article on speed cameras from Which? October 2004







The way I see it, the author has made considerable efforts to write a fair and balanced article. Nevertheless, he has given rather greater weight to the establishment view. And why shouldn't he? The establishment view has historically been well founded. It's only recently that we're suffering from this nasty "policy is the master of science" effect.

I am preparing a response, in which (!) I can easily dismiss most if not all of the arguments used against us.

The ABD has prepared a response which will be available shortly. I'll post a link.

[safespeed]

The ABD have published their response:

www.abd.org.uk/which.htm

I'm working on the Safe Speed response now, and I'm uncovering some very interesting stuff. Watch this space.

[medicineman]

Worrying. Cars are getting safer, medical treatment is getting better. It makes you wonder what the fatality rate would be if cars and medical treatment was the same now as when the camera's went up.

I do appriciate that this is offset by the increased number of cars on the road. But I can see Paul's arguement, with so many varibles in the equation how the hell can anyone claim that the camera's are saving lifes? Could we even extend this as far as police speed enforcement not doing much to accident rates either?

[lazy_b]

The thing that really struck me about this article was the unthinking acceptance of propaganda. There's a BIG headline which says "The higher the average speed on a road, the more accidents there are".
Er, correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought that Motorways had the highest average speeds - and the fewest accidents...

[jimbro1000]

I can only spot a few obvious failings in that article

1) They fail to distinguish between the appropriate and inappropriate use of cameras. It brushes over it briefly but doesn't point out that the same "rules" prevent cameras going in where they are needed most (such as near schools).

2) The freedom of councils to impose inappropriate speed limits and subsequently capitalise on the change through use of cameras.

3) The 4 deaths rule is a statistical lottery. A single car accident could cause that yet a road where there are frequent accidents (not necessarily fatal) would benefit much more than a "blip" site.

4) Much of the broader statistics recorded (as pointed out) are poorly recorded and making comparisons between areas or different periods (as staff changes and methods improve) mean that to a degree those statistics are deeply flawed. Any analysis of those can only lead to dubious results at best.

It is also implied in the article that SS has very little credibility despite the fact that the premise being pushed is based on common sense and using the "systems" own work against them. It then goes on to suggest that only those organisations that can invest in rather substantial studies should be making their voice heard and unless I'm mistaken that leaves just the government. So in theory as long as they can keep churning out statistical studies that should get their own way regardless...

This may be a fair attempt at a balanced article but I suspect that the organisation in question is hedging its bets in view of it's own readership.

[mondeoman]

The thing that struck me immediately was that they have "spent" £88million. Where has the £88 million in road safety improvement gone?

Oh, that'll be the overtime payments to plod, new office blocks and staff to deal with the huge number of fines they dish out. How much of that money has ACTUALLY been spent of improving the safety of our roads?

[safespeed]

Safe Speed response now published:

www.safespeed.org.uk/which.html