just found this, if anyone's bored!
Discussion
i'll try poutting the actual link in shall I?
www.ex-parrot.com/~chris/wwwitter/20031211-they_like_driving_in_their_cars.html
www.ex-parrot.com/~chris/wwwitter/20031211-they_like_driving_in_their_cars.html
Very well written and well thought out, I thought.
I wouldn't be too quick to accuse him of being a die-hard cyclist (or any other form of sandalista) though. For the student population of Cambridge, there is precious little in the way of alternatives.
We need more of this sort of stuff in the public domain, and shouted from the roof tops.
I wouldn't be too quick to accuse him of being a die-hard cyclist (or any other form of sandalista) though. For the student population of Cambridge, there is precious little in the way of alternatives.
We need more of this sort of stuff in the public domain, and shouted from the roof tops.
The comment about leaping to a correlation-implies-causation judgement is well made, but it applies more to the government / police / SCAMP apologists for cameras, than it does to the ABD. The camera supporters looked at a single year shift in selected police regions during the hypothecation trials, and - since virtually all had seen large jumps in road fatalities the year before - unsurprisingly most saw drops the next year. Regression to the mean was at work, also mentioned in the article and not taken into account by the trial analysis...which stated that the very limited CORRELATION (introduce cameras, fatalities dropped)implied causation (the cameras CAUSED the drop). This is absolute rubbish of course. The 'correlation' here is more properly described as a predictable coincidence.
So, the two year hypothecation trial was halted after only one year, on the basis that it had worked so well and should be extended far and wide! Who are the real idiots Lightfoot? The very next year many of these trial areas saw big jumps in road deaths after the introduction of even more cameras. Where were the politicians and police at that time, when on the basis of their earlier conclusion, they should now be blaming cameras for the additional deaths? Counting the loot.
Of course, the reason that the trial was stopped after only one year rather than continuing for the two as originally intended, was a predictable strategy. Choose regions with a big ish rise in road fatalities one year, and you are almost guaranteed to see a fall the following year. Then stop the trial. And Hey Prescott! case proved (not).
CC Paul Garvin is mentioned; he and the DfT now publish data showing that exceeding the speed limit is a cause of about 4% of accidents. So having cameras to enforce limits will ignore the causes of about 96% of accidents. Maybe the ABD are guilty of a trend too far in taking the pre-1993 reductions on and on, but their reasoning is closer to the heart of the matter : most speed cameras don't work and will never work, as politicians and some police officers claim, because exceeding the limit only very rarely causes accidents. Canada has shown that they don't work and got rid of all automated photo-radar in BC and elsewhere. The UK should follow suit.
>> Edited by turbobloke on Thursday 21st October 20:56
So, the two year hypothecation trial was halted after only one year, on the basis that it had worked so well and should be extended far and wide! Who are the real idiots Lightfoot? The very next year many of these trial areas saw big jumps in road deaths after the introduction of even more cameras. Where were the politicians and police at that time, when on the basis of their earlier conclusion, they should now be blaming cameras for the additional deaths? Counting the loot.
Of course, the reason that the trial was stopped after only one year rather than continuing for the two as originally intended, was a predictable strategy. Choose regions with a big ish rise in road fatalities one year, and you are almost guaranteed to see a fall the following year. Then stop the trial. And Hey Prescott! case proved (not).
CC Paul Garvin is mentioned; he and the DfT now publish data showing that exceeding the speed limit is a cause of about 4% of accidents. So having cameras to enforce limits will ignore the causes of about 96% of accidents. Maybe the ABD are guilty of a trend too far in taking the pre-1993 reductions on and on, but their reasoning is closer to the heart of the matter : most speed cameras don't work and will never work, as politicians and some police officers claim, because exceeding the limit only very rarely causes accidents. Canada has shown that they don't work and got rid of all automated photo-radar in BC and elsewhere. The UK should follow suit.
>> Edited by turbobloke on Thursday 21st October 20:56
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff