FAO Steve Cameraman - your opinion please

[JohnL]

Steve -

You appear to be very confident that speed enforcement with cameras has a positive benefit on road safety.

I'd be very interested in your comments on this:

www.pistonheads.com/speed/default.asp?storyId=8463

- published before you joined the forum.

[JohnL]

Steve, you were online about 5 minutes ago - I'm very disappointed you haven't replied to this, perhaps you didn't see it? Next time I see you're online I'll bring it to the top again.

[SteveCallaghan]

here could be lots of reasons for this flattening of the curve lately.

The observations are quite interesting in this work, one of note is the attributing of a fall in deaths to the Theory Test. My recent experience with students just passing this test has shown that thay haven't a scooby about driving or vehicle theoryand I wonder just how they ever got through it. Being the inquisitive type I asked, the answer, just keep answering the multi choice until you get through. So I can't see that link to casualty reduction being tight.

This is the clearest display of the casualty and traffic volume I've seen. What may be of note is the constant increase in traffic volume. Perhaps we have reached some sort of saturation point and traffic density is at a critical stage because we havent had a significant increas in road provision to correspond with this increase in traffic volume.

One of the things that is clear to me is that the standard and attitudes to driving I have experienced during the last 9 years has steadily got worse.
I have spent 7 of the last 9 years of 27 years of motoring buzzing up and down the length of the M1/M6/M74 observing what can only be described as stupid, ignorant and dangerous behaviour from both professional and non-professional drivers.

For instance Saturday:
1. HGV driver swerving wildly between hard shoulder and lane 1. On the telephone.
2. HGV driver swerving wildly between lane 1 and 2. Driving with the back of his hand on the top of the steering wheel while holding a 2lt bottle of coke and screwing the lid on with his other hand.
Today, Tuesday 08 June
1. Car driver, overtook me in 60mph limit while I was at 60mph. Pulled back in after going wrong side of double whites, on a blind bend and on a blind summit.

I never went out Sunday but I am sure I would have seen something worth commenting on.

The statistics that I saw from the national safety camera partnerships for casualty reduction couls not have produced the flattening of the graph seen on the linked page as all of them were going downward, as is ours.

See image here: www.cumbriasafetycameras.org/images_uploaded/Aprilfigures.png

Here is a posting from my website on the same thread as the image at the link:

Just done a quick Calculation and fatals are down 26% for the first third of the year compared with 2003. Isn't that marvellous.

And Serious Injuries down 44% compared to 2003


KSI's down 42% compared to 2003

For once I have to agree with our friend Mr Smith, KSI's, in particular SI's are doing strange things, but this sort of strange I can handle!

The attitude to speeding I have observed on many web forums including this one is as follows:
1. I have a right to speed
2. The law is wrong so I will speed
3. Speed cameras are crap because they cannot detect other offences
4. We want more traffic police because they use discretion (a.k.a. they will let me off)
5. I am a motoring enthusiast so am a safe driver even at speed
6. I know the safe speed for the road and conditions so I will do so despite the law
7. I am an advanced driver and the instructor said I could exceed the speed limit when I overtake
8. Oh why go on?

Most of these attitudes can be put down to impetuous laddish behaviour typical of any 15 year old looking for a way to jutify the bad behaviour that just got him a clip round the ear.

Judging by the attitudes of the contributors to this forum my opinions may not be welcome, see the hertsbiker thread. When I joined this forum I was asked to respect the contributors as they were largely advanced drivers and keen knowlegeable motorists but this would not be a courtesy that is returned.

So all in all I think that attitude and lack of driver education is a key reason that some stats may show a levelling of the accident figures. Bad attitude, some drivers not recognising a dual-carriageway even when they are driving on it, and most of all not accepting that your driving skills are just not as good as you think they are.

Cheers all it's been nice knowing you. There you go, the first and last lie you'll get out of me.



>> Edited by SteveCallaghan on Tuesday 8th June 22:23

[timsta]

SteveCallaghan said:

Just done a quick Calculation and fatals are down 26% for the first third of the year compared with 2003. Isn't that marvellous. And Serious Injuries down 44% compared to 2003 KSI's down 42% compared to 2003

Ah, that's not because of camera's, it's 'cos I've been wearing my lucky pants since January!

[mustard]

At least the BiB who requent these forums acknowledge shortcomings in the Policing of this country, Steve only knew one right answer...HIS!

Sadly noone sat up and took note so his going to take his rattle somewhere else!

>> Edited by mustard on Tuesday 8th June 22:56

[BliarOut]

He's never going to believe I'm 39 now you know

[deltaf]

What a big girls blouse! wahhhhhhhhhhhh i want my momma! pmsl! Noooooooooooooooo staying power at all.

Headline reads " Speed camera freak in toysRus fracas"....

Oh btw, we do have the right to do all the things you said, cos we're the ones paying for it.
Bye now.

[BlackStuff]

SteveCallaghan said:

here could be lots of reasons for this flattening of the curve lately.

indeed!

SteveCallaghan said:

The attitude to speeding I have observed on many web forums including this one is as follows: 1. I have a right to speed 2. The law is wrong so I will speed 3. Speed cameras are crap because they cannot detect other offences 4. We want more traffic police because they use discretion (a.k.a. they will let me off) 5. I am a motoring enthusiast so am a safe driver even at speed 6. I know the safe speed for the road and conditions so I will do so despite the law 7. I am an advanced driver and the instructor said I could exceed the speed limit when I overtake 8. Oh why go on? Most of these attitudes can be put down to impetuous laddish behaviour typical of any 15 year old looking for a way to justify the bad behaviour that just got him a clip round the ear.

Yes, there are undoubtedly a percentage of drivers who have some if not all of those attitudes. There always has been, right throughout the period when the accident rate WAS steadily falling.

Yes, there may be some on this forum with that attitude, indeed it is highly likely. But please don't attribute that to us all, it benefits no-one.

SteveCallaghan said:

Judging by the attitudes of the contributors to this forum my opinions may not be welcome, see the hertsbiker thread. When I joined this forum I was asked to respect the contributors as they were largely advanced drivers and keen knowlegeable motorists but this would not be a courtesy that is returned.

Some posters have said that, but others have welcomed your contribution. Did you realistically expect you'd get a unanimous cheer for raising your head above the parapet?

SteveCallaghan said:

So all in all I think that attitude and lack of driver education is a key reason that some stats may show a levelling of the accident figures.

Now I think you've said something that most here WILL agree with. What we clearly need is to improve driver education and to target motorists demonstrating a poor attitude.

But quite how this is achieved by randomly targeting the 90+% of motorists who routinely break speed limits is what defeats me!

But to move on, I've been arguing this (and various other aspects) with Steve for over 12 months now, in our local paper and on his forum. We may utterly disagree over the core issue of cameras, but I will vouch for his integrity; that he believes in what he is doing; and that he doesn't knowingly tell lies. His presence on here can only serve to open up the debate, and I think we should welcome it.

Regards,

JT


>> Edited by BlackStuff on Tuesday 8th June 23:24

[deeps]

Welcome from me too Steve!
Thanks for posting, it's good of you to take the time to try and explain the reasons behind safety camera partnerships.
I believe you're very genuine in your views and you believe it's not all about raising revenue.
My own view is that it does 'appear' to be a money raising exercise.

One area of interest to me, that you could possibly answer is how many motorists per month are actually caught committing a speeding offence by the partnership in your area? Do you have any recent figures available for fixed gatso's and mobile van units?
Perhaps you could post them here please?

Thanks,

[funkihamsta]

SteveCallaghan said:

Cheers all it's been nice knowing you. There you go, the first and last lie you'll get out of me.

What, but we only just met.

I'm not sure what sparked that last line after what appeared to be a balanced post. Shame mr Steve has seemingly buggered orf as it would have been nice to get more angles on this.

One thing though Mr Callaghan, your three examples could not be policed by gatso's and many would argue are more dangerous than exceeding the speed limit by 10% or even 20%.
The third one is speeding but the lawbreaker would be on wrong side of carraigeway and the gatso would not be set to capture objects moving in the opposite direction.

Its not necessarily the case that forums like this are full of people who over-rate their own driving skills.
Nor indeed is it necessarily the case that forums like this are full of people with no respect for the law.

It is the case that cameras appear to be the governments politically expedient answer to all traffic woes.

It is the case that speed limits are being baselessly lowered on safe roads leading to people losing respect for what speed limits represent.

It is the case that many cameras are placed in areas with no basis for safety i.e. preventing death and injury leading to people losing respect for what cameras are meant to do.

It is the case the govt and safety camera partnerships have used selective statistics and massaged figures to clumsily peddle their amazing cure-all-road-ills tonic, (of which you are an unwitting part it would seem). This is leading to people losing respect for the governments policies in this area and for organisations such as safety partnerships which appear to mutating into the standard issue carpark clamping racket with bells on.



>> Edited by funkihamsta on Wednesday 9th June 01:58

[mybrainhurts]

SteveCallaghan said:

Just done a quick Calculation and fatals are down 26% for the first third of the year compared with 2003. Isn't that marvellous. And Serious Injuries down 44% compared to 2003 KSI's down 42% compared to 2003

And how did 2003 compare to 2002?

Be prepared, folks, leaks suggest 2003 was particularly bad, so 2004 is likely to regress to better levels.

I predicted the scamerati would gloat unjustifiably when that comes about, but old Stevie's there like shit off a hot shovel with two thirds of the year still to go............Spinner Supreme, or what?

>> Edited by mybrainhurts on Wednesday 9th June 02:38

[V8 Archie]

SteveCallaghan said:

For instance Saturday: 1. HGV driver swerving wildly between hard shoulder and lane 1. On the telephone. 2. HGV driver swerving wildly between lane 1 and 2. Driving with the back of his hand on the top of the steering wheel while holding a 2lt bottle of coke and screwing the lid on with his other hand.

Would you agree that such dangers are neither caused by speed or detectable by "safety" camera? If not, please explain your reasoning. It is interesting to me that two of the three incidents you mention do not involve excedding the speed limit.

The statistics that I saw from the national safety camera partnerships for casualty reduction couls not have produced the flattening of the graph seen on the linked page as all of them were going downward, as is ours.

SteveCallaghan said:

Just done a quick Calculation and fatals are down 26% for the first third of the year compared with 2003. Isn't that marvellous. And Serious Injuries down 44% compared to 2003 KSI's down 42% compared to 2003

Learn about regression to the mean, and then come back. We are quite happy to listen to sensible, reasoned arguments (you never know, you might change out minds). Just to help you out, regression to the mean can easily account for a reduction of up to %50, if my fallible memory serves).

SteveCallaghan said:

For once I have to agree with our friend Mr Smith, KSI's, in particular SI's are doing strange things, but this sort of strange I can handle!

I'm guessing that you SIs are dropping dramatically while KSIs and total injuries are pretty much static (correct me if I'm wrong here, I can't be bothered to wade through yet another set of lies). Would you like to explain how your activities have caused this result? Perhaps the number of deaths will stay constant for ever more because we've done the best we can and the loonies will keep on killing themselves (and others). Perhaps car construction has improved such that many SIs are now just "injuries". Of course this can only be the case if everyone who would have been injured before the improvements is still injured now. It sounds a bit like a padded cell inside this car (which is probably about right for the kind of driver your policies are likely to create).

SteveCallaghan said:

The attitude to speeding I have observed on many web forums including this one is as follows: 1. I have a right to speed 2. The law is wrong so I will speed 3. Speed cameras are crap because they cannot detect other offences 4. We want more traffic police because they use discretion (a.k.a. they will let me off) 5. I am a motoring enthusiast so am a safe driver even at speed 6. I know the safe speed for the road and conditions so I will do so despite the law 7. I am an advanced driver and the instructor said I could exceed the speed limit when I overtake 8. Oh why go on?

1. I think you will find few people who would agree with that statement. Drivers who post here may suggest that that they are better than most, but in general that is a reasonable assumption as they are interested in driving and thus do it to the best of their ability.
2. You are probably half right, the speed limits in this country are not right (personally I think some are to high). Where you get the idea that people on the forum speed deliberately I'm not sure. I'm of the opinion that the speed chosen is appropriate to the conditions - the speed limit doesn't come into it (unless there's a scamera about perhaps).
3. You've hit the nail on the head there! In fact what tends to be said is that cameras cannot tell the difference between safe driving or dangerous driving and most certainly are no use in catching joy-riders, get-away cars etc. which are not registered to the driver anyway.
4. Again you are oh so close. Without your comment in braces you would be more accurate. We would like more traffic police because they can catch illegal (untaxed) drivers and those that are driving dangerously (albeit within the speed limit). It just so happens that these people know far more about driving than either you or me and therefore may turn a blind eye to some offences in certain situations. If you don't trust your traffic police to make such judgments why have them at all?
5. Whether or not this is true in every case I guarantee it's true in general. Would you seriously doubt that the members of a Chess Club are better players of chess than the general population? For a start, the people on this site actually car about cars and driving (which is more than 90% of the rest of the population do).
6. I'll split this into two parts because pretty much all PHers would aim for "I know the safe speed for the road and conditions". I doubt many would claim to be that good, but it's an aspiration. Many PHers would say that they drive at a "safe speed for the road and conditions" while remaining withing their abilities. Perhaps you would tell me what the major problem with this philosophy is. The second half of your statement is probably true. However, given the standards that PHers set themselves they probably spend most of their time driving within the speed limit and only exceed it when they are certain that it is safe to do so (a little like drivers of emergency vehicles).
7. I humbly suggest that you are not doing yourself any favours here. Anyone who takes a course after the standard driving test is making more effort to improve than most. You would find (if you bothered to take such a course yourself) that absolute speed is not a great consideration (mainly because speed limits should be set at approximately the safe speed for the road). More importantly, if one is overtaking a vehicle, one should spend as little time as possible on the wrong side of the road (barring observational clues that you are clearly not ready for).
8. That's easy! You can't go on because you haven't a clue what you're talking about.

SteveCallaghan said:

Most of these attitudes can be put down to impetuous laddish behaviour typical of any 15 year old looking for a way to jutify the bad behaviour that just got him a clip round the ear.

You obviously haven't met many Phers. Neither have you read many threads. In fact this sort of comment just shows your ignorance.

SteveCallaghan said:

So all in all I think that attitude and lack of driver education is a key reason that some stats may show a levelling of the accident figures. Bad attitude, some drivers not recognising a dual-carriageway even when they are driving on it, and most of all not accepting that your driving skills are just not as good as you think they are.

At last we agree on something! Perhaps this thought will influence your partnership's approach to road safety.

By the way, that graph you posted up shows absolutely nothing of any value because it has only a twelve month range. To establish a trend you need to show a few year's figures. (The reason months do not work is that there are differing levels of road usage and different accident rates throughout the year).

Please come back and and explain where I am wrong .

[streaky]

funkihamsta said:

[ ... ] One thing though Mr Callaghan, your three examples could not be policed by gatso's and many would argue are more dangerous than exceeding the speed limit by 10% or even 20%. The third one is speeding but the lawbreaker would be on wrong side of carriageway and the gatso would not be set to capture objects moving in the opposite direction.

As the overtaking vehicle is travelling in the same direction it would be snapped, even though it was in the other carriageway - Streaky

[pmanson]

SteveCallaghan said:

For instance Saturday: 1. HGV driver swerving wildly between hard shoulder and lane 1. On the telephone. 2. HGV driver swerving wildly between lane 1 and 2. Driving with the back of his hand on the top of the steering wheel while holding a 2lt bottle of coke and screwing the lid on with his other hand. Today, Tuesday 08 June 1. Car driver, overtook me in 60mph limit while I was at 60mph. Pulled back in after going wrong side of double whites, on a blind bend and on a blind summit.

How the hell will a camera detect the first two offences you have described? A camera may not have even detected the third one.

A traffic cop on the other hand could have detected any of them!

As for you supposed figures my research shows that 60% of your figures are bt and the rest are just made up.

Has there been a reduction in deaths? - Probably Not!

Serious Injury figures are a joke!! - I don't think a sratch is a serious injury!
How many of these injuries are people falsly claiming whiplash etc in order to get compensation???

The sooner these modern day highwaymen have someone to answer to the better.

[PetrolTed]

Guys, Steve has come on here and been honest about what he thinks. Given the views of the majority here he was unlikely to find many people in tune with his views.

Whether he's right or not, he's had the decency to express his views eloquently and politely..

To respond with personal abuse undermines the credibility of PH and the valid arguments that many put forward in opposition.

We all feel strongly about this but I'd still urge you all to be polite and pay heed to our request that no member should be the subject of personal abuse.

[shnozz]

i disagree with steve.

[PetrolTed]

[shnozz]

although I still think he is patronising and uninformed

[neil.b]

Sorry Ted but his attitude is condescending. He makes the mistake of assuming we're all boy racers and (in his words) "laddish". OK, its not a personal insult per se, but then neither was my comment on the other thread. It was a general "I'm sorry but I don't believe a word of it so take it somewhere else".

My reply was a little curt and to the point but then I figure I pay enough taxes to keep people like that in a job (a job I 100% view as a wate of public resources) so I'm not going to waste my words as well as my money...

[Buzby]

Steve has made a very valid point - it's all down to the lack of driver education.

I find the scameras as infuriating as everyone else, but if everyone drove with more consideration and awareness, there would have been no real need for them in the first place.