Pistonheads versus Reality.
Discussion
Pistonheads;
http://www.pistonheads.com/news/default.asp?storyId=10763
Speed cameras don't cut deaths according to the latest research. An academic research team in a Government-funded exercise found that the devices don't have much effect on the number of crashes at accident black spots.
Dr Linda Mountain and a team from the University of Liverpool looked at 149 black spots on 30mph roads across the UK, and found that the case for cameras on those roads had been "exaggerated".
"We could not detect a significant change in fatal and serious crashes at camera sites," the study concluded.
The team also looked at the impact of other speed reduction measures, but only humps in the road were found to have a "significant" impact. They cut personal injury accidents by 44 per cent compared to 29 per cent for other engineering schemes, and just 22 per cent for cameras.
Dr Mountain, whose research was funded by a Government body, said, "Speed humps and cushions had a significant impact on fatal and serious accidents but cameras didn't. It was a surprise. I expected to find some reduction."
RAC Foundation campaigns head Sue Nicholson said, "We have become fixated on speed cameras and need to think up more innovative ways of changing driver behaviour. Speed cameras don't do that."
Safe Speed road safety campaign founder Paul Smith said, "Far from saving lives [speed cameras] have displaced genuine life saving road safety policies resulting in considerable loss of life."
The study will be published in the journal Accident Analysis and Prevention.
http://www.pistonheads.com/news/default.asp?storyId=10763
Speed cameras don't cut deaths according to the latest research. An academic research team in a Government-funded exercise found that the devices don't have much effect on the number of crashes at accident black spots.
Dr Linda Mountain and a team from the University of Liverpool looked at 149 black spots on 30mph roads across the UK, and found that the case for cameras on those roads had been "exaggerated".
"We could not detect a significant change in fatal and serious crashes at camera sites," the study concluded.
The team also looked at the impact of other speed reduction measures, but only humps in the road were found to have a "significant" impact. They cut personal injury accidents by 44 per cent compared to 29 per cent for other engineering schemes, and just 22 per cent for cameras.
Dr Mountain, whose research was funded by a Government body, said, "Speed humps and cushions had a significant impact on fatal and serious accidents but cameras didn't. It was a surprise. I expected to find some reduction."
RAC Foundation campaigns head Sue Nicholson said, "We have become fixated on speed cameras and need to think up more innovative ways of changing driver behaviour. Speed cameras don't do that."
Safe Speed road safety campaign founder Paul Smith said, "Far from saving lives [speed cameras] have displaced genuine life saving road safety policies resulting in considerable loss of life."
The study will be published in the journal Accident Analysis and Prevention.
Reality;
Hmm. Since I prefer to get my information from "the horse's mouth", as it were, rather than relying on inaccuracies penned by lazy journos with an axe to grind, I googled and found a Power Point presentation by Linda Mountain on this subject. Not the full report, I'll grant you (couldn't find that), but it does contain a few interesting bits and pieces that Pistonheads omitted to mention.
www.rss.org.uk/rssadmin/uploads/3452_Speed%20cameras%20Mountain%20nov04.pdf
The last 2 pages are particularly interesting, especially:
Cameras most effective on roads with higher mean speeds. (Is this why Pistonheads only talked about the results for 30mph areas? Surely not)?
Typically a 4% fall in accidents per 1mph fall in speed. (I don't recall reading that in the Pistonheads "analysis". Wonder why)?
8.4mph fall in mean speed, 38% fall in PIAs (Personal Injury Accidents) and 30% fall in FSAs (Fatal & Serious Accidents) attributable to impact on speed. (I interpret this to mean that if people drove more slowly then fewer people would be killed, but Pistonheads probably think it means something different. Or maybe they don't think it means something different but chose to ignore it because it doesn't suit their agenda. You decide).
Conclusions:
Cameras alter speed distribution. Lower mean, standard deviation and % speeding
Cameras reduce accidents. 19% fall in PIAs and 6% fall in FSAs due to impact on speed. Less than observed change but worthwhile benefits.
Some re-routing of traffic. But no signs of migration (of accidents) upstream and downstream.
So there we have it. What the presentation actually says, is that cameras make people drive more slowly, which in turn reduces the number of accidents.
Which, of course, proves they don't work, innit?
Hmm. Since I prefer to get my information from "the horse's mouth", as it were, rather than relying on inaccuracies penned by lazy journos with an axe to grind, I googled and found a Power Point presentation by Linda Mountain on this subject. Not the full report, I'll grant you (couldn't find that), but it does contain a few interesting bits and pieces that Pistonheads omitted to mention.
www.rss.org.uk/rssadmin/uploads/3452_Speed%20cameras%20Mountain%20nov04.pdf
The last 2 pages are particularly interesting, especially:
Cameras most effective on roads with higher mean speeds. (Is this why Pistonheads only talked about the results for 30mph areas? Surely not)?
Typically a 4% fall in accidents per 1mph fall in speed. (I don't recall reading that in the Pistonheads "analysis". Wonder why)?
8.4mph fall in mean speed, 38% fall in PIAs (Personal Injury Accidents) and 30% fall in FSAs (Fatal & Serious Accidents) attributable to impact on speed. (I interpret this to mean that if people drove more slowly then fewer people would be killed, but Pistonheads probably think it means something different. Or maybe they don't think it means something different but chose to ignore it because it doesn't suit their agenda. You decide).
Conclusions:
Cameras alter speed distribution. Lower mean, standard deviation and % speeding
Cameras reduce accidents. 19% fall in PIAs and 6% fall in FSAs due to impact on speed. Less than observed change but worthwhile benefits.
Some re-routing of traffic. But no signs of migration (of accidents) upstream and downstream.
So there we have it. What the presentation actually says, is that cameras make people drive more slowly, which in turn reduces the number of accidents.
Which, of course, proves they don't work, innit?
Maybe there's a focus on urban roads (30 mph) because they're the ones where most fatalities/KSIs happen???
Motorways are at the other extreme with less deaths per mile than any other road-type. Speeds on Motorways have a higher mean speed that any other roads in the UK.
Speed Kills. Believe the hype.
Motorways are at the other extreme with less deaths per mile than any other road-type. Speeds on Motorways have a higher mean speed that any other roads in the UK.
Speed Kills. Believe the hype.
So why are KSI up since the introduction of scameras?
Can the report explain the reversal of trend? I think not.
It's a shame you wasted your time typing when the facts are against you! It's time to admit the cameras are a failed experiment and return to genuine safety measures such as road engineering.
BTW, are you aware of the budget tarmac councils have adopted for repairs? One in five roads now fails to reach the published standards for skid performance.
Scameras and their supporters kill!
Can the report explain the reversal of trend? I think not.
It's a shame you wasted your time typing when the facts are against you! It's time to admit the cameras are a failed experiment and return to genuine safety measures such as road engineering.
BTW, are you aware of the budget tarmac councils have adopted for repairs? One in five roads now fails to reach the published standards for skid performance.
Scameras and their supporters kill!martincrowe said:
"So why are KSI up since the introduction of scameras? "
They aren't.
Overall figures have fallen at safety camera sites, as the link I've provided shows.
If you have evidence to the contrary then please post it and we can check.
I am sure Paul Smith will be along with the raw data in a minute, until then:
I did not cherry pick my figures. I notice how you qualify your comments with an "overall" In fact at some scamera sites KSI are up. At other sites with NO KSI they put up scameras and KSI started.
Why no mention of improvements in road engineering? Anyone but a total dunderhead would treat the problem, not prescribe a placebo to mask the problem.
The good Dr's conclusion was that scameras don't work. Are you saying she was wrong?
Scameras have failed, you've lost. Now run along and stop trolling. Does your mum know you are on the internet?
martincrowe said:
there is, of course, also the issue of why Pistonheads would blatantly misrepresent what Ms Mountain actually said....
By your own admission you haven't seen the full report, how do you know what she said. I'll answer that for you, you CAN'T. Do you work for a scameraship, they are fond of misinterpreting facts.
"how do you know what she said. "
I found the report, as I just said;
www.rss.org.uk/rssadmin/uploads/3452_Speed%20cameras%20Mountain%20nov04.pdf
See for yourself.
Why are you being so aggressive?
I found the report, as I just said;
www.rss.org.uk/rssadmin/uploads/3452_Speed%20cameras%20Mountain%20nov04.pdf
See for yourself.
Why are you being so aggressive?
martincrowe said:
"In fact at some scamera sites KSI are up. "
Forty, I believe, out of nearly eight hundred.
Why are you being insulting please?
Because I have had enough of trolls telling lies. For years the Scameraships, a financial consortium, have been trying to tell us that scameras are our saviour when in fact those of us that bother to look at the raw data know otherwise. I've had a bloody bellyfull of it and it's time to stop the LIES.
The downward trend in KSI stopped when the first scameras were introduced, it turned back up in 1997 when they were allowed to keep the revenue. Coincidence? No way.
No more Mr Nice Guy I'm afraid. Go tell it to T2000 or someone who is taken in by misinformation.
martincrowe said:
Why are you being so aggressive?
He isn't being aggressive, or rude.
Why are you trying to put words in to his mouth? Not a journo trying to trap someone in to giving you a soundbite that you can attribute to PH are you? Looking for a 'death threat' by any chance?
I'd suggest that regular PHers resist any temptation to rise to this post or whoever is behind it.
Oh, and what about all the additional safety measures on cars since the early ninties? ABS and airbags and yet KSI are increasing.
Pedestrian injuries on the increase? Perhaps because kids aren't taught that roads are DANGEROUS.
Lack of observation and anticipation kills. Speed merely increases the consequences of a failure of the former.
Most of us here are high mileage drivers who travel quickly WHEN APPROPRIATE. Our personal experience differs wildly from scamera propoganda TRL 323 anyone?
I have driven over 400,000 miles without accident or incident and I do not comply with the speed limits. I overtake people travelling below the posted limit with increasing regularity and yet my driving is incident free. Observation is key, taking a picture and sending a fine 14 days later isn't.
Pedestrian injuries on the increase? Perhaps because kids aren't taught that roads are DANGEROUS.
Lack of observation and anticipation kills. Speed merely increases the consequences of a failure of the former.
Most of us here are high mileage drivers who travel quickly WHEN APPROPRIATE. Our personal experience differs wildly from scamera propoganda TRL 323 anyone?
I have driven over 400,000 miles without accident or incident and I do not comply with the speed limits. I overtake people travelling below the posted limit with increasing regularity and yet my driving is incident free. Observation is key, taking a picture and sending a fine 14 days later isn't.
rude girl said:
Why are you being so aggressive?
He isn't being aggressive, or rude.
Why are you trying to put words in to his mouth? Not a journo trying to trap someone in to giving you a soundbite that you can attribute to PH are you? Looking for a 'death threat' by any chance?
I'd suggest that regular PHers resist any temptation to rise to this post or whoever is behind it.
Nice point RG, don't make me angry, you wouldn't like me when I'm angry
That's all folks!
rude girl said:No need to worry about me, I have them cornered....
I'd suggest that regular PHers resist any temptation to rise to this post or whoever is behind it.
martincrowe said:
Reality;
Hmm. Since I prefer to get my information from "the horse's mouth", as it were, rather than relying on inaccuracies penned by lazy journos with an axe to grind, I googled and found a Power Point presentation by Linda Mountain on this subject. Not the full report, I'll grant you (couldn't find that), but it does contain a few interesting bits and pieces that Pistonheads omitted to mention.
www.rss.org.uk/rssadmin/uploads/3452_Speed%20cameras%20Mountain%20nov04.pdf
……………
So there we have it. What the presentation actually says, is that cameras make people drive more slowly, which in turn reduces the number of accidents.
Which, of course, proves they don't work, innit?
Martin,
You will take me seriously if you are not a troll, so here goes.
Back to reality…..
I have the original full report, among other documents. I’ve had the pleasure of corresponding with Linda Mountain. Here is the crucial conclusion, from the real horse’s mouth (paraphrased):
The camera partnerships have exaggerated their claims by a factor of around 3, her best calculation (based on a small sample size) shows an 11% decrease, the rest being down to ‘regression to mean’.
As proof that I have spoken with her, the original unedited press releases can be found posted under my old nickname (supraman2954) here
However, I can go even further than that and slash the 11% figure much further, see my post (smeggy) here
Even Linda couldn’t dispute that. She never replied to me after that, understandable considering I proved hard work was flawed.
Forget ‘bias by selection’, this is ‘bias on selection’
rude girl said:
Why are you being so aggressive?
He isn't being aggressive, or rude.
Why are you trying to put words in to his mouth? Not a journo trying to trap someone in to giving you a soundbite that you can attribute to PH are you? Looking for a 'death threat' by any chance?
I'd suggest that regular PHers resist any temptation to rise to this post or whoever is behind it.
Corinne - Liebchen - this guy ist none other than
S P I N D R I F T
He has also been chucked off safepeed's site unter this same name.
My cousin received a vile, abusive e-mail from this person when she challenged him too - und we have this same name "crowe" on a private message from the account holder of S P I N D R I F T
So my advice guys - do not respond to the troll here. I do not know if we have a real name - I doubt it. We have to date Bimbly Fimbly Wimbly , Twomey, spindrift, Cathy Browne, Alex Smelling und now martincrowe....
This is increasingly tiresome.
Yep, accidents are down at camera sites.
No, cameras are not responsible for the drop.
Why? Regression to the mean. Take the trouble to find out what this means if you are genuinely interested in road safety.....
Bone up on your stats 'Mr Crowe' and if you want to peddle nonsense, go and bore someone else with it. I'm with BliarOut on this one; I'm sure you'd have plenty of similarly minded people onn the T2000 site
Yep, accidents are down at camera sites.
No, cameras are not responsible for the drop.
Why? Regression to the mean. Take the trouble to find out what this means if you are genuinely interested in road safety.....
Bone up on your stats 'Mr Crowe' and if you want to peddle nonsense, go and bore someone else with it. I'm with BliarOut on this one; I'm sure you'd have plenty of similarly minded people onn the T2000 site
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff