Safe Speed Forums

At JT puts it, it is a bit of statistical playing, which shows that equally effective measures introduced in different orders may have different effects on the death rate, and that it would be wrong to post facto say that one is more or less effective than the other. Once we agree that, we can say that any 'simple' interpretion, such as cameras are no good because the curve has flattened out, look shakey.

If you factor in 'something else', such as attrocoiulsy bad driving (and, in my case, spelling!), you could fairly conjecture that without cameras, rates could already be higher. If that is true (and this is just one of many explanations) removing the cameras would make rates rocket.

So what I am saying is that there are lies, damn lies and statistics. However, in the long term, truths do come out. If we hold the course we are on longer, I think we will see the bigger picture, which is, in my opinion, as follows. First, drivers are much less able to share the roads collaborativly nowsdays, and second, the measures are just holding the trend in death rates down in spite of that.

_________________
I stole this .sig

President Gas, the carbon pollution is getting worse and worse. I'm sure you've seen the news, about Kyoto and all that.

_________________
I stole this .sig

I think that, to some extent, the vandalism of cameras is due to the exhorbitant fines for being only a little over the limit. We don't have to give people hell, and that is where it has gone wrong. A little £20 ping and no points for being a mile or two over the limit, and whopping ban for being 25 over the limit, with a bit of common sense for those in between. We could still win the battle of speed with scameras without beating people up quite so much.



New cars would have them, people with old ones would have to upgrade or take thier chance as they do now. Even in new cars, you'd be able to turn the things off if it gets on your nerves.



I think it was Mr. Gas who mentioned buses first, not me.



They would have though 'bloody limey, weaving in and out'!

_________________
I stole this .sig

What about a change that has no discernable effect?
Again, you warn of over-simplification, yet seem to be indulging in it yourself. It is not enough to say "driving standards have suddenly got worse" (coincedentally at the same time as cameras arrived), we must ask why the standards have changed. I don't dispute that there seems to be more idiots about than there used to, but we can't just assume that bad driving happened all by itself. Cause and effect - we know the effect, so what's the cause? Has the current policy of over reliance on cameras combined with reducing real enforcement by police encouraged it? I think so. Cameras were supposed to be a tool for the police, but they have become a replacement. I know you like the idea of high tech low cost solutions that eliminate the need to pay someone a wage, so I doubt you'll be easily persuaded that a decent copper is more flexible, and justifies the cost. Trafplods are mutli-skilled and can enforce the whole spectrum of bad driving, plus other aspects of policing when called upon to do so. Cameras just do one thing. It's like the difference between DOS and Windows - as much as we like to take the mick out of Windows it can do more than one thing at a time. And trafplods crash sometimes too.
How true. Stuff like the old 1/3 claim for example. Not that I've seen you use it.Are you saying that a decade doesn't give a long tem picture? If so, how do you define long term, bearing in mind the that we've only had cars for little more than a century, and they've been commonplace for rather less than that. And if a decade is insufficiently long term, what does that make all these 3 year based figures the pratnerships come out with?
That's your interpretation, and as a theory it does excuse the poor performance. Another interpretation is that the policies are responsible for drivers being less able to share the roads collaboratively, and therefore the measures designed to reduce the death rate are responsible for maintaining it.
Hard to believe, yes, but there are a number of ways in which this could have come about. However, it can be summed up easily. Focusing so heavily on something even our pro-camera government admits is only 13% of the problem has been at the expense of the other 87%. This is what happens when you look for cheap and easy solutions to complex problems. It's a cliche, but you gets what you pays for. We're only paying for cameras, not safer roads. That's why we're not getting them.

_________________
Make everything as simple as possible, but not simpler - Einstein

If you factor in 'something else', such as atrociously bad or selfish driving, rates could already be higher, yielding no net discernable effect.



I thought I was indulging in under-simplification with these examples, to show how misleading stats can be.



Yes, fair play, cameras on their own are not enough. I don’t think over reliance on cameras has encouraged it, else I’d want them to be hidden, not painted yellow. Perhaps cutting back on coppers has done some harm – I believe in a multi-track approach, including coppers, but as few as possible because they take so much tax in wages and pension.

Tools like cameras are only good for detecting speed limit violations. They should be a part of an overall strategy, where their contribution and limitations are recognised. I can see you have a fair point here, and I could campaign on that basis, but not for scrapping cameras wholesale.



Yes, how long is a piece of string? I don't know, but I think we are seeing a hysteresis effect also, which seems to have played out in north Wales, where everybody drives at or under the limit all the time. If the hysteresis has truly played out, i.e. drivers have learned that cameras will always get you if you break the limit, I would say that the period is several years, less than 10, after the massive introduction of fixed and mobile cameras, similar to north Wales.

I think it will play out like this - - there will be sufficient backlash whipped up in one part of the country that cameras will actually be withdrawn in that area. The subsequent figures will show in swift rise in death rates, and cameras will be re-introduced for good. Another (less likely?) way it could play out is that insurance companies might levy high fees in areas with low camera take up, which could form a backlash in the opposite direction as legal drivers demand more cameras to access cheap insurance. Alternatively, if could even play out in the courts. Following the withdrawal of a camera, a subsequent accident might create a case for negligence for the party which removed it.




One thing I can agree with you here. Cameras can only detect, and perhaps enforce, speed limit violations. In that respect, they are a single measure. Even if you scrapped prosecutions, there would be no sense scrapping speed monitoring, after all, that is good information.

There are better things enforce speed limits, but they cost more. On no account should any new model be sold with a top speed over 80 mph, which is a good bit over the top limit, to assuage the 'accelerate out of danger' brigade.

Other things, which are less easy to measure, like the quality of driving, will take longer to automate, assuming they can be automated at all. So in that, I agree - coppers, expensive as they are, are going to be with us for a long time yet.

_________________
I stole this .sig

So many problems.....




So you are basing that particular argument on figures you admit to making up. What's the point? Why not just use the real figures?



I see. So road safety is much better in non-capitalist states? As I said, it's an irrelevance, unless of course you attempting to get the old socialist argument in by the back door (which is quite common for "anti-car/anti-speed" campaigners)




It's difficult to know where to start with this one. But let's start with the obvious. Carbon Dioxide is not a pollutant. It is essential for life. Without it you would be dead and the Earth would be a big empty ball of rock.

Next, when you say "worse and worse" I have to ask worse compared to when? 10 years ago? 100 years ago? 1000 years ago? 10,000 years ago? 10 million years ago? Atmospheric levels of CO2 fluctuate naturally. Thare have been plenty of times in the past when CO2 levels have been far higher and temperatures lower than today.

There is also plenty of evidence to support the theory that it is high temperatures that cause the rise in CO2 levels and not the othe way around.

I am assuming that your reference to carbon pollution here is a reference to "Global Warming"? Strange, for two reasons. Firstly, CO2 makes up just 3% of all greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. Secondly, of that 3%, motorised transport is responsible for around 2%. So not very much then.

If you're really interested in saving the planet etc, then you should be looking for ways to interfere with the natural convection process which dumps trillions of tonnes of water vapour into the atmosphere. Or perhaps a huge tax rise on electricty and air travel. Trams of course should be heavily taxed due to their high use of electricty.

But I suspect not. Somehow, your references to road safety (i.e. cars) and capitalism in the same argument has rather given the game away.



Nope, not me. However, I can provide you with all sorts of wonderful facts about buses and how they are not quite the utopian transport dream the dislikers of capitalism claim.

"Why do we make cars that can do twice the legal limit?" is an apparently plausible canard that is often trotted out, but really reveals a profound ignorance of the principles of automotive design. OK, so the cheapest Mondeo or Vectra you can buy will top 125 mph. But these maximum speeds are largely a by-product of improved aerodynamics to allow cars to cruise quietly and economically at the maximum legal speed limit - which, even discounting Germany, Italy and the Isle of Man, is 130 kph (81 mph) in most major European countries. Cars from 30 years ago with the same weight and power would have maximum speeds 20 mph or more lower.

The only way you can achieve the aim of restricting maximum speeds is via speed limiters. If you tried to "engineer" in a maximum speed little more than the highest speed limit, the vehicle would either have to have the aerodynamics of a house brick (with the consequence of greatly increased fuel consumption and emissions), or be extremely strained and limited in its capabilities at legal speeds. Even a 57 bhp, 1.0 litre Corsa will do 97 mph!

At times, cars like Mondeos need the power to tow 1200 kg caravans, carry five burly blokes and loads of luggage, or climb 1 in 3 hills, but they're not required to do all these things all the time, and therefore inevitably will have surplus power on occasions. Without its speed limiter, the typical HGV tractor unit could top 100 mph when not pulling a trailer, despite actually having the aerodynamics of a housebrick.

As we are part of the EU, any legislation for maximum speeds for cars and motorcycles would have to be brought in on an EU-wide basis. The UK could not go it alone. There is no practical reason why all new vehicles could not be fitted with limiters restricting them to 130 kph. This might prevent a very small number of high-speed crashes, but on the other hand it would lead to convoys of cars driving "on the limiter" on motorways, which to my mind would increase the total number of accidents. It would also make no difference whatsoever to the overwhelming majority of crashes which occur at speeds well below 130 kph.

There would also obviously be strong political opposition, particularly from those countries such as Germany and Italy which currently have higher limits. And a key reason why politicians would be very reluctant to do it would be that it would cause a major slump in the motor industry which could plunge the whole of Europe into recession. This would be especially severe if compulsory retro-fitting on older vehicles was not required – but even if it was, buyers would tend to extend replacement cycles and buy less expensive vehicles. It would certainly put virtually all specialist manufacturers out of business.

_________________
"Show me someone who says that they have never exceeded a speed limit, and I'll show you a liar, or a menace." (Austin Williams - Director, Transport Research Group)

Any views expressed in this post are personal opinions and may not represent the views of Safe Speed

You're bringing in bad driving to justify the poor performance of cameras. I'm sorry to have to repeat myself, but that is insufficient unless we examine why driving standards suddenly got worse (and by just enough to balance out the supposed benefit of cameras). There is more bad driving about, I have never disagreed with you there. But if camera policy is responsible for it then it's fair to say that there has been little or no discernable net effect.
I think we've crossed lines here. I am saying that you are over simplifying by bringing in bad driving as a kind of correction factor without looking at the cause.
Well, a little bit of common ground then . Multi-track, as you put it, is good. Where I disagree is using as few coppers as possible. Yes, they do cost a lot of money, but cost is unimportant here. The important thing is value.
This is purely hypothetical, but if every camera was replaced with a plod and the figures immediately started to improve again, wouldn't you agree that those 5000 or so extra plods have provided value where the cameras did not. The cameras are cheap, there's no denying it. But if the disadvantages are equal to or outweigh the benefits then they could cost £0.01 each and still be too much in terms of value.
We should stop thinking about it in terms of cost and consider ROI instead.
In turn, I can see a reasonable case for a small number of cameras to be used in genuine blackspots where other means are impossible or impractical. Can't station a copper on that dodgy junction 24-7 after all, and if no engineering solution is possible then a camera might be effective when accompanied by big ****off signs warning of both the camera and the danger. A multi track approach, like you said. This is pretty close to the original purpose of cameras.
Do they? How come Brunstrom's mob is still managing to send out tickets then?But similar areas exist and the situation there is no better. As we know Durham is the big exception, and has better rates than anywhere else with only one solitary fixed camera. Sure, they use mobile cameras like other forces do, but the real difference is one of policy. Durham's CC is going for the most dangerous drivers, rather than the ones that are easiest to find. Seems to be working alright up there.
If that were at all likely then Durham should be a bloodbath already. It's not.
Only if taking away cameras increases risk. I really doubt that's going to happen. The least likely scenario of all. First, proving that the presence of a camera would have prevented a particular accident is gong to be virtually impossible in many cases. We already know that cameras are a poor deterrent cameras for many of the most dangerous drivers, and they're the ones most likely to cause a crash. Second, successive government have been going on about smoking and how many die from it for years, but they've never actually banned it outright. Ever heard of a lawsuit being brought because of the failure to ban tobacco?
Who said anything about scrapping prosecutions or monitoring? I'm talking about increasing them, but for the things that matter most.
Hmmm, cost and value again. You already know what I think.
PeterE has covered max speeds far better than I could have, but I would add one minor point. Why shouldn't I be able to take my car to a track day where I can thrash the nuts off it safely and legally? I'm not a track day enthusiast, btw, but I just don't see why we should screw things up for those who are. If they drive on the road the same way they do on the track, nick 'em and ban 'em. We've got perfectly good laws to deal with that sort of behaviour already, it's just a matter of effective enforcement (and since we still relying on cameras that's the missing link at the moment).

_________________
Make everything as simple as possible, but not simpler - Einstein

Me too.
I think they are always trying to pretend they are being reasonable, like when they said theyd make a commitment to check the validity of every camera site. Its all just an attempt at making it look like they really DO care. Its all crap, and is all about trying to make evil speeders like the lepars of society, when in fact they are the safest people out there.

If you really cant control a car at 35 in a 30, then you shouldnt have a licence.