Safe Speed Forums

It is actually a case of getting down to the reason for our disagreement. I have no intention of needlessly arguing this forever.


Jeez, must I say those exact words? I clearly admitted that a particular argument given could not make sense - is that really not enough for you?!?


One more time:
At no point did I dispute the 17% figure, I have always accepted it, I always known where it came from; don’t misrepresent my words. I used it to demonstrate how Monbiot had wrongly conveyed the information given within the report. You had based your argument on this.

Do you agree that Monbiot incorrectly conveyed the figures in the report by wrongfully dismissing long-term trend and not mentioning that RTTM is likely to be more significant for rural roads not included in the analysis; hence misleading the reader into believing cameras are more effective than they actually are?


Care to answer my question? Please don’t try to divert.
They still have self-serving interests, even if they don’t turn a profit.






Does the driver have to look out for speed cameras in order to carry out the mental driving process?


Wow! Do you always think all of that every time you see a rectangular yellow surface? Do you think others always do? Isn’t that extremely distracting? What about yellow sale stickers sometimes used on shop windows?


Er no, nothing has changed, I merely repeated myself. I’ve already said cameras aren’t and can’t be in the road: "Real hazards are in the road or have a potential to be in the road. Speed cameras are neither.". Did you forget that too?


You agreed that one is likely to notice a sign with a mark (warning/command) than a sign without, so please explain how that does not contradict the earlier sentences quoted.

That’s irrelevant anyway so let’s cut to the chase. You (indirectly) agreed that you can’t spot a hidden camera, so do you agree that ‘those genuinely looking out for hazards can have problems spotting yellow speed cameras, especially those hidden’ ?






Yes, but I believe it to be extremely unlikely given the additional safety measures within cameras sites (which we both agreed is common practice) and the effectiveness of those measures (given in the TRL table). Let’s explore this:


Should trafpol not bother policing areas where pedestrian crossings, pedestrian barriers, cycle lanes, etc too? Well they all help to cut down on various causes of crashes – yes? So again, why would trafpol decide not to patrol at camera sites?

Speed camera sites can be very large (up to 5km), do you agree that’s a heck of a urban area to not patrol?


Even if true, could that be reversed so the same can be said for the effectiveness of speed cameras?


You’re right, we don’t, but others running these schemes do. Do you agree that it is obvious that this information must be made available for study?

Do you think it is likely that at least one new safety measure is installed within reach of the definition of an urban camera site (most reaching up to 5km away given the portion of mobile sites used), within 3 years of its installation, within an urban environment where such measures are usually plentiful? If not then why not?


I’ve shown you that it is common practice for SCPs to place camera sites with other safety measures (which you’ve already agreed to). I’ve also given a TRL document documenting the effectiveness of these other measures. What more do you want?


Do you agree that the effectiveness of just 1 typical additional safety measure is likely to be very significant, significant meaning an effectiveness equal or greater than say half of that of speed cameras (removing the contribution of long-term-trend and RTTM)? If not then why not?

Now to be fair you should have said, "in my opinion".



Er, no, cue the readers laughing at you trying to get out of the fact that you are nitpicking. Also, in what way am I trying to get you to cherrypick?

Take this paragraph which was in SteveCharlton's post:
"Many ‘before and after’ studies of measures that slow traffic and result in substantially fewer accidents have also been reported. All these studies together provide extremely robust evidence of how speed affects accidents. They are large-scale studies, of real traffic on real roads, involving rigorous statistical analyses. The conclusions are unambiguous."

Do you accept it? If not, why not?



Well let's find out for sure - see the above question.



So you're saying that you agree with the mass of what they say then? Like the mass of what is in SteveCharlton's post?



Correctly report and being wrong are different things.



I'm not saying it did, Smeggy! I didn't just write the above in response to your question.



So in that case you accept the bit that I have quoted above then? Ignoring the issue of speed cameras for a moment, you agree that people should drive slower?



But the point is that if you accept what an organisation is saying in one document, then without any evidence that they are wrong in another document you should accept that as well.



No I think that would be a reasonable thing to do.



But the argument/input is now on whether we accept what the TRL says, yes?



I really don't think it is silly. By the way, I still welcome you to summarise your position so that we can end this argument.

No. Did you not see the bit, "or something like it though"?



You have NOT always known where it came from! Do I have to find the post for you?



I imagine that every organisation has self-serving interests. If they aren't turning a profit then I don't agree that they are committing fraud. As for the second part, no, they are just trying to prove their worth. The headline figure that they come out with is wrong, but as we know, speed cameras do actually cut FSCs.



No but then neither do they have to look out for road signs.



That's not a lot though. To make it simpler for you though:
speed camera, speed limit, punishment.



My shortened version, yes.



Not at all, you have to think of many, many things when driving.



Smeggy, yellow sale stickers sometimes used on shop windows are yellow sale stickers sometimes used on shop windows!



Firstly, what else are you saying that I forgot? Secondly, you say that you merely repeated yourself but you didn't merely repeat the other bit now did you!



Because this second sentence is a bit different from the previous one. You were basically talking about a yellow speed camera with a mark on it compared to one without (or that's what I thought anyway). Road signs tend to be white and red. I am saying that a yellow speed camera is just as obvious as a white and red road sign.



But you're trying to combine the two things together here: there are the usual, easy-to-spot yellow speed cameras, and there are hidden yellow speed cameras.



Don't try and put words into my mouth. I am not saying that trafpol shouldn't bother policing areas, but that with very limited resources they will make the decision to concentrate on other roads more. If they think that pedestrain crossings etc are likely to make a difference then I imagine that would play a part in them deciding what areas to concentrate on.



I'm thinking of fixed camera sites.



Probably.



Er, why did you feel the need to put the word "we" in bold?!



Yes.



Yes, at a mobile site. Not necessarily at a fixed site.



Well some direct research would be good. And as I've said, I imagine (although you disagree) that the police would decide to concentrate on other areas when fixed cameras go in.



No, because the roads that speed cameras get put in on tend to be straight where the driver has good visibility anyway so I don't think that additional safety measures would necessarily make that much difference.

I can't believe you're still dragging this out!

Goodness gracious!

I’m not going to waste my time replying to each facet of this because it is a waste of time.
You’ve clearly been caught with your pants down with your false claim of:
"No because you don't accept old TRL documents in other cases"
so you’re now trying to subsequently engineer the thread in a pathetic attempt to show that your baseless claim has merit:
"Well let's find out for sure - see the above question."
"For sure"? There’s nothing to even suggest it.

You're using this to try to use that as the basis to reject the figures from the TRL document I gave, I strongly suspect that's because you simply don't want to accept that your estimates were waaaaay too low.

I’m not going to continue with this because I believe the reader has more than enough information and intelligence to be able to reliably determine which one of us is being disingenuous and trying to escape from the debate.

Or because the reader [or this one anyway] is fast getting lost [and bored] scrolling up-and-down trying to make sense out of this increasingly repetative subject.

I'll just say this: if there was no traffic, there would be no accidents.
Since there is always going to be traffic, the opposite applies.

It would be interesting to break the accidents figures down into different vehicle-type figures. I'm sure somebody has done it, somewhere.

Right. I can see has exploded into a frenzy of fallacious, tedious, pointless, distracting post slicing. Coupled with your disingenuous behaviour ‘in my opinion’ I’m going to bite my lip and trim the superfluous and disingenuous material. Given my previous post I believe the reader will understand and appreciate why.


"Fraud: deliberate trickery intended to gain an advantage"
They are taking money based on deliberate deception, is that not fraud? (fraud doesn’t become non-fraud if a profit isn’t made)
Are they deliberately encouraging misallocation of road safety resource?
Also, we don’t know that cameras cut FSCs due to the unaccounted and potentially significant effect of BoS.


Yes I am, but that’s what is actually happening in the real world; it is still a valid question addressing the issue in a valid way.
Do you agree that ‘those genuinely looking out for hazards can have problems spotting yellow speed cameras, especially those hidden’ ?


We’re talking about an urban environment where crossings, barriers, lighting, roundabouts, signing, road markings (to name a few) are prevalent, so what then?

Why would trafpol want to apply lesser coverage on roads with a greater history of accidents?


OK. Fixed speed camera sites can be large (up to 1.5km), do you agree that’s still a heck of an urban area to patrol less?

Do you think it is likely that at least one new safety measure is installed within reach of the definition of an urban fixed camera site (reaching up to 1.5km away), within 3 years of its installation, within an urban environment where such measures are usually plentiful? If not then why not?


What do you call the TRL report I gave? Is that not direct research?


Sorry, I don’t follow your logic. You’ve somehow linked roads with good visibility to other nearby safety measures being less effective without any explanation, can you elaborate please.

(my bold)

ie safe stretches of road where accidents tend not to happen, and any that do are almost certainly statistical blips.

You've just blown your argument clean out of the water.

_________________
Only when ideology, prejudice and dogma are set aside does the truth emerge - Kepler

Smeggy, calm down. You are grossly over-reacting here and being rather antagonistic. If my claim is "false" then in other words I have made a mistaken assumption. And considering your general position about speed, it was a reasonable assumption to make. The fact that you refuse to answer the question rather suggests you have something to hide.



Not at all. I accept what TRL say. However, I'm not going to do what I strongly suspect you would like to do, which is to cherrypick points from TRL to suit you. You either accept all of what they say or none. I am happy to accept all. As for my estimates, I didn't actually make any. I just made up random figures.



So let's be clear then - you DO accept this:

"Many ‘before and after’ studies of measures that slow traffic and result in substantially fewer accidents have also been reported. All these studies together provide extremely robust evidence of how speed affects accidents. They are large-scale studies, of real traffic on real roads, involving rigorous statistical analyses. The conclusions are unambiguous."

Firstly, you've left out the unaccounted and, in my view, potentially significant effect of the local trafpol when a speed camera is installed. Secondly, I don't think you can call it deliberate deception. What they are doing is not telling the whole truth. And I've never looked at one of these press releases from these organisations, so I don't know if they do actually make it clear further down. Who are they taking money from - the Government? Presumably they know, like you, what to look out for in these figures.



I'm not going to give you a straight yes/no answer because I don't agree that the question is fair. Yes, I agree that drivers will have a problem spotting hidden cameras, but I don't agree that drivers will have a problem spotting unhidden ones.



I'm suggesting they will think, "new speed camera installed, let's concentrate on another area". As for the second question, because a camera has been installed. There are still only 5,000 fixed cameras in the country. That's really not a lot when you consider all the road space.



No.



Not on the areas where speed cameras are - I thought that TRL report was just a general one?



Because you're going to have more time, for example, to notice cyclists.

Now, back to TRL - what do you think of the following point:

"On urban roads, injury accidents reduce by between 2 and 7 per cent per 1mph reduction in average speed. TRL 421"

Given that the one main thing that speed cameras do is reduce the speed of traffic, the above backs up the idea that speed cameras cut crashes doesn't it.

Not at all. Fixed speed cameras (in urban areas) cut fatal and serious collisions, after allowing for regression-to-mean and trend, by 17% on average.

Smeggy, presumably I should take it from your lack of response to my last two messages that you've realised that I DO have a case for saying that speed cameras are much better than nothing?

Pete317, do I take it from your lack of response that you have realised that I hadn't just blown my "argument clean out of the water"?

Oh dear god!

My lack of response is because I'm growing rather weary of washing handkerchiefs

_________________
Only when ideology, prejudice and dogma are set aside does the truth emerge - Kepler

Not at all. This has been a busy week for me. You might have noticed I've not posted much in the forums this week (but I have been watching out for spam and bad behaviour).

I have further reason to think you don't have a case. You should get a response tomorrow.

_________________
Views expressed are personal opinions and are not necessarily shared by the Safe Speed campaign

Which is on average 12% more accidents than are caused by speed.

However this annoying fact left aside, where is this figure proved? All the reasearch I have read quotes that on average after RTTM the number of reported accidents fell by around 17%. This is not the same as saying that the camera reduced accidents, or even that the number of accidents fell. No report ever takes into consideration other improvements, eg junction roadworks, improved lighting, installation of a ped x etc.

Can you point me to research which shows a clear link between the installation of a fixed camera, and the reduction of accidents.

I'll help you out, no such research exists.

Yes, that, supposedly, is the average figure. However, the above figure is the reduction where speed cameras are placed.



I have a strong feeling that you have made up your mind and that's that. This figure comes from the National Safety Camera Partnership Four-year Evaluation Report (I think that's what it's called). This is the research "which shows a clear link between the installation of a fixed camera, and the reduction of accidents". As for the other improvements, that's what Smeggy and me have argued about hugely. But if you read my posts, you will see at least two other points on the other side that need to be taken into account.

Okaaaaay. I assume that the above is some kind of insult, but nevermind, I'm not bothered.

So you have antagonistically said that someone's argument has been blown clean out of the water, but when challenged on it you lack a direct response.

FFS!!!!

These hardly qualify as 'accident blackspots', do they?

How many accidents occur on straight roads with good visibility, and what makes them happen?

If these roads account for more than a tiny proportion of accidents, then why is this?

And if they do account for a tiny propotion of accidents then,

a) why is this where they put the speed cameras, if the objective is to reduce accidents, and

b) delta changes in accident numbers at sites with small numbers of accidents are likely to be statistically invalid. For example, one accident in one year followed by three accidents the following year amounts to a 200% increase - one accident in the following two years then amounts to an 82% decrease.

Or, putting it another way, there are approx. 3000 fatalities a year. There are 5000+ cameras. If each camera saved just one life per year we'd have zero fatalities. In other words, the cameras are not placed where accidents occur, so how can they possibly be having any effect?

_________________
Only when ideology, prejudice and dogma are set aside does the truth emerge - Kepler