Safe Speed Forums

Date : 3rd June 2010
Time : 10:05am

Topic : Speed Camera Operation at Night (now privatised)

Presenter :Declan Meehan
Other Guest (added) - 'Conner' from AA RoadWatch.
Show : The Morning Show from 9am
Radio Station : EastCoast.FM
Lo Call (Ireland) 1890 303 103 - email : studio@eastcoast.fm or morningshow@radiocentre.ie

Police website and links to some of their Road Safety Information Here

_________________
Safe Speed for Intelligent Road Safety through proper research, experience & guidance.

Oh well, you didn't go down too well in Ireland then.

Can't say Declan and the AA chap were convinced with your ranting and constantly speaking over them.

"We welcome opposing views and challenges."

TY for listening - actually they were delighted and are keen to have me back.
If you have never been interviewed on air - you do not have long to get your points across and as I stated my apology for interrupting, as I could not let the concept that the UK has one of the best road safety records in the World go unchallenged !
I always try to be polite and wait my turn. This debate 'took off' which is great for on-air debating and that is what is loved as long as it all stays polite and respectful which this did.
He was not aware of many of the documents that I referred to and that needed to be promoted as available on our website.
It was a good well mannered debate. The producer and presenter loved the debate.

_________________
Safe Speed for Intelligent Road Safety through proper research, experience & guidance.

Some listeners have come in and supported what I have said and some not ... but there is so much more that we could have discussed but with only about 7 minutes that is never going to be enough !

_________________
Safe Speed for Intelligent Road Safety through proper research, experience & guidance.

I have to agree that he could have been better read. Pointing him to your website wouldn't achieve that though.....hang on....you do have some sensible links.

I thought it was interesting that the chap from the AA felt he was blessed with enough knowledge to slag-off (I think that term matches what he said) the UK safety camera system and then hadn't heard of some of the most popular research on the use of speed cameras.
Ireland is yet to emerge from the Genesis stage at the moment so lets see how his system stacks up.
He was led by some popular media attitudes and had no appreciation of the reasons why cameras were deployed prior to the Safety Camera system, he has a lot to learn and seems to be willing.

Well considering that he has meant to have researched it - I think that although he appreciated RTTM he had not understood it and dismissed it almost out of hand, we never sadly got to discuss the 85th %ile nor the way that speed has been reduced to the 'mean' and so on.
I do want to redo many of the links to the government appropriate pages as they were all moved and at the moment it is all moving again it seems - fair enough with a new Government in place.
To roll this out and at night too will increase so much un-necessary paranoia and then all the rest of the negative side effects of cameras.

_________________
Safe Speed for Intelligent Road Safety through proper research, experience & guidance.

I don't believe he did dismiss RTTM "out of hand" at all, he said he understood regression artefacts and had taken these into account.

You can't go round saying RTTM this and RTTM that without fully appreciating how the artefacts can be taken into account and benefits shown after these artefacts have been accounted for.

You have to admit that on sites that have had long-term implementation that artefacts are accounted for and that the MEAN has been influenced by the deployment of speed enforcement systems. Perhaps we shoudl term this RBTH, Regression Beyond the Mean!

If you don't admit or see that then it is you who is not accounting for RTTM and maintain its improper use as a sound-byte; that I believe is the current situation.

You said you have a huge forum also, how are you measuring that? If you count it in words you have, if you count it in the number of campaign members who contribute then you do not. If I didn't bother with it you would loose 20% of your regular contributions...maybe I didn't account for RTTM there.

When Safespeed is mentioned in road safety circles those present still believe it is the safe speed for a vehicle at a location and not a road safety campaign; perhaps you should rename the campaign "WHO", oh hang on, there already is one.

For the most part this hasn't happened. SCPs and various representatives are still claiming reductions at camera sites without accounting for RTTM (even 5 year after the effect is proven). A quick search on this forum will prove that.
If he really did understand this, he would have accepted that current claims from SCPs are wildly and wantonly false.


Not in the slightest!

There are other factors to consider, such as “long-term trends” (safer cars, better post crash care), as well as additional measures applied to the defined camera site (pedestrian crossings/barriers, cycle lanes, junction re-engineering, etc).

These are factors have been repeatedly given to you; how do you keep forgetting these?

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

Keep up the speculation and you will remain a source of amusement.

Don't you see the irony of your comment?

Were you saying the same about RTTM before that analysis was published too? I guess you would have said the same about Galileo and the heliocentric model too, or relativity, or any other subsequently proven model - right? If not, what exactly is the difference?

Do you even question that other there are additional installed at speed camera sites, or that these other additions do anything to aid safety? There's plenty of hard evidence demonstrating both of those factors, so this argument goes beyond your mere 'guesswork'.

Was the factor of "long-term trends" part of that speculation?

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

I am glad that you find road safety such an 'amusement' but I take it very seriously indeed.
From your earlier post too - you really do not understand RTTM.
One can only assume that you are aware of Dr L Mountain's research that proved too the TRL595 does NOT allow for RTTM and agreed with our website figures. Why do you dismiss this ?

_________________
Safe Speed for Intelligent Road Safety through proper research, experience & guidance.

You do talk some rubbish.
Bring on the hoards from the large forum to debate it. There are only 2 posters on here worth debating with and you are not one of them.

Not the reply of someone with facts on their side!

_________________
Regulation without education merely creates more criminals.

You do not appear to wish to debate it with 1 person, let alone many.
If I talk 'rubbish' how come more cameras are being removed and our message is slowly but surely getting through ?
Why not just answer my question above ?

_________________
Safe Speed for Intelligent Road Safety through proper research, experience & guidance.