Safe Speed Forums

The campaign for genuine road safety
It is currently Sun Feb 23, 2020 09:15

All times are UTC [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 94 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next
Author Message
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Jan 29, 2008 20:58 
Offline
User

Joined: Sun Sep 03, 2006 04:10
Posts: 3244
Appendix H

Quote:
Since the site selection guidelines for cameras include threshold levels of both
all personal injury collisions (PICs) and fatal and serious collisions (FSCs),
it is likely that some of the observed reductions in collisions will be attributable
to regression-to-mean (RTM) effects rather than the effects of the cameras.
Whenever site selection is based on particularly high numbers of observed
collisions in a particular period of time, the sites identified will tend to be
those with more collisions than expected during the period of observation.
Such locations will then tend to have fewer collisions in a subsequent time
period (with or without a camera) simply because the collision count in the
first time period was abnormally high. This is the RTM effect. If RTM effects
are not allowed for there is a danger that the effectiveness of cameras will
be over-estimated.
The purpose of the analysis described in this appendix is to estimate the size
of the reduction attributable to RTM effects and hence to estimate the safety
effects of cameras, free of the effects of both the general long-term trend in
collision frequencies and RTM.


http://www.thenewspaper.com/rlc/docs/05-ukspeedcam4.pdf

_________________
The world runs on oil, period. No other substance can compete when it comes to energy density, flexibility, ease of handling, ease of transportation. If oil didn’t exist we would have to invent it.”

56 years after it was decided it was needed, the Bedford Bypass is nearing completion. The last single carriageway length of it.We have the most photogenic mayor though, always being photographed doing nothing


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Jan 31, 2008 02:44 
Offline
User

Joined: Wed Dec 19, 2007 17:12
Posts: 618
Location: Borough of Queens, NYC, NY USA
In Amerika, it is a little known fact that the insurance companies purchase radar and laser guns as GIFTS for police departments. It is an even lesser known fact that the average cop will use that gift to catch enough people driving 13MpH or more over the posted speed 'limit' to pay for that radar or laser gun in a month or less, simply because enough people's insurance premiums will soon increase from having more points (here the number of points usually matters more than what type of points), and thereby being assessed greater risk.

If insurance companies in the UK do not penalize people for having points from speeding, then I'm happy for you. Americans do not beneifit from the same grace.

Meanwhile, SafeSpeed argues that neither a speed camera nor a posted numerical speed 'limit' can determine a reasonable and prudent speed to travel thru any area that would be observed by a camera or an officer, and further, that a camera is a poor substitute for a police officer who has been trained to consider a matrix of factors, and can exercise discretion and judgement that the camera cannot. (In Amerika, your social status and position in government agencies determines whether or not you will be cited for driving over the posted 'limit'.)

I once mentioned something to sixy the red about honesty and engineers. Let's face it, we can argue about safety all we want.
Safety is not the bottom line for insurance companies and scamera partnerships, it's money. They will continue to operate in their own best interests - money - as long their motives can be made to appear to be in the public interests.

As far as speed cameras are concerned, it is already a proven fact that the majority of speed cameras were placed where more people tend to drive over the posted 'limit', ergo, where they would most quickly pay for themselves.

It would then be a safe guess that the cameras that will be the first to go will be the ones that have made the least amount of money over the greatest period of time, if the camera's operators decide which ones go when.
If, instead, the government decides which ones go when, what are the governments motives at that time?

_________________
The Rules for ALL ROAD USERS:
1) No one gets hurt
2) Nothing gets hit, except to protect others; see Rule#1
3) The Laws of Physics are invincible and immutable - so-called 'laws' of men are not
4) You are always immediately and ultimately responsible for your safety first, then proximately responsible for everyone's
Do not let other road users' mistakes become yours, nor yours become others
5) The rest, including laws of the land, is thoughtful observation, prescience, etiquette, decorum, and cooperation


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Jan 31, 2008 06:42 
Offline
Banned
Banned

Joined: Fri Jan 18, 2008 18:34
Posts: 90
Thatsnews wrote:
toltec wrote:
crw wrote:

And there is research done insurance companies on colours of cars.


Really? Next you will be telling me that they do research on your Zodiac sign.

Good to see you are not a fly by night poster and are sticking with the topic you started. Speaking of research, have you found any evidence that removing speed cameras causes accidents yet?


We are waiting for crw to provide infromation on research he says Monash University has undertaken. Don't hold your breath...

I gave up waiting and found the link myself. Needless to say the results are not quite as significant as claimed.

http://www.monash.edu.au/muarc/reports/muarc078.html

Any experts here like to comment, please?


Thatsnew if you really visited Monash you would have noticed there is more then link, where all of them couldn't fit in this forum.

So may I suggest you go back and do further research if you don't want to look like you are scare of the truth again?

As didn't it in the link you provided mentioned "significant crash reduction" when it comes to speed cameras in Melbourne?

But then again only one link is better then what you can do, as we are still waiting for you and the so called experts to provided proof that removing cameras lives well be saved or that under UK laws it is against the law to name a vehicle in a web site?


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Jan 31, 2008 07:06 
Offline
Banned
Banned

Joined: Fri Jan 18, 2008 18:34
Posts: 90
thatsnew you found what only one link?

When I done a search for "speed cameras" on The Monash Site I found 10 pages with information on speed cameras, but I didn't put up the link to these 10 pages, as the link is too long.

So may I suggest you go back to Monash and do more research, of course if you are not scare of the truth regarding speed cameras saving lives?

And how long do we have to wait before you and the other so called experts in Safe Speed provided proof that is not connected to Safe Speed, that removing speed cameras lives well saved that some claim?


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Jan 31, 2008 07:34 
Offline
Banned
Banned

Joined: Fri Jan 18, 2008 18:34
Posts: 90
Tol if you done any research and stop wasting time and effort in here writing BS.

You would have noticed there is in fact information of which car colour is safer and on Zodiac signs such as people saying The Zodiac signs is a load of bull.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Jan 31, 2008 08:13 
Offline
Gold Member
Gold Member

Joined: Thu Nov 09, 2006 14:06
Posts: 3654
Location: Oxfordshire
Good heavens, do we not require at least basic levels of literacy here, not to mention not repeating oneself like a broken record?!

crw, one might consider, if they were not of the belligerent, dogmatic bent you seem to occupy, and perhaps more of a pragmatist, that those you seek to deride have indeed done research, and posted links to the parts which they feel support their case, whereas you have merely made oblique suggestions that something may exist on that site to support your case. I would suggest that, if you have this irrefutable evidence, you might like to show others where it exists, otherwise a sceptic might have trouble believing you, particularly given your immature attitude towards other posters.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Jan 31, 2008 10:48 
Offline
User
User avatar

Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2005 13:55
Posts: 2247
Location: middlish
RobinXe wrote:
crw, one might consider, if they were not of the belligerent, dogmatic bent you seem to occupy, and perhaps more of a pragmatist, that those you seek to deride have indeed done research, and posted links to the parts which they feel support their case, whereas you have merely made oblique suggestions that something may exist on that site to support your case. I would suggest that, if you have this irrefutable evidence, you might like to show others where it exists, otherwise a sceptic might have trouble believing you, particularly given your immature attitude towards other posters.


erudite

:D


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Jan 31, 2008 11:05 
Offline
User

Joined: Thu Jan 11, 2007 02:25
Posts: 331
I think crw needs to read some more of the monash site he is so fond of. I have looked at several of the reports and they seem to carry on in a similar vein. Crash rates at monitored sites do not go down. I will continue to read


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Jan 31, 2008 11:12 
Offline
Life Member
Life Member
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 22, 2006 13:54
Posts: 1711
Location: NW Kent
crw wrote:
Tol if you done any research and stop wasting time and effort in here writing BS.

You would have noticed there is in fact information of which car colour is safer and on Zodiac signs such as people saying The Zodiac signs is a load of bull.


If you look back cr you may notice you were the one that mentioned the research done by insurance companies on car colours. My reply was in the form known as ironic.

May I suggest you consider using http://www.tinyurl.com if you are having a problem with the length of the search page link.

Having read the articles you found would you also like to post your thoughts regarding the findings of the these papers.

I could ask that you ensure no report commissioned or funded by a government agency or company with a vested interest in speed cameras be included as they will obviously be biased, that however would be puerile.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Jan 31, 2008 15:05 
Offline
Gold Member
Gold Member
User avatar

Joined: Mon Mar 26, 2007 16:34
Posts: 4923
Location: Somewhere between a rock and a hard place
Hmmm…

I dated a girl some years ago, (who I still keep in touch with), who has Aspergers. Her texts and emails are something to behold and yet she reads more books than me! She's very wise and kind hearted with a wonderful recollection for dates and facts but her English and grammar are really bad. She's not stupid, far from, and I've become quite adept at deciphering her writing these days in fact.

I don't know if crw is doing it purposely or not, and I don't mean this as a put-down, but on a forum we need to understand your point crw otherwise we are lost. The trouble with forums' is that without the face-to-face we don't know whether your are deliberately being obtuse or what, so please try to understand it from our point of view.

That aside - The bigger picture is that we have two extremes and a lot of grey where you broadly have about five groups I would say. Maybe you would agree: -

A) Want everything to go as slowly as possible.
B) Want to go at the speed limit.
C) Not obsessed with speed limits - just want to go carefully and live their lives so may drift over. (By maybe 5 - 10 mph)
D) Like to get a wriggle on and regularly & deliberately push the limit, maybe because of job/ time constraints. (But still not a threat to society)
E) Want to use the roads as their personal race track without any regard for other road users who may be present.

It's like trying to get everyone to believe in one religion. The difference being that people can follow whatever faith, or no faith, without bothering anyone else whereas we all have to use the roads.

Therein lies our problem in a nutshell IMHO

_________________
The views expressed in this post are personal opinions and do not necessarily represent the views of Safe Speed.
You will be branded a threat to society by going over a speed limit where it is safe to do so, and suffer the consequences of your actions in a way criminals do not, more so than someone who is a real threat to our society.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Jan 31, 2008 17:58 
Offline
User

Joined: Sun Oct 07, 2007 19:58
Posts: 730
Big Tone wrote:
Hmmm…

I dated a girl some years ago, (who I still keep in touch with), who has Aspergers. Her texts and emails are something to behold and yet she reads more books than me! She's very wise and kind hearted with a wonderful recollection for dates and facts but her English and grammar are really bad. She's not stupid, far from, and I've become quite adept at deciphering her writing these days in fact.

I don't know if crw is doing it purposely or not, and I don't mean this as a put-down, but on a forum we need to understand your point crw otherwise we are lost. The trouble with forums' is that without the face-to-face we don't know whether your are deliberately being obtuse or what, so please try to understand it from our point of view.

That aside - The bigger picture is that we have two extremes and a lot of grey where you broadly have about five groups I would say. Maybe you would agree: -

A) Want everything to go as slowly as possible.
B) Want to go at the speed limit.
C) Not obsessed with speed limits - just want to go carefully and live their lives so may drift over. (By maybe 5 - 10 mph)
D) Like to get a wriggle on and regularly & deliberately push the limit, maybe because of job/ time constraints. (But still not a threat to society)
E) Want to use the roads as their personal race track without any regard for other road users who may be present.

It's like trying to get everyone to believe in one religion. The difference being that people can follow whatever faith, or no faith, without bothering anyone else whereas we all have to use the roads.

Therein lies our problem in a nutshell IMHO


Big Tone, those are very good points. Thank you for putting it so clearly. :bighand:

_________________
www.thatsnews.org.uk / www.thatsnews.blogspot.com / http://thatsmotoring.blogspot.com/


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Jan 31, 2008 19:59 
Offline
User

Joined: Fri Mar 11, 2005 09:01
Posts: 1548
toltec wrote:
But would never buy a silver car.

Last year, any car in silver was worth (on average) £200 more than the same model in any other colour.

As for being loaded on insurance if you had a car in a certain colour, I did read (around 3 years ago) that if your car was white, black, or red then it would cost you more on the premium.

_________________
What makes you think I'm drunk officer, have I got a fat bird with me?


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Jan 31, 2008 20:03 
Offline
Gold Member
Gold Member
User avatar

Joined: Wed Dec 08, 2004 14:26
Posts: 4364
Location: Hampshire/Wiltshire Border
I use Confused to get a handle on my car insurance. They don't ask the colour of your car so how can this loading of premiums be right.

P.S. I know they have a lookup from DVLA data but you can circumvent this and select make and model instead.

_________________
Malcolm W.
The views expressed in this post are personal opinions and do not represent the views of Safespeed.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Jan 31, 2008 21:12 
Offline
User

Joined: Sun Oct 07, 2007 19:58
Posts: 730
Quote:
Thatsnew if you really visited Monash you would have noticed there is more then link, where all of them couldn't fit in this forum.


Err... CRW, You have been a bit of a silly Billy, haven't you? A moments thought before you posted the above would have made you realise that of course I must have visited the Monash University site... or else how would I have found the link to the research paper there? :roll:

_________________
www.thatsnews.org.uk / www.thatsnews.blogspot.com / http://thatsmotoring.blogspot.com/


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Feb 01, 2008 08:07 
Offline
Banned
Banned

Joined: Fri Jan 18, 2008 18:34
Posts: 90
Thatsnews wrote:
Quote:
Thatsnew if you really visited Monash you would have noticed there is more then link, where all of them couldn't fit in this forum.


Err... CRW, You have been a bit of a silly Billy, haven't you? A moments thought before you posted the above would have made you realise that of course I must have visited the Monash University site... or else how would I have found the link to the research paper there? :roll:


One link :clap1: :clap1: thatsnew, you are being a silly billy when facing the truth aren't you?

Because if you did in fact visited the Monash site and done a search on speed cameras (top right search box), you would soon realise that there is more then one link in fact, there are 10 pages on speed cameras, which I can put up, if I am allowed as the link would go over more then 1 line?

But why are we still waiting for information from you where the source and evidence is not connected to you or safe speed that proves removing speed cameras, lives well be saved as you claim or that it is against The UK Law to name a vehicle on a web site?

Waiting, Waiting, Waiting, Waiting etc etc :fastasleep:

PS Thatsnew are you one these people who hears one word and you twist this word around to make it what you wanted to hear or read, which is not the truth?

For example on 9/11 some people said what happened sounded like an explosion, but others twisted these words around and made it into 'it was an explosion'.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Feb 01, 2008 08:15 
Offline
Gold Member
Gold Member

Joined: Thu Nov 09, 2006 14:06
Posts: 3654
Location: Oxfordshire
Hmm, one link versus no links. By my maths thats 1-0.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Feb 01, 2008 09:55 
Offline
Gold Member
Gold Member
User avatar

Joined: Mon Mar 26, 2007 16:34
Posts: 4923
Location: Somewhere between a rock and a hard place
Thatsnews wrote:
Big Tone, those are very good points. Thank you for putting it so clearly. :bighand:


Thankyou Thatsnews. BTW, I think you may have to just change your name ;)

_________________
The views expressed in this post are personal opinions and do not necessarily represent the views of Safe Speed.
You will be branded a threat to society by going over a speed limit where it is safe to do so, and suffer the consequences of your actions in a way criminals do not, more so than someone who is a real threat to our society.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Feb 01, 2008 10:43 
Offline
User
User avatar

Joined: Sat Apr 23, 2005 08:22
Posts: 2618
crw. If you want to post a long ling you can use HTML code to shorten it.

Simply type {url=www.whatever.com} some text {/url}
(with square brackets [] rather than curly brackets {}) and you will get the following:

SafeSpeed homepage.

Give it a try.

_________________
Science won over religion when they started installing lightning rods on churches.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Feb 01, 2008 10:51 
Offline
Life Member
Life Member
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 22, 2006 13:54
Posts: 1711
Location: NW Kent
crw wrote:
can put up, if I am allowed as the link would go over more then 1 line?


I point out again http://www.tinyurl.com



crw wrote:
But why are we still waiting for information from you where the source and evidence is not connected to you or safe speed that proves removing speed cameras, lives well be saved as you claim or that it is against The UK Law to name a vehicle on a web site?


The evidence and data on which the conclusions stated by Safespeed are based are from government funded sources. Safespeed, as far as I am aware, has not commissioned or financed any of the work which lead to this data being collected.

Can you produce evidence to show that the current policies, which include the use of speed cameras, are saving lives? This information should come from data collected for UK roads.

_________________
Driving fast is for a particular time and place, I can do it I just only do it occasionally because I am a gentleman.
- James May


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Feb 01, 2008 22:27 
Offline
User

Joined: Wed Nov 16, 2005 18:50
Posts: 673
Oh god I was really hoping that CannotReadorWrite would have gone by now.

CannotReadorWrite you have been answered every time you have asked a question we could understand, but because you don't like the answers you stamp your feet and shout "liar!".

So once again I will ask you the question you have avoided: Are you going to ask a sensible questions and debate points, or are you just here to throw meaningless nonsense into the mix?


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 94 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next

All times are UTC [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
cron
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group
[ Time : 0.726s | 11 Queries | GZIP : Off ]