Safe Speed Forums

The campaign for genuine road safety
It is currently Fri Nov 15, 2019 19:27

All times are UTC [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 24 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2  Next
Author Message
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Mar 03, 2005 17:28 
Offline
Camera Partnership Staff
Camera Partnership Staff

Joined: Mon Jan 17, 2005 15:38
Posts: 413
Here's a taster of the control site data, don't tell Steve I've let it out. Ho Ho!

These are the KSI comparators between core camera sites and control sites. The figures show the change in accident volumes at control and core sites.

.....................2003..............2004
Core Site.........-41% ...........-71%

Control Site......-11%............-11%

That looks pretty convincing to me. How about you guys?


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Mar 03, 2005 17:37 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Sat Mar 06, 2004 06:46
Posts: 16903
Location: Safe Speed
JJ wrote:
Here's a taster of the control site data, don't tell Steve I've let it out. Ho Ho!

These are the KSI comparators between core camera sites and control sites. The figures show the change in accident volumes at control and core sites.

.....................2003..............2004
Core Site.........-41% ...........-71%

Control Site......-11%............-11%

That looks pretty convincing to me. How about you guys?


If it's genuinely straight, it's amazing - far too amazing, I'd say.

Now:

* Why don't I trust you?

* Why haven't you given out this stuff before?

* What are the sites and the real numbers? (not percentages)

_________________
Paul Smith
Our scrap speed cameras petition got over 28,000 sigs
The Safe Speed campaign demands a return to intelligent road safety


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Mar 03, 2005 17:58 
Offline
Member
Member

Joined: Thu Mar 11, 2004 00:24
Posts: 2400
Location: Kendal, Cumbria
Yes, come on JJ, can we have (and I quote) "external references or links to real data." please?

_________________
CSCP Latin for beginners...
Ticketo ergo sum : I scam therefore I am!


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Mar 03, 2005 18:18 
Offline
User

Joined: Tue Mar 09, 2004 12:33
Posts: 770
Location: Earith, Cambs
SafeSpeed wrote:
JJ wrote:
Here's a taster of the control site data, don't tell Steve I've let it out. Ho Ho!

These are the KSI comparators between core camera sites and control sites. The figures show the change in accident volumes at control and core sites.

.....................2003..............2004
Core Site.........-41% ...........-71%

Control Site......-11%............-11%

That looks pretty convincing to me. How about you guys?


If it's genuinely straight, it's amazing - far too amazing, I'd say.

Now:

* Why don't I trust you?

* Why haven't you given out this stuff before?

* What are the sites and the real numbers? (not percentages)


Was that one monitored site and one core site, or an average of all sites in percentage terms?
If you have taken all the monitored sites over the total time frame during which scameras have been deployed, and then taken all the control sites for the same period, and those percentages as stated are confirmed as true and properly audited by an external source, then I could well be persuaded that the scameras are working.
Let's have all the data, please, so that the numbers mean something and are defined data. After all, you could have taken the best camera site and the worst control site. What happens if you take the worst camera site and the best control site. Neither would have real meaning. There are not too many sites in total, so why can't the matrix be published? That would settle the matter once and for all.
We live in hope.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Mar 03, 2005 18:22 
Offline
User

Joined: Thu Jun 10, 2004 18:58
Posts: 306
Location: LanCA$Hire ex Kendal
Out of interest, which 3 camera sites have had the most number of fatals since April 2003?

A7 Westlinton? A66 Crackenthorpe? A591 Ings? :wink: :wink:


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Mar 03, 2005 18:37 
Offline
Camera Partnership Staff
Camera Partnership Staff

Joined: Mon Jan 17, 2005 15:38
Posts: 413
SafeSpeed wrote:
JJ wrote:
Here's a taster of the control site data, don't tell Steve I've let it out. Ho Ho!

These are the KSI comparators between core camera sites and control sites. The figures show the change in accident volumes at control and core sites.

.....................2003..............2004
Core Site.........-41% ...........-71%

Control Site......-11%............-11%

That looks pretty convincing to me. How about you guys?


If it's genuinely straight, it's amazing - far too amazing, I'd say.

Now:

* Why don't I trust you?

* Why haven't you given out this stuff before?

* What are the sites and the real numbers? (not percentages)


Its taken a hell of a long time for me to get the data, truth beknown its only been in the last few months that I have the capability to extract the information, prior to that the system we had was a bit slow and I would still have been here now collecting it I have been to busy doing other things.
I do have the site and control site data. when it has been checked by the powers that be I will post it in the Library as a pdf document. Must admit I had to double check it a few times. I don't want to be complacent with figures like that. The cameras have there place but there is a lot more to casualty reduction than just using those. They only affect the core site and not the county as a whole. We need to address driver behaviour in a big way and we can only do that through education and all of the organisations working together (even Anti-camera ones)

JJ


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Mar 03, 2005 19:10 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Sat Mar 06, 2004 06:46
Posts: 16903
Location: Safe Speed
JJ wrote:
Its taken a hell of a long time for me to get the data, truth beknown its only been in the last few months that I have the capability to extract the information, prior to that the system we had was a bit slow and I would still have been here now collecting it I have been to busy doing other things.
I do have the site and control site data. when it has been checked by the powers that be I will post it in the Library as a pdf document. Must admit I had to double check it a few times. I don't want to be complacent with figures like that. The cameras have there place but there is a lot more to casualty reduction than just using those. They only affect the core site and not the county as a whole. We need to address driver behaviour in a big way and we can only do that through education and all of the organisations working together (even Anti-camera ones)


I split this to a new topic.

In order to properly evaluate these amazing claims we need:
  • site location, size and name
  • site crash history by severity and by year (for at least three years before enforcement)
  • site traffic volume data by yearor better
  • site speed survey data by year or better
  • date of commencement of camera enforcement
  • a written assurance that we are looking at comprehensive data, not a subset
  • notes about other safety treatments applied to sites, including date and description
  • an indication of the degree of enforcement at the enforced sites
  • site selection/deselection criteria notes
I'm not yet 100% certain that I have provided a comprehensive list of needs.

If this list of needs is met I will publish results and analysis to the Safe Speed web site irrespective of the findings. You can't say fairer than that.

_________________
Paul Smith
Our scrap speed cameras petition got over 28,000 sigs
The Safe Speed campaign demands a return to intelligent road safety


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Mar 03, 2005 20:43 
Offline
Camera Partnership Staff
Camera Partnership Staff

Joined: Mon Jan 17, 2005 15:38
Posts: 413
Here's my take on your questions:
1. site location, size and name
2. site crash history by severity and by year (for at least three years before enforcement)
3. site traffic volume data by yearor better
4. site speed survey data by year or better
5. date of commencement of camera enforcement
6. a written assurance that we are looking at comprehensive data, not a subset
7. notes about other safety treatments applied to sites, including date and description
8. an indication of the degree of enforcement at the enforced sites
9. site selection/deselection criteria notes

1. All of our sites have had the accident data averaged, so these cover core safety camera sites 49 and 11 control sites. All 49 core sites are published. Control site locations will not be published or they will loose their viability.
2. We wil publish these after verification.
3. We'll think about it but I can't see why not.
4. Same as 3.
5. 07 April 2003.
6. I and steve find this offensive and wonder just why you think you can demand this of us. Allude to trickery again and we will withdraw all communication.
7. As far as we know there are no other safety treatments as this would negate the validity of the control site. If any site has other safety treatment then they are immediately withdrawn from the program. The A7 at Westlinton is undergoing safety treatment. Should this sort the problems, the stats and enforcement will cease after review by the steering group in accordance with the rules.
8. This will be refused and resisted with an exemption under FOI. It is not in the public interest to release site specific enforcement data as it may reduce deterrence.
9. They have all been selected in accordance with DfT criteria for safety cameras. The control sites were sites that were rejected for 2003/4. No notes exist as far as we know.

There you go. I think these figures shatter your regression dreams as far as how we operate the system up here.

You will I think struggle to demean these figures. You asked for them and now have the first release. Please pass comment but don't resort to comments of improper behavior, it does not do you any favours and highlights your struggle to show that cameras don't work to reduce localised KSI casualties. These surely show they do.

Thanks for the offer of publication but please don't, we don't require it of you.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Mar 03, 2005 21:09 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Sat Mar 06, 2004 06:46
Posts: 16903
Location: Safe Speed
JJ wrote:
1. All of our sites have had the accident data averaged, so these cover core safety camera sites 49 and 11 control sites. All 49 core sites are published. Control site locations will not be published or they will loose their viability.


I don't see that, but it doesn't matter so long as we get enough to understand the nature of the sites.


JJ wrote:
6. I and steve find this offensive and wonder just why you think you can demand this of us. Allude to trickery again and we will withdraw all communication.


Are you suggesting that you are unable to provide such a basic assurance? It does not reflect on your integrity. However it does reflect on the usefulness of the data. Without the assurance the data is useless.

JJ wrote:
8. This will be refused and resisted with an exemption under FOI. It is not in the public interest to release site specific enforcement data as it may reduce deterrence.


An indication is necessary and will be insufficient to affect enforcement. We can't afford to accidentally include 'substantially inactive' sites. You have already published enforcement schedules - the number of enforcement days per year would be excellent. Other specifications such as 'more than 10 times per year' may be adequate. I expect we can find a form that is acceptable.

JJ wrote:
There you go. I think these figures shatter your regression dreams as far as how we operate the system up here.

You will I think struggle to demean these figures. You asked for them and now have the first release. Please pass comment but don't resort to comments of improper behavior, it does not do you any favours and highlights your struggle to show that cameras don't work to reduce localised KSI casualties. These surely show they do.

Thanks for the offer of publication but please don't, we don't require it of you.


?

_________________
Paul Smith
Our scrap speed cameras petition got over 28,000 sigs
The Safe Speed campaign demands a return to intelligent road safety


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Mar 03, 2005 21:43 
Offline
Member
Member

Joined: Thu Mar 11, 2004 00:24
Posts: 2400
Location: Kendal, Cumbria
JJ,

Thanks for the reply. I truly hope we are entering a new era of "openness", and with that optimistic hope in mind can I raise the following as "matters arising"?

You mention 11 "control" sites, yet when this issue was first raised all that time ago I could have sworn the statement was that approximately 50% of "qualifying sites" (by which I mean those with sufficient KSI history to qualify for cameras) were rejected due to operational / safety issues. So I would expect there to be around 50 control sites, not 11. Can you explain this discrepancy?

Why do you feel that publishing the locations of the control sites would in any way affect the viability of the measurement?

On many occasions you have alluded to the immense difficulties of extracting and / or collating the data. Is there no way you can produce just a simple listing of the data in it's most basic form. For example, surely you could generate the raw data for all KSI "clusters" in just a simple table of this form...

| DATE| Location Ref | Camera Site (Y/N) |

From this sort of basic data I reckon it would be the work of just a couple of hours to load it into a relational database and produce a set of SQL queries that would spit out all the comparitive analysis we have asked for - and more! I'm really at a loss to see how it can be as complicated as you say. Note that this format doesn't even need you to divulge the actual locations, nor any specific or personal info about any of the accidents, yet at a stroke this would lay to rest all the concerns Paul has raised.

If there's more to it than that I'd be happy to continue the debate, but right now I'm really baffled to understand what can make this so complicated!

_________________
CSCP Latin for beginners...
Ticketo ergo sum : I scam therefore I am!


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Mar 03, 2005 22:13 
Offline
Camera Partnership Staff
Camera Partnership Staff

Joined: Mon Jan 17, 2005 15:38
Posts: 413
JT wrote:
Is there no way you can produce just a simple listing of the data in it's most basic form. For example, surely you could generate the raw data for all KSI "clusters" in just a simple table of this form...

Yes there is and that is what I have done.
It is getting to the data that is the difficult and time consuming part.
That is now done.
You can cogetate at the results for a couple of weeks now its done.
Enjoy!


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Mar 03, 2005 22:19 
Offline
Member
Member

Joined: Thu Mar 11, 2004 00:24
Posts: 2400
Location: Kendal, Cumbria
JJ wrote:
JT wrote:
Is there no way you can produce just a simple listing of the data in it's most basic form. For example, surely you could generate the raw data for all KSI "clusters" in just a simple table of this form...

Yes there is and that is what I have done.
It is getting to the data that is the difficult and time consuming part.
That is now done.
You can cogetate at the results for a couple of weeks now its done.
Enjoy!

So the problem was presumably one of collating data from various sources into a single conformant table? In my job I can certainly identify with that.... :roll:

So if the good news is that you now have that data available, any chance you could email me (say) a csv format dump of the 3 column "de-personalised" table as mentioned in my last post? :D

_________________
CSCP Latin for beginners...
Ticketo ergo sum : I scam therefore I am!


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Mar 03, 2005 23:02 
Offline
Camera Partnership Staff
Camera Partnership Staff

Joined: Mon Jan 17, 2005 15:38
Posts: 413
JT wrote:
JJ wrote:
JT wrote:
Is there no way you can produce just a simple listing of the data in it's most basic form. For example, surely you could generate the raw data for all KSI "clusters" in just a simple table of this form...

Yes there is and that is what I have done.
It is getting to the data that is the difficult and time consuming part.
That is now done.
You can cogetate at the results for a couple of weeks now its done.
Enjoy!

So the problem was presumably one of collating data from various sources into a single conformant table? In my job I can certainly identify with that.... :roll:

So if the good news is that you now have that data available, any chance you could email me (say) a csv format dump of the 3 column "de-personalised" table as mentioned in my last post? :D

None!

See my statement earlier "2. We will publish these after verification.
"


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Mar 03, 2005 23:06 
Offline
Member
Member

Joined: Thu Mar 11, 2004 00:24
Posts: 2400
Location: Kendal, Cumbria
Ah.

So I can't cogitate at the results for a couple of weeks after all then? :cry:

_________________
CSCP Latin for beginners...
Ticketo ergo sum : I scam therefore I am!


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Mar 03, 2005 23:56 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Sat Mar 06, 2004 06:46
Posts: 16903
Location: Safe Speed
Someone logged on as JJ wrote:
You will I think struggle to demean these figures. You asked for them and now have the first release. Please pass comment but don't resort to comments of improper behavior, it does not do you any favours and highlights your struggle to show that cameras don't work to reduce localised KSI casualties. These surely show they do.

Thanks for the offer of publication but please don't, we don't require it of you.


<sniff> <sniff> <sniff>

Hello Steve.

Why don't you register yourself or log on as itschampionman or gameboy?

I'd prefer it if we knew who we were dealing with. Thanks.

_________________
Paul Smith
Our scrap speed cameras petition got over 28,000 sigs
The Safe Speed campaign demands a return to intelligent road safety


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Mar 05, 2005 18:20 
Offline
Camera Partnership Staff
Camera Partnership Staff

Joined: Mon Jan 17, 2005 15:38
Posts: 413
I notice you have been very quiet about the much saught after control site results. What's wrong, are these figures disproving your regression claims? Come on folk, these are the results in the Cumbria camp. You wanted them and now they don't suit you. Why are you not comparing them to the made up graphs and claims on the safespeed site regarding regression? It's so quiet I think you are running scared. Can that be true at last?

JJ


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Mar 05, 2005 19:04 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Sat Mar 06, 2004 06:46
Posts: 16903
Location: Safe Speed
JJ wrote:
I notice you have been very quiet about the much saught after control site results. What's wrong, are these figures disproving your regression claims?


You asked us to wait for data we could examine. We're waiting.

_________________
Paul Smith
Our scrap speed cameras petition got over 28,000 sigs
The Safe Speed campaign demands a return to intelligent road safety


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Mar 05, 2005 19:09 
Offline
Camera Partnership Staff
Camera Partnership Staff

Joined: Mon Jan 17, 2005 15:38
Posts: 413
SafeSpeed wrote:
JJ wrote:
I notice you have been very quiet about the much saught after control site results. What's wrong, are these figures disproving your regression claims?


You asked us to wait for data we could examine. We're waiting.


Paul we have given you the result from months of hard work, and verification we do not need anyone else to check it. Thanks! What we would prefere is comments. Thanks!

JJ


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Mar 05, 2005 20:51 
Offline
Gold Member
Gold Member

Joined: Sat Mar 06, 2004 16:34
Posts: 923
Location: UK
JJ wrote:
Paul we have given you the result from months of hard work, and verification we do not need anyone else to check it. Thanks! What we would prefere is comments. Thanks!

For a start there aren't enough controls (there should really be at least as many controls as camera sites - and 1/5th isn't nearly enough).

Secondly it would be nice to see the specifics of the actual camera sites - whether the locations, accident volumes, sizes etc. are representative. I don't understand your reasoning for not releasing the details - quite what "viability" would be lost is a mystery, let alone how!

Gareth


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Mar 05, 2005 21:37 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Sat Mar 06, 2004 06:46
Posts: 16903
Location: Safe Speed
JJ wrote:
SafeSpeed wrote:
JJ wrote:
I notice you have been very quiet about the much saught after control site results. What's wrong, are these figures disproving your regression claims?


You asked us to wait for data we could examine. We're waiting.


Paul we have given you the result from months of hard work, and verification we do not need anyone else to check it. Thanks! What we would prefere is comments. Thanks!

JJ


You had your response in ten minutes. It went like this:

SafeSpeed wrote:
If it's genuinely straight, it's amazing - far too amazing, I'd say.

Now:

* Why don't I trust you?

* Why haven't you given out this stuff before?

* What are the sites and the real numbers? (not percentages)


Within an hour and a half, I gave you a list of needs so that we could examine the data and the conclusions. I'm waiting.

_________________
Paul Smith
Our scrap speed cameras petition got over 28,000 sigs
The Safe Speed campaign demands a return to intelligent road safety


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 24 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2  Next

All times are UTC [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest


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 : 0.314s | 13 Queries | GZIP : Off ]