Safe Speed Forums

The campaign for genuine road safety
It is currently Wed Oct 16, 2019 09:04

All times are UTC [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 26 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2  Next
Author Message
 Post subject: Proof
PostPosted: Sun Mar 07, 2004 21:14 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Sat Mar 06, 2004 06:46
Posts: 16903
Location: Safe Speed
This topic relates to the Safe Speed page: "Proof".

http://www.safespeed.org.uk/proof.html

The Safe Speed page offers a clear logical proof that speeding doesn't normally kill.

_________________
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  
 
PostPosted: Sun Jan 08, 2006 00:09 
Offline
New User
New User

Joined: Sat Jan 07, 2006 23:18
Posts: 4
A minor point, would you provide the references in the appropriate published tables. I have the number of pedestrian casualties excluding deaths as 15819-107=15712 from table 33 in
http://www.dft.gov.uk/stellent/groups/d ... 024330.pdf

Your logic is flawed:

the fact that 65% of cars in 30 mph zones free-travel at over 30 mph tells you nothing at all about the speed of the particular cars involved in injuring those children.

Using the same logic: about 40% of people are in paid employment, therefore 40% of the residents of the old peoples home near where I live are in paid employment...oops! Well maybe, but then again maybe not.

As for your argument, this is what it amounts to:

maybe a lot of drivers of cars/bikes/whatever who hit a child are driving over the speed limit - no problem! They can always brake and mostly the kids won't die...

Marvellous...I'd put you in charge of a nursery! Don't bother to hide the sharp knives because when the kids cut themselves, mostly they won't die.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Jan 08, 2006 01:19 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Sat Mar 06, 2004 06:46
Posts: 16903
Location: Safe Speed
nevatre wrote:
A minor point, would you provide the references in the appropriate published tables. I have the number of pedestrian casualties excluding deaths as 15819-107=15712 from table 33 in
http://www.dft.gov.uk/stellent/groups/d ... 024330.pdf


The DfT have a habit of removing older data. The source data for the page in question is available in http://www.safespeed.org.uk/mainresults.zip

nevatre wrote:
Your logic is flawed:

the fact that 65% of cars in 30 mph zones free-travel at over 30 mph tells you nothing at all about the speed of the particular cars involved in injuring those children.


The logic isn't flawed. We've assumed that ALL the crash involved vehicles come from the {speeding} set. That's the worst possible condition. The relative rarity of the worst outcomes really is proof - unless you believe that the speeding vehicles don't exist or something.

nevatre wrote:
Using the same logic: about 40% of people are in paid employment, therefore 40% of the residents of the old peoples home near where I live are in paid employment...oops! Well maybe, but then again maybe not.

As for your argument, this is what it amounts to:

maybe a lot of drivers of cars/bikes/whatever who hit a child are driving over the speed limit - no problem! They can always brake and mostly the kids won't die...


Actually the purpose is something entirely different. It's about examining the processes that lead to the good outcomes and trying to find ways of doing that more. High levels of speed enforcement are FAILING to deliver road safety improvements. That's no surprise to us. 'Speeding' isn't a big part of our road safety problems.

_________________
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: Sun Jan 08, 2006 09:14 
Offline
New User
New User

Joined: Sat Jan 07, 2006 23:18
Posts: 4
How does it follow that 65% of the 15712 casualties were struck by a car that had been speeding? It might be that all 15712 casualties were struck by cars that had not been speeding. Unless you have extra evidence your conclusion is unsupported. So, your logic is flawed.

I didn't address your purpose, thats for you to know and others to speculate on. I addressed your argument, which amounts to this - I'ts OK to speed because drivers brake, then they only injure children, they don't kill them. No wonder you avoided trying to defend that...


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Jan 08, 2006 11:38 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Sat Mar 06, 2004 06:46
Posts: 16903
Location: Safe Speed
nevatre wrote:
How does it follow that 65% of the 15712 casualties were struck by a car that had been speeding? It might be that all 15712 casualties were struck by cars that had not been speeding. Unless you have extra evidence your conclusion is unsupported. So, your logic is flawed.


OK, so move all those to the non speeding set. Then we have the speeding set that didn't even get crash involved.

nevatre wrote:
I didn't address your purpose, thats for you to know and others to speculate on. I addressed your argument, which amounts to this - I'ts OK to speed because drivers brake, then they only injure children, they don't kill them. No wonder you avoided trying to defend that...


That would be true if it told the entire story. But it's only the tip of the iceberg. For every injury crash there are at least 10 incidents mitigated to near misses. The behaviours in the misses are not fundamentally different from the hits.

Road safety really does entirely depend on the mitigating behaviours. That's the point. But policy is telling everyone to concentrate on the wrong safety factor. This damages the mitigation behaviours on which we all depend.

This is well understood in industrial safety, but for some reason we're (national we) not smart enough to apply the same principles on the roads.

_________________
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: Sun Jan 08, 2006 12:29 
Offline
Life Member
Life Member
User avatar

Joined: Sat Jul 24, 2004 13:36
Posts: 1339
nevatre wrote:
How does it follow that 65% of the 15712 casualties were struck by a car that had been speeding? It might be that all 15712 casualties were struck by cars that had not been speeding. Unless you have extra evidence your conclusion is unsupported. So, your logic is flawed.


That would surely be strong evidence that speeding is safer than driving at the limit, if true.

It would also still disprove two of the key lies of camera partnerships: that most accidents involve a driver slightly over the speed limit, and that most of those accidents are fatal.

Quote:
I didn't address your purpose, thats for you to know and others to speculate on. I addressed your argument, which amounts to this - I'ts OK to speed because drivers brake, then they only injure children, they don't kill them. No wonder you avoided trying to defend that...


But drivers under the limit injure and kill children too. What Paul is showing is that the rate they do it is the same, and the issue of driving slightly over or under the speed limit makes no difference, because it is completely swamped by other factors, such as attention level.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Jan 08, 2006 13:12 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Sat Mar 06, 2004 06:46
Posts: 16903
Location: Safe Speed
Zamzara wrote:
But drivers under the limit injure and kill children too. What Paul is showing is that the rate they do it is the same...


To be accurate, the page in question doesn't show any such thing. But of course speeding is more comonplace in driving than 'excessive speed' is as a crash causation factor. At face value this appears to indicate that 'speeding' is safer than 'not speeding'. In reality what it really indicates is that speeding and crashing tend to take place in different circumstances. Speeding is most common on clear roads - where there are few hazards, while crashing is most common in high hazard situations.

Zamzara wrote:
...and the issue of driving slightly over or under the speed limit makes no difference, because it is completely swamped by other factors, such as attention level.


Whatever the mitigation behaviours are, they work in the vast majority of cases. The risk is that concentration on a minor safety factor damages the important mitigation behaviours (irrespective of what they are).

_________________
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: Sun Jan 08, 2006 14:36 
Offline
Life Member
Life Member
User avatar

Joined: Sat Jul 24, 2004 13:36
Posts: 1339
SafeSpeed wrote:
To be accurate, the page in question doesn't show any such thing.


Sorry, my mistake, I meant in your overall outlook rather than on that particular page. I should also have made it clear I meant drivers over the limit but still within a safe speed for the conditions.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Jan 08, 2006 20:51 
Offline
New User
New User

Joined: Sat Jan 07, 2006 23:18
Posts: 4
Quote:
OK, so move all those to the non speeding set. Then we have the speeding set that didn't even get crash involved.


This is a very odd comment. I think you understand exactly my original point - your logic is flawed because you can say nothing about the free travelling speed of drivers killing and injuring children (without detailed estimates for each case, you haven't quoted these even if they are available to you.). Your argument is presented as a logical proof, it doesn't work. In other words the statement

Quote:
10,207 vehicles in accidents with child pedestrians use a free travelling speed of more than 30mph.


(from the proof page in the analysis section)

doesn't follow from your facts.

Assuming your worst case - 100% of those 15819 accidents caused by speeding drivers, 'only' 107 deaths so speeding is not a problem...is this defensible?

Assuming your best case - 0% of those 15819 accidents involved vehicles that were not speeding...where is the evidence?

You chose a percentage of 65% but you have quoted no facts to support any percentage between 0% and 100% for the particular vehicles involved in those accidents - so your logical 'proof' is no proof at all.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Proof
PostPosted: Fri Nov 19, 2010 02:35 
Offline
New User
New User

Joined: Fri Nov 19, 2010 02:05
Posts: 2
I appreciate that most of your posts are nearly 5 years old, so this is probably not going to be read by any of you. However, I really feel the need to say that this website as a whole is getting on my nerves. I'm trying to do serious research on road safety campaigns for my degree, which includes finding genuine, reliable data. Pretty much every time I do a google search, it comes up with some rubbish from this idiotic site. The argument that this forum relates to in particular annoyed me so much I actually bothered to register for this ridiculous website just to post this message!

For starters, it's completely unfounded!! It's like saying, "If you hit a child at a faster speed, they are just as likely to survive." If that were the case, why don't we all drive about town at 50? Who cares if you have a crash, you'd be just as likely to survive as if you'd kept to the speed limit. It's absolutely ridiculous!!!

As a response to the website as a whole... why on earth put so much energy into arguing against a safety measure like the speed camera? Why can't you just accept that there are laws and you have to keep to them or you'll get fined. That's the end of it. You might think it's stupid or beneath you or whatever... so what. You're not in charge (luckily for the rest of us). This website is always complaining about what the government has tried to do to combat unsafe driving practice. It's all "against" this and "against" that.. When you come up with a better idea, fine.. I'm sure we'd all love to hear it. Just stop nay-saying everything!!

Whether or not to drive above the speed limit is a choice every driver has to make. Personally, if I killed a child I could never live with myself. Especially if I knew that by keeping to the speed limit there's a chance they may have survived. Maybe you think you're above the law and that you can make better decisions than the people who wrote them. Drink-drivers also think that. They think "I'm probably above the limit, but I'm a good-driver, I'll still be safe." And then they end up killing an innocent person.

If you want to act like an idiot, then please do it far away from the rest of us... and stop spreading tosh like this over the internet. There are idiots who won't take it for what it really is -- absolute, utter, complete, idiotic, unfounded, ridiculous, selfish rubbish (and frankly i find it offensive and insulting that you could waste my valuable study time with such drivel).


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Proof
PostPosted: Fri Nov 19, 2010 03:34 
Offline
Friend of Safe Speed
Friend of Safe Speed
User avatar

Joined: Sun Sep 25, 2005 10:16
Posts: 7986
Location: Moved to London
This campaign has never called for the ignorance, disobedience, or the ending of enforcement of speed limits. Indeed it is mentioned within the Safe speed Manifesto (link) (and repeatedly in the forums) that speed limits are important and that they must be enforced where exceeding them causes danger.

An important issue arises when misleading messages (RTTM-link) are forwarded by misguided groups, resulting with overbearing enforcement of needlessly over-restrictive limits. The law is being devalued with blanket enforcement of what is increasingly regarded as mere technical infringements.

Does your degree research include the critical effects of RTTM, as well as "Bias On Selection" (the addition of multiple, independent treatments at a camera site that will cause a false perception of benefit from the camera) ? If not then the content within this site is well worth looking into.

Furthermore, I believe this campaign does call for “better ideas” such as the return to traffic patrols (among other better value-for-money measures such as VAS signs); cameras have displaced these more effective measures, so reducing the means to police real dangerous driving; hence cameras really are costing lives.

There are plenty of arguments one can challenge, so why not do so directly and logically instead of vague and over-simplistic attacks based on misunderstandings?

It is heartening to know the message of this campaign is so widely spread :)
I appreciate that most of your posts are nearly 5 years old, so this is probably not going to be read by any of you. However, I really feel the need to say that this website as a whole is getting on my nerves. I'm trying to do serious research on road safety campaigns for my degree, which includes finding genuine, reliable data. Pretty much every time I do a google search, it comes up with some rubbish from this idiotic site. The argument that this forum relates to in particular annoyed me so much I actually bothered to register for this ridiculous website just to post this message! For starters, it's completely unfounded!! It's like saying, "If you hit a child at a faster speed, they are just as likely to survive." If that were the case, why don't we all drive about town at 50? Who cares if you have a crash, you'd be just as likely to survive as if you'd kept to the speed limit. It's absolutely ridiculous!!! As a response to the website as a whole... why on earth put so much energy into arguing against a safety measure like the speed camera? Why can't you just accept that there are laws and you have to keep to them or you'll get fined. That's the end of it. You might think it's stupid or beneath you or whatever... so what. You're not in charge (luckily for the rest of us). This website is always complaining about what the government has tried to do to combat unsafe driving practice. It's all "against" this and "against" that.. When you come up with a better idea, fine.. I'm sure we'd all love to hear it. Just stop nay-saying everything!! Whether or not to drive above the speed limit is a choice every driver has to make. Personally, if I killed a child I could never live with myself. Especially if I knew that by keeping to the speed limit there's a chance they may have survived. Maybe you think you're above the law and that you can make better decisions than the people who wrote them. Drink-drivers also think that. They think "I'm probably above the limit, but I'm a good-driver, I'll still be safe." And then they end up killing an innocent person. If you want to act like an idiot, then please do it far away from the rest of us... and stop spreading tosh like this over the internet. There are idiots who won't take it for what it really is -- absolute, utter, complete, idiotic, unfounded, ridiculous, selfish rubbish (and frankly i find it offensive and insulting that you could waste my valuable study time with such drivel).

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


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Proof
PostPosted: Fri Nov 19, 2010 08:35 
Offline
Life Member
Life Member
User avatar

Joined: Sun Sep 25, 2005 21:17
Posts: 3734
Location: Dorset/Somerset border
Quote:
I'm trying to do serious research on road safety campaigns for my degree, which includes finding genuine, reliable data.


Sounds like you've already made your mind up, so further "serious research" is clearly not necessary.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Proof
PostPosted: Fri Nov 19, 2010 10:01 
Offline
Gold Member
Gold Member
User avatar

Joined: Wed Dec 08, 2004 14:26
Posts: 4364
Location: Hampshire/Wiltshire Border
Starbrick wrote:
I appreciate that most of your posts are nearly 5 years old, so this is probably not going to be read by any of you.

Well, you were wrong about this just as you are about a lot of other assumptions you have made about us.

Starbrick wrote:
However, I really feel the need to say that this website as a whole is getting on my nerves.

I should stop reading it then. :)

Starbrick wrote:
I'm trying to do serious research on road safety campaigns for my degree, which includes finding genuine, reliable data. Pretty much every time I do a google search, it comes up with some rubbish from this idiotic site. The argument that this forum relates to in particular annoyed me so much I actually bothered to register for this ridiculous website just to post this message!

As JTB implies, research should be undertaken with an open mind. If you think about what we say you will see that we have some useful points to make.

Starbrick wrote:
For starters, it's completely unfounded!! It's like saying, "If you hit a child at a faster speed, they are just as likely to survive." If that were the case, why don't we all drive about town at 50? Who cares if you have a crash, you'd be just as likely to survive as if you'd kept to the speed limit. It's absolutely ridiculous!!!

As a response to the website as a whole... why on earth put so much energy into arguing against a safety measure like the speed camera?

You have made an assumption that the speed camera is, in fact, a safety measure. The way in which they are used seems to indicate differently. Why do you think you can't find any "genuine reliable data" to support your pre-formed point of view? It's because the official statistics are deliberately obscured by words like "at camera sites".

Starbrick wrote:
Why can't you just accept that there are laws and you have to keep to them or you'll get fined. That's the end of it. You might think it's stupid or beneath you or whatever... so what. You're not in charge (luckily for the rest of us). This website is always complaining about what the government has tried to do to combat unsafe driving practice. It's all "against" this and "against" that.. When you come up with a better idea, fine.. I'm sure we'd all love to hear it. Just stop nay-saying everything!!

We do have a better idea. Better driver training and an improvement in the attitude of all road users to each other.

Starbrick wrote:
Whether or not to drive above the speed limit is a choice every driver has to make. Personally, if I killed a child I could never live with myself. Especially if I knew that by keeping to the speed limit there's a chance they may have survived. Maybe you think you're above the law and that you can make better decisions than the people who wrote them. Drink-drivers also think that. They think "I'm probably above the limit, but I'm a good-driver, I'll still be safe." And then they end up killing an innocent person.

If you want to act like an idiot, then please do it far away from the rest of us... and stop spreading tosh like this over the internet. There are idiots who won't take it for what it really is -- absolute, utter, complete, idiotic, unfounded, ridiculous, selfish rubbish (and frankly i find it offensive and insulting that you could waste my valuable study time with such drivel).

Please could you give us an idea of your age and the driving experience which has led you to this viewpoint.

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


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Proof
PostPosted: Sat Nov 20, 2010 03:23 
Offline
New User
New User

Joined: Fri Nov 19, 2010 02:05
Posts: 2
Thanks for replying to my post everybody, I really appreciate your comments.

Yes, you're right. I'm sure you do have plenty of excellent valid points that I would agree with. I do believe there should be better driver training for instance, as there are plenty of idiots on the road. I did go off on one a bit in the last post, partly because I was overtired, but mainly because this site kept continually popping up when I was trying to find useful information. Let's be honest, there aren't many actual facts and statistics that I can use for my assignment on this website.

malcolmw wrote:
As JTB implies, research should be undertaken with an open mind. If you think about what we say you will see that we have some useful points to make.

I'm not researching public opinion on speed cameras, so as interesting as your view may be, it isn't relevant to my paper.

malcolmw wrote:
Why do you think you can't find any "genuine reliable data" to support your pre-formed point of view? It's because the official statistics are deliberately obscured by words like "at camera sites".

I can find reliable data, just not from this site. Using this website as a source in my assignment would be like putting wikipedia in my bibliography. My work wouldn't be taken seriously.

malcolmw wrote:
We do have a better idea. Better driver training and an improvement in the attitude of all road users to each other.

I mentioned before that I think this is a good idea. Having said that, deliberately breaking the speed limit isn't exactly a respectful way of treating other road users.

malcolmw wrote:
Please could you give us an idea of your age and the driving experience which has led you to this viewpoint.

I sincerely hope that you aren't the type to dismiss a person's opinion because of their age Malcolm. I'd be so disappointed if you were, because then I'd be forced to think less of you, which I'm sure is an outcome none of us wants :)

Johnnytheboy wrote:
Sounds like you've already made your mind up, so further "serious research" is clearly not necessary.

Johnny. I'm doing a degree... my own opinion doesn't enter into the equasion in any way.

Steve wrote:
vague and over-simplistic attacks

You're right, Steve, I was pretty vague. The main reason was because I couldn't be bothered to open up a new window with the website proper whilst writing the post. A shoddy excuse :(. In my defense, it was mainly a rant and not really planned ahead. As I said, I didn't expect anybody to even read it, so I was surprised to see so many replies.

At the time, I had just been looking at the argument called "A proof by logical induction that speeding does not kill." The "interesting conclusions" drawn seem to be taken from nothing. For instance the argument "10,207 vehicles in accidents with child pedestrians use a free travelling speed of more than 30mph". This assumption is based on the statement "65% of cars in 30mph zones free-travel at over 30mph". Just because 65% of cars are breaking the speed limit, doesn't mean that 65% of cars involved in accidents had been doing the same. There's a higher chance that cars travelling at 20 or 30mph would have time to stop therefore completely avoiding the child. No accident = no statistic. From that you could assume that more than 65% of children were hit by cars where the driver had been speeding. But even then, you just don't know. Unless you have actual tangible data the calculation doesn't make sense. You can't just guess at the figure then draw up a conclusion from it!

Even if that entire argument was true, and even if I agreed with everything that page says, I still wouldn't be able to use it in my assignment because the data just isn't there to back it up. That's the main reason this website has annoyed me so much. It's irrelevant whether it's true or false because it's just opinions disguised as fact. If your opinion is genuinely based on arguments like that, then you should probably have a rethink. And if not, then why don't you share the real reason why you think the way you do. At least then you're being honest about it!

Starbuck :)

P.S. I'm beginning to think that by the end of this I'm gonna wish I chosen any other topic than this to write about! :lol:


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Proof
PostPosted: Sat Nov 20, 2010 12:02 
Offline
Life Member
Life Member
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 22, 2006 13:54
Posts: 1711
Location: NW Kent
Starbrick wrote:
Just because 65% of cars are breaking the speed limit, doesn't mean that 65% of cars involved in accidents had been doing the same. There's a higher chance that cars travelling at 20 or 30mph would have time to stop therefore completely avoiding the child. No accident = no statistic. From that you could assume that more than 65% of children were hit by cars where the driver had been speeding. But even then, you just don't know. Unless you have actual tangible data the calculation doesn't make sense. You can't just guess at the figure then draw up a conclusion from it!


A similar point was made above, it was also answered.

SafeSpeed wrote:
We've assumed that ALL the crash involved vehicles come from the {speeding} set. That's the worst possible condition. The relative rarity of the worst outcomes really is proof - unless you believe that the speeding vehicles don't exist or something.


While this does not lead to an exact figure it does set a maximum for the possible range of values.

You must bear in mind that this site is not run by an organisation funded to perform its own research, it has to rely on papers published by the DfT and other sources such as Monash in Australia. I am sure you are quite aware that it is quite possible for different conclusions to be drawn from the same data, just look at the whole climate change debate. I should point out that I am only a member on this site and the above is my opinion not an official response.

Finally, if you do not want Google to return hits from this site simply put -site:safespeed.org.uk into the search field.

_________________
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: Re: Proof
PostPosted: Sat Nov 20, 2010 19:30 
Offline
Friend of Safe Speed
Friend of Safe Speed
User avatar

Joined: Sun Sep 25, 2005 10:16
Posts: 7986
Location: Moved to London
Starbrick wrote:
At the time, I had just been looking at the argument called "A proof by logical induction that speeding does not kill." The "interesting conclusions" drawn seem to be taken from nothing. For instance the argument "10,207 vehicles in accidents with child pedestrians use a free travelling speed of more than 30mph". This assumption is based on the statement "65% of cars in 30mph zones free-travel at over 30mph". Just because 65% of cars are breaking the speed limit, doesn't mean that 65% of cars involved in accidents had been doing the same. There's a higher chance that cars travelling at 20 or 30mph would have time to stop therefore completely avoiding the child. No accident = no statistic. From that you could assume that more than 65% of children were hit by cars where the driver had been speeding. But even then, you just don't know. Unless you have actual tangible data the calculation doesn't make sense. You can't just guess at the figure then draw up a conclusion from it!

I do see your point and agree with it to an extent: when speed vs severity is considered in isolation, casualties will be weighted towards the higher part of the speed distribution curve. Unfortunately, there seemingly was no data showing such a correlation where the following is accounted for...

However, there is another factor that would logically result with casualties will be weighted towards the lower part of the speed distribution curve. Drivers are more likely to exceed the limit when/where it is safe to do so. For example, very few will do so in a busy precinct, but will do so on an empty Dual Carriageway. From that you could assume that less than 65% of children were hit by cars where the driver had been speeding.

I cannot tell you which factor dominates, I doubt anyone can with any confidence. Given this, it is reasonable to examine the "Proof" argument without assuming one of those factors are dominant; hence no overall weighting can be assumed. What else can one do?

Starbrick wrote:
Even if that entire argument was true, and even if I agreed with everything that page says, I still wouldn't be able to use it in my assignment because the data just isn't there to back it up. That's the main reason this website has annoyed me so much.

I agree there is no data - and there bloody should be, the lack of isn't our doing.
All we can do is make sense of the figures available, pointing out the confounding factors and make reasonable adjustments if necessary.

There are other factors to consider, such as driver arousal - this creates the critical difference between free-travelling speed and impact speed.
Given your applied logic, and the counter confounding factors I have given, I can only assume you (will now) treat claims of "speed kills" with the same contempt shown to this "Proof" argument.

Starbrick wrote:
It's irrelevant whether it's true or false because it's just opinions disguised as fact.

Much of it is factual, for example the RTTM issue (the effectiveness of speed cameras is greatly exaggerated).
Logical deduction is applied where there is a lack of available data - isn't that reasonable?


I should reiterate: this campaign is not against speed enforcement; it is against the way it is done - i.e. speed cameras penalise against infringements (of needless restrictions) instead of what is unsafe.

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


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Proof
PostPosted: Sat Nov 20, 2010 20:48 
Offline
Life Member
Life Member

Joined: Sat Mar 27, 2004 13:50
Posts: 2643
The closest thing I've found to actual accident data readily available on the web is: "Kloeden et al 1997 - Travelling Speed and the Risk of Crash Involvement Volume 2 - Case and Reconstruction Details.
Do look at Volume 1 as well, for a very good example of everything that's wrong with current road safety research.

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


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Proof
PostPosted: Sat Nov 20, 2010 22:27 
Offline
Gold Member
Gold Member
User avatar

Joined: Wed Dec 08, 2004 14:26
Posts: 4364
Location: Hampshire/Wiltshire Border
Starbrick wrote:
I'm not researching public opinion on speed cameras, so as interesting as your view may be, it isn't relevant to my paper.

I realise this as you said in your original post that you were researching road safety campaigns. As Safespeed is one, I was wondering why you have taken a clearly dismissive attitude against it? If you want to see a campaign based on emotion and, IMO, stupidity then look at BRAKE. Perhaps you think they are a sensible lot.

Starbrick wrote:
I can find reliable data, just not from this site. Using this website as a source in my assignment would be like putting wikipedia in my bibliography. My work wouldn't be taken seriously.

We have been looking for reliable data for a long time. Perhaps you could steer us in the direction of unbiased data which has not been skewed to suit the researcher's prejudices, political considerations or the goodwill of the person paying for the research. On your second point, you could be unlucky and find that the person marking your paper is a Safespeed member...

Starbrick wrote:
malcolmw wrote:
Please could you give us an idea of your age and the driving experience which has led you to this viewpoint.

I sincerely hope that you aren't the type to dismiss a person's opinion because of their age Malcolm. I'd be so disappointed if you were, because then I'd be forced to think less of you, which I'm sure is an outcome none of us wants :)

I really don't care what you think of me but your age and driving experience is relevant to your views on road safety. For example, if you were a non-driver or had limited experience then this would inevitably reduce the value of your opinions.

Starbrick wrote:
And if not, then why don't you share the real reason why you think the way you do. At least then you're being honest about it!

Here we have you implying that we have some hidden agenda. Do you perhaps think that it's "we want to go as fast as possible everywhere and don't like cameras interfering". There is no secret plot. It's just that we don't agree with a lot of generally accepted dogma that you appear to subscribe to.

BTW, for a student you really should be able to spell "equation" :D

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


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Proof
PostPosted: Sat Nov 20, 2010 23:54 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Tue Oct 12, 2004 02:17
Posts: 7355
Location: Highlands
:welcome: Starbrick

You have perhaps not realised that Paul Smith who collated and compiled all the main website, it needs to be taken in it's entirety. Whilst each section addresses very specific points it all inter-relates with many references to documents from where figures have been sourced and other webpages where other points are explained in greater depth.

It is very much a technical study for all to see and to discuss.
We welcome opposing views so that we can go through all the reasoning and perhaps we can all learn together.

I appreciate that you have taken the time out of your busy schedule to discuss this and voice your opinions.

If you don't like what is here, I would be very happy to email you a report carried out by Al Gullon who has shown that 'Speed Kills' is not correct. He is a World-wide road safety consultant to the major car manufacturers. I also have another report from him about 'The Absent Minded Professor Syndrome' (AMPS) (relating to driving attention - or not).

Regarding your thesis ...
When I was at college it was very important that, although much material was always referenced, it was our thoughts that helped to cement the process and draw various conclusions from that study.
Have you approached The Driver's Alliance, or The Association of British Drivers (ABD) ?

Have you considered relating the financial links to the growing 'Road Safety Industry - Speed Camera branch' and Road Safety Campaigners ?

Considering that Theresa Villiers (Minister of State for Transport and Member of Parliament for Chipping Barnet - here) has recommended the Safe Speed Campaign on Radio 4, I too fail to see why you wish to dismiss 'us' ?
What in your opinion makes a 'Road Safety Campaign' please?
(We will take any answers to a new thread).

Paul has done the same type of study here. We started looking into 'speed camera' use with a completely open mind. What we found horrified us. You do him a great dis-service by dismissing such a great resource.
Dr Linda Mountain proved independently that RTTM was NOT considered and so proving Paul's point exactly.
Other Universities have requested use of Paul's work. Other Professors too have used and referred to this work, and in particular might I direct you to The Stone Report here, and the pdf file here.

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


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Proof
PostPosted: Mon Nov 22, 2010 14:34 
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
Starbrick wrote:
P.S. I'm beginning to think that by the end of this I'm gonna wish I chosen any other topic than this to write about! :lol:
:D

Well you did come in with guns blazing, which didn’t help, but no matter… :welcome: Starbrick

Speaking for myself, I too feel that this site is often very much misunderstood as well as maligned. A common misconception is that 'if we are against the way speed cameras are being used and abused, along with the lowering of limits to absurd levels, then it follows that we must be in favour of speeding everywhere’. It’s rather like saying if government lowers the age of sexual consent they must all be paedophiles.

To bore everyone with my personal story once again, I came across Safe Speed because people all around me, friends and work colleagues, stated racking-up speeding fines and endorsements over the past few years even though they have a lifelong impeccable driving record. Suddenly they are faced with losing their licence and possibly their livelyhood and, as a result, have become paraniod about limits and more distracted instead of getting on with the important matter of driving safely as defined by COAST

I knew there had to be more to it than just “speed kills” and I happened across this site which affirmed my concerns. If you have specific questions then I’m sure, if you can’t already find it somewhere here yourself, there are people who would be happy to explain or elucidate any specific points you have.

Maybe at the end of your research you will find you have more in common with what Safe Speed stands for than you at first thought; I hope so. Also, at the risk of sounding patronising, don’t fall for Experimenter's Bias ;)

“All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident”.

_________________
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  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 26 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:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group
[ Time : 0.421s | 14 Queries | GZIP : Off ]