Safe Speed Forums

So is Newton's law of gravity but that doesn't mean that it doesn't still apply with the same rigour that it did three centuries ago.

_________________
When I see an adult on a bicycle, I do not despair for the future of the human race. H.G. Wells
When I see a youth in a motor car I do d.c.brown

Indeed. 83% of three year olds, when asked what they want for tea, think that a diet of jelly and ice-cream is perfectly nutritious.

_________________
When I see an adult on a bicycle, I do not despair for the future of the human race. H.G. Wells
When I see a youth in a motor car I do d.c.brown

random cluster of accidents was pauls favorite saying BTW, but they still happened, which is something i find distastefull for you to constantly dismiss, we could say xxxx amount of lives have been saved by the fire service installing smoke alarms

i read the RTTM got sidetracked onto Gnomes by the side of the road, then read Pauls interpretation of what concludes a KSI, and how its irrelevant



i dont know who they included, so i have sent a FOI asking for all paricipants names address, qualifications

_________________
now retired

It has never been dismissed. Knee-jerk reactions based on emotive arguments doesn't address the science of safety and understanding.


Indeed you could, and there is a risk that the RTTM illusion could be at play here too if claims are portrayed wrongly.
No doubt folks would be keen to install smoke alarm where there were fires. Chances are there won't be another fire (in a reasonable time frame) where such an alarm has been installed. So it could be argued that installation of a smoke alarm will reduce the chance of fires by nearly 100%.

Of course this logic is entirely wrong (this doesn't detract from the valuable early warnings smoke alarms give), but this perfectly parallels the misleading information given by the SCPs.


This is an excellent, and often used, example to demonstrate how misleading claims can be if RTTM is not appropriately considered.

Consider a hypothetical scenario where garden gnomes were installed instead of each of the speed cameras, all the gnomes being subject to the same placement criteria as speed cameras. Thanks to the analysis given in "The national safety camera programme - Four-year evaluation report (December 2005)", we know that the introduction of the gnomes at accident black-spots will apparently reduce the KSIs rates at these locations by 45% - hurrah for garden gnomes!

As daft as that logic may seem, it exactly reflects the misleading information that the SCPs have been giving.


That Four Year Report agrees with Paul.


Evasion.

Do you believe 100% of the IAM respondents understood RTTM?
It seems you still don't understand it, even though you have been a poster here for 6 years, so I don't hold out much hope for everyone else knowing about it. Is that fair comment?

Let me ask another way: if the SCPs were honest about the claims of effectiveness of their schemes (10% for urban areas, and this figure includes safety benefits from other independent nearby safety measures), would the respondents have been nearly as supportive of cameras?

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

I've just run a poll ... yes I really have ... we are using Microsoft Sharepoint throughout the organisation I work for, and I can set up a poll just like that, so I did.

100% of respondents agreed that "Speed cameras have made little or no impact on road casualties"

I didn't make it up, that is the real figure.

_________________
You only need two tools - WD40 and duct tape. If it doesn't move and it should, use WD40. If it moves and it shouldn't, use duct tape. :0)

How many took part Zippo? If only two you may have just been lucky.

_________________
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.

I would have disagreed.

I think the speed camera policy has had a detrimental impact. Re: "fatality gap"

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

Survey went to 17 people, only 3 chose to respond (so far anyway) ... lol

Does illustrate the dangers of beleiving in ... "a survey shows"! without knowing the full details of how it was carried out.

If I'd massaged it a bit and said it was an oganisation with over 3500 personnel, the gullible might even have just assumed I'd sent it to all of them and the result was from over 3500 people.

_________________
You only need two tools - WD40 and duct tape. If it doesn't move and it should, use WD40. If it moves and it shouldn't, use duct tape. :0)

Yes, and I might agree with you too ... but you wouldn't have been able to express that opinion in my survey as it wasn't a choice, and there was no option to put in comments.

Illustrates nicely how surveys can be pointed to a desired result by careful choice of questions, and ommision of ones which could conflict with the desired result.

I had a thought (there's a novelty!) and asked the 3 folks who did respond if they had ever been pinged be a speed camera .... they have all been pinged by a speed camera.

So does that mean folks who have been pinged are more likely to agree with the statement and are more likely to reply to surveys about speed cameras? .. hmmmm ... guess I need a survey ... lol

_________________
You only need two tools - WD40 and duct tape. If it doesn't move and it should, use WD40. If it moves and it shouldn't, use duct tape. :0)

Ineedy, and it’s rife everywhere you look to ‘big’ things up all the time.

Just the other day I was watching Real A&E on TV where a biker hit a lorry and was trapped underneath. But what did they say and how did they portray it? “Trapped under a 13 ton lorry!”; implying that 13 tonnes is resting on him when in fact he’d been hit and was lying face down under the lorry with just his right arm trapped behind a tyre. He was in a bad way, no argument there, and sustained some very nasty injuries. But the way they big things up does my head in sometimes.

You know once upon a time I once got my hand stuck under a slab on a pavement which weighed 10,000 tonnes! I don't know how I survived. And the week before that a Giant Redwood fell on me weighing 5,000 tonnes, (when I’ve actually just got one of its branches holding me down).

Oh and then there’s our favourite.. Look at that maniac doing 140mph while the great and good police try and catch him. It’s a good job the brave policeman tested his car at 160mph on the M54 the other day.

_________________
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.

installation of a fixed camera housing, is never a knee jerk reaction, IMO it requires multi agency cooperation and compliance, a basic mobile site would take a few months to establish



so what is the deterrant in the Gnome - absolutely zero, we all know that not every camera housing is live but the effect is there, albeit for a short distance, rip them all down i say,



Evasion.


Let me ask another way: if the SCPs were honest about the claims of effectiveness of their schemes (10% for urban areas, and this figure includes safety benefits from other independent nearby safety measures), would the respondents have been nearly as supportive of cameras?[/quote]

how is it evasion, i know a few local members of the IAM who have never heard of this site, but the Institute of Advanced Motorists are a respected body in many circles



every one has a viewpoint, but i dont have a clue the % of IAM in the poll and how many IAM members are here on here, i fully understand that RTTM exists because you say it does.

is the are need to be reactive or proactive

_________________
now retired

Neither is it good science judging by the how the selection criteria, and the subsequent effects, are portrayed.


That's not the point. We're were talking about the skewed perception of the benefits of speed cameras, and how that results with surveys responses like that given by the OP.


You're evading the questions I'm posing to you. You instead give off-tangent responses you (wrongly) believe are convenient to your argument.


That's mature!

Never mind that I referred to, and used the numerical data from, "The national safety camera programme - Four-year evaluation report (December 2005)".


There is a greater need to honest and transparent, especially when it comes to deciding priorities.

I ask again:
If the SCPs were honest about the claims of effectiveness of their schemes (10% for urban areas, and this figure includes safety benefits from other independent nearby safety measures), would the IAM respondents have been nearly as supportive of cameras?

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

what has science got to do with selecting a fixed camera site, the supporting data is compiled from various data source,

police - accident investigation
fire service - equivilant to police
ambulance ( to a limited effect)
HA
and the council who collate the info http://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&source=web&cd=12&ved=0CFwQFjABOAo&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.surreycc.gov.uk%2Fsccwebsite%2Fsccwspages.nsf%2FLookupWebPagesByTITLE_RTF%2FRoad%2Baccidents%2B-%2Bfacts%2Band%2Bfigures&rct=j&q=road%20traffic%20accidents&ei=uh4fTrGYOcKZhQeq5NmaAw&usg=AFQjCNFiK54SIo8clmM6BefZfUKOXuogJQ&cad=rja

causation and mitigating factors would be considered and solutions discussed, i can think of numerous factors



how can i answer questions, that i dont know the answer too



(TIC) i was going to say at least i dont tantrum everytime and shout RTTM RTTM RTTM, but thought that would be imature




priorities in what context,



its a no win question,

i would say the effectiveness / ineffectiveness of fixed cameras, can never be truly measured, i could say the those who drove at dangerous speeds are dead due to being involved in the KSI, but what about the innocent victims in the KSI,

the historical data shows annual KSI's so that is what is reported

they could report the reduction in mean speed due to a housing, or it can be argued the limit is wrong

or they could say in year 1, there were 1000 caught, year 2 950, year 3 800, so is the awareness of the camera by falling NIPs classed as a success, or can it be argued the numbers have fallen due to the drivers being banned

_________________
now retired

Read my words again (especially the highlight). You clearly missed what I communicated.


Surely anyone can comment on the likelihood of the following?
Do you think all those IAM respondents understood the argument and significance of RTTM?


For deciding what treatments should be rolled out. I don't really want an ineffective speed camera instead of a much, much, much safer pedestrian crossing or barrier (the comparative benefits have been proven by an early TRL analysis).


Certainly not for the SCPs!


Yet, we have clear claims by the SCPs claiming very specific figures of KSI reductions ("xx% reduction at camera sites"); this choice of measure is what we are talking about (please stay on topic). So the SCPs think that is a suitable measure. My point being: they have chosen a dangerously misleading one. If you disagree with that, then please do point out the flaw in 'our' RTTM rebuttal.

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

That's just not feasible - unless you believe that in the order of 20% of all drivers were banned.
The most likely explanation is that more and more drivers got to know about the camera.

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

are potrayed - how are do you want them portrayed, everything these days is in %, utilities, inflation, food prices,



i would imagine tha due to the fact that they are IAM members, then yes the majority should be aware of it, whether they think its a relevant factor though

a quick RTTM search on Sabre yields 1 result, maybe they dont know about either



and you think alternatives are not considered, if you look consider RLC, the causation factor is someone jumped the lights, so a barrier or crossing is irrelevant, for speed yes maybe a barrier woud be apt in places, Dorset have a good idea to stop Tanks mounting pavements



how can it be a misleading claim, KSI either happen or they dont

_________________
now retired

I want them portrayed honestly - accounting for RTTM and other confounding factors. I did give a perfectly good example earlier in this thread, of how RTTM can be accounted for, yet still giving the result in %: "(10% for urban areas, and this figure includes safety benefits from other independent nearby safety measures)". Is this too much to ask?


Interesting claim. Perhaps we could get the IAM to run a poll (seriously, is anyone up for arranging this)
The factor is completely relevant.


I credit Sabre with more than you portray. I don't credit with you being able to use the internets very well


I didn't say that at all; that would be another misleading claim...
What I am saying is there is a great risk of a comparatively ineffective measure (speed cameras) being used instead genuinely effective ones, due to the greatly exaggerated benefit of the former.


The mislead is what factor lead to the KSI reduction: the camera, or nearby schemes, or long-term trends, or the selection criteria?
We know the last two factors account for the great majority (more than 80%) of KSI reductions at camera sites.

It is almost relevant that it is an (ex)SCP employee who is giving such responses.


If the SCPs were honest about the claims of effectiveness of their schemes (10% for urban areas, and this figure includes safety benefits from other independent nearby safety measures), would the IAM respondents have been nearly as supportive of cameras?

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

so what percentage do you put RTTM at 10, 20 50 %, other confounding factors,



yeah you got me on that one, i only done a RTTM search as a Sabre guest, 1 result returned



1 post 2004
1 post 2005
5 posts 2007 (ended in Pauls passing)
2 posts 2009
1 post 2011

are there 2 internets, i just joined friend reunited



OK IMO the days of fixed cameras are over, as we all know unless in heavy traffic their impact is over a very short space of road, i cannot honestly recall a new fixed camera being installed (roadworks omitted), in the past 5 years maybe longer. Mobile enforcement, variable parking and route stratergy is much more effective, Specs and ASC for trunk roads, so the bench mark has now moved VAS are installed, if that reduces the speed , however from my experience once the novelty has worn off the deterrant effect has gone, the CSW reports etc, so thats base 1. base 2 is a couple of PCSO's playing rambo, base 3 is camera signs, base 4 is mobile enforcement, be it SCP, traffic or CPT's



again with reference to fixed cameras if the nearby scheme reduces speed, then the camera is not used (ok the housing may be left)



who is the we



i dont know if that is praise or an insult, but all i did was park at sites that the higher authoritys wanted, no more no less

no doubt you will say going off on tangents

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-10634102 every one a tragic loss, but taking into account the Afghan winters is the death trend RTTM or BOS

_________________
now retired

I'll address the relevant/intelligible parts of your response:


I don't put it at anything. I am merely quoting from the "The national safety camera programme - Four-year evaluation report (December 2005)".

This is now the third time I have stated this clear fact you; you appear to be in denial.


The RTTM effect for mobiles is greater than fixed, thus yielding an even greater level of exaggerated benefit (table H7)


Everyone who has read and understood the report I keep referring you to!


Do you want to explain how your link is at all relevant to the discussion for RTTM (or BOS), even if it is only an analogy ? Where is the data for the winters, or safety measures taken, that could link to variation of fatality rate? If you can't answer that simple question then you cannot make any claim about RTTM (or BOS), thus prompting the conclusion that your example was indeed ill-thought through.

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

wow 2005, do you have a link to the report maybe i should read it, i had hair then as well and thats the year i joined the SCP , so everything was done and dusted

_________________
now retired