Safe Speed Forums

Here

Cumberland News are having a LIVE chat with Kevin Tea their local Camera Partnership on Mon 9th between 7pm - 9pm

They would be delighted for all questions.


I am creating questions in the CLUBHOUSE and below .....

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

Where shall we start ?

What proven benefit have you experienced from any of your camera sites, or camera mobile units, what proof backs up your claims ?

At each camera site how far away was the 'fatal accident/s that you feel justifies the camera presence ?

Looking back at your figures for the last 30 years ago, how do accidents at each of your camera site 'areas' (as they can be many 100yds away from any accident site) compare with accidents over those last 30 years, pick one as a minimum and note how many years there was a fatal or SI (serious Injury) or PIA (personal Injury Accident) at that location, please ?

Two drivers are driving both within the speed limit - which do you prefer ?
a) someone driving too close to the car in front or
b) someone driving too quickly for the conditions ?

Give the above situation, how might your camera help that driver improve ? if:
a) they don't receive a notification about it for 2 weeks,
b) you never speak to anyone
c) no education is given whatsoever

How much do you agree with this statement on a scale of 1 - 10 where 10 is in full agreement ?
Keep within a specific speed enables you to drive totally safely ?

You are hidden 'protected' away from the public - how do you feel that presents the image of moral and justifiable actions of your staff - bit like cat & mouse is it not or shooting fish in a puddle ?

How does a specific number ensure that any driver/rider is 'safe'?

HOW do you feel your presence enables every driver you send a NIP to, to improve their driver skills ?

Can you explain what Regression To The Mean is please ?

Do you understand RTTM and how it relates to your figures ?

What were the KSI for each of your camera location sites over the last 10 years?

Do ALL the cameras work all of the time, and if not, what percentage of the time do they not work, at each location and why ?

How many of your camera's point away from the lower 'posted limit', towards the higher speed limit ?

How many of the signs near the cameras are hidden, non existent, unlit, old and unclear ? When did you last check ?

What reaction do you see by drivers when they see your camera's ?
What do you think you camera's 'teach people'?

If camera's did not exist what other measures do you see might bring the same claimed benefit ?

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

Do they understand RTTM? Do they accept that the only study regarding this states the "scheme effect" accounts for only 1/5th of the KSI fall at camera sites (i.e. 10% of the 55% fall), the rest of the fall due to RTTM and long-term trends (global safety measures, resulting with the nationwide falling fatality trend before speed cameras were used).

Do they understand the RTTM study was done for urban sites and that initial investigations (which were never followed through) indicated the RTTM effect was even greater for rural sites?

Why are various PR outlets still claiming misleading KSI reductions at camera sites without mentioning effects like the well known, proven and accepted RTTM? Isn't that deception?

'Bias on selection': do they accept that the "scheme effect" could also include measures other than speed cameras? Could a pedestrian crossing/barrier/underpass etc installed within the defined range of a camera site, also result with a KSI/collision reduction at the camera site, such that any subsequent KSI/collision reduction at the camera site is quite possibly nothing to do with the speed camera? If so, do they have any right to continue to claim that speed cameras have been 'proven to be effective' at reducing casualties?

Could the speed camera policy have somehow been a factor of the reduction of traffic police even though traffic levels have increased? If trafpol levels had instead remained consistent with traffic levels (i.e. increased, or at least not decreased), could we have had far safer roads than we do now?
Could this fall of trafpol numbers possibly have been a result of the misleading claims from SCP PR staff?


Why must these questions be presented within such a controlled environment?
Why don't they have forums where people can question these issues with them directly without fear of awkward questions being pre-filtered out? (the reason can't be 'trolls' because we [Safe Speed forum admin] successfully manage them - and we don't get paid to do it).

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

I guess you will have to ask them about the forum aspect.

You raise some great questions that I hope either they can answer or I might get to ask ? We'll see ...
They do this as a regular spot btw.
But since it is bet 7-9pm I hope that many here will go and take part
Should be interesting.

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

Not sure it's that sort of event to be honest. I think you send them your questions in advance and then they answer them "live" as it were. I think there's little (maybe no) "audience participation" in real time and to be fair, I could see how making it so could lead to nothing of any significance being said!

You are all being very naive if you think that this will be anything other than a PR exercise for the CSCP where they will control the agenda.

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

Indeed. I'm under no illusions here. It's quite clever really. They get the questions in advance and they get to choose which ones they answer online. There's very little that's "live" about it in the true sense. Of course, Safespeed can always choose not to turn up...

...either way, we loose!

For my part, I'm not really expecting answers to many of my questions, but I think I'll throw in a fairly broad spread ranging from the positively sycophantic, to the really hard ones that we've never heard and SCP answer before. It will be interesting to see how far along the scale we get before they choose not to answer!

Well they were thinking I may be linked in to answer question and that is live, so all hope is not lost - yet anyway ! They also suggest that anyone can come online, to chat and by this I understood, can 'speak freely' - I am sure they have a way of editing and moderating in case of 'less than ideal participants' ...

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

Other questions to ask would be those that Greenshed/Chunky123 couldn’t bring themselves to respond to

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

This is about to start DON'T Forget !

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

I couldn't get in using FF; I had to resort to IE instead.

I notice how it is pre-moderated, but at least it is live (but they aren't quick to show the questions).

edited to add: I'm keeping a list of all my submitted questions and noting what the responses are to them, or lack thereof.

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

The vote they just did was about 25 yes and 75% no then suddenly changed to 50 - 50 ! ???

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

Two more people must have voted
edit, I just voted and changed the yes/no vote from 45/55 to 50/50, so there genuinely haven’t been many votes so you can expect a lot of initial swings .

Seriously though, some of the questions really detract from the better anti-camera arguments (which aren't getting through); this stinks of selection. Time will tell.
There is very little action considering how many of us must be on there.

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

This is rubbish, only one my questions have made it through. Oh, they've just admitted to having 'problems'.

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

I see you have shown your location

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

Really?

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

Meaning most of the questions are indeed being filtered out. That forum really is ridiculous - what is the point?

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

As I posted in the Clubhouse they have asked if I am interested in the new year a head to head and I immediately said YES

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

ahha now a few more of our questions are getting through

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

Speak for yourself. None of my awkward ones made it through, with them using the pitiful excuse of "extremely technical" At least some choice Safe Speed links made it through.

Finished!

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