Steve wrote:
SafeSpeedv2 wrote:
Yes but it isn't valid - they cannot prove that any speed 'management' will prevent nor reduce an accident. Speed being a contributory factor not a cause.
I think there has been some crossed wires somewhere.
Possibly. I wasn't trying to argue your point, merely commenting upon their implications of phrases. I was not very clear.
I take it to mean that they believe that their whole 'speed management program', e.g speed cameras will help to lessen the severity of an impact.
Whilst speed cameras might at some moments force motorists to slow at certain points on the road, it does not guarantee that they will crash at a slower speed and so make the impact less sever. The effect of speed cameras on the whole motoring community has many negative side effects as we have well documented.
This drop in 'speed' they believe happens, doesn't. We know motorists are ignoring speeds that are well below the 85th%ile and by the continuing numbers of motorists still caught in spite of various assistance measure available.
Reducing a speed has not 'helped' to do anything positive for road safety - that we can find anyway.
Even the 'better observance' has become a negative as people take their eyes off the road area to look up towards speed / CCTV/ ANPR cameras and potential cameras or vans.
In the rare occurrence where accidents occur at speed camera locations, they may happen for various reasons including the fact that the speed camera presence may cause the accident too, and we know people have died at speed camera locations so the reduced speed didn't even 'help'.
Where accidents happen elsewhere, out of the range of a speed cameras, they are trying to claim a benefit as motorists are going more slowly, because of their speed management, but I see no evidence of this.
When is speed ever anything other than a factor in an accident, it is never a cause of one.
Steve wrote:
SafeSpeedv2 wrote:
Speed cameras might at most, only ever 'effect' the outcome, ...
Is this the same as:
'lessen the impact' of a collision? Is that in turn the same as "
lessening the impact of collisions when they occur" ?
If not, what is the difference?
Interesting and something that I have been pondering.
I think they have heard me when I have stated how a speed camera will never address the cause of an accident and only ever effect the severity. This bothers me because, it is reducing 'effect' into an attempted benefit, than the 'effect of' because of the existence of the speed camera. (Do you see what I mean?)
Lessening the effect of the impact speed an accident, (severity) which can never be 'guaranteed' nor 'expected' either, for all incidents.
They are trying to make it sound that by reducing the accident severity (as if it is a 100% 'given') they are benefiting road safety, which whilst holds some element of truth to it, it fails to ever properly or fully ever address the real causes of accidents, so they are left to continue unabated. The roads allowing to continue to cause real problems and ongoing accidents. The funds are wasted on this waste of time 'management system' and not on better and proper science and engineering.
I hope that explains what I mean & meant !?