Safe Speed Forums

edited

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

edited

Or some culinary accountancy by 4th year reporters

_________________
lets bring sanity back to speed limits.
Drivers are like donkeys -they respond best to a carrot, not a stick .Road safety experts are like Asses - best kept covered up ,or sat on

I'm not supprised really, where do the SCP's and the Doft find the people who they question?, hand picked?

_________________
Useless laws weaken necessary laws.

Ask the question the right way and you get the right ( i.e, the one you want) answer simply by phrasing the question the right way.

_________________
lets bring sanity back to speed limits.
Drivers are like donkeys -they respond best to a carrot, not a stick .Road safety experts are like Asses - best kept covered up ,or sat on

Ah, but that doesn't mean they support the current use of them, or that they actually do reduce casualties: the question is subtely hypothetical and does not readily allow a 'no' answer.

It also "begs the question" as the assumption that speed cameras reduce casualties is implict in the question.

_________________
"Show me someone who says that they have never exceeded a speed limit, and I'll show you a liar, or a menace." (Austin Williams - Director, Transport Research Group)

Any views expressed in this post are personal opinions and may not represent the views of Safe Speed

Notice they say "safety cameras" NOT speed cameras... I wonder if the 2 year olds they asked knew they were talking about the same thing?

<edit> Just noticed there's an awful lot more votes on this than any other topic. I wonder why?

_________________
Smokebelching,CO2 making,child murdering planet raping,granny mugging,politically incorrect globally warming (or is it climate changing now it's getting colder?)thug.
That's what the government want you to believe of me. If they get back in I'm emigrating.

So they (dft) make contact with people who are in on a Mon-Friday 9am to 5pm.

It excludes (probably) 80% of drivers and includes 80% of non-drivers and the 20% of drivers have a large proportion of elderly who dont like "fast traffic".

result .................

You mean something like...

Q1 Do you think that someone is more likely to die if you hit them in a car at a higher speed than a lower speed, all else being equal?
Yes/No
Q2 Do you think people slow down when they see a speed camera?
Yes/No
Q3 Do you think it's important to save lives on the roads?
Yes/No
Q4 Do you support the use of speed cameras to help save those lives?
Yes/No

OR

Q1 Do you think that police resources should be taken away from traffic patrols to allow for the administration and use of speed cameras?
Yes/No
Q2 Would you be surprised to learn that the overall death toll on Britain's roads has actually increased since the widespread introduction of speed cameras?
Yes/No
Q3 Do you think it's reasonable for someone to lose their driving licence and job because they drove past a speed camera above the speed limit, even though the speed limit wasn't obvious?
Yes/No
Q4 Do you support the use of speed cameras?
Yes/No

TeePee- statiticians have found out that to get the right answers - computers and humans are identical - phrase the question the right way , and LO - you get the answer you want.


And did they ask the one important queation - "When is a camera not a safety camera" --

a) When it causes people to brake
b) - it causes people to drive at a safe speed for the conditions

_________________
lets bring sanity back to speed limits.
Drivers are like donkeys -they respond best to a carrot, not a stick .Road safety experts are like Asses - best kept covered up ,or sat on

silly question

but are there any figures for fatalitys at camera sites compared to non enforced sites, this /last year we had 3 fatals all at non camera sites 2 during the night, 1 daytime

_________________
now retired

edited

What a classical example of regression to the mean

If you exclude the 3 years where accidents had high levels of fatalities (above 20) and take the mean of fataltities over the other 12 years it is just a few tenths over 12.

If you exclude the two years of obviously high Serious injuries (200 & 184) the mean for serious injuries for other years is 102.

Interestingly enough their website makes the claim that Speed cameras have been in use in the Thames Valle for "over 10 years", by my reckoning they are thus claiming that they started using the cameras in 1994; the year that fatalities jumped to 24

And heres another thought; if they did in fact start using the cameras in 1994 the mean fatality rate for the 4 years reported before they did so is 12, after they started using them the mean for the 11 years of operation is now 17, could this mean that they have 55 deaths on their hands?

OK I know it is not scientific but it sure as hell ought to be investigated.

_________________
Former Military Police Officer and accident investigator

edited

thanks for that jonno1066

ok then looking at thames valley, i am assuming that is for the whole force area, and just for arguement sake every accident is speed related peaks and troughs on ksi, is there any way of spliting the data into ksi at camera sites / non camera sites

the point i am trying to make is in tvp from 1990 - 2004 the 85th percentile sites should have been visited on a regular basis thus reducing ksi as everyone should know that cameras operate in that area and subsequently slow down, only to increase their speed after the site to create a new wave of blackspots call it the second front,

as i said last year on my patch there were 3 fatals, all single vehicle incidents, all occurred away from my enforcement sites

_________________
now retired

Nope they clearly state that these are figures for their "camera sites"

_________________
Former Military Police Officer and accident investigator

edited

pretty intresting reading, are any more scp available

_________________
now retired