Safe Speed Forums

Please tell me which points are 'crap'-

-That you are ultimately responsible for those pages to be on this site

-That they suggest activities such as obscuring a car number plate so that it can't be read by a speed camera, or using the name of a dead person to obtain additional driving licenses.

-That this shows that your underlying motives for creating SafeSpeed came from a need to be able to drive over the speed limit and evade penalty. This I think is the only point that you have even a tiny bit of dispute about. I would question then why someone with now apparent respectable motives would allow such material onto the site.

I raise it here because it raises the issue that SafeSpeed seeks to be recognised as a respectable organisation, with integrity and satisfactory motives.

Of course, the Government and the press will both be aware of the early years. Denying or ignoring questions about it won't help SS. I genuinely feel that if Paul really wants to make the best progress in bringing his ideas into the outside forum then the skeleton ought to be brought out of the cupboard, aired, and then buried, with complete honesty.

And I say this from my own position of someone who is well aware of how the press, us general public and other transport related groups view SS -with some suspicion. I came on here a few days ago with an open mind, and wanting to give the site the benefit of the doubt. My conclusion at this point is that SafeSpeed's ideology, however it is packaged, repeatedly comes down to drivers wanting to drive faster. And the reasoning behind this usually falls down to Paul's opinion, his little theory pages, and some charts that he has drawn. This in itself of course is not a problem. What is a problem is the difficulty in understanding how you think you can progress with your original attitude still hanging around, having never been addressed and withdrawn. As it is, it is very difficult not to view the campaign as 'wanting to go faster' veiled in a blanket of safety concerns.

So take it as an outsiders view, a bit of advice to consider, or ignore it completely. It doesn't bother me which way.

What I will say though is that I have enjoyed the opportunity carrying on the discusssions of the last couple of days in an appropriate manner, and without anyone resorting to abuse. Thank you.

So why has the trend of falling fatalities ended? The total distance travelled has hardly increased over the last 5 years (8% IIRC). How can all the other variables either not change significantly or be significantly in the right direction, yet we still have an overall stalled trend?
Clearly something is not working; I have proven that speed cameras can’t work and could actually be more dangerous. Which neatly brings us back full circle back to your original question!

Yes I do. There were plenty of occasions in my younger years when I could have put others at unnecessary risk, and that didn't just involve speeding.

These days, I can happily pootle down a 20mph limit, while maintaining full alertness.

Ah, but I chose not to take that attitude. And have benfitted from doing so.

Any SSer is welcome on the C+ site. It's only when the abuse and pigheadedness starts that you won't be favoured, and then the trolls tend to scurry back here anyway.

<disclaimer> The above post makes no general judgement about the general SS member.

No, you have a theory that speed cameras are dangerous. The evidence to back that theory includes results from a poll on here, which asks like-minded people who don't like speed cameras to comment. Hmmm. Do you really think that that kind of research will hold any value outside of this forum?

I don't need to go over to C+ to argue with a bunch of self-opinionated bigots - I can do that on here!

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

Who’s talking about polls? I was referencing the raw data from the DfT which I believe you have examined for yourself. My speed camera 'theory' is a plausible one and the only one that fits the model of what we’re seeing nationwide. Surely you must accept that speed cameras are at the very least not effective?

Ya think so? I was invited to ask a question, which I did in a reasonable and polite manner. I received one or two reasoned arguments and answers which I admit opened my mind (which was the point, and I am grateful for). I then received abuse (accusing me of having an illegally registered vehicle for a start) and torrents of irrelevent, misquoted and frankly offensive posts that were completely unrelated to the original question. I don't find that welcoming at all.

What I am almost pleased and slightly surprised at was that Yusuf actually went on to to call me a 'relatively sensible poster', right before he accused me of lying simply because the proof he requested had been archived and was unavailable. I was refering to the admission by Wiltshire SCP that patrols had been increased to recoup the losses after the folly bottom fiasco.

_________________
Science won over religion when they started installing lightning rods on churches.

Sixy, to be fair, you did turn up, identify yourself as a SS poster primarily, accuse someone of being "up their own lycra clad bottom" and ask a question as a challenge rather than an inquiry! You can't be terribly surprised if you got the reception usually reserved for trolls. It's no excuse for some of the personal abuse on there but it shouldn't be a huge surprise.

I don't know if you're aware, but there has recently been a successful prosecution of a cyclist for cycling.... on the road. The defendant in question was cycling down a road at about 20+ mph and was nicked for inconsiderate cycling, because there was a glass-strewn, unsuitable and dangerous path available. The judge who made the decision approached the case with an attitude similar to your initial post over at c+: why should someone get in the way of cars when there's a perfectly good cycle path? In fact there are some excellent reasons, not least that if you're riding at over 14mph the Highway Code says you should be on the road, but as you can imagine many cyclists are a bit worried that we're going to be prosecuted off the roads. Your question hit a bit of a nerve for many.

PS I should have introduced myself properly. I'm CometGirl over the road, I'm a cyclist and occasional driver with a penchant for landrovers (don't tell anyone).

Yeah. We know. We leapt to the cyclist's defence and were quoted in press on the matter. See: http://www.safespeed.org.uk/forum/viewtopic.php?t=8641

_________________
Paul Smith
Our scrap speed cameras petition got over 28,000 sigs
The Safe Speed campaign demands a return to intelligent road safety

I know you know. I was wondering if Sixy did.

Ahh. I expect she does, she's very much a regular.

_________________
Paul Smith
Our scrap speed cameras petition got over 28,000 sigs
The Safe Speed campaign demands a return to intelligent road safety

I know. I saw the discussion. How many posters gave you bad responses, as opposed to reasonable ones?

No I don't accept that. Why do the camera websites then show quite specifically positions where a reduction in KSIs has followed the instillation of a camera?

Because of regression to the mean. Overall casualties do not fall across the entire police area, they just move to other locations as part of the normal random distribution.

_________________
"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

Because:

- they never account for RTTM
- they never account for traffic reductions at camera sites
- The never account for other engineering treatments applied at about the same time as the camera
- they usually don't allow for long term trend
- they usually cherry pick the comparison period
- they somtimes cherry pick sites

_________________
Paul Smith
Our scrap speed cameras petition got over 28,000 sigs
The Safe Speed campaign demands a return to intelligent road safety

This is an old classic and what converted me:

To sum up: the DfT policy allows speed cameras to be placed where there has been a very recent history of accidents (KSIs). The key here is that the rate of accidents at that time being elevated from the typical long-term trend at that location – so something must be done right? The subtlety here is that there were less accidents at that location to the run up to the spate of accidents (otherwise it would have qualified for a speed camera already). After the spate of accidents (when the speed camera is installed) the accident rate will fall anyway back to previously lower level prior to installation of the speed camera. The fall in accident rate is nothing to do with the speed camera – yet the SCPs always make sure their cameras get the credit for the reduction:

"Our speed cameras are successful, there has been a 40-70% reduction of accidents at camera sites" - pity the reduction was nothing to do with the camera!

As a realistic analogy everyone can understand:
Get two dice and repeatedly roll them. Punch yourself every time you roll two sixes. Statistically, the chances are that you won’t roll two sixes next time. However, the SCPs would attribute your punching yourself as being the cause of you rolling a combination other than two sixes on the next roll.

See here for a more comprehensive explanation:
www.safespeed.org.uk/rttm


This is just one of the dirty tricks used by the SCPs to inflate the perceived effectiveness of speed cameras – their claims are rubbish and they know it. This phenomenon has only just now been accepted to exist (it is mentioned in appendix H of the forth year report of speed camera effectiveness - it should really be at the front page).

Why not?

Given that only 5% of the accidents used to justify the placement of a speed camera at a given location have ‘exceeding the speed limit’ as a contributing factor, the camera cannot influence the probability or severity of 95% of accidents. So how can the camera be anything more than 5% effective at reducing accidents? (and that’s not accounting for the unregistered, cloned, joyriders, nutters… as well as the stoned/drunk/distracted drivers who just so happened to be exceeding the speed limit).

Surely you must accept this and realise that this is at adds with the claims of speed cameras being so successful (which we know is subject to RTTM)

We can all play with stats forever, you are well aware of that. But the point is -if accidents go down at a site following its installation, there is no way of proving whether there was a blip before the installation (I would be interested in seeing your evidence for how many sites this has happened at), or whether the camera is effective. Of course, you claim that it was a blip and so cameras are inffective, and there is no way of disproving this. But crucially, there is no way of proving it. And that is what you need to do in order to justify your position.

And if you were correct that at some sites reductions were as a result of a blip, then what does it matter? This isn't the case at all sites, and the accident rate has gone down. Great! Of course, it also means that you are no longer able to speed at that point, but never mind.

There is no proof that cameras are ineffective. Look at individual sites. There is one local to me where the accident rate went up after the instillation. This wasn't down to the camera being there. It was due to the nature of the road. The stats for injuries cover a certain length of this road, and the whole length in question is dangerous. Placing a camera at one of these places may have reduced accidents there, but not further along.

A few miles down the same road a camera has been placed outside of a college entrance. The KSI rate here was massive before the camera, and there has been a bit reduction since the camera was installed. I have witnessed the aftermath of several of these, whether it be the presence of the emergency services, the flowers, or the reports in the local paper. It is inarguable that this was not a real danger spot. See? -it works because it is in a position where accidents are concentrated. And either is has been effective, or students co-incidentally got more road aware at the same time. Either way, the ultimate aim has been reached. Oh, and you can't speed past there any more.

Aside from noting that your 'never' and 'usually' claims cannot be quantified, none of these suggestions were a factor in the specific example that I have given.

To illustrate simply for you. They put a camera at a site. At the same time they install a better crossing with anti-skid and more lights around it. The accident rate goes down. You can't prove which of the changes were responsible. You can't prove that neither were responsible.

By stating that you can't prove that the camera is effective, as is your tendency, you are discrediting it. Crucially, you can't prove that it was. So you have no meat behind your argument. Either way, if the accident rate reduces, then it doesn't matter. Except that you can no longer speed past the spot.

You could equally apply the same argument to the pedestrian crossing that is installed at the same time, but note that you don't. You decide to target the camera. Because that is the thing that punishes you for speeding.

You, of course, will bring in factors to overcomplicate it and try to discredit any benefit.

Cue confusion-