hjeg2 wrote:
Er, but I and this report never said it was for all roads,
I know
you didn’t, but earlier in the thread you seemingly didn’t know it wasn’t. I’m highlighting this because Monbiot’s take on it lets the reader assume the figures he gave applies to all roads, this error being in favour of the perception of speed camera effectiveness.
hjeg2 wrote:
And it's not "a large weighting of 17% summed with a smaller weighting of 9%" - for this report it's actually the other way round.
I know that, that’s what I had highlighted at the bottom of a previous post
here, so demonstrating what I had said just above. Please keep up.
As bored as you might be with this, my point is that it is further incompetence or deception by Monbiot: "
The fresh figures showed an average reduction of 19% for collisions that caused deaths or injuries after speed cameras had been installed." – now does that seem like it was correctly conveyed for urban roads, or does it lead the reader to assume it applies to both urban and rural, the latter being where the RTTM effect has so far been shown to be greater?
hjeg2 wrote:
smeggy wrote:
H7 it is!
I shall take your word on that for now.
"For now"? Are you planning to return to this?
hjeg2 wrote:
Alright, please explain exactly what you meant by this: "well your response didn’t actually apply and I was completely correct."
Your opinion was based on the misleading Monbiot article which leads the reader to assume all roads; your subsequent argument included a non-urban road (A3); we’ve since discovered the figures are for urban roads only; hence your analysis of BoS on the matter (using the A3 as the example) wasn’t really that relevant.
hjeg2 wrote:
No in my question I was already assuming that that would be greater RTM. If all things are equal then there would be less left over for the perceived effectiveness, but then BoS would be less. Basically, I want to know if you would ever say that speed cameras are having an effect.
I’m not sure you’ve realised this but the RTTM effect can be masking an actual negative effect of the camera.
We know the RTTM effect is greater on rural roads, it’s just that we have no indication of how much greater, but it could be a whole lot greater.
Say for a Baseline drop = 55%:
- Trend = 10%
- RTTM = 50%
- BoS = 0%
so genuine camera effectiveness = -5%
So to answer your question, they’ll be having some sort of effect, but we don’t know if it is positive or negative.
hjeg2 wrote:
Which just shows an even bigger difference between fixed and mobile cameras. I'm pretty sure I asked a short question relating to this.
You were also pretty sure the figure was 1km; you were wrong – yes?
My original point being: it is significantly likely that other added safety measures are within the defined reach of a speed camera site. Do you agree?
hjeg2 wrote:
smeggy wrote:
Yes, RTTM. They’re still relying upon that illusory benefit even today.
...No mention of the possibility of RTTM, long-term trends or even BoS; now that’s naughty huh? There are many more examples in current use, I won’t bore you with many links.
I completely agree that the above is wrong.
Good! Would you accept that given Safespeed’s significant media coverage highlighting these flaws and the combined resource of >40 partnerships, each with their own analysis and PR department, their continued used of these flaws can only mean that they are deliberately being deceptive?
hjeg2 wrote:
smeggy wrote:
That was a non-sequitur, not application of logic.
Just for my future reference, why exactly do you say that?
The argument doesn’t follow because there is no logical connect. You made the assumption that all objects within the field of view will be consciously noted and acted upon; this known to be incorrect. Also, you assume all speed cameras will be roughly in view where people are waiting to cross the road; this is also incorrect.
hjeg2 wrote:
I simply disagree that it will be subconsciously discarded. There will be other static items such as static cars to look out for. And road signs, for example Give Way and mini-roundabout signs. If you are going at a speed where you can look out for and react to many different types of hazard, then I believe in the process you will have no problem in spotting speed cameras.
Why do you disagree that they will be discarded? You can’t just say it will be without some sort of supporting argument. I’ve given mine.
Cars are in the road and have the ability to pull into the path of a moving vehicle, cameras don’t and can’t.
Signs also have symbols that are used to communicate information. This is of course more effective than just a simple coloured background which communicates nothing. Not forgetting that some are hidden....
hjeg2 wrote:
smeggy wrote:
but this is enough to give you an idea of what I mean: hidden and not yellow – and those are just the fixed sites!
Well fair enough, but I would like to say that all the speed cameras in Greater London and Surrey, where I drive, are completely and easily visible.
How do you know you’ve noticed all the cameras – especially the mobile ones?
Will all sights around the country be as conspicuous as those you’ve seen? (such as those in Greater London)
hjeg2 wrote:
Smeggy, you didn't directly reply to the above and considering that you said my comment showed that I hadn't understood the argument, I think it is only fair that you reply.
1, 2 and 3 are correct. 4 is flawed because it makes no provision for BoS (regardless of how insignificant one believes it is).
hjeg2 wrote:
This gut feeling business has become a bit of a strawman. Of course my gut feelings can't take account of various different things. Also, nowhere have I accepted (otherwise please point it out) that BoS can be significant. What I have been saying is a technical point: "Sure it could be 0%". I don't reckon that it is though. (*sigh* I did make the mistake of not putting the word "could" in bold before.)
You’re all over the place. You accepted that the effectiveness of speed cameras (accounting for trend, RTTM) can possibly be entirely down to the effect of BoS (and that BoS can be even greater), yet you say that you have never accepted that BoS can be significant ?!?
hjeg2 wrote:
Also, I have now thought of an additional factor which hasn't been taken into consideration before - the police's actions once a speed camera has been installed. Before a speed camera is installed, I imagine the local police would build up a knowledge (over the space of many years) of what a road is like. If a road is known to be more dangerous presumably they would watch it more. However, once a speed camera has gone in, the police would divert their limited resources elsewhere. With this in mind, the actual effectiveness of cameras could in fact be more than the official figures.
...
Do you accept that, with the (unknown) actions of the police, the figure could be higher than the 17% given for fixed speed cameras?
This is a good point: reverse BoS, cameras displacing (or even replacing) trafpol.
To answer your question: yes, although I think the many other forms of positive BoS would completely swamp that particular effect (see below).
Also, trafpol will still have to look out for the plethora of other poor or anti-social driving which speed cameras simply cannot detect. We know that the great majority of crashes happen with all those involved within the speed limit, so why should trafpol not need to police at camera locations? (apart from not wanting to risk getting caught themselves).
Hence I don’t think your argument, while valid, is significant.
hjeg2 wrote:
Smeggy...! Well if you expect me to reply to every word you say then I will do the same back.
In that case, would you mind commenting on my argument of “
the practice of mixing other safety features into camera sites isn’t what anyone would consider to be uncommon.
(Note that I quoted only from UK SCP/government sites)” and the links I used to support it.
Would you agree that urban camera sites are often mixed in with other safety measures?
hjeg2 wrote:
You didn't reply to the above.
There is no need, see below.
hjeg2 wrote:
smeggy wrote:
So what difference do you think measures like the following make?
- pedestrian barriers which stop people from running out into a road
- pedestrian crossings which separate pedestrians from traffic
- or cycle lanes which separate cyclists from traffic
Go on, have a stab at them.
Alright, the first makes a 1.3% difference, the second a 0.4% difference and the last a 0.1% difference - happy?
I have a confession to make. When I was searching for the links showing the instances of deliberate BoS, I found an old TRL document with a table stating the effectiveness of those other measures. I wanted to gauge your ‘gut feeling’ on those before I told you of those results:
- pedestrian barriers (urban) = 46%
- pedestrian crossings (urban) = 36%
- cycle lanes (cycle schemes, combined) = 58%
Table 7: Treatment types by Location
www.trl.co.uk/molasses/Web%20tables.doc There are plenty of other measures described within.
I should point out that the report accepts there could be a significant level of BoS (now why don’t they ever admit that for speed camera sites?), but this would likely be less significant than that at camera sites because the definition of the reach of these other measures would likely be less than camera sites, certainly less than 5km anyway.
The level of RTTM is very unlikely to be as significant because the policies allowing the installation of these measures are not based solely on recent prior history (if at all).
I estimate that long-term trend would account for 20% of the fall (1994 to 2000 was from a time where the rate of the fatality drop was better).
Would you not agree that the effectiveness of other measures can be very significant?
hjeg2 wrote:
I'm not sure that that makes sense when you take into account, as we have done, RTM.
I see what you mean, it doesn’t does it. I can’t explain why the RTTM effect is greater at mobile sites. It does seem to go against what is expected, but I have no reason to dispute the outcome of the RTTM study (or that of long-term trend).
The difference could be that fixed sites suffer from greater BoS due to the nature of the rules allowing them, unfortunately there is currently no way for us to know.