Safe Speed Forums

Damn thought you would ban me, but I thought ne need to have a balanced view.

Damn right we need a balanced view. I've actually searched for folk to support cameras and argue with us, and found virtually no one.

You're VERY welcome here.

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

Not trying to be funny here, but which two counts?

_________________
CSCP Latin for beginners...
Ticketo ergo sum : I scam therefore I am!

Bias is a strong word Paul, it could be argued that your work is biased towards your own viewpoint couldn't it?
Besides, if Johnson is writing a critical analysis, he won't get very far just presenting one 'side' of the argument, he'll have to go and search out the party line from somewhere even if its only to criticise it.

Damn right it's a strong word. And richly deserved.



I claim that there's a very fundamental difference between the DfT position and mine.

Show me any pro camera DfT document and I'll show you carefully selected data, flawed science and oversimplified foundations.

If anyone can point out such flaws in Safe Speed data, arguments or analysis, I promise to correct or remove the material.

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

Well, I've been reading this site and corresponding with this forum for long enough not to doubt this claim for one second.
But one thing nags away at me...why? Why would the DfT misrepresent the studies it carries out, oversimplify the data it receives? To generate the illusion of a problem with corroborating 'evidence' giving local authorities the remit to punish and extract more money from the taxpayer? This is a highly risky strategy, even for completely cash strapped councils - piss-off your main source of income and risk the whole thing being exposed as a scam based on bias, lies and deceit. I mean, this is 'Watergate' stuff isn't it - Cameragate perhaps?
I just can't see it, no mater how disillusioned I get with the process of government and the tax collecting techniques they employ.

The explanation is on this page:
http://www.safespeed.org.uk/conspiracy.html

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

I believe it's largely down to ignorance. But I also believe that much of the ignorance is manufactured.
Much of road safety policy is driven by research. But, in the case of road safety, climate change etc, most of the research funding comes from government. And government is driven by politics. And politicians are influenced by pressure groups, as well as being driven by a desire to be seen to be doing something.

It's a combination of "he who pays the piper calls the tune" and "the one hand doesn't know what the other's doing."

Regards
Peter

Feel free to point out the brainwashing here, JJ:

_________________
http://www.itsyourduty.org.uk

Wot, you mean he'll have to:

Buy a radio and listen to taxpayer funded "Speed Kills"/stick religiously to 30mph public service infomercials.

Turn on the TV and watch taxpayer funded public service advertorials about, erm, "Speed Kills" and such like (like the highly accurate, critical, even handed non party line one spouting the health effects of "traffic" pollution from buses and the power stations that fuel trams and trains over a video clip of a smoking.........



................car exhaust!).

Leave his house and see the poster ads about "Speed Kills" on the backs of buses.

Or maybe stay at home and receive such non brainwashing literature through the post, especially if he's learning to drive.

Did someone mention brainwashing?

Oh, sorry, that was another pro scam poster.

_________________
http://www.itsyourduty.org.uk

All of whom say speed doesn't kill, speed cameras are counter productive, partnerships are a waste of public money, we're turkeys, is it Christmas yet, no doubt?


Dft?

Ditto!



Wot?

Like that Mars Bar ad I saw yesterday?

The one that said Mars Bars make you fat, your teeth fall out, and they are grossly overpriced.

Nah, I'm only kidding.

The advert I saw yesterday was trying to SELL Mars Bars!



Strange how the anti-camera sites are always happy to allow pro camera supporters to have their say.

In fact, they are often so keen to be even handed and fair and let pro camera supporters have their say that several will ban anyone who gives them too hard a time!

And yet, where pro camera sites allow an anti camera viewpoint, they will often refuse to allow the anti-camera evidence to be published.

Funny that.

Haha.

_________________
http://www.itsyourduty.org.uk

Bogush, you need to calm down Mate!

You're starting to scare me!

Professional politicians of the activist kind go into politics with a religiously held belief in their agenda.

Which might not be what they claim.

For example, I heard an interview with the Chairper-non gender specific offspring of PETA who it seems was ecstatic that they had found BSE in the states because it would serve nasty agribusiness right to take a big financial hit (or words to that effect/if I recall correctly).

That's an animal welfare organisation, right?

Ditto those people who release lab animals into the wild to, at best, starve, at worst: decimate the local wildlife.

Obviously animal welfare is high on their agenda then!

You're assuming that new labour politicians and (their) civil servants, advisers, researchers, consultants, etc, etc chose their field because they wanted to bring their years of experience in the real world of practical problem solving and effective safety methodology into the public service sphere.

Whereas many (most) actually have a quite different agenda.

They aren't likely to admit it's wrong to start with.

And even less likley to admit it is their fault when things don't work out!

_________________
http://www.itsyourduty.org.uk

Jeez, he needs industrial-strength sedatives

Helen

Helen

I am sure that you will be directed to Paul Smith's estimates. He has done the best job he can from the data he has sourced.

But it is a very difficult task because there are international influences on road trauma (car design and safety improvements are in general now dtermined internationally) as well as country wide and local influences.

For example since 1975 all countries recognised as reducing road trauma per 100 million kilometres have achieved drops in the range of 69% - 78% - yet the means they have achieved those gains vary widely.

THe standout exception to this trend is the USA which has only achieved a drop of 57%. Would be interesting to determine why that is.

In my own country Australia, all states and territories have achieved gains in the range above except one. Victoria has taken a horrendous speed enforcement approach since 1990 (budgetted speeding fine revenue for this financial year of A$300 - $400 million for 3.1 million drivers). Other states have taken a much less intensive speed enforcment approach. Yet similar results.

The exception is the Northern Territory with a 61% drop. It still has an unlimited rural speed limit, has by far the largest percentage of indigenous people (27%) has a low population density so most roads (except urban and two major highways) are unsealed, and has a more "gung ho" entrepreneurial appraoch to life on average than most other states (Its fatality rates per 100 million km are about 3-4 times higher than other states).

Finally in regard to individual studies at sites where cameras have been installed, I am not aware of any UK study that has been done in a way that would have eliminated regression to the mean effects. That requires for instance that you would go through the process of selecting candidate sites for speed cameras, and sort them into groups/ types based on site characteristics, severity of the crash problem et cetera. You would then as far as possible pair them off and randomly install a speed camera at one of the pairs but not at the other.

You would then analyse crash rates reductions for the two groups and in theory the difference would be due to speed cameras.

Note that regression to the mean can result in very large drops in crashes with no treatment depending on the black spot selection criteria.

Pauls estimate of the INCREASE in deaths due to the emphasis on speed cameras and speed enforcement are shown at http://www.safespeed.org.uk/6800.xls His analysis suggests that the speed camera obsession has resulted in the fatality rate being 20% higher than it would have been if efforts had gone continuing with the sort of road safety initiatives that were used up till 1994. Included in these were in effect a higher police presence on roads.

I have questions about Paul's analytical approach, but recommend it to you so that you are open to the possibility that the obsession with speed cameras and speed limits has been counterproductive.

Regards

John Lambert
A road safety researcher in Australia (though not part of the mainstream of speed limit enforcement and speed camera zealots)

While I do not

_________________
John Lambert

Sorry, not making any serious comment on Paul Smith's figures, just on the acres of toxic ranting drivel spewed out by Bogush.

That guy needs a straightjacket

Helen

Wot?

Scared you so much you had to send Helen in to debate your side of the argument?

_________________
http://www.itsyourduty.org.uk

Helen and Bogush,

You both have Private Messages.

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

Several messages in this thread have been deleted.

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

Whoa there Big B!

That last post was my first on this thread, I didn't think I had a side in this argument!