Safe Speed Forums

He may modify his behaviour but it would not neccessarily make him a safer driver or reduce casualties.

_________________
My views do not represent Safespeed but those of a driver who has driven for 39 yrs, in all conditions, at all times of the day & night on every type of road and covered well over a million miles, so knows a bit about what makes for safety on the road,what is really dangerous and needs to be observed when driving and quite frankly, the speedo is way down on my list of things to observe to negotiate Britain's roads safely, but I don't expect some fool who sits behind a desk all day to appreciate that.

Never mind safety, make important what you can easily set quotas for and measure, huh?


TBH, I think Peter is correct, and your explanation makes no sense. There was nothing to prevent the continuation of the old cost recovery arrangement; local schemes could simply have been moved to other locations that satisfied the placement criteria.
We know public opinion is turning and councils have already begun ending the funding for these cameras; the number of speeding tickets issued has fallen drastically.

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

If the limit was needlessly low - as it is generally accepted they are on motorways - then yes it would modify driver behaviour, by introducing additional and needless distractions.

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

Thanks for the explanation, it makes more sense to me now. Doesn't it just suggest that the statisticians churning this data out are being "economical" with the truth though? It doesn't necessarily mean that all speed cameras should be ripped out does it? I mean we're all used to Govt, Local Authorities, Quango's etc. manipulating stats to pursue their own agenda so is this that different to the usual subterfuge we're subjected to on a daily basis?

It also still doesn't make sense to me that this is a good enough reason to remove what is potentially a very useful tool for road safety. One could intepret the Safespeed campaign to remove speed cameras as "cutting one's nose off to spite one's face". Now, I don't think this is the case, I believe most of the campaigners here are sincere in their beliefs, I just don't necessarily agree with them!

Does the CCTV's you use decrease the crime rate, or just increase the conviction rate?

Would you now accept The Safe Speed campaign has a point and that you can now understand there really is an "argument for a reappraisal of the way cameras are used. "?

And then there's "bias on selection": installing real safety measures within camera sites to further increase the perceived benefits of the cameras. This effect is separate and additional to RTTM. No one can deny the possibility that this effect is possible and can very significant, yet no study has even been done on this effect, one that I believe to be quite an obvious confounding factor!


It's more than that. One can be only so economical with the truth before it becomes outright misleading.
Knowingly allowing one's claims to be wrongly interpreted, and continued to be wrongly interpreted, without offering any form of correction or clarification, is still deception. There are many current examples for RTTM.

Do we really want to base our safety policies on 'economical truths'?


Speed cameras have come to represent an abused policy and foster a growing disrespect for the law (and makes it easy act outside of it) - this is a very bad thing. Do we want to remain with a policy that also encourages lawlessness?

Yes we're bombarded with misrepresentation daily, but that doesn’t make it right, especially with these 'professionals' we fund to keep us safe. We should not let those people defend their bad policies with unsound arguments; doing so is tantamount to us giving them permission to abuse their position - and us.
We must hold such people to account, or at least keep them in check, otherwise they will walk all over us!
The speed camera debate is a good vehicle for this because the arguments are easy to understand (if one takes the time).

I think anyone will have difficulty defending the SCPs from a charge of fraud (gaining an advantage via a known deception). Speed cameras have created an obvious conflict of interest (financial and political); be wary of those who defend them without accepting both RTTM and 'bias on selection'.

IMO: all SCPs should be disbanded for their reprehensible conduct within the road safety debate.


This campaign doesn't just call for the removal of cameras, it also calls for the return to the policies that gave us the best (and best improving) roads in the world - real trafpol. Who could argue with this campaign calling for more trafpol?

Cameras could have been an acceptable tool, but the misinformation created by those with the conflicted interests has resulted with the wrong focus and harmful political agendas.
The limited intelligence, limited use, proxy-only identifier, evidence capture devices the camera policy has given, has replaced the all-encompassing, all focussing, intelligent, discretionary, pro-active effectiveness of the trafpol one. In fact, trafpol levels have decreased even though traffic levels have increased - how on earth did that happen?
I'll tell you what enabled it: all that deception perpetuated by SCP PR staff!

Those who want to take this campaign lightly are truly those who are 'cutting off' their own noses.

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

Way they are used?

Isn't the Safe Speed line that all camera operations should cease with immediate effect and permanently?

I was appealing to Peyote by satisfying his argument (and his wording).

I have recently made a post regarding the bad reputation of cameras, but I've had a few and can't be bothered right now

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

Mainly the people churning it out are not statisticians.
Just because a person has a univ degree does not mean they are competent at the use of statistics.
Even if they are competent statisticians there is no guarantee that they are morally competent statisticians.
The use of statistics to justify an action, just for that action, is so widespread now that people are becoming bored by the process.

_________________
The world runs on oil, period. No other substance can compete when it comes to energy density, flexibility, ease of handling, ease of transportation. If oil didn’t exist we would have to invent it.”

56 years after it was decided it was needed, the Bedford Bypass is nearing completion. The last single carriageway length of it.We have the most photogenic mayor though, always being photographed doing nothing

Increasing the conviction rate is a positive though right?

Yep 2 million new "criminals" every year has got to be a positive.....

_________________
My views do not represent Safespeed but those of a driver who has driven for 39 yrs, in all conditions, at all times of the day & night on every type of road and covered well over a million miles, so knows a bit about what makes for safety on the road,what is really dangerous and needs to be observed when driving and quite frankly, the speedo is way down on my list of things to observe to negotiate Britain's roads safely, but I don't expect some fool who sits behind a desk all day to appreciate that.

If it makes people slow down and reduces the KSI rate we have then I'd say so.

But the original question was whether or not it does that

_________________
When I see an adult on a bicycle, I do not despair for the future of the human race. H.G. Wells
When I see a youth in a motor car I do d.c.brown

I'll think I can accept that mistakes have been made in the calculations of the benefits that the SCP have said can be attributed to cameras. Whether this means that all cameras can be said to have no benefits I do not think is correct. Either way though, there is always an argument for a continuing reappraisal of the way any safety systems are used, this should be part of any review process.



I'd agree with this too. However, again it doesn't discount that cameras can provide real benefits.



This is dependent on what your own personal view of the cameras is. A conspiracy theorist could say that it is "outright misleading" and a form of "deception". Someone more jaded and cynical could just as validly claim that it is yet another example of the spin we're all constantly exposed to!

I'd rather not base our safety policies on "economical truths". However, if those economical truths are simply exaggerating an existing benefit then I can think of many more importnat issues to get worked up over!



I'm not convinced this is an opinion that is representative of the entire population. There are still many people who support the use of cameras. The disrespect for the law and lawlessness was always there, cameras haven't increased them, they've just made it harder for those who do disrespect the law and wish to act in a lawless manner to get away with it!



Agreed, misrepresentation should be tackled. Those who police us should be held to account. I'm just not convinced the arguments against speed cameras are that valid.



Well, that's one opinion anyway! I think you've hit the nail on the head though with the fact that speed cameras may be defendable while taking into account RTTM and 'bias on selection'.



I think you'd struggle to find anyone who'd argue with a campaign for more trafpol, unfortunately it comes with the caveat (at Safespeed at least) that cameras are removed and the SCP are disbanded.



Again we're back to opinions. I'm afraid I disagree. Cameras could/can be/are a useful tool and their use should be continued with appropriate open and honest reviewing.

Is there even a link between trafpol reduction and increased camera use? I've heard it mentioned but never seen any evidence, indeed camera proponents point to a decrease in trafpol coinciding with an incease in policing in other areas (anti social behaviour, burglaries, street crime etc.)

I'm afraid those who want to remove what is potentially (and maybe even actually) a very useful road safety tool because of a perceived, indirect impact on a certain section of society are those who are "cutting off thier noses".

Am I missing a point here, surely the big yellow boxes do not work because you can see them for miles and drivers slow down past the box and then speed up, on the motorway there are no speed cameras and so there are many who speed on a daily basis by 10,20,and 30 mph, if the speed cameras were hidden every-one would stick to the posted limit.

Possibly with modern technology it would be possible to change the set up, where when the limit changes (* the overhead flashing signs that seem largely ignored) the speed camera could change.
the speeders would get the point change there behavor and the roads wou;ld be safer, we could also all get home faster without the crashes and the difficulties that they cause

Two points SafeDave:

- Why do you think that the NSL is the fastest safe speed on a motorway which everyone must be made to comply with at all times?
- There are speed cameras on motorways where variable speed limits are used and these are in the overhead gantries which you mention. They operate exactly as you wish, changing with the limit.

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

the nsl (national speed limit) IS the speed limit, yes possibly it could be slower agreed, 55mph would be an appropriaite speed as this is where engines run nearer maximum efficency, but I doubt that we will lower the speed limit, going onto a duel speed limit as they do in France would make sense, lower in rain ect than in dry, I didnt know that there were speed cameras on the motorways (*except roadworks) how the hell do the loonies get away with some of the speeds????

Excuse my delay in responding, I've had a lot to contend with recently.


Which is fair comment - if taken in isolation.
However, would you agree that there is a real and significant chance that, until all these factors are properly accounted for, the claims that 'cameras are proven to have saved lives' is actually incorrect; also, there is again a real possibility that the overall benefit could actually be negative?


Again I agree, but there's exaggerating an existing benefit, and there's claiming one where it possibly could not exist at all.
Yes there are more important things in life to worry about, but I feel this simple debate gives people enough tangible reasoning to realise they should be thinking more critically about claims and interests.

They way these claims are spun implies cameras are responsible for that level of KSI reduction ('before and after', 'at camera sites'), which goes well beyond being 'economical with the truth'. That kind of description guides the reader to believe it is the presence of the camera that led to the KSI reduction.

Be honest, it appears you thought that was the case before RTTM and bias on selection (BOS) was explained to you, yes? Surely your recognition of these factors is case in point? (you're not the only one - I fell for it too).


Of course (but I don't believe the majority support them any more), but do you think that the level of support would have been greatly reduced if everyone had been educated about RTTM and BOS and how they apply to camera effectiveness? Should that opinion be representative of a population who understands the issues we're explaining?


Now I completely disagree; the great majority of drivers don't drive with the intent of exceeding a speed limit.
Those who do want to act in a lawless manner (such as wanting to exceed the speed limit) can now get away with it. Remember, cameras only allow identification of those who allow themselves to be identified.


You must agree that the case for speed cameras is greatly exaggerated and can now understand how we are not convinced about the case for them.


Can one reasonably argue against it?


Yes they may be, but we already know the effectiveness has been overstated by a factor of 550% (even higher for non-urban roads), and thanks to BOS that could end up being more than infinitely higher (change of sign), hence the current set of SCP claims aren't defendable. Do you agree?



What do we do if the reviewing hasn't been honest - for the last 5 years, and continues to be anything but honest? Does that not suggest anything to you?


We know trafpol numbers have declined during the time that reliance on speed cameras have increased. We know the effectiveness of speed cameras has been greatly over-exaggerated (at minimum) and that system has gained the cost recovery system (yet the more effective yet honest trafpol didn't) so making them appear to be 'for free'.
No real study has been done on this link (not surprising really), but you have to agree that it does make logical sense, more so given the lack of any argument against.
Would you agree that this is another factor that must be reviewed openly and honestly?

If we as a society do not demand factors such as these to be reviewed openly and honestly (in good time), who is cutting off their nose?

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

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

sorry saw the name and a LINK to something?? expected a link to argument but just some forum mesages ??? from the past, missed the point of the discussion!!

was going to suggest that hidden cameras will stop people from suddenly slowing and so only have effect of slowing people down generally which must be a good idea