Steve wrote:
Thank you for your thorough response. It is rare to find an opposer who responds to all the points raised (without resorting to convenient quoting).
It’s a pleasure, although I wouldn’t call myself an opposer to everything SS stands for. There’s only ever shades of grey and all that!
Steve wrote:
Peyote wrote:
I would agree with this, where I think we differ is that I believe the chances of the effect of cameras being negative are far lower than you do,
That's fair enough. In the absence of hard data it will be difficult for anyone to agree on a quantitative level. However, we agree that it is plausible, for me that’s enough to cast doubt on even the adjusted claims of camera effectiveness. Don't you think it odd such data/studies still isn't available after so many years, even though there are 43 sets of professional, paid, full-time SCP PR and analysis staff working on it? What have they been doing for the last 9 years?
It is odd, yes. I would imagine that SCP are quite busy already what with the logistics of installing, maintaining and operating those cameras, as well as the various other partnership projects. I suppose answering queries from the likes of Safespeed isn’t very high on their list of priorities though. Well, not yet anyway!
Steve wrote:
Peyote wrote:
and the chances of cameras providing wider benefits other than 'saving lives' are potentially greater. Unfortunately this latter point isn't widely picked up and publicised by the media. I guess it doesn't provide the catchy soundbite that 'saving lives' does.
What do you think these wider benefits are?
There are so many more negative
side effects to consider too.
I’ve expanded on some of the benefits I believe cameras can provide in my response to Safespeed V.2, so please forgive me quoting myself:
<snip> but from my own experience I would suggest that reducing speeds encourages the use of other forms of transport such as walking and cycling. This in itself has positive health and environmental benefits, but in addition the presence of a high speed road can have a dividing effect on any given community, reducing the speeds of traffic on these roads encourages more crossover between the two sides of the community. In addition, the reduction in speeds also means the network can operate at a higher capacity (though I suspect many SS propoenents disagree with this claim). So there’s a few benefits for you!
Steve wrote:
Peyote wrote:
It guides the uninformed and apathetic reader, I'd like to believe that most readers have enough experience of these matters not to be taken in too much by the soundbites. I suppose it boils down to how much truth you (as a reader) glean from whatever your source of information is.
Not wanting to pick on you, but I would think it fair to say you're not apathetic (well you here for a start), yet you fell for the illusions, as did I (and I’m hardly apathetic). I think it reasonable to say that the majority of the population has fallen for it too. After all this time the SCPs haven’t changed their ways even after their errors has been proven. Isn't that enough to damage the credibility of the SCPs?
I suppose it depends on whether those errors are significant enough to make a difference. Obviously the Safespeed campaign thinks they are, so much so that cameras are claimed to have a negative effect on road safety. Others may believe that the claims from the SCP are over hyped but essentially cameras have a positive effect overall anyway. I think it’s all down to personal judgement at this stage, at least until some truly independent research is carried out.
Whether all this is enough to damage credibility is subjective as to how much you gave the SCPs in the first place!
Steve wrote:
Peyote wrote:
The revenue generation side of things is an interesting distraction for me, but not one I take seriously because it really isn't difficult to avoid being caught! All IMHO of course.
My mum thought that until recently - the limits were dropped (40 signs removed) and a mobile unit was sneakily deployed.
Not wishing to cast aspersions on your Mum (but I will anyway, so please don’t be too offended!). This is the kind of excuse many drivers make when they’re caught speeding, subsequently to find out that the signage had been altered and camera signs had been put out, they’d all just assumed the status quo had remained constant.
Not that I don’t believe there are instances where the technical requirements of using cameras hadn’t been adhered to – to the letter – and subsequently speeding drivers let off.
Steve wrote:
Given many of today’s ever reducing and needlessly low limits (especially on motorways and previously NSL roads), it is actually quite easy to be caught out.
Hmm, I guess the needlessly bit is somewhat down to opinion, though I’d agree with motorways (roadworks excepting). I don’t think it’s really that easy to get caught out though, unless you become too complacent.
Steve wrote:
Millions of drivers will agree with me.
Millions may agree with you, but there are a fair few million drivers in the country, I’m willing to guess that a fair few may take the opposite view too!
Steve wrote:
Peyote wrote:
I'm not sure that the level of support would've reduced that much. I know about RTTM and BOS and I'm still a supporter of cameras, though I recognise that their use should be reviewed (not shelved). It would've made sense to include the aspects Safespeed has raised into an analysis (and subsequent publicity) of their effectiveness though.
Like you I was a supporter, then after digging (deeper than you) I turned totally against; at least you're now wanting a review and are now open to the principle that cameras may not offer any overall positive benefit at all. The rest of the population will most likely be a bit of both (depending on how much of our arguments we get out there), and I think that's enough to justify my point. I would be happy to have a fully open review (oh god yes, I know where it will lead) – this is an obvious must, it has been for a long time, so why hasn’t it happened? I won't be surprised if such a review never happens; I've dug really deep (deeper than most) and I've directly tested SCP staff with my arguments - you can see that outcome for yourself if you've been following these forums.
Fair enough, you obviously know your subject in far more detail than I do. May be it’s just a matter of time before I’m convinced of the Safespeed campaign. I’ve been aware of it for five years and know a bit about what it hopes to achieve and the reasoning behind it without being convinced though.
Steve wrote:
Peyote wrote:
I had a feeling you'd disagree! I guess we're just looking at the same situation from differing viewpoints. From my perspective the roads have been an area with little law enforcement for a very long time,
I’m looking at the safety aspect and reasonably expected behaviours; you’re looking at compliance of just one behaviour.
You may feel there has been little law enforcement, you might be right, but that level has been falling since cameras were introduced (when considering enforcement of all behaviours of all road users).
Well, cameras can only enforce one behaviour! This is exactly why we need trafpol in conjunction with cameras.
Steve wrote:
You didn’t understand me, the cameras are at least part of the reason for that lack of enforcement; the only solution is to return that level to where it should have been (and we’ve already paid for it through ever increasing taxation on driving, so it’s not like we’re not entitled).
That’s not the only solution, there are many solutions. One in particular I would argue for is cameras and more trafpol. The taxation argument is a red herring, private motor vehicle ownership and use is subsidised by the wider population anyway. Though I know this is a debate that could run onto another thread!
Steve wrote:
But it’s even more than that: this misrepresentation we’re discussing has also resulted with many drops of speed limits, so its not so much about 'getting away with what we used to', it’s more like now can’t do what we safely and legally did before.
Hmm, legally yes, safely? I’m not so sure. There were still significant deaths and injuries on the roads back then, and the social and environmental costs were rising too. There are also more cars on the road being used for longer periods over greater distances.
Steve wrote:
On top of that, cars and roads are and have always been designed/engineered to be safer, so to maintain the effective status quo we’re actually entitled to higher limits (such as on motorways where the majority want higher limits).
That’s a very driver-centric point of view though. The bigger picture should be taken into account as well, there are other road users (except on motorways of course) and the impact of roads and vehicles on our lives cannot be underestimated. Many of these impacts are positive, but the negatives are often conveniently ignored.
Steve wrote:
The most dangerous drivers have it really easy now. It is much easier for their bad behaviours to evade detection and for them to evade capture even if detected. Remember, the campaign isn’t against speed limits or the enforcement of them.
]
Can’t argue with that, don’t really want to either! The answer is to have more trafpol.
Steve wrote:
Sorry but you are wrong. The SCPs claims are not opinions, they are quantified statements – we know the minimum level of exaggeration. Their claims were of a 55% drop; it is actually a 10% drop (that’s not accounting for 'bias on selection'). You cannot deny that the SCPs claims (of the tools they promote and benefit by) are greatly exaggerated/misrepresented at least a factor of 5.5 times.
I stand corrected. Maybe they pulled all their PR people from the private sector advertsing companies where this kind of data manipulation is rife! It is interesting how a 55% drop compared to a 10% drop doesn’t sound very significant, yet a fator of 5.5 times does and your previous quote of 550% sounds even bigger. Certainly makes you think about the way data is presented.
Steve wrote:
Peyote wrote:
Steve wrote:
IMO: all SCPs should be disbanded for their reprehensible conduct within the road safety debate.
...
Can one reasonably argue against it?
I'm trying in this thread!
I have to say that so far you haven't succeeded. I've proven to your satisfaction that there is a strong exaggeration (or at least wanton misrepresentation) and that the exaggeration must be even greater than that already quantified.
Remember,
there's exaggerating an existing benefit, and there's claiming one where it might not exist at all.
That’ll teach me to chuck in throw-away comments!
Steve wrote:
Peyote wrote:
If the current set of SCP claims don't take into account RTTM and BOS then they may be (very?) inaccurate but it doesn't mean that all cameras are useless and need to be ripped out. It means that the SCP claims need to be objectively pulled to bits and the whole thing reviewed.
I can forgive inaccurate, but, the SCPs claims are more than that: they’re deliberately (knowingly) inaccurate!
Again I don’t know if I’m convinced of the malicious intent that you seem to subscribe to the SCPs. I’m happy to agree with you that there may well be inaccuracies, but the reasoning behind that…
Steve wrote:
It also means that there’s no proven benefit from cameras, so why is there talk of having more? This is leading to drivers being needlessly penalised for no proven good reason (especially given the needlessly low limits they enforce), as well as having to accept shoddy traffic policing.
Well, maybe they work at slowing traffic down which gives the benefits I’ve alluded to above? I haven’t seen any proof of those benefits so can’t say for certain it exists (but I can well believe they do), quantifying these kind of benefits is always a bit of a nightmare anyway.
Drivers are being penalised for operating outside of the law and the speed limits are only “needlessly” low from a certain cross-section of the road users who use them surely? The shoddy policing I’m still not convinced is linked to the cameras and there’s no reason why more trafpol can’t happen independently of the camera network operating too.
Steve wrote:
The lack of any open analysis, scrutiny or review from the SCPs even though there is quite obviously a case for it, and after all these years, means the SCPs must be held to account. At the very minimum, the SCPs should be disbanded for their repugnant behaviour (remember, they're full time professionals, we shouldn't know better than them, but evidently we do).
True a review should take place, but disbanding them is just as bad as ripping the cameras out. Why not just make them work effectively (if they are indeed not working effectively now)?
Steve wrote:
Do you agree that the SCP claims aren't defendable and haven’t been for many years even though groups such as Safe Speed has been broadcasting these errors?
This is like being in court! No I don’t agree, I understand that you’ve done far more work into this than me and are claiming that they aren’t defendable but I’m not going to say “yes” or “no”. For all I know there is an equivalent in the SCP making similar claims about Safespeed, it’s only fair that both POV are recognised.
Steve wrote:
Peyote wrote:
Lobby for honest reviewing, pull to shreds any dishonesty that you encounter. It suggest to me that the procedures in the SCPs for making these claims need a lot of work and a lot more analysis carried out. It doesn't mean there is a conspiracy to wring yet more money out of the beleagured-British-motorist (an oxymoron if ever there was one!).
Disprove claims, expose dishonesty, lobby for honesty! Been there, done all of that! Yet they're still spouting the same crap without acknowledgement of confounding factors, even after all these years!
The fact that after all these years the SCPs haven't done the work they obviously should have done does very strongly suggest there is a level of conspiracy on their part. Remember, these counter arguments are hardly new!
Either that or the lobbying groups haven’t exerted enough pressure on the SCPs to make it worth their while to explore these counter arguments yet.
Steve wrote:
Peyote wrote:
Steve wrote:
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?
Yes, again something that needs to be looked into because, as you say, no real study has been done on this link. The assumption therefore that a link exists is a dangerous one to make.
It is not an assumption. It is clearly stated by the DfT that the cameras are there to free up police: "
It [cameras] would free the police and the courts to concentrate on other offences" [DfT.gov.uk]. Coincidentally, levels of road policing has fallen even though the increased taxation on drivers means they’re entitled to more real police.
Interesting, was this DfT policy before the start of the SCPs? I suppose it does make sense though to allow trafpol to concentrate on careless, dangerous reckless driving compared to speeding which as we all know is a relatively low level crime on the roads! It doesn’t mean that cameras have replaced Police though does it? It means it’s freed them up to do other stuff.
Increased taxation has happened because it’s so cheap and easy to drive everywhere because no-one who drives has had to pay the full cost of their transport choice for many, many years (if ever!). The more cars there are on the road the more negative impacts have to be counteracted.
Steve wrote:
Peyote wrote:
I still stand by my initial point though Steve!
Being fair: the only relevant point you can stand by is that cameras
may have a (slight) positive impact even after accounting for the three confounding factors.
Being fair that was the only point I’ve ever argued for. Though I would say the positive impact for other road users is probably greater than it is for drivers. Either way though it’s all good!
Steve wrote:
I stand by the facts that the
claimed quantitative effectiveness is exaggerated/misrepresented by 550%; that exaggeration
will be higher thanks to BOS; cameras can have an overall negative impact; a benefit has never been properly proven. The fact that's there has never been any review, or analysis, or acceptance, or even a
mention of such an obvious factor as BOS, even after all this time and visible lobbying, indicates those who make the claims really are dodging the issue.
Here's an example of such disingenuous behaviour from someone who
quite obviously works for SCP/SCP support (something I have already confirmed). Look how he
responds to the BOS factor; despite my repeated prompts elsewhere, this user has never accepted the possibility of BOS being a factor which should be considered. This is typical of the group we are drawing attention to (which isn’t surprising considering that user is part of it).
I’m happy for a full and open review. That would be a great step towards disbanding the SCPs.
The final sentence is where our respective views separate I’m afraid Steve.
Login
Register
FAQ
Search
Members
, and they never crash a lot less then the normal run of the mill trucks. Some fleet vans appear to be getting limiters fitted to them now too. 
