Safe Speed Forums

I've just been looking at the IAM website. This month's poll asks, "Do think that so-called camera protestors are helping the cause of road safety or hindering it?"

www.iam.org.uk

..

It seems like a very carefully, dangerously, politically loaded question to me.

The way the question is posed leads you into answering that they hinder it, or else more or less admit that you are in favour of lawlessness and vandalism. Look at the careful, derogatory and completely redundant use of the phrase "so-called" to see just how leading this question is. Are they saying that people who vandalise cameras aren't protesting against them? Of course not, they are just loading the negative imagery a little, to ensure you land on the side of the "goodies" when you answer.

I can't help but assume that once the inevitable result is collected the opposite inference will then be used - ie that non-vandalised cameras are therefore helping the road-safety cause, and therefore the IAM membership believe cameras are good.

Perhaps we ought to run a poll:

"Are the so-called IAM primarily concerned with Road Safety or Politics?"

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

What is a camera ""protestor" anyway?

The question should be "are the so-called camera supporters helping the cause of road safety or hindering it"

_________________
Speed camera policy Kills

Good point. Perhaps that's why the survey chose to include the words "so-called" - thereby making them important to the context of the question.
I don't see any leading here at all. The respondant is not being asked whether he/she agrees with the actions of camera vandals, merely whether they belive their actions to be productive in the cause of aiding road safety.
Answering that it helps road safety doesn't infer support either. We may for example agree that dropping an atomic bomb on an enemy might help bring a war to an end - this does not mean that we agree with the use of such a weapon, merely with its effectiveness.

Of course it's a leading question! A "straight" question would be something like: "Does decommissioning of speed cameras help or hinder road safety", or even just "Do cameras help or hinder road safety", as I'm sure that is the way the results will be analysed.

There is no reason to bring in the "camera protestors" bit at all, as it is surely patently obvious that anyone vandalising a camera must be a "camera protestor". This is further embellised by the "so called" tag, which imparts no information, merely an opinion.

The net effect is that the underlying question which is about what effect the clear disablement of cameras has on road safety, but this is cloaked behind another one which is about condoning illegal acts by a group of people. And for a final spin, this group are carefully labelled in a dismissive way in order to influence the respondant's answer.

To illustrate this, if your view is that cameras hinder road safety, but you don't condone vandalising them, then which way should you answer?

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

Eh The question is not about the straight de-commissioning of cameras though is it? It is about the actions of camera protestors (so-called or otherwise), how can you ask a question about peoples perception of the effectiveness of camera vandalism without mentioning the perpetrators themselves?

But the question is about the activity, and moreover its effect.

Clearly the only practical outcome of "so called camera protestors destroying or vandalising" cameras is that the cameras no longer enforce the speed limit, and can be clearly seen not to do so.

So if we consider the question carefully, what we are really being asked is whether we believe the overt removal of cameras helps or hinders road safety. How the cameras come to be inactive is surely irrelevant to whether their presence "helps or hinders road safety"?

Can you see any difference between that question and...

"Do you believe that the actions of official government bodies in removing speed cameras helps or hinders road safety?"

I can't. In terms of whether they help or hinder safety, it doesn't matter a hoot who's removed or disabled them. The only reason for including "so called camera protestors" in the question was to influence the answer.

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

But how do they know it is a "so-called camera protester" or just some ordinary vandal?


But since we have no significantly tangible proof that a speed camera enhances road safety - difficult to anwser whether or not the act of vandalising a speed cam has contributed to accidents along the road. One could only determine that by measuring the occurrence of accidents during the riegn of the camera against the occurrence since its demise.

My patch does have tangible proof as a constant - our incident levels do tend to remain at a constant level - and the type and cause of incident also appears to remain constant. Some of our critics could regard this as a significant "fail" as we have not resolved our main areas of concern - we still have our prats in the area! . On the other hand - we've remained consistent, and still have less incidents per 1000 km travelled than the Gatso infested areas - whose accidents do move from the "danger spots" to another area. It is either regression to the mean or the road in question becomes less congested as people use other routes.

Perhaps the difference is that people travelling through our area know there is every likelihood that they will see a patrol car (either marked or unmarked) at some point in the journey and tend to be more compliant and alert as a result - whereas inthe s/cam areas - more will slow for the camera and drive to sloppier standards in any case.

In reality - we will never achieve zero as human beings tend to be accident prone and easily caught out by a chance sequence of events. These will occur regardless of a camera - and it is the point of impact (as well as - er - speed) which can determine outcome.

The question, to my mind, should have been phrased along the lines as JT has suggested if it is to get a clear unbiased snaphot of the IAM majority opinion as to usefulness and support of speed cams.

_________________
Take with a chuckle or a grain of salt
Drive without COAST and it's all your own fault!

A SMILE is a curve that sets everything straight (P Diller).

A Smiley Per post
FINES USfor our COAST!

Approach love and cooking with reckless abandon - but driving with a smile and a COAST calm mind.

Thanks for highlighting this survey. As both a member of the IAM and Market Research Society I have penned a letter to the Chief Executive of the IAM. I attach the text below.

Please could readers keep the contents of this letter confidential to the forum as the letter is not even in the postbox yet!
Lettr follows:

30th March 2005
Mr C Bullock, Chief Executive
The Institute of Advanced Motorists
IAM House
510 Chiswick High Road
LONDON W4 5RG
United Kingdom



Dear Mr Bullock,

RE: Monthly Survey

I refer to the current monthly survey question copied for you below. I feel compelled to object to the way this question is written:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Please complete this optional Poll which "closes" at the end of this month.

Do you think that so-called camera protesters who destroy or vandalise safety cameras are helping the road safety cause or hindering it?


- Helping

- Hindering

----------------------------------------------------------------------------


My objections are as follows:
1. “so-called” - This is loading the question with a sentiment that leads the reader to infer that any camera protester is somewhat illegitimate
2. The wording of “safety camera” is also leading
3. The overall question links the large topic of “road safety” with “safety cameras”
4. The question also implies that any “camera protesters” are engaging in acts of vandalism

Per my objections aboce this question is written in such a way to ensure that any reasonable person would have to answer “hinder” or be forced to agree that camera protesters all have illegitimate views that hinder progression on road safety.

The debate is far from complete surrounding whether roadside speed detector cameras (note I do not use the word safety camera) actually reduce, displace, or increase danger on the roads.

The question smacks of a political agenda. Your stated aims include the statement: We are a totally independent organisation. Therefore I strongly believe that the IAM should avoid at all costs any inference of sympathy with any political party agenda.

Furthermore I am a member of the Market Research Society. Its mission to produce quality research which depends upon the confidence of the general public that research is conducted honestly and objectively. Any research that is dishonest (selling based) or not objective (the March “survey” question) ultimately discredits the whole profession.

Please could I have your assurance that future survey questions will be objectively and neutrally worded.



Yours Sincerely,

William Hunt

IAM member #######
Member of the Market Research Society

_________________
Bill

All great journeys begin with a single step

just posted this

http://www.iam.org.uk/Mail/webmaster2.php

Do you think that so-called camera protesters who destroy or vandalise safety cameras are helping the road safety cause or hindering it?

I am writing to object to the blatant bias of this months poll question (above). While I don’t support those who destroy public property, I support speed cameras even less. It would be useful if you removed the words ‘so called’ and replace safety cameras with the more common name of speed cameras. After all there is no evidence what so ever that speed cameras can detect unsafe driving. Since Speed cameras were introduced replacing dedicated traffic officers, we have seen the downward trend of road casualties stop almost over night. Yet annually 2M drivers are prosecuted and over £200M raised.

Perhaps you’d like to ask – Have speed cameras improved road safety?

I'll agree that, if the question was concerning itself purely with the decomissioning of cameras and the effect of not having them has on road safety, then it would be true to say that it makes no difference how they are removed.
The way I read the question, the weight of it lies with establishing the respondent's perception of the actions of the protestors and the effect they have, and in this sense I'll concede that it is, at best, clumsy. A better question would be:

Do you think the activity of deliberately vandalising speed cameras helps or hinders the cause of pressure groups campaigning (legitamately) for their removal?

I'm amazed how one misquote can cause such debate. But really, I've lost respect for the IAM since they courted Richard Brunstrom.

I also sent this Qnnaire web reference through to the MRS monthly mag editorial team as a howler. They sometimes name and shame those offering opinion masquerading as research.

(ps I shot from the hip earlier - the letter I am sending to the IAM has had the couple of errors i spotted corrected)

B

_________________
Bill

All great journeys begin with a single step