Safe Speed Forums

Und in France - they boast a 50% drop in KSI per "Le Figaro" toward end October they have article basically about plan to reduce legal booze limit und to curb advertising encouraging a drink culture.

But they made one comment "

Figaro ca end October - we just kept the cutting as reference that some are lobbying for further reduction in booze limit und even zeroise for new drivers..und of course - ist question of policing und enforcing (mean more cops) - und body's own chemical functions which mean we cannot completely "zeroise"

making reference to fact that they doubled number of police officers targetting drink driving, red light jumping and seat belt offences and whilst they will tentatively accept (word "perhaps") the cams may have played a minor role - this article seems to suggest France's turn around of road traffic accidnets it is more down to good and more visible policing than to scamming. Of course - lessons are including much more COASTing

As for all reports commissioned by academics - subjectivity gets in the way of research. Und also their work ist twisted subejctively by pro-scammers in particular to interpret the text with something which ist not within the body of the conclusion as well.

_________________
Nicht ganz im Lot!
Ich setze mich immer wieder in die Nesseln! Der Mad Doc ist mein Mann! Und ich benutzte seinen PC!

UND OUR SMILEYS? Smile ... und the the world smiles with you.
Smiley guy seen when you read
Fine me for Safe Speed
(& other good causes..)

Greatest love & Greatest Achievements Require Greatest Risk
But if you lose the driving plan - don't lose the COAST lesson.
Me?
Je ne regrette rien!

I did find such a pattern in the past:
http://www.safespeed.org.uk/pr129.html

I don't think one police force are is enough to draw a decent conclusion, so the correct approach is 'baskets' of areas.

I'll be using the accounts data and the 4th year report data to look for 2003/4 patterns in the next day or two.

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

Something funny in the report:

Table 4.7 simply does not add up. Can anyone see what they have done? Or what I'm doing wrong? Can anyone make sense of Table 4.7?

Table 4.9 adds up perfectly if you need an example.

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

Taking the Fixed column as an example:

Baseline: 0.63
Estimated result without camera, accounting for trend: 0.55
Actual result with camera: 0.38
Change from baseline to actual result: (0.63 - 0.38) = -0.25

Change after allowing for trend: (0.55 - 0.38) = -0.17
Estimated effect of safety camera: finger in the air?

Yeah, sorry, thanks. I'd got that far.

So when they claim -0.18 as the effect of the camera that implies an estimated value of RTTM of 0.01? RTTM as a tiny effect in the WRONG direction?

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

Hi,
I am in discussion with my MP about the camera farce. I re-visited the fourth year report to refresh my memory. I also had a look at the third year report. The executive summaries seem to have a strange constant they have the number of fatalities allegedly saved both at a 100 per annum. This despite camera areas going from 24 to 38 and RTTM being 'discovered' by them but without allowing for the effects ? Allowing for RTTM should I state " even on the dodgy camera biased data it should be 40 alleged saved fatalities " Also with the increased number of areas and cameras does this mean cameras are becoming less effective as the alleged fatalities saved has reportedly remained constant ? I think the reason for the 100 being the same is the assumption that cameras save 100 per year not being re-calculated. What do you think ? I am loathe to present data to my MP that I am not 100% sure about .

Richard

I don't believe that either report gives a sound basis for the 100 lives per year claim. It's probably entirely RTTM anyway. (This without a specific re-read to check...)

I run the argument as follows:

* Claims of 'benefits' at speed camera sites are grossly exaggerated due to RTTM
* Additionally no allowance is made for other engineering treatments applied at about the same time as the cameras.
* Additionally no allowance is made for reduced traffic volumes caused by the camera.

Once these factors are accounted for the benefit at speed camera sites is tiny or even negative.

And then there are all the negative side effects of speed cameras on the wider road network. None of these have been evaluated at all.

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

Spot on Paul,
I have personal knowledge of 4 cameras on routes I regularly use .

2 on the A444 just outside Burton on Trent ( Pelican crossing installed )
1 on A444 within 2 years Traffic lights installed - camera still there 5 years later
1 on road adjacent to my street ( Pelican crossing installed 3 months after mobile site live ) - Also Post office closed ( lots of parked cars/hazards caused )

This is 1 engineering improvement/change per camera I wonder if this is the norm ?

Also I regularly travel between Burton and Matlock. The A6 route is populated with cameras - I stopped using it when I got 3 points.

Draycot in the Clay was a nice route - I have not used it since they installed speed cameras. Why we have no data on traffic reduction at camera sites I do not know.

Thanks for the info.

Richard

Probably because it might lead to some sort of measurable conclusion as to the actual effectiveness or otherwise of cameras in themselves to reduce accidents.

Wouldn't want to go spoiling their meaningless headline figures now, would we....?!