Speeding fine Renishaw

[alchresearch]

Its quite amazing. You can throw any amount of statistics or data at these people, but they'll still refuse to believe anything you post, their armchair expert opinion is right and nothing you can say or do with change that. All they see is a straight stretch of road and their right to do whatever speed they want to.

 

The simple fact is we're given the chance to regulate our own speed, its not hard to do if 17 year old kids can do it and get a driving licence.

 

If there is something in place to make sure people are doing that (i.e. speed cameras) then don't blame the system for your failing as a driver.

[truman]

And when you account for the regression to the mean effect?

 

Eggsactly...cameras are placed in places where there has been a blip in the accident stats..after this blip,the number of accidents fall..this fall is always attributerd to the presence of the camera when,in actual fact,due to "regression to mean" the accident rate at that site would have fallen anyway...do any of the partnerships take this into account when publishing their stats?

 

---------- Post added 24-01-2013 at 10:21 ----------

 

Its quite amazing. You can throw any amount of statistics or data at these people, .

 

Lies,dammned lies and statistics....you can manipulate them to mean what you want them to depending on your agenda...

[Eater Sundae]

you can make what you want of stats your obviously a believer.

 

49% sounds like a massive figure doesnt it? it could lead you to think there was just 2 accidents then they was halfed leaving one.Then to properly judge wether or not the camera had any effect we would need to know the facts of all accidents after all both them 2 accidents could have been down to heart attacks or drink driving and in actual fact speed was never a problem at that site.

Its all hog wash constrewed as the user wants it to be.

 

Give us some proper facts to go on please then we can properly judge.

 

Re BIB. In that case, wouldn’t the reduction be 50%, not 49%. Also, we would expect to see situations where 1 accident is replaced by 2, which is just as likely for a truly random and rare event. If the results were based on such small quantities of data, we would expect to see increases of 100% just as we see drops of 50% (or 49%).

 

---------- Post added 24-01-2013 at 11:22 ----------

 

Eggsactly...cameras are placed in places where there has been a blip in the accident stats..after this blip,the number of accidents fall..this fall is always attributerd to the presence of the camera when,in actual fact,due to "regression to mean" the accident rate at that site would have fallen anyway...do any of the partnerships take this into account when publishing their stats?

 

---------- Post added 24-01-2013 at 10:21 ----------

 

 

Lies,dammned lies and statistics....you can manipulate them to mean what you want them to depending on your agenda...

 

Have you (or anyone else, to your knowledge) reviewed the data to determine whether the cameras were installed following a blip? Is this a quantifiable problem, or is it just a theoretical possibility? The raw data used in statistical analysis might be unfairly manipulated, but anyone doing this cannot stop someone else pointing out what they have done wrong – in detail, not just a wild slur. To date, I’ve not seen anyone (or any organisation) coming forward with an alternative analysis of the data, to demonstrate that organisations such as the TRL are fiddling the data to suit their political masters (or whoever). I believe that certain organisations would be shouting it from the rooftops, and backing it up with hard evidence, if they could. In the absence of this, I’m inclined to believe the TRL and their methodology.

[Xt500]

What makes me laugh is the same people time and time again push these stats at us like they are damming evidence that speed cameras work but when pushed for some real evidence that we can properly judge by it never ever comes.

 

So please stop pasting crap without substance.

[frededwards]

That's why of stopped bothering with this sort of thread.

 

It's always the usual naive, hand-wringing, "wrap the world in bubblewrap" few that start spouting statistics and parrotting police/council/government H&S propaganda and have no ability to actually consider the issues for themselves.

[alchresearch]

What makes me laugh is the same people time and time again push these stats at us like they are damming evidence that speed cameras work but when pushed for some real evidence that we can properly judge by it never ever comes.

 

Speed cameras work fine - their job is to detect and photograph people going faster than the posted limit.

 

Are they a deterrent? Depends on how willing you are to take a fine and points and how much you value your driving licence if you already have points.

 

The point is the cameras shouldn't have to do anything if people bothered to stick to the speed limits. It really is a vicious circle that affects everyone.

[Xt500]

Speed cameras work fine - their job is to detect and photograph people going faster than the posted limit.

 

Are they a deterrent? Depends on how willing you are to take a fine and points and how much you value your driving licence if you already have points.

 

The point is the cameras shouldn't have to do anything if people bothered to stick to the speed limits. It really is a vicious circle that affects everyone.

 

Then of course you get pointless posts like this

 

Im sure everyone above the age of 10 knows what they do but the real issue is wether as a one trick pony of road safety do they work?

 

I say no far from it and actually have had a serious negeative effect of some drivers attitudes which in turn is causing more serious accidents.

 

One example is the drivers who while judging others speeds take it upon them selfs to accelerate while another driver was doing a perfectly safe overtake quickly turning it from a safe pass to very very dangerous one without any thought for the safety of those undertaking the pass and of the oncoming traffic who are put unnessercerily at risk.Head ons are the accidents which are most likley to kill out of most of the accident senarios but it is happening and many many drivers have experienced this.

 

So while your bleating about a few MPH over the speed limit which is a danger to nobody your assisiting the idiots into the frame of mind that puts the rest of us seriously at risk.

 

I know you only see things in a simple way but that doesnt mean things are simple!

[Eater Sundae]

Then of course you get pointless posts like this

 

Im sure everyone above the age of 10 knows what they do but the real issue is wether as a one trick pony of road safety do they work?

 

I say no far from it and actually have had a serious negeative effect of some drivers attitudes which in turn is causing more serious accidents.

 

One example is the drivers who while judging others speeds take it upon them selfs to accelerate while another driver was doing a perfectly safe overtake quickly turning it from a safe pass to very very dangerous one without any thought for the safety of those undertaking the pass and of the oncoming traffic who are put unnessercerily at risk.Head ons are the accidents which are most likley to kill out of most of the accident senarios but it is happening and many many drivers have experienced this.

 

So while your bleating about a few MPH over the speed limit which is a danger to nobody your assisiting the idiots into the frame of mind that puts the rest of us seriously at risk.

 

I know you only see things in a simple way but that doesnt mean things are simple!

 

Of course speed cameras relate to only one aspect of driving. Nobody on here has ever said otherwise, or claimed it is a simple solution to a simple problem. There are lots of other aspects of bad driving which need to be addressed. However, that does not negate the problems associated with inappropriate speed. It just happens that speeding (which is itself only a small aspect of inappropriate speed) can be addressed to a degree by cameras. Just because other aspects of bad driving do not lend themselves to this sort of enforcement doesn’t mean that we cannot or should not use cameras for the things that they are able to do.

 

People trying to stop others overtaking by accelerating has nothing to do with the speed limit, but is entirely to do with bad driving, and is a matter of education (or enforcement when it is actually witnessed by the police). Just because someone chooses to try to stick to the speed limit does not mean that he/she actually wants to stop others from speeding. The ones that do are driving badly. On the contrary, in all cases, the quicker that person gets ahead and away, then the quicker the danger has gone. There are also people who, while not sticking to the speed limits, also take offence at people who wish to overtake them, and also accelerate. Anyone trying to stop another from overtaking is driving badly.

 

Edit. Re drivers who accelerate when being overtaken. Even if it did occur based on speed limits (which I do not accept), it has NOTHING to do with cameras.

[alchresearch]

What has your anecdote (not facts) about a driver got anything to do with speed cameras? Nothing, you're just clutching at straws, just like with the name calling.

 

Like has been already said, you're nothing more than an armchair expert with an opinion. You don't have any facts behind you, nor any industry knowledge. Have you considered all the other factors in deciding a road's speed limit - road noise impacting on houses for one, road material for another? Nope, thought not.

[truman]

Have you (or anyone else, to your knowledge) reviewed the data to determine whether the cameras were installed following a blip? Is this a quantifiable problem, or is it just a theoretical possibility? The raw data used in statistical analysis might be unfairly manipulated, but anyone doing this cannot stop someone else pointing out what they have done wrong – in detail, not just a wild slur. To date, I’ve not seen anyone (or any organisation) coming forward with an alternative analysis of the data, to demonstrate that organisations such as the TRL are fiddling the data to suit their political masters (or whoever). I believe that certain organisations would be shouting it from the rooftops, and backing it up with hard evidence, if they could. In the absence of this, I’m inclined to believe the TRL and their methodology.

 

As I understand it cameras are installed when a particular stretch of road has had a certain number of KSIs in the preceeding 3 (maybe 4) years..it is possible that just one accident has caused this (not even forced to be speed related)..prior to this event the road may have seen no KSIs.. because the KSI threshold has been reached,a camera is installed...in the next couple of years the road goes back to it's old benign self...hey presto the camera has reduced KSIs...no one is "fiddling" stats but I'm not sure they're giving the full picture..there's a road near home,,used to be a 60mph limit..no accidents for years...a couple of years ago a drunk driver went off a bend at stupi o'clock in the morning and killed his passenger..subsequently the limit was reduced to 40mph..no more accidents..County Council say "Look lower speed limit means fewer accidents" ignoring the fact that there weren't any previously and that if there's been a 10mph limit it wouldn't have prevented the one that did happen...sorry for the ramble...