Cyclone Posted January 23, 2013 Share Posted January 23, 2013 It would be in their interest if promoting it means they get donations from government and speed camera manufacturers. We've all seen the statistical evidence to prove that they don't improve road safety. The county that turned them off for example. A statement by an organisation doesn't alter reality. I'm not saying that they can't ever improve it btw, but it depends on them being used correctly, cynically placing them on the straightest, fastest, safest bit of road maximises revenue, not safety. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eater Sundae Posted January 23, 2013 Share Posted January 23, 2013 It would be in their interest if promoting it means they get donations from government and speed camera manufacturers. We've all seen the statistical evidence to prove that they don't improve road safety. The county that turned them off for example. A statement by an organisation doesn't alter reality. Do they get donations from camera manufacturers? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Xt500 Posted January 23, 2013 Share Posted January 23, 2013 What powers do they have to make any changes to road safety? My guess is the same as me vertually none! There is just one factor in road safety in this country and that is where the speedo points and that is not an indicator od safe driving although some think it is.If it was then alot of the drivers who have got courses and points for speeding would have been involved in accidents but not one of them did at the time they got their speeding ticket and very few at any other time. The drivers more likely to have accidents are the ones doing half the limit with bad attitude and the common sense of a tortoise. After all 94% of accidents happen WITHIN the speed limit not above it. Driver training is the only way to improve the roads but theres no incentive for anyone to get any because everyone THINKS they are good despite many in reality not knowing the first thing about driving. Retest the lot 10 yearly and grade them i say.That way the crap ones wont be on the roads or have bad grades which the insurance companies can then reap from and drivers will then have it in black and white how crap they are and also some incentive to improve. Of course none of that will ever happen the oil companies wouldnt like empty roads. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cyclone Posted January 23, 2013 Share Posted January 23, 2013 Do they get donations from camera manufacturers? Wouldn't surprise me in the slightest. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Penistone999 Posted January 23, 2013 Share Posted January 23, 2013 Wouldn't surprise me in the slightest. That thought had crossed my mind too. After all if promoting the positives of speed cameras meant the camera manufacturers attracted more orders , then its a win win situation for both ROSPA and the camera manufacturers . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eater Sundae Posted January 23, 2013 Share Posted January 23, 2013 That thought had crossed my mind too. After all if promoting the positives of speed cameras meant the camera manufacturers attracted more orders , then its a win win situation for both ROSPA and the camera manufacturers . That would be interesting if true. Of course, if it's not true, it just looks like you promoting false ideas to support a theory that has no other evidence in its favour. ---------- Post added 23-01-2013 at 21:18 ---------- Not just Rospa, The TRL also have a view. http://www.trl.co.uk/trl-news-hub/transport-news/latest-transport-news/safety-cameras-in-scotland-cut-road-deaths-by-two-thirds_801420074.htm Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DT Ralge Posted January 23, 2013 Share Posted January 23, 2013 There is little evidence to show that the majority of them improved road safety, so by what measure were they effective? I had some earlier figures from Derbyshire's Casualty Reduction unit that disagrees with you on that point. Their website presents more current information in a way that needs re-jigging spreadsheet-wise for a proper line-by-line camera site by camera site (which I may find time to get to - in its place there's a spreadheet sheet per camera site). All I have is their summary below (presumably an honest representation of the data they publish but I will check it): "Casualty Reduction Figures up to May 2011 The below information relates to the current casualty reduction which Derbyshire Fixed and Mobile safety cameras have achieved since they have been established. All Camera sites: KSI casualties -49% PICs -35% All casualties -39% Fixed Camera sites: KSI casualties -57% PICs -38% All casualties -43% Mobile Camera sites: KSI casualties -48% PICs -33% All casualties -36%" See more at http://www.slowitdown.co.uk/F-O-I.html. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Xt500 Posted January 24, 2013 Share Posted January 24, 2013 I had some earlier figures from Derbyshire's Casualty Reduction unit that disagrees with you on that point. Their website presents more current information in a way that needs re-jigging spreadsheet-wise for a proper line-by-line camera site by camera site (which I may find time to get to - in its place there's a spreadheet sheet per camera site). All I have is their summary below (presumably an honest representation of the data they publish but I will check it): "Casualty Reduction Figures up to May 2011 The below information relates to the current casualty reduction which Derbyshire Fixed and Mobile safety cameras have achieved since they have been established. All Camera sites: KSI casualties -49% PICs -35% All casualties -39% Fixed Camera sites: KSI casualties -57% PICs -38% All casualties -43% Mobile Camera sites: KSI casualties -48% PICs -33% All casualties -36%" See more at http://www.slowitdown.co.uk/F-O-I.html. 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DT Ralge Posted January 24, 2013 Share Posted January 24, 2013 XT, you have the opportunity to learn something from the published figures. You have the opportunity to analyse whether the summary is true and accurate or a pack of lies. You have the opportunity to challenge particular sites as to the camera's effectiveness or to appreciate another that has really been effective, to visit the site(s) in person (noting how big a stretch of road the site is designated as - they are all different) and consider each site on its own merits. You have the opportunity to be able to comment on something, in other words, with intelligence. The fact that you don't, won't or can't respond intelligently speaks volumes. Don't get me wrong, the figures on their own are only a starting point for an intelligent analysis. The nature of the site, the contributory factors of the crashes (lines of sight, uphill/downhill, junction lay-outs etc), the make-up of the figures at individual sites whether consisting of single occupant crashes or multiple occupant crashes all make any analysis rather complex. I don't know how far we could push the analysis or how far we'd get with the supplementary data that we would need for it. But at least we'd get to understand how complex the issues are around the whole issue of camera use or not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cyclone Posted January 24, 2013 Share Posted January 24, 2013 I had some earlier figures from Derbyshire's Casualty Reduction unit that disagrees with you on that point. Their website presents more current information in a way that needs re-jigging spreadsheet-wise for a proper line-by-line camera site by camera site (which I may find time to get to - in its place there's a spreadheet sheet per camera site). All I have is their summary below (presumably an honest representation of the data they publish but I will check it): "Casualty Reduction Figures up to May 2011 The below information relates to the current casualty reduction which Derbyshire Fixed and Mobile safety cameras have achieved since they have been established. All Camera sites: KSI casualties -49% PICs -35% All casualties -39% Fixed Camera sites: KSI casualties -57% PICs -38% All casualties -43% Mobile Camera sites: KSI casualties -48% PICs -33% All casualties -36%" See more at http://www.slowitdown.co.uk/F-O-I.html. And when you account for the regression to the mean effect? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.