David Martin said:Matt B said:David Martin said:Matt B wrote:
>>What do you mean by small and local? 2km radius? 50% reduction?
>>(different studies)
>
>No. 11% reduction in KSIs up to 500m from the camera. LM's statistically
>adjusted (for RTM and trend, but leaving in the 5% resulting from flow
>change) study of 211 accidents. The headline figure (before vs. after
>observed change was 34%).
I think you have still not read the paper. just tha abstract, so you
are taking figures out of context.
No, I just "guessed" the detail - did I get it right?
Clearly not.
So how does your interpretation differ? Remember we are looking at KSIs
(FSAs in LM speak).
Quoted message said:Quoted message said:Quoted message said:>>All safety measures are local.
>
>Only if geographically rooted. Cultural and social changes, or vehicle
>changes (as opposed to street furniture changes) are global.
And these then would explain the change in the injury rates? You can't
have it both ways. Either cameras have had a global effect on injury
figures (when you claim they only have a local effect) or there are
other confounding factors of a social nature.
Eh? Cameras have only a limited local positive effect. They *may*, we
don't know, because the reseach hasn't been done, have a negative effect
over a much wider area, due to a certain amount of traffic choosing
alternative routes to avoid the camera routes.
That work has been done and was considered by some of the studies cited
in LMs papers.
Which explains the statement which says of migration effects that there
may be accident migration to other routes and checks for any increase
need to be made on diversionary routes.
Quoted message said:Quoted message said:Even that though may be
insignificant compared to the nationwide negative effects due to the
social and cultural consequences of the "drive as dangerously as you
like, and with no attention to others, so long as you stick to the
posted limit" message that robotic enforcement promotes.
It doesn't promote that. The people who promote that message most are
the anti-camera crowd.
?
Quoted message said:Quoted message said:Automatic
driving to comply with automatically enforced limits does not induce a
culture of driving safely and considerately.
Neither does driving as fast as you want.
Even if "as fast as you want" coincides with what most reasonable people
would accept as an admirably considerate speed for the conditions?
Quoted message said:Quoted message said:Quoted message said:>>The effectiveness
>>distribution for cameras is far tighter, ie their behaviour is more
>>predictable.
>>
>>The question is to find the most cost effective way of reducing KSI on
>>the roads.
>
>The definition of "cost" and the scope of its definition being, of
>course, open to political interpretation.
Right. Cost is how much I have to pay extra on my taxes to encourage
numpties to drive less dangerously.
That's one way of looking at it - yes :-) I would prefer to think of it
as an investment though. Not only for the wellbeing of our people now,
but perhaps more importantly as an investment to improve our society for
the future.
Even better if others make the investment for you. Get the problem to
pay for the solution..
The solution? Is the problem solved then?
Quoted message said:Quoted message said:Imagine if one day we could walk across our roads without
having to wait and lookout for fear of being hit by a cyclist or car.
Because there are none around..
No, with even more around than there are now, probably.
Quoted message said:Quoted message said:Imagine if we could cycle or drive along our roads without the constant
drain on our senses and nerves of endless signs and regulations and
robotic enforcement. We could be part way there by now, but, instead we
chose to rely on speed cameras.
No, some of us move to Scotland ;-)
For those who don't have that choice perhaps?
Quoted message said:You really are living in cloud cuckoo land if you think that a crowded
society like ours can get to that kind of utopian dream where VRU can
behave without regard for any others.
Would it surprise you if I told you there exists a traffic engineer who,
to demonstrate the effectiveness of his ideas to a journalist, walked
backwards into traffic, in a street he had redesigned along the lines I
describe elsewhere, and the flow of cars, bicycles and other pedestrians
calmly slowed down and eased around him as he backed across?
Quoted message said:Quoted message said:Quoted message said:>>Cameras are an effective part of that equation.
>
>Yes, the *least* effective.
You claim that yet have not provided any evidence that cameras are less
effective than the other methods.
Do you choose not to physically attack everyone you come across in the
street for fear of being photographed doing it, or is there a higher
motive involved?
Silly comparison. There is little for me to gain and a lot for me to
lose.
OK. If it was a frail old woman carrying a big bag of used money, it
was remote and dark, and nobody could *ever* know it was you?
Quoted message said:If there is only gain, and the risk of loss is slight (to me)
then there is a considerable difference.
So you *would* rob an old woman?
Quoted message said:People will drive as fast as
they can get away with.
OK. If, because of the road space design, the fastest they could get
away with was still safe for everyone else?
Quoted message said:Quoted message said:Do you think that all motorists are devoid of morals?
When hearded, whipped, scolded and treated like uncontrollable wild
beasts simply gagging to committ an attrocity, is it any wonder that
some "switch off" and conform to those expectations.
Welcome to the rush hour..
Yes it does remind me of the commute I had to do by train for a while a
few years ago ;-)
Quoted message said:your characterisation is not particularly
recognisable.
Good, so you do give the motorists some credit then for their restraint
under those conditions.
Quoted message said:It is more like the people who will carelessly drop
litter. The cost benefit to them is low, but to society it is high.
Should we introduce a system to criminalise them, with the possibility
that they may looses their livelihoods?
Quoted message said:Quoted message said:Who, given an open space, with no clear priorites or rights of way, no
obvious road/path demarkation, with no instructions or signals, with the
liklihood of children playing, mothers pushing prams across the
diagonal, drinkers sat round a table, the odd tree and raised flower
bed, a few parked cars, a fountain, an ornamental display of rounded
boulders, some steps, a wooden bench, a market stall, is going to drive
in a straight line down the middle at 30.00 mph?
Now try modelling traffic flow through that.
Would it surprise you to hear that a scheme designed along those lines,
with a flow of 20,000 vehicles per day, also reduced congestion?
Quoted message said:Quoted message said:Who would ignore an annoying buzzer and vibration applied to the
appropriate bum cheek being triggered by crossing the edge or centre
line or other lane markings whilst dozing off at the wheel?
Selby mean anything to you?
If that poor fellow had had the system that I described above fitted in
his vehicle I am sure that Selby might ring a bell for a very different
reason. Having one bum cheek violently vibrated is not easy to sleep
through, especially whilst driving. Take a Citroen out for a drive one
day with that system fitted and cross a white line!
Quoted message said:Quoted message said:Sorry to waffle on so - but surely you see where I'm coming from?
Yes. And I don't see anything realistic in your proposals at all.
Fair enough.
Quoted message said:You
take one set of constraints and replace it with a differenc set of
expectations, and when they are not there the system falls down.
Your idealism falls down as soon as joe bloggs is a teensy bit behind
time for getting to work, as soon as jane bloggs is in a wee bit of a
rush and so on. Then 'I'm not really hurting anyone else' comes to the
fore and selfishness takes over.
We'll see.
--
Matt B
