Remember the imminent public humiliation of Paul Smith?

[David Martin]

smeggy wrote:
> > There are many studies out there. Some use KSI. Some use accident
> > occurence. Some also measure traffic speed distributions.
>
> This is what the public hears:
> "there has been a 40% (minumum, sometimes up to 70%) reduction of
> KSIs at this camera site"

Perfectly true. Are you caliming that the police have overlooked a few
dead bodies or crashed hot hatches?

>
> > You are
> > pulling an unsubstantiated claim to try to weasel out of the data.
>
> This is exactly my point, there is no data regarding other road safety
> features applied at camera sites, the effectiveness of all these are
> left conveniently undocumented.

There is also no data regarding the numbers of black cats crssing in
front of cars and whether they are scarde off by yellow painted boxes.

>
> > Are
> > you seriously claiming that all camera sites have additional road
> > furniture changes?
>
> Not all camera sites, but many - yes. There are 3 Truvelos local to
> me, all have other additional changes at these sites. There is no way
> you can claim that very few or no camera sites have additional safety
> features applied!

Ah. Statistics of the n=3 variety. And a subtle straw man as well.
Please could you point to any claim I have made that "few or no camera
sites have additional safety features applied".

The control data should be easy to find. Identify similar sites where
such engineering work has been done without including cameras and see
whether they have the same reduction.

It is quite hard to publish a negative result though..

...d

 

[[email protected]]

P.s 'Matt B's claim that 'The national safety camera programme:
Four-year evaluation report. December 2005' acknowledges that
'regression to the mean' is 'the main contributor to the observed
reduction in KSI casualties at camera sites where appropriate data has
been collected' is misleading. The main body of the report repeatedly
emphasises that 'Whilst regression-to-mean does appear to account for
some of the reduction in collisions at cameras, the safety effects of
cameras remain substantial.'

However, it is true that appendix H of the report, prepared separately
by Linda Mountain, does conclude that 3/5 of the fall in the number of
KSI at camera sites can be attributed to RTM effects. However, it also
notes that RTM effects only account for one quarter of the fall in
casualties when all injury crashes are measured. This indicates that
when it comes to reducing the total number of crashes cameras are
actually very effective.

Reading Mountain's appendix it is clear that there are many limitations
in the data which means that her estimate of the size of RTM effects
needs to be treated with caution. Firstly, a very limited sub-set of
the camera sites was selected for and it is acknowledged that the small
sample size and the characteristics of the sites selected almost
certainly led to some anomalous results. For example the appendix notes
that 'with only 93 FSCs at the 52 fixed cameras in the baseline period
the results must be regarded with considerable caution'.

In addition it would seem that the large RTM effect for Fatal and
serious crashes is as much a product of the limited sample size as
anything. Also only urban data is used, and no dual carriageway data is
used and so the speeds of the vehicles included in the study are
relatively low, relating to 30 Mph zones. If substantial data for dual
carriageways and rural roads was available and used we might see that
the RTM figure for FSC's was much near that for all injury crashes.
After all we know that vulnerable road users are more likely to be
killed as the speed rises and for a vehicle occupant to suffer a
serious or fatal injuries the vehicle has usually to be driven at a
substantial speed. Consequently it is on higher speed dual-carriageways
and rural roads that the speed calming effect of cameras is likely to
have the most effect, especially for vehicle occupants.

In short Mountain's results are certainly not 'the last word' with
regards the significance of RTM effects and her study is too limited
to draw any firm conclusions from, certainly with regards the 'true'
size of RTM effects. As noted above it is also a matter of debate
whether her methods give a 'truer' picture of the trends in the
underlying data than any other. Given her selective use of data and
the fact that her studies seem to support the 'anti camera' lobby one
might be tempted to wonder if Linda Mountain is using her academic
position to forward a certain 'political' position regarding the use of
speed cameras. As they say, you can prove anything you want with
statistics...

 

[David Martin]

Nick Kew wrote:
> smeggy wrote:
>
> > I am ensuring spindrift realises the error of his/her ways.
>
> If you were doing that, I for one would be happy.
>
> But you're not. You're driving otherwise-reasonable people
> to support spindrift.
>
> Which is exactly what idiots like spindrift do for Paul Smith.
>
> Oh, and I expect someone - maybe even both "sides" - will try to
> draw me into a futile argument after this post. Sorry, not playing.

Pretty Please?

...d

 

[[email protected]]

Matt B wrote:

'By 'any other' you mean by ignoring RTM - or are you aware of other
studies which attempt to quantify it?'

Firstly, I am not suggesting that RTM effects be completely ignored,
rather I am pointing out that there are different methods by which it's
effect might be estimated, and each of this will tend to give a
different result, the size of any difference being largely dependent on
the nature of the data set used. This hardly rocket science. Consider
the different measures of central tendency which might be applied to a
set of data. Which, if any, gives the best measure if, for example, we
were trying to compare how well off people were in one country as
compared to another? The mean, median and mode all might give a very
different picture, depending on the nature of the data used. (For
example, a small number of high earners in a relatively low-wage
economy might produce a mean figure which is unrepresentatively large).
Any statistical method used- including any used to estimate RTM effects
might introduce bias and the value of any conclusion drawn is dependent
on the exact nature of the original data used.

There are certainly plenty of other estimates of RTM effects and
suggestions as to how they should be estimated. 'Models and methods
for hot spot safety work' by Dorte Vistisen (2002) is just one and in
this he makes the observation that RTM effects should be considered to
be site-specific and that 'the magnitude of regression to the mean
effect at a particular site may not apply to other sites'. If so very
little can be said about the general effect of RTM effects and the
conclusion Mountain makes can only be said to apply to the particular
data set she selected.

This makes perfect sense. In some cases RTM effects may well account
for a significant percentage of the observed fall in casualties, in
others it will have little effect, it all depends of the particular
characteristics of a given site. Now given that we know that cameras
will be effective at many locations- even allowing for RTM effects- it
seem immoral to not use cameras because their effect may not be
pronounced at some other sites, especially given that we cannot readily
identify at which sites they will have the greatest effect. To suggest
otherwise is to argue that it is morally right to allow people to be
killed and maimed as a consequence of not applying a treatment which
would in many cases be effective simply because this also means that
law breaking drivers are not fined at sites where a camera actually has
minimal benefit. (And even in these cases it may be argued that even a
very small benefit is a worthwhile one given the devastating
consequences of a fatal or serious crash on peoples lives).

The bottom lines is that speeding is illegal. Individuals are only
granted the privilege of using something as potentially lethal as a
private motor vehicle on the publics' road if they meet certain
conditions- not least of which is having a licence. Being granted such
a licence effectively constitutes entering into a social contract and
it may be withdrawn if the individual fails to keep to the terms of
that contract. (For example, insuring their vehicle and driving within
the law). Anyone who objects to having to drive within the law should
simply not take out a driving licence.

Those who refuse to adhere to the social contract implicit in being
issued with a driving licence are simply acting in an illegal and
anti-social manner. They also harm society as a whole by reinforcing
the view that not only is 'there no such thing as society' all that
matters is the selfish desires of the individual.

 

[David Martin]

Matt B wrote:
> > Reading Mountain's appendix it is clear that there are many limitations
> > in the data which means that her estimate of the size of RTM effects
> > needs to be treated with caution.
>
> Yes. They have been very thorough, and very cautious. The chances are
> that the RTM contribution is even greater.

By that do you mean the probability ratio is on the side of higher RTM?
>From what do you gather that? As I read it, the effect after RTM is
~11% with confidence limits stretching to 0 and presumably to the other
side as well (ie ~20%).

> > For example the appendix notes
> > that 'with only 93 FSCs at the 52 fixed cameras in the baseline period
> > the results must be regarded with considerable caution'.
>
> Yes, the RTM effect could well be much greater.

Pigs could fly.. With more data and longer baseline periods, RTM
effects reduce, not increase. That is one reason to look at total
crashes instead of just KSI.

>
> > In addition it would seem that the large RTM effect for Fatal and
> > serious crashes is as much a product of the limited sample size as
> > anything.
>
> Yes, as we've said, the effect of RTM may well be greater.

But it is just as likely to be much smaller.

> > As noted above it is also a matter of debate
> > whether her methods give a 'truer' picture of the trends in the
> > underlying data than any other.
>
> By 'any other' you mean by ignoring RTM - or are you aware of other
> studies which attempt to quantify it?

Many. The question isn't whether RTM should be considered. The question
is how to model it appropriately. The PS method is naive and ****. The
Mountain method is potentially more accurate if given more data.
Unfortunately at the moment it cannot give a conclusive result, leading
to abuse of the stats by many.

...d

 

[Tony Raven]

David Martin wrote:
> Matt B wrote:

David, you're back to your Troll wrestling again.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_trolls#Resolutions_and_alternatives

--
Tony

"The best way I know of to win an argument is to start by being in the
right."
- Lord Hailsham

 

[[email protected]]

David Martin wrote:

'The Mountain method is potentially more accurate if given more data.
Unfortunately at the moment it cannot give a conclusive result, leading
to abuse of the stats by many.'

True enough. As it stands her appendix is nothing more then an
demonstration of a statistical methodology. That fact that she fails to
make this clear must lead one to question her motivations. After all
she would have know how her 'conclusions' would be manipulated by the
anti speed-control mob.

 

[smeggy]

> Please provide references for those studies which have shown *no*
> effect on casualty rates after introduction of cameras. You have made
> the claim, now put up the facts.

I didn't say that, you have now resorted to putting words in my
mouth. What I am saying is that there aren't any scientifically
accepted studies that have shown a conclusive positive effect on
casualty rates (when factoring all other factors such as 'bias on
selection') after introduction of cameras because of the cameras. If
there was there wouldn't be any decent argument to the contrary.

> Mountain's published studies show a clear and positive effect of speed
> cameras.

Yes it does, so do the SCPs results......

> Yawn. He has heard about regression from the mean but has no idea how
> to rigourously correct for it. His attempts are naive, and predicated
> by the result he wants to obtain.

I'm never said he does; I am saying that the SCPs know the phenomenon
exists and deliberately do not account for it or mention it when
claiming success of speed cameras.

> Sorry? what do you mean vice versa. Increased casualty rates have not
> been found to be linked to reduction in speed?

No, I mean that no studies have scientifically shown that speed
reduction through various methods have been found to decrease casualty
rates.

> > The latest attempt: I have been conversing with that
> > bloke from Israel who recently released a study of the opposite;
> The opposite to what?
As stated above

> > The rest of the post is irrelevant.
> As is anything that stands not a hope of being published.

Like the SCPs claimed effectiveness of speed cameras?

> The DfT figures for casualty reduction are not wrong. They are the raw
> data. Interpretation of those data is often flawed.

I've already said that. If PS never started the SS campaign, would
the public have known about these flaws? Would there have been any
pressure to examine these flaws? Of course not! Whether you like it or
not, SS is providing a necessary public service.

 

[smeggy]

> > > There are many studies out there. Some use KSI. Some use accident
> > > occurence. Some also measure traffic speed distributions.
> >
> > This is what the public hears:
> > "there has been a 40% (minumum, sometimes up to 70%) reduction of
> > KSIs at this camera site"
>
> Perfectly true. Are you caliming that the police have overlooked a few
> dead bodies or crashed hot hatches?

Not at all, I'm saying the subsequent results shown to the public do
not factor in, or even mention potential effects of, RTTM (or other
factors). This is clearly misleading the public.

> > This is exactly my point, there is no data regarding other road safety
> > features applied at camera sites, the effectiveness of all these are
> > left conveniently undocumented.
>
> There is also no data regarding the numbers of black cats crssing in
> front of cars and whether they are scarde off by yellow painted boxes.

Very mature! I think that reply speaks volumes for itself, no need to
dignify that with a comment.

> Please could you point to any claim I have made that "few or no camera
> sites have additional safety features applied".

You are putting words in my mouth again. I never claimed you said that;
I am saying there's no way you can claim it.

 

[smeggy]

> Secondly the evaluation of the effectiveness of cameras and other road
> safety interventions traditionally uses 3 year figures which reduce RTM
> effects substantially.

No it doesn't. We need to compare the average time between
occurrences of KSIs at a camera 'site' against the monitored
period. So long as the former is greater/equal or anywhere near the
latter, the occurrences can be considered to have a random component
(RTTM fodder); I strongly suspect this is generally the case. To
eliminate RTTM, a baseline of at least a decade is required.

> Of perhaps greater importance than the effectiveness of otherwise of
> speed cameras is the question of just how effective a road safety
> strategy based on 'hot spot' road safety interventions is. If, as some
> claim, RTM effects mean that the use of cameras (or indeed other road
> safety interventions) which are focused on crash 'hot spots' is a
> misguided policy due to the 'random' element of road crashes, the
> answer is almost certainly not the scrapping of speed enforcement.
> Rather this would indicate that there needs to be a move towards a
> strategy of widespread random speed enforcement with the intention of
> reducing vehicle speeds across the whole network. This would then help
> to ensure that when 'random' factors combine and result in a serious
> crash at the very least the consequences of that crash will be reduced.

On the surface it could seem to be more effective to have random
enforcement as opposed to 'hot spot' enforcement, but this isn't
the case - why? Let's speculate.
Could it possibly be because the SCPs would lose the illusion of RTTM,
thereby exposing their true effectiveness (or lack thereof) ? If the
placement was random, it would soon become evident that the cameras
really were posing a danger if they did so ....

 

[smeggy]

> P.s 'Matt B's claim that 'The national safety camera programme:
> Four-year evaluation report. December 2005' acknowledges that
> 'regression to the mean' is 'the main contributor to the observed
> reduction in KSI casualties at camera sites where appropriate data has
> been collected' is misleading.

.......

> The main body of the report repeatedly
> emphasises that 'Whilst regression-to-mean does appear to account for
> some of the reduction in collisions at cameras, the safety effects of
> cameras remain substantial.'

How did they define 'substantial'? 11% (compared to the previously
claimed 40-70%) Given this I see no contradiction from Matt B

> In short Mountain's results are certainly not 'the last word' with
> regards the significance of RTM effects and her study is too limited
> to draw any firm conclusions from, certainly with regards the 'true'
> size of RTM effects. As noted above it is also a matter of debate
> whether her methods give a 'truer' picture of the trends in the
> underlying data than any other. Given her selective use of data and
> the fact that her studies seem to support the 'anti camera' lobby one
> might be tempted to wonder if Linda Mountain is using her academic
> position to forward a certain 'political' position regarding the use of
> speed cameras. As they say, you can prove anything you want with
> statistics...

Here I agree; however, it is now accepted that RTTM exists and is
significant at the very least.

 

[smeggy]

> > I am ensuring spindrift realises the error of his/her ways.
>
> If you were doing that, I for one would be happy.
>
> But you're not.

Please explain why! Let me recap

SD: thread title:
"Remember the imminent public humiliation of Paul Smith?"
SD thread:
"am writing to you because Smith now has a poster on his website,
Safespeed, who claims to be a police officer and is giving advice and
issuing warnings to visitors to the website.
........
It would certainly be a blow to Smith's credibility were one of his
chief acolytes to be revealed to be an imposter.
........
Now summat funny's happened.
"In Gear", the Safespeed poster who claimed, unconvincingly, to be a
police officer, was all over safespeed like a rash, posting all the
time, numerous posts every day.
Since April the seventh he's posted nothing.
Zilch.
De nada.
Disappeared off the face of the earth.
Coinicidence, I'm sure...."

..

This is a clear-cut. It's an unsubstantiated ("suspicious")
public slur at an SS member; worse still, SD clearly tries to connect
the alleged wrongdoing of said member to PS's credibility. Does this
seem right to you?

..

You know what? I reckon the users here know that I've smelled blood
and spindrift's 'acolytes' are rallying around and trying to
distract me with these completely irrelevant issues. Make no mistake; I
intend to ensure the original outstanding issue of this thread is
concluded - for all to see.

..

I've noticed that spindrift has not posted for a while, should I also
read into that just like spindrift read into IG's absence from SS?

 

[[email protected]]

smeggy wrote:

'If the placement was random, it would soon become evident that the
cameras really were posing a danger if they did so ....'

What nonsense! Inanimate objects such as speed cameras do not cause
'danger'. What is dangerous is the BEHAVIOUR OF MOTORISTS- especially
those who are intent on speeding and, like most criminals, are
preoccupied with avoiding being caught. Personally I never bother even
looking for cameras when driving as I don't speed.

If the behaviour of speeding drivers at camera sites was shown to be a
genuine problem the answer is clear- implement truly covert speed
enforcement or introduce Intelligent Speed Adaptation technology as
soon as possible.

To be honest it makes me laugh how the anti speed-control mob whine on
about high-visibility cameras being 'distracting'. To a large extent
'high visibility' cameras were introduced due to pressure from the
motor lobby who argued that anyone who was caught by such a camera
deserved to be fined as they were obviously not paying due regard to
the road environment!

All the whining about speed enforcement clearly shows that all many
motorists really want is to be allowed to drive at any speed they think
fit, almost regardless of the impact this has on others.

Having spent some time in Germany recently it is also clear what
nonsense people like Paul Smith are talking when they claim that
without speed limit enforcement motorists will learn to drive at an
appropriate speed for the conditions. Well much of the motorway network
I used in Germany was unlimited and despite the fact that there was a
large amount of traffic on the roads and it was raining heavily drivers
still tore past at what must have been over 120 Mph. No wonder the
crash rate for their motorways is so much higher than ours, despite the
level of traffic which uses our motorway network.

The bottom line is that if there were not some level of speed limit
enforcement most motorists would, much of the time, drive faster, then
they already do. Hardly a recipe for reducing road casualties...

If motorists were to drive within the law there would be no need to use
cameras at all. Speeding is illegal and those who hold the law in
contempt should not be granted the privilege of being allowed to drive
a motor vehicle on the public's road. Far too many drivers think that
they and only they should judge how fast they should drive, how much
they should drink before driving, when it is 'safe' to use a mobile
phone when driving and so on. As I said earlier, anyone who feels that
they are not bound by the social contact implicit in being allowed to
drive on the publics' road should be considered too selfish,
anti-social and irresponsible to be allowed on the road in the first
place...

 

[smeggy]

> What nonsense! Inanimate objects such as speed cameras do not cause
> 'danger'. What is dangerous is the BEHAVIOUR OF MOTORISTS- especially
> those who are intent on speeding and, like most criminals, are
> preoccupied with avoiding being caught. Personally I never bother even
> looking for cameras when driving as I don't speed.

That's open to interpretation (and is yet again not the topic of this
thread). Knives, missiles, petrol, electricity - none of these are
dangerous, right? Of course the cause of danger is driver behaviour,
but what is causing THIS behaviour? The answer is the 'root cause'
of the danger - the speed camera.

> If the behaviour of speeding drivers at camera sites was shown to be a
> genuine problem the answer is clear- implement truly covert speed
> enforcement or introduce Intelligent Speed Adaptation technology as
> soon as possible.

But how do we know that cameras are not a problem? thanks to other
confounding factors we know this is practically impossible to ascertain
(as previously discussed).

> To be honest it makes me laugh how the anti speed-control mob whine on
> about high-visibility cameras being 'distracting'. To a large extent
> 'high visibility' cameras were introduced due to pressure from the
> motor lobby who argued that anyone who was caught by such a camera
> deserved to be fined as they were obviously not paying due regard to
> the road environment!

You are right, but don't you think it better be to able to drive in
areas where there is no recognised problem without the CONSTANT
distraction of "am I within the speed limit?"

> All the whining about speed enforcement clearly shows that all many
> motorists really want is to be allowed to drive at any speed they think
> fit, almost regardless of the impact this has on others.

Not true. I, like many others, want proportional policies based on the
actual risk. I for one don't want to exceed the limit, what doesn't
help is that the limits are constantly being revised downwards, under
what was in many cases below a typically safe driving speed. Sure the
law is the law, but what if the law is being abused by those with
vested interests?

> Having spent some time in Germany recently it is also clear what
> nonsense people like Paul Smith are talking when they claim that
> without speed limit enforcement motorists will learn to drive at an
> appropriate speed for the conditions. Well much of the motorway network
> I used in Germany was unlimited and despite the fact that there was a
> large amount of traffic on the roads and it was raining heavily drivers
> still tore past at what must have been over 120 Mph. No wonder the
> crash rate for their motorways is so much higher than ours, despite the
> level of traffic which uses our motorway network.

How strange, I've been North to South to North many times (family
visits), I saw many drivers keeping right, with the great majority
under 100mph. As for driving in the rain, I've seen absolutely no-one
at speeds such as 120mph (besides, autobahns are restricted when wet).

Germany's problem is that it borders with countries with toll roads
with lower speed limits, so it's often used as a 'rat run' by
drivers who aren't so experienced. This would not apply to our little
Island.

> The bottom line is that if there were not some level of speed limit
> enforcement most motorists would, much of the time, drive faster, then
> they already do. Hardly a recipe for reducing road casualties...

But what if the efforts of the SCPs instead focussed on other driver
(and pedestrian) flaws? (aggression, fatigue, DIU, lack of skill)

I believe in the 80/20 rule, but in reality what we have is more like a
'5/95' rule.

> If motorists were to drive within the law there would be no need to use
> cameras at all. Speeding is illegal and those who hold the law in
> contempt should not be granted the privilege of being allowed to drive
> a motor vehicle on the public's road.

Wow, are you VH? Yes speeding is illegal, but is it unsafe? If not, why
threaten with points/ban? If the driver is dangerous then by all means
throw away the key, but can speed cameras, as they are used today,
detect this?

..

I grow weary of these pointless distractions (although I'll happily
continue in another thread). At some point I will draw the line and
declare that I'll only respond to posts on the subject of the thread.

 

[spindrift]

Semi-literate pretend policemen are funny.

Boy-racer boasts about driving at 150 mph on a public road are silly.

Excusing, justifying and encouraging illegal behaviour is
irresponsible.

But making snide insinuations about researchers who do something smith
will never dare do, submit their research to peer-review, is
inexcusable.


Speedophile tactic # 132- allude to private, unrecorded and
confidential exchanges with a road safety researcher which flatly
contradicts all their published work.


Still, don't take my word for it.

Email Ms Mountain directly, as I did, and see if you get a similar
reply |:

[email protected]

Dear Sir.

Thank you for your email, apologies for the delayed reply as I have
been moving offices.

When my work is cited by lobby groups I often find I have been
misquoted.

I stand by my findings, that while regression to the mean has an effect
speed cameras offer very worthwhile results and save lives.

Best regards


Linda Mountain.


So on the one hand we have respected, academically trained researchers
with complete impartiality who find that safety cameras have very
worthwhile effects.


On the other we have an ex van driver who has devoted the last few
years of his life to proving that he didn't deserve a speeding ticket
he got when his anti-social, reckless behaviour was challenged and
employs Camberwick Green pretend coppers to lend him credibility.




I know who I believe.

 

[Jon Senior]

On Sat, 15 Apr 2006 05:58:49 -0700, smeggy wrote:
> That's open to interpretation (and is yet again not the topic of this
> thread). Knives, missiles, petrol, electricity - none of these are
> dangerous, right? Of course the cause of danger is driver behaviour,
> but what is causing THIS behaviour? The answer is the 'root cause'
> of the danger - the speed camera.

I can only admire the magnitude of your logical disconnect. All of the
examples that you offer require human intervention or misuse to become
dangerous. Perhaps you could explain how "human intervention or misuse" of
a speed camera leads it to become a dangerous object in the same manner as
(for example) a knife. It strikes me that the danger remains with the
vehicle, and its driver as it is irresponsible behaviour on the part of
the latter that (potentially) leads to accidents. What is the nature of
the speed camera that differentiates it from other street furniture in its
ability to cause harm? Is it the colour? The shape? Would it perhaps be
less harmful if it were in some way hidden from view?

> I grow weary of these pointless distractions (although I'll happily
> continue in another thread). At some point I will draw the line and
> declare that I'll only respond to posts on the subject of the thread.

I am wary of joining in here. Partly as I feel that your apparent distance
from the real world may mean that you have problems understanding what I
have written, and partly because you appear to obsessed with "topic" in a
way that I have rarely encountered before. Do you impose the same
restrictions on topic drift in normal (non-usenet) conversations?
Enquiring minds must know!

Jon

 

[smeggy]

> I can only admire the magnitude of your logical disconnect. All of the
> examples that you offer require human intervention or misuse to become
> dangerous.
That is entirely correct, this includes speed cameras.

> Perhaps you could explain how "human intervention or misuse" of
> a speed camera leads it to become a dangerous object in the same manner as
> (for example) a knife.
Both offer people the temptation to REACT in a dangerous way. Knives
could tempt people into stabbing others during an argument (did you
know that's why our table knives now have rounded ends? Some doctors
recently called for ALL knives to be this way); cameras tempt drivers
into being distracted and/or panic braking even when risking an
accident.

> What is the nature of
> the speed camera that differentiates it from other street furniture in its
> ability to cause harm? Is it the colour? The shape? Would it perhaps be
> less harmful if it were in some way hidden from view?
Already discussed, I'm not going to repeat myself.

> I am wary of joining in here. Partly as I feel that your apparent distance
> from the real world may mean that you have problems understanding what I
> have written, and partly because you appear to obsessed with "topic" in a
> way that I have rarely encountered before. Do you impose the same
> restrictions on topic drift in normal (non-usenet) conversations?
> Enquiring minds must know!

Happy to explain. What is happening here is not topic drift - it is
topic STEERING!
Despite my repeated attempts to return to the subject at hand, members
(oddly enough those who are anti 'speed lobby') continue with
unrelated issues. This is not obsession on my part, I can tell when
I'm being managed and I refuse to be steered. I will let the unbiased
reader make up their own mind.

 

[smeggy]

Wow, where do I start?

> Semi-literate pretend policemen are funny.
You have yet to deliver any proof whatsoever to anyone, aside from your
'suspicion'.

> Boy-racer boasts about driving at 150 mph on a public road are silly.
You are deliberately misquoting him and you know it.

> Excusing, justifying and encouraging illegal behaviour is
> irresponsible.
Replace the word 'illegal' with 'unsafe' and I would agree,
otherwise no!

> But making snide insinuations about researchers who do something smith
> will never dare do, submit their research to peer-review, is
> inexcusable.
Care to direct us to these 'snide insinuations'?

> Speedophile tactic # 132- allude to private, unrecorded and
> confidential exchanges with a road safety researcher which flatly
> contradicts all their published work.
Now you are simply lying. I have never contradicted her work, not at
all.
We could take your claim of correspondence with LM with the same pinch
of salt you take with mine.

> Email Ms Mountain directly, as I did, and see if you get a similar
> reply |:
Oh I did, it wasn't dissimilar from your reply, but I got a lot more
:cp
I know exactly what she said. Yes she was greatly misquoted in the
press, however her work still justifies PS's more fundamental claims.

> I stand by my findings, that while regression to the mean has an effect
> speed cameras offer very worthwhile results and save lives. [LM]
Define 'worthwhile'. "If it saves just 1 life"? The 1 life
among countless others which would have been saved by other means
instead of speed cameras?

> On the other we have an ex van driver who has devoted the last few
> years of his life to proving that he didn't deserve a speeding ticket
> he got when his anti-social, reckless behaviour was challenged and
> employs Camberwick Green pretend coppers to lend him credibility.

That is absolute slander. PS maintains he has never had a speeding
ticket; can we all assume that, as usual, you don't have any proof
that he did? If not, how on earth could you possibly know that?

PS also maintains he was managing a computer firm prior to his illness,
then started the SS campaign. Again, can we all assume you don't have
any proof to the contrary?

Is IG officially recognised as a SS spokesperson? No!
Is IG on PS's payroll? No!
Is IG credited for any SS campaign work? No!

So how exactly does PS employ IG?

..

Anyway, getting back to the point in hand - I feel I need to repeat
myself, so here goes:

> Spindrift,
>
> Do not try to manage my expectations, stay on topic - new topic, new
> thread.
>
>
> Do you still maintain that 'In Gear' has conveniently disappeared?
> If not, will you admit that you were absolutely and completely wrong
> with your judgement of his actions? Will you admit that you were
> reading and drawing conclusions from what was essentially nothing?
> (just like RTTM)
>
> It's coming - the imminent public humiliation of spindrift

 

[[email protected]]

Smeggy wrote:

'cameras tempt drivers into being distracted and/or panic braking even
when risking an accident.'

I think what you meant to say was:

'cameras tempt habitual speed criminals into being distracted and/or
panic braking even when risking an accident due to the fact that other
speed criminals are driving to closely behind them.'

(After all for there to be a risk that a following car will run into
the back of a car whose driver was speeding and who brakes sharply in
order to slow down to the legal limit the following car must also have
been speeding). Anyhow, as I said before what you say is effectively an
argument for why completely covert speed enforcement needs to be
introduced.

Smeggy wrote:

Yes speeding is illegal, but is it unsafe?

Obviously, not least because the kinetic energy which must be
dissipated in the event of a crash rises with the square of the speed.
Lower speeds give more time to react in an emergency situation, shorten
braking distances, reduce the consequences of any crash which does
occur an so on. In any case the 'safety' angle is only one reason why
speeding is anti-social. Quite apart from the 'social contract' angle
that I have already mentioned excessive speed intimidate vulnerable
road users, often to degree that they feel that are unable to exercise
their right to use the public road. Speeding causes an annoyance to
residents who live alongside roads due to the additional noise it
generates and so on.

By the way all those idiots I saw in Germany doing well over 120 mph in
heavy rain on the motorway were all Germans, not visitors from
neighbouring countries...

 

[MichaelB]

I think that arrogant little man, Paul Smith's, arguement is based on the fact that he thinks motorists are more able to judge what speed is appropriate as opposed to having some arbitrary (in his opinion) speed set by the fact that there are houses and lampposts near-by.
Well I know I drive faster when I'm in a rush and I know when I have been on the motorway I tend to go a little faster around town. I am no expert on road safety, as aren't most people, so I dont see how I am capable of making this decision in an instant on a road - especially not having this decision biased by how the rest of my day went.

The problem with Paul Smith, like all of the people who had a crash in their cars today, is that he thinks he knows exactly what he is doing.