The Speed Trap - BBC1 Scotland

[Matt B]

"Peter Clinch" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Matt B wrote:
>
>> Similarly, the evidence does not suggest that cameras are ever the best
>> solution.
>
> When are you going to catch on to the fact that nobody here is suggesting
> they should be the only method used, in isolation from any others?

You're happy to be using, at best, the _second best_ solution to one of our
most challenging social issues.

>> So, does not support the current situation
>
> When are you going to catch on to the fact that nobody here is suggesting
> the current situation is ideal?

Complacency or complicity? For such a serious problem if we _can_ do better
aren't we obliged to?

>> Appropriate to the location? ROTFL.
>
> While you're laughing we're reading Dr. Mountain's study pointing out
> they're tangibly effective. What's so funny?

The intransigence is becoming embarrassing. "Fiddle while Rome burns"
springs to mind.

--
Matt B

 

[Peter Clinch]

Matt B wrote:

> Let's put it another way then: should effectiveness for purported purpose or
> wealth generation be the primary selection criterion for road safety
> initiatives.

Another rhetorical question which conveniently ignores a lot of the
issues, still can't be easily answered without lots of caveats on things
like cost effectiveness, and still gets us nowhere.

> No. They alienate motorists, generate animosity towards the police, and
> discredit the motives of the DfT. Their contribution is not neutral, it is
> negative.

No, their contribution is a reduction in accidents. Police out issuing
tickets generates animosity towards the police and alienates motorists,
so should we stop them doing that too?

> The device may have a localised positive effect, in terms of casualty
> reduction, but that is outweighed by the fact that other mechanisms will
> have a bigger positive effect and the other, better, mechanisms do not have
> the negative effects.

But there's nothing stopping you using those as well, and nobody here
arguing against it.

> Or triggering a message warning of a hazard which it would be wise to go
> slower than 60 for, rather than prompting you to look down at your speedo,
> just when you should be concentrating on the hazard.

And if you are told you should drive slower, what is your immediate
reaction? Mine is "how fast am I going then?". And as well as doing
that, it could do it right after sending you a speeding fine, which
would help you e going a bit slower before you got to the trigger point
next time!

> Except cameras detract from the big issue.

That is not the fault of cameras, but the way they are a media focus.
Make other issues the big focus and cameras can stay on and do a useful job.

> You suspect wrong. My only agenda is social harmony on our roads.

For your values of "social harmony", which appear to include speeding at
will. Mine don't, so your idea and mine won't gel, so you can't have
the harmony.

Pete.
--
Peter Clinch Medical Physics IT Officer
Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Univ. of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital
Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK
net [email protected] http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/

 

[Peter Clinch]

Matt B wrote:
> "Peter Clinch" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...

>>Matt B wrote:

>>When are you going to catch on to the fact that nobody here is suggesting
>>they should be the only method used, in isolation from any others?

> You're happy to be using, at best, the _second best_ solution to one of our
> most challenging social issues.

You don't listen, do you?
When are you going to catch on to the fact that nobody here is
suggesting they should be the only method used, in isolation from any
others? Not yet, it appears.

>>When are you going to catch on to the fact that nobody here is suggesting
>>the current situation is ideal?

> Complacency or complicity? For such a serious problem if we _can_ do better
> aren't we obliged to?

You don't listen, do you?
When are you going to catch on to the fact that nobody here is
suggesting the current situation is ideal? Not yet, it appears.

> The intransigence is becoming embarrassing. "Fiddle while Rome burns"
> springs to mind.

That's because your mind is so focused on getting rid of speed cameras
that it can't take in the possibility that they can be usefully used /in
addition/ to other measures, and as I've already pointed out to you at
least twice there's nobody here saying such a combination of measures
would be a bad thing and speed cameras are all we need.

Have you got that yet? I doubt it, since the intransigence is becoming
embarrassing, but one has to try to beat it into you somehow...

Pete.
--
Peter Clinch Medical Physics IT Officer
Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Univ. of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital
Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK
net [email protected] http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/

 

[Peter Clinch]

Nobody Here wrote:

> No. Not at all. Show me that people will drive more considerately
> because they're allowed to speed, and I'll remove some. Until then,
> evidence suggests that they won't.

Presumably we can solve the problem of uninsured drivers by removing the
legal necessity to have insurance, since everyone who currently drives
uninsured will feel a need to meet their "social contract" with the rest
of society who they might drive into.

In other news, a flock of pigs was seen flitting gently over the south
coast...

Pete.
--
Peter Clinch Medical Physics IT Officer
Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Univ. of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital
Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK
net [email protected] http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/

 

[Peter Clinch]

Matt B wrote:

> From the synopsis of a book[1] you could try:
>
> -"Hans Monderman, a traffic engineer working in Holland, discovered that
> removing all traffic signs, speed humps, line markings and traffic lights
> dramatically reduced traffic speeds and actually made streets safer."

That good ol' Matt B logic in action again. "It's worked in some place,
so since I like the idea it will clearly work everywhere, all the time".

Compare and contrast to speed cameras, which work in some place, but
they aren't perfect so you'd be better off taking them all away.

Pete.
--
Peter Clinch Medical Physics IT Officer
Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Univ. of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital
Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK
net [email protected] http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/

 

[Matt B]

"Peter Clinch" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Matt B wrote:

>> You suspect wrong. My only agenda is social harmony on our roads.
>
> For your values of "social harmony", which appear to include speeding at
> will.

A misrepresentation. My case against cameras has _always_ been that they
cannot detect "inappropriate speed" within the posted limit - i.e. when
_not_ speeding.

> Mine don't,

Neither do mine.

> so your idea and mine won't gel, so you can't have the harmony.

Therefore an illogical conclusion.

--
Matt B

 

[David Martin]

Matt B wrote:
> A misrepresentation. My case against cameras has _always_ been that they
> cannot detect "inappropriate speed" within the posted limit - i.e. when
> _not_ speeding.

So you are also against alcohol breath testing for exactly the same
reason.

And MOT/Insurance requirements for the same reason.

They are speed cameras, not numpty cameras. However the two populations
(speeders and numptys) do coincide, and there is a well established
link between speed and accidents. So providing enforcement of a ceiling
on speed reduces accidents.

(Yes I can provide multiple citations to support this assertion).

...d

 

[Richard]

David Martin wrote:

> They are speed cameras, not numpty cameras. However the two populations
> (speeders and numptys) do coincide, and there is a well established
> link between speed and accidents. So providing enforcement of a ceiling
> on speed reduces accidents.
>
> (Yes I can provide multiple citations to support this assertion).

But, David, I can come up with a single wildly improbable data point
that contradicts your assertion despite it being valid 99.99999% of the
time, therefore your assertion is absolutely wrong.

Why are you continuing to argue with the numbskull?

R.

 

[Matt B]

"Peter Clinch" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Matt B wrote:
>> "Peter Clinch" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> news:[email protected]...

> You don't listen, do you?
> [...]
> You don't listen, do you?

I DO listen, it is you who does not. Whilst you continue to persist with
the line that "those here" do not reject the use of other (superior) devices
in _addition_ to (discredited) speed cameras, without acknowledging the fact
that cameras are not required on the scale that we see them today for any
serious safety purpose, I will not stop replying with the _fact_ that speed
cameras have nothing to offer that cannot be achieved more effectively by
other means. Additionally I think that it should be accepted that the
policy should be to remove them from our roads as soon as possible, in the
interests of road safety.

>> The intransigence is becoming embarrassing. "Fiddle while Rome burns"
>> springs to mind.
>
> That's because your mind is so focused on getting rid of speed cameras

For well founded reasons, not least because I believe their long term effect
on road safety will transpire to be negative, compared to alternative
approaches.

> that it can't take in the possibility that they can be usefully used /in
> addition/ to other measures,

Which they patently cannot.

> and as I've already pointed out to you at least twice there's nobody here
> saying such a combination of measures would be a bad thing and speed
> cameras are all we need.
>
> Have you got that yet?

Yes. How long do you think it'll be before "nobody here" would contemplate
supporting the use of cameras?

> I doubt it, since the intransigence is becoming embarrassing,

Ping pong.

> but one has to try to beat it into you somehow...

No comment, that phrase speaks for itself doesn't it.

--
Matt B

 

[Matt B]

"Peter Clinch" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Nobody Here wrote:
>
>> No. Not at all. Show me that people will drive more considerately
>> because they're allowed to speed, and I'll remove some. Until then,
>> evidence suggests that they won't.
>
> Presumably we can solve the problem of uninsured drivers by removing the
> legal necessity to have insurance, since everyone who currently drives
> uninsured will feel a need to meet their "social contract" with the rest
> of society who they might drive into.

There is a case, as hilighted recently by the controversy WRT the levels of
compensation available from the government's criminal injury scheme for
those injured in the bombings in London in July, for a central scheme to be
initiated which would compensate all those who suffer loss at the hands of
others, whether caused by a criminal or an accidental activity. That scheme
could be designed to remove the need for motorists to insure for third party
claims.

Any new scheme could also remove the anomoly in our present system where the
only common circumstances under which you are likely to get _any_ automatic
compensation after suffering the consequences of an accident are if you
happen to be lucky enough for the accident to have involved a decent law
abiding citizen in the person of a motorist.

> In other news, a flock of pigs was seen flitting gently over the south
> coast...

I'll call the thought police.

--
Matt B

 

[Matt B]

"Peter Clinch" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Matt B wrote:
>
>> From the synopsis of a book[1] you could try:
>>
>> -"Hans Monderman, a traffic engineer working in Holland, discovered that
>> removing all traffic signs, speed humps, line markings and traffic lights
>> dramatically reduced traffic speeds and actually made streets safer."
>
> That good ol' Matt B logic in action again. "It's worked in some place,
> so since I like the idea it will clearly work everywhere, all the time".
>
> Compare and contrast to speed cameras, which work in some place,

Where do they work better than anything else?

> but they aren't perfect so you'd be better off taking them all away.

They're divisive, witness this thread.

--
Matt B

 

[Peter Clinch]

Matt B wrote:

> I DO listen, it is you who does not. Whilst you continue to persist with
> the line that "those here" do not reject the use of other (superior) devices
> in _addition_ to (discredited) speed cameras

Where have they been discredited? Last thing I saw was everyone had
reasonably happy with Dr. Mountain's results showing a positive benefit...

> without acknowledging the fact
> that cameras are not required on the scale that we see them today for any
> serious safety purpose

You have admitted they work locally, so if "locally" is "everywhere"
then they will serve a /very/ serious safety purpose.

> I will not stop replying with the _fact_ that speed
> cameras have nothing to offer that cannot be achieved more effectively by
> other means.

But you have done nothing to prove that such means cannot be enhanced by
using them in combination.

> Additionally I think that it should be accepted that the
> policy should be to remove them from our roads as soon as possible, in the
> interests of road safety.

Given that we've seen they are effective at reducing accident figures
around camera sites, this really does mark you out to be fixated on
camera removal, even if you have kidded yourself it's all about some
Greater Good.

> For well founded reasons, not least because I believe their long term effect
> on road safety will transpire to be negative, compared to alternative
> approaches.

And all you have to really reinforce that is the citation of "I said
so". Not really any better than my saying "I said not", and rather
inferior to David's "these people say not based on solid research, and
here's the citation".

>>that it can't take in the possibility that they can be usefully used /in
>>addition/ to other measures,

> Which they patently cannot.

Oh? Why is that? Except you've decided apropos of nothing.

> Yes. How long do you think it'll be before "nobody here" would contemplate
> supporting the use of cameras?

Do you have any evidence that anyone reading this thread aside from
yourself isn't perfectly happy with speed cameras in place on the roads?

> Ping pong.

Indeed. The main difference is that there are more of the pings and in
at least one case they appear to be backed up with rather more research
on the matter than the solitary pong. But still you persist in ponging.

Pete.
--
Peter Clinch Medical Physics IT Officer
Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Univ. of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital
Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK
net [email protected] http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/

 

[Peter Clinch]

Matt B wrote:

> There is a case, as hilighted recently by the controversy WRT the levels of
> compensation available from the government's criminal injury scheme for
> those injured in the bombings in London in July, for a central scheme to be
> initiated which would compensate all those who suffer loss at the hands of
> others, whether caused by a criminal or an accidental activity.

Sounds great, but you've rather missed the point. That being I am not
saying the existing system is perfect, but by your "social contract"
arguments all that you'd need to do to fix it would be abolish the legal
requirement, and no central fund or new government policy would be required.

Call me Mr. Cynical if you will, but I really doubt that that would work.

Pete.
--
Peter Clinch Medical Physics IT Officer
Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Univ. of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital
Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK
net [email protected] http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/

 

[Matt B]

"David Martin" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> Matt B wrote:
>> A misrepresentation. My case against cameras has _always_ been that they
>> cannot detect "inappropriate speed" within the posted limit - i.e. when
>> _not_ speeding.
>
> So you are also against alcohol breath testing for exactly the same
> reason.

No, I'm not against it because it can't detect "inappropriate speed".

> And MOT/Insurance requirements for the same reason.

Ditto them.

> They are speed cameras, not numpty cameras. However the two populations
> (speeders and numptys) do coincide, and there is a well established
> link between speed and accidents. So providing enforcement of a ceiling
> on speed reduces accidents.

Only if speed is a problem, and hasn't gone away for other reasons.

--
Matt B

 

[Matt B]

"Richard" <[email protected]>
wrote in message news:[email protected]...
> David Martin wrote:
>
>> They are speed cameras, not numpty cameras. However the two populations
>> (speeders and numptys) do coincide, and there is a well established
>> link between speed and accidents. So providing enforcement of a ceiling
>> on speed reduces accidents.
>>
>> (Yes I can provide multiple citations to support this assertion).
>
> But, David, I can come up with a single wildly improbable data point that
> contradicts your assertion despite it being valid 99.99999% of the time,
> therefore your assertion is absolutely wrong.
>
> Why are you continuing to argue with the numbskull?

Do _you_ think that cameras are the best tool for the purported objective at
all the locations at which they are deployed?

--
"the numbskull" (Matt B)

 

[Matt B]

"Peter Clinch" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Matt B wrote:
>
>> I DO listen, it is you who does not. Whilst you continue to persist with
>> the line that "those here" do not reject the use of other (superior)
>> devices in _addition_ to (discredited) speed cameras
>
> Where have they been discredited? Last thing I saw was everyone had
> reasonably happy with Dr. Mountain's results showing a positive benefit...

In relation to other devices?

>> without acknowledging the fact that cameras are not required on the scale
>> that we see them today for any serious safety purpose
>
> You have admitted they work locally, so if "locally" is "everywhere" then
> they will serve a /very/ serious safety purpose.

Locally is in the immediate vicinity of the camera. Outside of the
immediate vicinity they have a negative effect due to displaced traffic etc.
Why do they need to work "everywhere" when there are plenty of better
methods which could?

>> I will not stop replying with the _fact_ that speed cameras have nothing
>> to offer that cannot be achieved more effectively by other means.
>
> But you have done nothing to prove that such means cannot be enhanced by
> using them in combination.

Sheesh.

>> Additionally I think that it should be accepted that the policy should be
>> to remove them from our roads as soon as possible, in the interests of
>> road safety.
>
> Given that we've seen they are effective at reducing accident figures
> around camera sites,

But _not_ as good as other methods.

> this really does mark you out to be fixated on camera removal, even if you
> have kidded yourself it's all about some Greater Good.

If we can reduce casualties by removing cameras why not do it.

--
Matt B

 

[Peter Clinch]

Matt B wrote:

> Do _you_ think that cameras are the best tool for the purported objective at
> all the locations at which they are deployed?

No, I think a million traffic police with linked arms along all the
highways would be far more effective and could also make value
judgements about "appropriate speed". So lets do that then.

Pete.
--
Peter Clinch Medical Physics IT Officer
Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Univ. of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital
Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK
net [email protected] http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/

 

[Peter Clinch]

Matt B wrote:

> If we can reduce casualties by removing cameras why not do it.

/If/ we can, but the evidence we can is your rather poor research record
to back up your isolated opinion. Which makes it a very questionable
"if" to which those arguing the point with you believe doesn't have the
same answer you do. And your playing ping pong repeatedly while moving
goalposts at will and requiring very different levels of proof for your
ideas vs. anyone else's hasn't succeeded in changing anyone's mind.

You need better research if you're going to shift me along to your way
of thinking here, but since your response to doing research remains
"it's too difficult out here" then it really isn't looking like going
anywhere.

And saying "sheesh" doesn't really argue your points any better either.

Pete.
--
Peter Clinch Medical Physics IT Officer
Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Univ. of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital
Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK
net [email protected] http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/

 

[Nobody Here]

Matt B <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> They're divisive, witness this thread.

LOL. The only one who's divided in this thread is you. The rest of us
appear to largely agree with each other. You'll actually find, were you
to look around you, that most people are actually either in favour of
or neutral about speed cameras. The vociferous opponents are only a
small minority, but they get reported in the press because they make
a lot of noise, jump up and down a lot, and sell papers. People who
are in favour of, and those that couldn't give a toss about, speed
cameras tend not to make as much noise. Like your arguments, your
perception is skewed.

--
Nobby

 

[Matt B]

"Peter Clinch" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Matt B wrote:
>
>> There is a case, as hilighted recently by the controversy WRT the levels
>> of compensation available from the government's criminal injury scheme
>> for those injured in the bombings in London in July, for a central scheme
>> to be initiated which would compensate all those who suffer loss at the
>> hands of others, whether caused by a criminal or an accidental activity.
>
> Sounds great, but you've rather missed the point. That being I am not
> saying the existing system is perfect, but by your "social contract"
> arguments all that you'd need to do to fix it would be abolish the legal
> requirement,

You've missed my (original) point then, although it may have wondered a bit,
into the merits of cameras as enforcement devices and so on, usenet being
what it is : that if a suitable environment can be created in which we
all respect each other and can react with each other naturally, as
demonstrated in several schemes initiated by the Dutch visionary Hans
Monderman, rather than be directed and dictated to by signs and regulations
etc. and without a Damocles like sword, the threat of loss of livlihood,
hanging over us, we may find that the symptoms, speed in the original case,
are not such an issue, and that artifical (posted) limits become redundant,
and hence the need for cameras will disappear.

> and no central fund or new government policy would be required.

Exactly.

> Call me Mr. Cynical if you will, but I really doubt that that would work.

OK then Mr. Cynical ;-)

--
Mr. Optimistic. (Matt B)