Snapped doing 39mph in a 30mph zone

[glojo]

I don't want to get into the speed camera debate again, but as far as deaths on the roads is concerned, the clear evidence in both the UK and the EU is that there are less and less fatalities on our roads:

Data from national statistics office here

Obviously, there will be many different contributing factors: cars getting safer actively and passively will be a major factor, I would guess.

I rest my case about useless statistics.

Fact ......... 36 deaths last year in 12 months. 44 deaths so far this year. We can all produce statistics that will help our case but I am supplying factual, raw data untouched by statistician's who are paid to produce a story to match a policy. I am neither blaming camera's for this, nor am I saying the roads are safer. If I were to voice an opinion then I might put SPEC camera's at genuine black spots and have them placed over a two or three mile area (maybe even greater distances) Lots of warnings for the driver and a camera to take a picture of the driver\rider. I have no problem with camera's per sea, but the prosecution MUST supply evidence of identification and not demand the defendant do this. It is the driver that is prosecuted, not the vehicle.

John

 

[MBManInKen]

I rest my case about useless statistics.

I can guess why you say this, but I think you are wrong in saying it .

To the extend that a statistic is a number expressing a fact, it is just that: data.

Some people abuse this data, but the data itself is exceptionally useful. I am a great advocate of evidence based decision making. There is too much biased, dogmatism going on in politics for example, where people make decisions based on opinions, unfounded assumptions or just irrational doctrine. So, I want the data. Not just part of it, all of it, in its context.

Good data helps make good decisions.

I wish more decision makers in society would read books like this:

Fact ......... 36 deaths last year in 12 months. 44 deaths so far this year.

And this is a good example of what I just said: data used out of context. You know I am very fond of you, John, so don't take this the wrong way, but this fact is nothing without its context. I assume this is some local or regional number? Of course it is going to fluctuate: you're not filtering out the "noise" of specific local differences, anomalies, etc. I maintain that the overall data shows that over the last decade, road deaths in the UK and Europe have significantly and unambiguously decreased. That does not mean that all the deaths at all spots go down all the time. Your quoted fact does not invalidate that overall statistic.

We can all produce statistics that will help our case but I am supplying factual, raw data untouched by statistician's who are paid to produce a story to match a policy.

I have a feeling that there is a raw nerve there, somewhere? I'm not a statistician, but statisticians seem to get the blame for politicians and others using data incorrectly for their own purposes. That is however not the fault of statisticians. And looking at data and deriving conclusions from it is what science does in order to establish the working of nature and our environment. It is perhaps appropriate to point out on this forum of motoring enthusiasts that it is science and engineering using this approach of empirical research and definition of theories on the basis of such factual data, that makes it possible for you all to drive your cars, fly in planes, etc. That is all based on hard facts and statistics, not on doctrine, dogma or any other form of conjurer's tricks, let alone "acts of faith".

The graph I showed is silent with regard to the question whether or not speed cameras have anything to do with road safety. I did not make any claim regarding that point either. I merely responded to a point about death toll on the roads. That point is really not contradicted, nor invalidated, by a local or regional problem/hotspot issue.

In fact, I offered the opinion that better car design and active safety features will have contributed probably significantly to explaining the rather raw data that graph showed, which ought to be an argument strengthening the case of those who believe speed cameras are of no use with regard to road safety.

I have no problem with camera's per sea, but the prosecution MUST supply evidence of identification and not demand the defendant do this. It is the driver that is prosecuted, not the vehicle.

That's all fine with me, but I didn't actually make any statement about any of these in the first place .

 

[Dieter]

Hi,

I do find it interesting in that the quoted national statistics graph appears to show a 'flat line'
"the number of fatalities has remained fairly constant over the last ten years"
during the period of intensive build up of speed cameras i.e. fatalities appeared to be falling nicely until then.

This is relevant as the Government has been committed to lowering road fatalities and this graph shows it (the Government) has not been too successful i.e. all of its policies, including cameras, have not really proved effective.

So what should the Government do? Logically it should reconsider all aspects of it's road policies to determine which, if any, are of significant benefit (to the road user, not the Government).

I would hate to think that our 'law makers' could possibly be motivated more by making a 'few bob' than enacting road policies (better driver (re-)training, more traffic police etc. etc.) that could/should show significant declines in fatalities.

Cheers,

 

[glojo]

Statistics,

An easy way to make liars out of experts
And experts out of liars

Since governments have started really using statistics the empires of these 'experts' has grown and grown. Hospitals spend millions of pounds gathering this information, they then spend millions dissecting it. They then spend millions getting alternate options, but none of these millions go to curing patients and to add to the cash cow, millions are then spent storing and safe guarding all the accrued statistical information.

I once spoke to a statistician that carried out a 12 month study into social behaviour in our inner cities. He was given a huge grant for this and the outcome of this study was....... Drunken behaviour was most common outside pubs and nightclubs. Residential burglaries occurred in populated areas and the denser the housing the more burglaries, domestic violence mainly occurred during the evening and again was more prevalent in densely populated areas. Looking at the excellently prepared report, the safest place to live was the local cemetery . The author of the report was deadly serious about his work and was exceedingly well paid for preparing it. The cemetery comment is very much my own tongue in cheek remark. Have we become a society that is obsessed with statistical mumbo jumbo and we now believe we MUST have these statistics before we can make a decision! The more we pay for the information the greater believe we have in them. Common sense, experience and professional ability are swear words in our modern society and I suppose statistics help to avoid any responsibility for making a decision?

Speed cameras might have a very slight influence in road safety, but for all the cameras that have been installed has there been a dramatic drop in deaths? We had a very fast rat run which was a so called 'death trap' the local authority decided to alter the road layout to physically slow traffic down. The effect was immediate but local drivers often complain about the inconvenience of being slowed down! I say tough, we are talking road safety and not so called revenue collection.

Before speed cameras are installed they must meet certain criteria, one of which is a serious or fatal incident occurring in the vicinity this then ticks the 'Statistical box'. Down here we often talk about a speed camera installed on a fast stretch of road at a location called Haldon Hill. The reason it was installed was because of a very sad, tragic incident where a deer jumped straight through the windscreen of an oncoming car! There was NEVER any allegation of this vehicle exceeding the speed limit but it ticked the right box and the local authority installed a camera. Now when you travel this road you will see huge long skid marks where speeding cars see the camera at the last minute and try to slow down. There have been numerous crashes where vehicles either leave the road or get tail ended, why was the camera installed? It is causing accidents not stopping them, but once again a statistician will say this is an exception to their presentation. Yet I can think of numerous examples of this improper siting of cameras, and before you try to say this might be a local problem, I guarantee members of this forum that live far and wide will start throwing in examples of this abuse.

Statistics......

John the anti statistics campaigner

 

[recycled]

totally right there john. one of the M4 camera reasons was a man jumping off the bridge. how that relates to speeding i wonder.
But provides the perfect reason to stick a camera in. instead of finding how the Giit got onto the motorway in the first place

 

[Mudster]

oops time to get a detector then.
anyway if you can prove you need the licence for work, i doubt if you will get a ban from minor speeding.
Someone on itv four had 32points and was still driving a silver BMW

I'm having a Laser Pro Park fitted onto the car when the new engine goes in:-

http://www.laserprotector.com/index.asp

I've not been caught by cameras, just the hand held jobs in and around the local villages near where I live.

Of course, a laser jammer would be illegal, so this device automatically shuts down when it detects a police laser gun, it takes 8 seconds to switch off during which time it emits an audible warning to the driver that it's doing so. During this 8 seconds the police speed gun is unable to take a reading and shows an error code, but after the 8 seconds they can record your speed as normal.

It works, I've seen it and was sold completely on the system.

 

[Swiss Toni]

I'm having a Laser Pro Park fitted onto the car when the new engine goes in:-

http://www.laserprotector.com/index.asp

I've not been caught by cameras, just the hand held jobs in and around the local villages near where I live.

Of course, a laser jammer would be illegal, so this device automatically shuts down when it detects a police laser gun, it takes 8 seconds to switch off during which time it emits an audible warning to the driver that it's doing so. During this 8 seconds the police speed gun is unable to take a reading and shows an error code, but after the 8 seconds they can record your speed as normal.

It works, I've seen it and was sold completely on the system.

I'll forward this to Surrey police, I'm sure they'll be happy to discuss it with you



PS
You post suggests you have been caught speeding through villages?

 

[Mudster]

Yes 6 of my 9 points were for 36 and 38 mph respectively, leaving a national speed limit and entering a 30mph zone. Both in my van not my car.

The other 3 were for 73mph on a dual carriageway, again in my van, and due to my ignorance of the law I thought the limit was 70 mph and not 60mph for a vito compact...obviously I know now.

This device has already been tested legally, the police have yet to obtain a conviction in the years it's been available despite trying on numerous occasions.

 

[MBManInKen]

Have we become a society that is obsessed with statistical mumbo jumbo and we now believe we MUST have these statistics before we can make a decision! The more we pay for the information the greater believe we have in them. Common sense, experience and professional ability are swear words in our modern society and I suppose statistics help to avoid any responsibility for making a decision?

Well, this is pretty much the end of the road for me as far as contributing to this thread is concerned. I want anyone to take decisions based on fact. Common sense is essential in looking at data and interpreting it, but opinion and fashions of the day make for extremely bad decisions.

"Expertise" and "professional ability" are, in my humble opinion, incompatible with disregard for factual data. Those we call experts are those who are intimately familiar with the facts of their field and their correlations...

 

[Mudster]

Below is another link to the device I mentioned above, an independent test that also discusses the legalities of the device.

http://www.ukspeedtraps.co.uk/laserpropark.htm

I fully intend to fit one of these devices and would be very interested on the view of any police that read the forum, or friends of police who may wish to pass this on.
I have spoken with two policemen about this device and I'd be interested to see what any further opinions are.

 

[glojo]

"Expertise" and "professional ability" are, in my humble opinion, incompatible with disregard for factual data. Those we call experts are those who are intimately familiar with the facts of their field and their correlations...

Excellent points but it is this factual data that grinds public organisations to a grinding halt. Who decides when a statistical piece of information beomes a fact? Surely the statistic is used to try to prove a point and make it into a fact? I look on you as an extremely knowledgeable person and am better educating myself by asking these questions.

Sorry to be a pest
John

 

[MBManInKen]

Excellent points but it is this factual data that grinds public organisations to a grinding halt. Who decides when a statistical piece of information beomes a fact? Surely the statistic is used to try to prove a point and make it into a fact?

Let’s first look at the formal definition of statistic. From the Cambridge dictionary:

statistic
noun
a fact in the form of a number that shows information about something:

The city's most shocking statistic is its high infant mortality rate.
​

This is the basis of the point I was making earlier. The statistic itself is nothing but a number, data, that gives me a piece of information, a fact. And indeed, the same dictionary defines fact as:

fact
noun
something which is known to have happened or to exist, especially something for which proof exists, or about which there is information:

No decision will be made till we know all the facts.
​

As such, statistics are exceptionally important, in that they provide a basis for decision-making. If we know the facts, then we make an informed decision.

The problem is not the statistic itself, as the way in which we use this factual information: how we present it, whether or not we provide its context and indeed whether or not we are providing all the facts, or just those that happen to fit our opinion.

Without facts, and the statistics that express them, we are effectively blind and we make decisions based on perhaps understandable instincts or beliefs. Let me give an example. A few centuries ago, bloodletting was a commonly accepted method of medical treatment for pneumonia patients. The French (sorry! ) physician Pierre Louis decided that this commonly accepted basis for this treatment was not really good enough motivation, so he ran what is now seen as one of the first clinical trials, in an attempt to identify the correctness of these assumptions. He compared a simple statistic: he built up a record of death rates in patients treated with bloodletting compared to those he treated without it. What that statistic shows is that bloodletting correlated to a much higher death toll and this fact was the basis for his eventually successful campaign against bloodletting. We should all be grateful for this type of work, otherwise, just based on opinion, commonly accepted knowledge, etc, we would still be treating patients with bloodletting today.

Another famous example is the statistical work of Florence Nightingale, which formed the basis for a revolution in sanitary practices and hospital design, resulting in sharp declines in deaths. Again, the careful collection of statistical data and its analysis is what drove this progress.

However, while the world around us, indeed the universe, could be expressed in hard facts if we had infinite amounts of time and resources and were not restricted by our own limitations in terms of space and time, it is also true that it is practically impossible to know all facts or to, in every case and for every decision, discover all facts unambiguously first. So, you are quite right that sometimes politicians waste time and resources, not as much on trying to get to the bottom of facts (which by itself sounds reasonable) but by not taking advantage of existing knowledge in published studies and statistics. And surely we all know examples of people who quote only those facts that suit their case, or those who carefully select the circumstances and conditions of “studies” to find “facts”, so that the outcome will meet their personal requirements rather than being objective, responsibly collected data.

So, are statistics abused, misrepresented, used as excuses for inaction, inappropriately used, etc? Absolutely, no doubt about it. However, we should combat those abuses and the people and their unscientific attitudes perpetrating this kind of “crime”, rather than attack the concept of statistical, scientifically sound data. Unfortunately, we seem to pick the wrong target in blaming statistics and the methodical collection, analysis and reporting of them, rather than their abuse and their abusers. That was the point I was trying to make.

Should we stifle progress or do away with common sense in making daily decisions about our life by hiding behind the collection of yet another such fact? Not at all and where that happens, I fully agree with your point. But I see great danger in a blanket condemnation of statistics as lies or statements to the effect that statistics are just a load of tosh, because in many aspects of decision making, we will end up with better, more sound, decisions if they are based on objective data, a careful analysis of this data and on proper debate and discussion where this is needed as part of trying to understand what the data is telling us.

Coming back to the specific debate in this thread: the raw data (death toll on the roads) is fairly simple: it has gone down considerable over the last decades. It’s thus just not correct to state the opposite, and indeed I believe that one undermines one’s own argument if one claims the opposite of what the data actually shows in support of one's argument. This overall statistic does not imply that at every single point of the road network the toll this year is lower than the toll at that point last year. The number is an overall one, it indicates an overall tendency. Nothing more, nothing less. But the fact that in a specific local spot the tendency over the same period was different does not in any way discredit that overall statistic: we all know how averages work after all. So, this overall statistic is just that: an overall number that will abstract out local/regional differences. That is why I did not accept the part of your statement that said:

we are seeing an increase in concealed camera's and an increase in deaths.

That is not what we are seeing, the numbers do just not show that.

However, as I also said: the fact that road deaths are going down does not imply that this is through more speed cameras. In fact, it implies nothing else, it only provides that simple, naked fact: road deaths go down over time. If we want to know why, we need other facts, data, stats, showing a correlation between the decreasing death toll and other factors, similarly to the correlation that Pierre Louis found in my above example between death toll and the fact of bloodletting/no bloodletting in the patients treatment.

So, if you could show that the act of putting speed cameras on accident hotspots reduces consistently and clearly the amount of accidents or death toll, that would be a good argument in favour of speed cameras. For clarity, I have seen no data that suggests such correlation and I am not suggesting it is there. In fact, I suggested that perhaps a major factor would be the gradual improvements in car design and specifically their safety features, rather than speed cameras. To me, that does not mean speed cameras have no use, but I simply am not aware of any proof linking them to a reduction in death toll on our roads. I could even think of some potential arguments on how speed cameras could increase theoretically the accident risk, by for example causing drivers to suddenly and unexpectedly brake when they spot one. There is probably some statistical data available that explores such potential correlation and those of you opposed to speed cameras would be quite justified in using such data to campaign for their removal. All of that is a different discussion though, I was dealing with the statistics issue.

Apologies to the forum for such a lengthy post…

 

[Mudster]

just posted on the wrong thread...oops

 

[glojo]

Apologies to the forum for such a lengthy post…

THANK YOU very much for taking the time and effort to explain your statement and I for one fully understand where your coming from and fully agree with what your saying. Perhaps it is the consistant abuse of the facts\statistics that bring this area into disrepute?

********************************************

I go into the senior class of the fifth year and request the forty students elect one of their number to be head of year. I nominate one student (Peter Jones) to return the ballot box to my office by 4pm.

The students all decide that it would be wrong to have a Head of Year and boycott the vote. At 4pm the box is returned but on route to the office the student Jones decides to vote and nominates himself.

One vote cast.............

This is where I get angry regarding statistics. We can now have a field day in interpreting the vote. Does Jones get elected with 100% of the vote?

Is the vote invalid because of the low turn-out?

Could we say everyone was happy for Jones to stand and no one opposed him? I'm sure there are numerous permutations, but as you so rightly say, there is nothing wrong with collecting the information, it is how it is used or should I say abused???

Going back to the topic.

I just don't believe it is possible to have an unbiased opinion on this issue. I have even asked the Minister of Transport to confirm that the majority of road deaths occur at speeds less than 30mph? A straight forward question that got me an eight page reply by some political researcher, but NO answer.

I am not anti camera per sea, I am definitely against the reasons some of them are installed and if one camera is catching hundreds of offenders per day, then the local authority is surely out of order in failing to respond to this issue. The speed limit is either incorrect for the road, or... the local authority should take further action in reducing the speed of offending drivers. In our local area I cannot think of one single speed camera that is located at the approach to a school?? Yet we see them on extremely safe dual carriageways that have a 70mph speed limit, why is that and yes there have been horrible accidents outside any number of our schools?

When our car was rammed whilst negotiating a mini roundabout the offending driver claimed they never saw this hazard and by the time she did it was too late to stop. I contacted our local authority (no police were involved) and repeated what this driver told my wife. The official informed me that over the last six months there had not been one complaint, nor one accident reported at this location.

I have a friend who lives just off this roundabout and when we spoke about this incident he stated how it was a regular occurrence for cars travelling from a specific direction to enter the roundabout far too fast and he was forever hearing the sound of vehicles colliding. I asked this person to write to the local authority so that hopefully they would at least then be aware of what was happening. It just so happened that my friend is a local councillor and they wrote to the road safety officer, who eventually arranged to have the centre of the island raised and to have black and white chevrons placed around this island, thus making this roundabout more visible to approaching vehicles.

My point here is that the first official was acting solely on statistical information, and because nothing was reported, then as far as they were aware nothing happened. To solely rely on statistical information is perhaps not the best way to proceed and I feel that this is what is happening in so many aspects of our lives.

Incidentally the road safety officer did not act without investigating. They inspected the scene and made a very constructive decision which made the hazard far more visible and SAFER and that should always be the priority?

Thanks again for your very thought provoking post.

regards
John

 

[PaulE230]

Last time I got caught I was doing 68 in a 50. Then got a letter asking me what my salary was. I then got a fine for £380 !!!

Do they still ask what you get paid ?

Was this back in the early 90s

I was snapped speeding by some of the early gatso's when I first passed my test

I had a letter asking me what my earnings were

I ignored the letter and they sent me a fine off £1200!!!


I went to court and they reduced it to £40 thank god

 

[MBManInKen]

THANK YOU very much for taking the time and effort to explain your statement

It was my pleasure - I learn so much through debate and by actually discussing things with other people. One of the most fascinating aspects of human life and civilisation is our capability to examine, analyse and most importantly build up collective, transferable knowledge, which means that each generation can actually work on the previous foundations and that as a collective we can understand and master more than we as individuals would ever be able to grasp.

So, thank you for participating in such debate in a friendly, respectful and constructive way!

and I for one fully understand where your coming from and fully agree with what your saying. Perhaps it is the consistant abuse of the facts\statistics that bring this area into disrepute?

Oh, yes, there is a lot of abuse and no doubt that contributes to the stereotypical reputation of statistics.

This is where I get angry regarding statistics. We can now have a field day in interpreting the vote. Does Jones get elected with 100% of the vote?

It's a good example, because it illustrates an important thing about data: you need to have proper, informed access to it and understand its context. I have referred to context before, because it is so important. If people looking at the results are being given the full information, i.e. only 1 vote cast, with X non votes due to a boycott, the interpretation of that vote would be simple and straightforward. The numbers don't lie. But if you tell people: person Y got elected with 100% of the vote, that is rather an abusive use of the numbers.

Is the vote invalid because of the low turn-out?

Yes, I would say so. The stats will namely also show that no quorum was reached.

there is nothing wrong with collecting the information, it is how it is used or should I say abused???

I absolutely agree.

I just don't believe it is possible to have an unbiased opinion on this issue.

Very likely true .

I am not anti camera per sea, I am definitely against the reasons some of them are installed and if one camera is catching hundreds of offenders per day, then the local authority is surely out of order in failing to respond to this issue.

Can't disagree with that. If there is a local problem and the evidence is clearly that a camera is not improving behaviour, then action is needed. Totally agree.

The speed limit is either incorrect for the road, or... the local authority should take further action in reducing the speed of offending drivers.

Again, I agree with that completely.

I am starting to understand your angle a bit better now. If you and others are saying that (some) cameras are not contributing to road safety because of the way their output is not being acted upon or their placement, then I can find little disagreement with that. As I said elsewhere, I do think that there is a valid use for cameras outside the realm of safety, more specifically to simply help enforce the law. Now, while that is my opinion, which I am basing on some assumptions about how penalisation of behaviour helps curb that behaviour, I am not an expert in this field at all and I am not saying that I have access to data proving that my point is valid. It's not my role to collect and manage that sort of data, but I do agree that those making decisions on this issue must base their judgement on such data. And if the data proves that cameras are ineffective or don't achieve their societal objectives, we must revise their use and learn from the experience. That is how we develop knowledge and understanding.

Your other examples make to me the same point: decision makers clearly are not using data, they are slavishly following either "intuition" or some unproven doctrinal policy that is not supported by the data. You are therefore entirely right in highlighting that appalling lack of proper management and leadership and to tackle those responsible.

As someone who prides himself on rational judgement, I could not agree more with your position in that respect.

My point here is that the first official was acting solely on statistical information, and because nothing was reported, then as far as they were aware nothing happened. To solely rely on statistical information is perhaps not the best way to proceed and I feel that this is what is happening in so many aspects of our lives.

I would formulate it slightly differently: the official does not really acted based on evidence, rather has failed to collect, analyse and understand the proper data set correctly. Picking which numbers one likes and then acting on them because it meets our political or other aspirations is just awfully bad science. And of course, sometimes data is not available or ambiguous, which is where rational analysis and consideration must come in. To the extent that this official failed to do so, they have clearly failed in their duty of care and proper judgement.

Incidentally the road safety officer did not act without investigating. They inspected the scene and made a very constructive decision which made the hazard far more visible and SAFER and that should always be the priority?

Absolutely. And this would comply with my principle evidence based decision making.

Thanks again for your very thought provoking post.

And thank you for always being exemplary in conducting polite and constructive debate. It is much appreciated.

 

[recycled]

And now is the news

 

[recycled]

for all those who are close on losing their licence and insurance going up the roof,
has anyone ever tried this book?

http://www.drivershandbook.co.uk/


sorry double post

 

[Huggy_Bear]

36 on a 30 zone

Hi there, I did the same will I be offered the speed awareness course too?

I hope so as I already have 3 points and don't want 6.

 

[Carrotchomper]

No.