Home Politics & Debate
If you need urgent support, call 999 or go to your nearest A&E. To contact our Crisis Messenger (open 24/7) text THEMIX to 85258.

F*$£%*!G Traffic Wardens!!!

13

Comments

  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Aladdin wrote:
    There are obviously statistics to suit every opinion and position on this debate. I remember seeing studies in some papers (invariably the Telegraph or the Mail) that claim speed cameras haven't reduced accidents. But I have also seen in the past other studies published by the government that show a dramatic and undeniable reduction in accidents and average speeds since a camera has been erected at a certain site.

    So obviously someone (probably both sides) are massaging figures and distorting the truth a little. The only thing I am sure of is that at the point where a clearly visible speed camera is, practically 100% of vehicles are going to reduce their speed to the limit or just above it. And while nothing is stopping vehicles from accelerating past this point, cameras placed at accident blackspots, schools etc must be saving lives.
    Well you can't misrepresent figures on the overall number of deaths occuring on the road per year. You can change what is defined as a serious injury. You can ignore the fact that serious injuries have gone down every year since the 50s due to safer cars with better brakes and so forth. You can choose to position cameras at the 50 sites with the most deaths in the last 3 years and expect the law of averages to ensure that the vast majority of these will not be in the top 50 in the next 3 years camera or no camera (3 years isn't enough data to measure any real trend).
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    fatality4.gif
    Here's the chart, with the red line being actual road fatalities, and the yellow line being the trend based on the data between 1978 and 1993, the blue line being the trend between 1950 and 1993. As you can see, since the introduction of speed cameras (in 93), this trend has practically halted. Now I'm not saying that speed cameras are the reason for this, just that they're clearly not doing a damn thing to help. Then again, maybe if people had their eyes on the road rather than their speedos, it might help a bit. I was driving in Preston the other day, and it was the first time I was driving where I would get my own speed ticket rather than one for my instructor. I spent most of the time looking at the speedo.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Hold on a second. There are clearly different ways to interpretate data and to look at safety.

    I will try to dig out some of the studies the goverment has published. But regardless of what you have posted there, which I'm sure it is true, if a study says there were x deaths/serious accidents at a spot before a camera was introduced and a significantly lower number after the camera went up, clearly the camera was directly responsible for the reduction in accidents was it not?
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Aladdin wrote:
    if a study says there were x deaths/serious accidents at a spot before a camera was introduced and a significantly lower number after the camera went up, clearly the camera was directly responsible for the reduction in accidents was it not?

    No, not really :p

    I`ve tried to point out the flaw in statistical analysis before.

    The reduction in deaths could be the result of numerous variable inputs.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Aladdin wrote:
    But regardless of what you have posted there, which I'm sure it is true, if a study says there were x deaths/serious accidents at a spot before a camera was introduced and a significantly lower number after the camera went up, clearly the camera was directly responsible for the reduction in accidents was it not?
    Well think about it. You pick the ten stretches of road that have had the most accidents over the past 3 years, what is the chance that they will be the top ten accident blackspots over the next 3 years, assuming that the number of accidents remains about the same? Then you put cameras on them, the law of averages means the accidents happen in other places on the road, because the places accidents happen are largely random, and you claim that the cameras are the ones causing the reduction. And on a genuinely dangerous road, I'd rather have drivers looking at the road than the speedo, and making a judgement based on that.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Here's the chart,...

    There's a few things worth bearing in mind. One is the enforcement of drink/driving laws another is the seat belt laws and then the extension of that to rear belts and child seat...

    How many were people run over, how many were drunks and how many were as a direct result of speed, how many deaths per accident (i.e. 20 people dying in a coach crash would screw up the figures) etc etc etc
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Well think about it. You pick the ten stretches of road that have had the most accidents over the past 3 years, what is the chance that they will be the top ten accident blackspots over the next 3 years, assuming that the number of accidents remains about the same?

    The same chance as it being any other road.
    the law of averages

    Statistical nonsense. The average throw of a die is 3.5
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    And on a genuinely dangerous road, I'd rather have drivers looking at the road than the speedo, and making a judgement based on that.

    Speed cameras make people slow down for accident blackspots, though, which is why they are successful. A competent driver should know roughly how fast he is driving without having to look at the speedon (if he has to look at the speedo every 20 seconds then he shouldn't be on the road), and speed cameras at junctions focus the mind- he'll be touching the brake not the speedo.

    It is rare that 20 miles of a road would be an accident blackspot. Most speed cameras on rural trunk roads cover junctions- for instance on the A69, one of the most dangerous roads in the north-east, three of the four speed cameras cover dangerous crossroads and the fourth is in the middle of a village. On the A1 north of Newcastle its the same- one covers the end of a dual carriageway and prevents people doing 95mph to scream past trucks, and two more cover dangerous blind junctions (one being right next to a school).

    I fail to see what the issue with those speed cameras is, yet there are regular campaigns to get all speed cameras in Northumberland removed.

    Arguments about safety are important, but they miss the crucial point. Speeding kills. Speeding is against the law. Speed cameras catch speeders. Speeders are, by definition, criminals. The police are doing their job wonderfully- catching criminals.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Kermit wrote:
    Speeding kills. Speeding is against the law. Speed cameras catch speeders. Speeders are, by definition, criminals. The police are doing their job wonderfully- catching criminals.

    There is a disconnect between the first sentence and the logic inherent in the following four sentences.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    I dont mind speed cameras however if they have no way of proving whos driving at the time why the hell should you have to tell them.
  • SkiveSkive Posts: 15,282 Skive's The Limit
    I don't feel guilty in the slightest about hacking it along the motorway at 100 when it's quiet in good conditions. It's certainly not as dangerous as doing 70 on a dual carriageway in rush hour while it's raining.

    Speed laws in this country are a joke. Variable speed limits are the way forward.
    Weekender Offender 
  • SkiveSkive Posts: 15,282 Skive's The Limit
    And the job 'cunt' label goes hand in hand with the job desription for traffic wardens. Same with the old bill.
    Weekender Offender 
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Skive wrote:
    I don't feel guilty in the slightest about hacking it along the motorway at 100 when it's quiet in good conditions. It's certainly not as dangerous as doing 70 on a dual carriageway in rush hour while it's raining.

    Speed laws in this country are a joke. Variable speed limits are the way forward.

    I agree with all that, but that doesn't mean that speed cameras are bad.

    The law is x, the law is sometimes wrong, but if you break it you get punished. If anyone feels that strongly about speeding fines they shouldn't speed.

    Generally traffic wardens are right to issue tickets. Any cunt who parks on double yellows or especially in a disabled bay deserves it.
  • SkiveSkive Posts: 15,282 Skive's The Limit
    Kermit wrote:
    Generally traffic wardens are right to issue tickets. Any cunt who parks on double yellows or especially in a disabled bay deserves it.

    The problem is that they often give tickets when they cleary shouldn't.

    Look at this cunt. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=408030&in_page_id=1770
    Weekender Offender 
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Kermit wrote:
    A competent driver should know roughly how fast he is driving without having to look at the speedon (if he has to look at the speedo every 20 seconds then he shouldn't be on the road), and speed cameras at junctions focus the mind- he'll be touching the brake not the speedo.
    Exactly, roughly. Roughly is the difference between 30 and 33. Roughly is the difference between a ticket and no ticket. It has been shown in these roads that have already been discussed (the ones in Holland with limited road markings and signs) that if you give the driver the responsibility to make decisions, in the vast majority of cases, it will result in more careful driving and fewer accidents. The fact is that we saw a steady decline in the number of fatalities on the roads until the year speed cameras were introduced (or more accurately, until the government adopted a policy of "speed kills") and that has stopped. The fact is that countries without a "speed kills" policy have continued to see a decline in the number of fatalities on the roads in line with trends in previous years, whereas the countries with a policy similar to that of Britain have almost universally seen similar lack of progress in stopping fatalities.

    I'm sorry, but no-one has address the fact, that the number of fatalities on our roads has failed to be reduced, when practically year on year for 40 years previously they were. Surely if speed cameras were effective, then not only would serious injuries be reduced, but also some of the fatalities would be too?
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Perhaps deaths around the country would have increased if cameras hadn't been installed then.

    And this still looks pretty compelling to me:

    Fatalities at camera sites

    Per year before: 265
    Per year after: 160
    Absolute change: -105
    Percentage change: -40%
    Figures are annualised averages and relate to 3,376 camera sites in partnership areas
    Source Dept for Transport
    http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/3807325.stm



    And there are other effects of speed cameras as well. For instance deterrance. And quick detection of dangerous drivers. A driver who does 50mph on built up areas is a danger to others and deserves a ban. Without speed cameras he will only be caught by pure luck, if a police patrol happens to spot him. With cameras he will be caught much faster.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    To extrapolate from the data that the road deaths should have gone down further than they have is a gigantic error, and probably a deliberate one at that. There have been too many other variables which have made more impact- tougher drink-drive laws, safer cars (ABS, airbags, better energy dispersal), and, in particular, the mandatory introduction of seatbelts in the 1980s. The huge drop in the 1980s is as a direct result of clunk-click, something which can't be repeated.

    Speed does kill, that fact is inarguable- if you hit someone at 25mph they will probably live, but if you hit them at 35 they probably won't. You are obviously more likely to survive a head-on collision at 50mph than you are at 75mph.

    Speed cameras protect small sections of dangerous road, and that is the data that should be extrapolated. The anti-camera lobby never ever seems to do that though...funny that.

    As for the traffic warden, to be honest he was right. Most double yellow lines also have signs up saying no parking, he knew that he shouldn't park there, and I have no sympathy at all.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Kermit wrote:
    Speed cameras protect small sections of dangerous road, and that is the data that should be extrapolated. The anti-camera lobby never ever seems to do that though...funny that.
    Like I said, to determine that a piece of road is dangerous based on 3 years data is bollocks. And yes, the chances are that if you pick the top 10 worst sites over the past three years, these exact 10 sites would not have been in the top 10 over the next three years regardless of speed cameras. They're picking sites with unusually high accident rates over three years, and therefore the chances are that the accidents will happen elsewhere instead, and you can report that accidents decline "at the sites which cameras where installed." If this wasn't the case then surely one could expect that in the areas where cameras were installed fatal injuries would be down, and everywhere else it would remain fairly constant, and as a result overall fatalities would be down. And as we see, that is bullshit.

    I notice you mention that the anti-speed camera lobby are dismissing your data on this fact. At least I'm addressing it, and arguing my point. What's your argument? "To extrapolate from the data that the road deaths should have gone down further than they have is a gigantic error, and probably a deliberate one at that." Well that is clearly crap. For a start, how can you just instantly dismiss such a huge shift in something that has remained relatively constant for 40 years? And I know because I have already said that the data shows that in other European countries without the "speed kills" policy have seen a steady decline in line with expectations. Countries like Germany, which give the driver the responsibility, have continued to see declining road fatalities. Whereas countries like the UK have failed to see the same progress. How do you explain that one? That is to be expected because of innovations in car safety. You seem to think that seatbelts, ABS, and all that other stuff is now at a dead end, and they no longer work to improve car safety. Well they have just added another star to the Euro NCAP safety ratings as a measure of how much they have achieved in the short period of time. I'm not saying that the data from this side of the argument is perfect in any way, but compared to that government crap, which has a huge interest in making it appear that speed cameras are working, it's positively saintly.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    As they say there are lies, damn lies and statistics.

    However to be honest its just common sense that the faster you are going the more likely that the pedestrian who steps out is more likely to be hit (because you can't brake in time) and is then more likely to die (because hitting someone at 40 mph is more likely to kill them than hitting them at 30mph).

    The fact that there are also other reasons for the number of deaths on the roads going down doesn't mean that speed cameras don't play a part.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    They're picking sites with unusually high accident rates over three years, and therefore the chances are that the accidents will happen elsewhere instead

    Are you going to prove that?

    If someone slows down for a dangerous junction, and therefore doesn't crash into someone pulling out at 90mph, how is that crash going to happen somewhere else?

    Aladdin has shown what difference the camera sites have made.

    It's common sense that speed kills- even where it isn't the primary cause, if you hit something at 40mph you've more chance of walking away than if you hit it at 90mph. Speed is dangerous.

    I can easily dismiss the flawed extrapolation for what it is. Refinements in car safety will make a difference, but not as much as wearing a seatbelt or not driving when pissed- both of which account for a lot of the decrease in road fatalities since 1975. It's inherently flawed to say that deaths should come down because they always have done. And even refinements will make smaller impacts as technology improves- putting ABS on a car will make more of an impact than putting better ABS on it.

    I honestly don't understand the logic of anyone who campaigns against speed cameras. Some speed limits are wrong (I'd like to see slightly higher limits on motorways) but for the most part they are fine and the people driving too fast are wrong.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    The fact that there are also other reasons for the number of deaths on the roads going down doesn't mean that speed cameras don't play a part.
    But they obviously don't play a part, because they are not going down in the countries that use them extensively, like the UK. I just feel that all of the evidence so far points to greater driver responsibility resulting in better driving overall and fewer road deaths, rather than the iron fist system that is currently in place. And every positive new development that comes out seems to point to that, like the combined road/pedestrian areas without road signs, or pedestrian crossings or anything, that force drivers to take responsibility. As soon as people expect someone else to take responsibility, they stop caring. Every driver must've had someone step out onto a zebra crossing without looking, because why should they look? It's someone else's problem. Maybe speed cameras do cut deaths, but it's inconslusive, and in my opinion, the evidence is highly dubious both in it's source and it methods of data collection. But maybe they're so focused on "speed kills" that they've ignored the other 88% of causes of road injuries. But I doubt that's the reason myself.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    It's more than 12%, though, isn't it?

    Unless you think that people who are driving at 25mph lose control and fatally crash often...
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Again you try and quote flawed stats which go against common sense (without a source).

    Speed cameras are not the answer on their own - no-one is suggesting they are, but the idea that the evidence that speed cameras don't make a difference is so barking you could put a lead on it and take it for a walk.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Kermit wrote:
    It's more than 12%, though, isn't it?

    Unless you think that people who are driving at 25mph lose control and fatally crash often...
    Just going off the data that was posted. I'll remind you:

    FATAL CRASH FACTORS
    Losing control
    35%
    Going too fast for conditions
    17%
    Failing to look properly
    17%
    Turning or maneouvring poorly
    12%
    Exceeding speed limit
    12%

    Only one of those factors is caught by a speed camera, because the speed camera doesn't take into account the conditions.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    But they obviously don't play a part, because they are not going down in the countries that use them extensively,

    [ snip ]

    But maybe they're so focused on "speed kills" that they've ignored the other 88% of causes of road injuries. But I doubt that's the reason myself.

    Dude, if you've ever slowed down for a speed camera, then they work. Speed cameras are good at slowing drivers down, and even better and taking their money.

    I'm not arguing they're not effective, just that they're as much a revenue generator as a speed deterrent.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Again you try and quote flawed stats which go against common sense (without a source).

    Speed cameras are not the answer on their own - no-one is suggesting they are, but the idea that the evidence that speed cameras don't make a difference is so barking you could put a lead on it and take it for a walk.
    Yep, so flawed that you've failed on every occasion to point out the flaws.

    France: 2.7% drop in injury accidents 1999 to 2000
    Fatalities down 10% 1995 to 2000

    Germany: 3.2% drop in injury accidents 1999 to 2000
    Fatalities down 26% 1995 to 2000

    Italy: 3.2% drop in injury accidents 1999 to 2000
    Fatalities down 9.7% 1995 to 2000

    Belgium:6.0% rise in motorway casualties 1999 to 2000
    Fatalities up 1.4% 1995 to 2000

    Sweden:0.4% drop in injury accidents 1999 to 2000
    Fatalities up 3% 1995 to 2000

    UK: 0.2% drop in injury accidents 1999 to 2000
    And the fatalities are shown on the graph I presented earlier, but remained fairly constant.

    Now you will notice that the first three countries, that have a policy focusing on driver responsiblity, have seen an overall drop in injuries and fatalities. The second three countries have a policy of using speed cameras to force drivers to drive within the limits. And I think you can work out the rest for yourself. Each is the official statistics from each country taken from the Safe Speed website, which campaigns for the implimentation of the measures I have been describing throughout this thread.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    JI'll remind you:

    Yes, I can read.

    Why do you think people lose control? Because they're driving too fast!

    Same with all the other ones...

    Speed kills. Do you dispute that?

    Speed cameras shouldn't replace traffic police, but to try and claim that they don't work is ludicrous. Especially with spurious "stats" you can't even link to.

    Speed cameras only raise revenue from criminals. What's the problem with that?
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Yep, so flawed that you've failed on every occasion to point out the flaws..

    OK here goes. The figures are starting from a higher level, because historically many of these countries have failed to put in measures that the UK has to reduce accidents.
    France: 2.7% drop in injury accidents 1999 to 2000
    Fatalities down 10% 1995 to 2000

    13.7 deaths per 100,000
    Germany: 3.2% drop in injury accidents 1999 to 2000
    Fatalities down 26% 1995 to 2000

    9.8 per 100,000
    Italy: 3.2% drop in injury accidents 1999 to 2000
    Fatalities down 9.7% 1995 to 2000

    12.9 per 100,000
    Belgium:6.0% rise in motorway casualties 1999 to 2000
    Fatalities up 1.4% 1995 to 2000

    15.4 per 100,000 people

    Sweden:0.4% drop in injury accidents 1999 to 2000
    Fatalities up 3% 1995 to 2000

    5.6 per 100,000 people

    http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/hea_mot_veh_dea-health-motor-vehicle-deaths
    All from
    UK: 0.2% drop in injury accidents 1999 to 2000

    UK has 5.6 per 100,000 people

    http://www.statistics.gov.uk/cci/nugget.asp?id=1208
    And the fatalities are shown on the graph I presented earlier, but remained fairly constant.

    Yes, because the UK is dropping from a low base.
    Now you will notice that the first three countries, that have a policy focusing on driver responsiblity, have seen an overall drop in injuries and fatalities. The second three countries have a policy of using speed cameras to force drivers to drive within the limits. And I think you can work out the rest for yourself. Each is the official statistics from each country taken from the Safe Speed website, which campaigns for the implimentation of the measures I have been describing throughout this thread

    Now you will notice you are around twice as likely to be killed in France, Germany or Italy where they focus on driver responsibility than in the UK or Sweden. What does that tell you?
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Kermit wrote:
    Why do you think people lose control? Because they're driving too fast!
    You assume. Trying to change the CD player while driving, talking to someone and not paying attention. If the reason they lost control was that they were going to fast, then surely that would come under excessive speed?

    Here but since you've completely ignored the stats I've presented so far, I expect you to do the same here, since you've already made your mind up anyway. I'm sure I can find plenty more sources of the same information, but I would only do so if I expected you to not dismiss it outright anyway. I seriously hope your next reply is actually trying to address the issues raised by these stats, rather than dismiss the source instead. Because even if you do still believe there is a place for speed cameras, it does show a disturbing trend that road fatalities are not being cut in the same way as the 40 years before that. So what could the possible reasons for that be?
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Now you will notice you are around twice as likely to be killed in France, Germany or Italy where they focus on driver responsibility than in the UK or Sweden. What does that tell you?
    So if America cut it's obesity by 25% and Sweden's went up by 5%, you would consider Sweden's policy to be the most effective, because it still has the lower obesity overall? That doesn't make sense. It's the changes that occur that measures whether a policy is effective. There could be many factors involved in one country having higher overall casualties than another. But the fact is that France, Germany and Italy are cutting fatalities at a faster rate than the UK (or more accurately, actually cutting them), means that their policy is more effective. As far as I can tell, they have the same cars, with the same safety record, the same seatbelts, the same ABS. What other measures do you know of that they are putting in place that the UK did ages ago?
Sign In or Register to comment.