[Closed] Do you flash other drivers when you see a speed camera van?

Can't be bothered finding evidence and presenting it here, but don't take my word for it, do some research.

Sorry, it doesn't work like that. Back up your "facts," otherwise what you're presenting there is hearsay and opinion.

Quoted as absolutes - it's absolute rubbish.
.

So......Nobody has ever survived being hit by a car at 35mph ???

And.....Nobody has ever been killed by being hit by a car at 25mph ???

Would you agree that drivers and riders who exceed speed limits cause more crashes, and kill and injure more people, than drivers who do not exceed speed limits?

Sorry, it doesn't work like that. Back up your "facts," otherwise what you're presenting there is hearsay and opinion.

Contributory factors to reported road accidents, Department for Transport, 2010.

The National Safety Camera Programme: Four-year Evaluation Report by University College London & PA Consulting. Published by Department for Transport, December 2005

RoSPA Speed Cameras Factsheet 2011, RoSPA, 2011

The Effectiveness of Speed cameras: A Review of Evidence, Prof R Allsop, RAC Foundation, November 2010

TJ, I answered your question a few posts ago bud.

Contributory factors to reported road accidents, Department for Transport, 2010.

Unrelated to the point you're making.

The National Safety Camera Programme: Four-year Evaluation Report by University College London & PA Consulting. Published by Department for Transport, December 2005

The Effectiveness of Speed cameras: A Review of Evidence, Prof R Allsop, RAC Foundation, November 2010

Neither appear to be available online, so are hard to review.

RoSPA Speed Cameras Factsheet 2011, RoSPA, 2011

Based on the previous two reports so, whilst this does back up your claim, it's still difficult to verify the quality of the research.

Nontheless, I think it's a fair comment that cameras have an effect on speed when deployed. How many people slow down for the twenty yards where the cameras are though, and then speed back up again, it's hard to say. I'm not wholly sure that I actually disagree with you (though I'm not really sure what you're getting at).

In what circumstances would accelerating to above the speed limit be safer?

Says the guy who use to take pride in riding a british frying machine to Russia. Are you trolling again TJ?

really cant be arsed reading all 1 millions posts but I can guess what its about. put it this way...if someone knocked down my kids and speed was a factor I'd hunt the the ****ers down.

we all do it from time to time and at the right time and place is not a problem if you done go mental but in city streets its a big no no.

I'm not sure why this is going on. TJ agrees there are circumstancez in which insufficient anticipation leads to situations where accelerating can be the safer option. We live in a non-deterministic world, so that situations arise which cannot be anticipated, so in real life, there are times when acceleration is the safest opton.

Or have i missed something?

to answer the original post, no. the other drivers won't know what I'm flashing at/about

I was driving to work the other morning, car behind me started flashing at me. Kept it up for a couple of minutes so I pulled over. He sailed on by without stopping to tell me why he was flashing. Do I look like a bloody psychic?

Anyway, I got out & checked all my lights, everything seemed ok. Couldn't check my brake lights until later, but found out they were fine. No leaks or anything hanging off the underside. So I have no idea why he was flashing. Not like I was holding him up, the car in front was holding us all up, doing 29mph in a 30 zone, shocking eh?

was it an uneven/bumpy road surface? 😆

Charlie - very rare, only if you have made a mistake to get into that situation - and even then braking might still be a better option. Better not to make the mistake

if the ability to accelerate in those situations was removed then the amount of extra crashes would be so small - and in comparison to the crashes prevented?

I have only been in that situation once in 35 years - an ill judged overtake where a down shift and smack the throttle open got me thru - I still probably could have braked in behind but was full of adrenaline. If I had got it wrong I was in big trouble - a head on with a closing speed of 150 mph. If I had braked instead the speeds involved would have been much lower - hit the back of car doing 50 at 60 mph or bounce on my arse at 55 mph

I think the concept of " accelerating out of trouble" is an excuse used by overenthusiastic poorly skilled drivers to justify overenthusiastic agreesive driving / riding and poor anticipation and yes - I include the scenario I have described there to show my own mistakes - cos that is what it was

Would you agree that drivers and riders who exceed speed limits cause more crashes, and kill and injure more people, than drivers who do not exceed speed limits?

No idea, do you have any evidence to persuade me one way or the other ?

That's not the point I was making though.

My point was, that incorrectly quoting a half remembered advert off the telly, weakens an argument.

Neal - you are just being pedantic - the point still stands - the slower you are going the more chance a pedestrian you hit has of surviving.

Not coy, just didn't see how it was relevant and didn't want to take this thread of topic. I do have a pretty good understanding of the subject but could not clearly see how it applied in this situation which is why i asked you to explain. Then you went coy.

Ah - sorry. I was assuming normal STW awkward attitude from somebody who knew the answer. I shall have to try harder at being awkward next time if you don't remember me from the other thread 😉 . I'm actually genuinely interested in what you can present at a conference on stats without being a statistician - just tuck it somewhere in a post trolling TJ and everybody will ignore it.

I'd love to explain regression to the mean with speed cameras, but right now there's a TJ who needs arguing with, so I'll have to get back to you later...

if the ability to accelerate in those situations was removed then the amount of extra crashes would be so small - and in comparison to the crashes prevented?

Or better put.. If every one rides with helmet there would be less cycling related death...

(See what I did here).

I think the concept of " accelerating out of trouble" is an excuse used by overenthusiastic poorly skilled drivers to justify overenthusiastic agreesive driving / riding and poor anticipation and yes - I include the scenario I have described there to show my own mistakes - cos that is what it was

I think it's time you re-take your motorcycling test my dear. Really.

Is this still continuing with any sign of an end? I only asked about ****in mobile camera vans! Oh an being able to accelerate quickly and sometimes break the speed limit briefly when overtaking is far safer than having to go down two gears in ya metro to sneak by after 30 seconds on the wrong side of the road! Discuss that one at will!

V8 - to be in that situation you did fail to anticipate - you failed to anticipate the truck pulling out.

Yeah - I was driving down the motorway when somebody pushed a block of concrete off a bridge. I completely failed to anticipate that. Fortunately I saw it as it started to get pushed over, and accelerated - clearly if I'd braked I might not have had it land on my car, I'd just have run straight into it.

I also failed to anticipate the meteor which crashed into the roof of my house, the tsunami which drowned me and the dinosaur which ate me. Clearly all my own fault.

<note to pedants - parts of this post may not be strictly accurate>

TandemJeremy - Member
Neal - you are just being pedantic - the point still stands - the slower you are going the more chance a pedestrian you hit has of surviving.

The accusation of pedantry, what a shocker that is 🙄

[b]Rule 6 of the "Internet Debater's" Handbook[/b]

Always accuse people of pedantry when you get pulled up for quoting bogus made up statistics !

if someone knocked down my kids and speed was a factor I'd hunt the the ****ers down.

How do we ascertain that "speed is a factor" (for ****er-hunting purposes)?

Is "speed a factor" if a motorist was above the speed limit, end of story, or is speed a factor when it's shown to have actually contributed to the cause of the accident?"

Putting that another way; if (say) 50% of all motorists speed, and 50% of motorists involved in accidents were speeding, are we concluding that speed is a 'factor' in half of all accidents? And is that a fair conclusion if so?

aracer

Yeah - I was driving down the motorway when somebody pushed a block of concrete off a bridge

Yup- another observation one. I see people standing on a bridge over the motorway I always watch them. I look at every bridge for people chucking stuff off and for spotters for speed traps. If I see someone standing on a motorway bridge I try to change lanes so I do not go underneath them 🙂 Seriously I do this altho no one will believe me.

Jeezo - some people are unobservant.

neal - or on the other hand you can pedatically pick holes in something whan you have no counter to the point made - which you have not.

Pedantry accusations? Do you think he is wrong ?

Putting that another way; if (say) 50% of all motorists speed, and 50% of motorists involved in accidents were speeding, are we concluding that speed is a 'factor' in half of all accidents? And is that a fair conclusion if so?

That looks to me like speed is not a factor

Putting that another way; if (say) 50% of all motorists speed, and 50% of motorists involved in accidents were speeding, are we concluding that speed is a 'factor' in half of all accidents? And is that a fair conclusion if so?

Or speed was a factor in 0% of accidents.
Or speed was a factor in 100% of accidents.
Or anywhere in between 0% and 100%

Or just hunt the ****ers anyway ?

Yup- another observation one. I see people standing on a bridge over the motorway I always watch them. I look at every bridge for people chucking stuff off and for spotters for speed traps. If I see someone standing on a motorway bridge I try to change lanes so I do not go underneath them

Ah, so for the meteorite you have your own space observatory you check every 5 minutes, and then rebuild your house brick by brick 10m to the left, for the tsunami you keep a constant watch on earthquake monitoring sites and hop in the motorboat and head out to sea, and for the dinosaur... actually I'm struggling to work out how you anticipate the dinosaur with only the aid of stone age tools.

if the ability to accelerate in those situations was removed then the amount of extra crashes would be so small - and in comparison to the crashes prevented?

So you think accidents will be reduced if you remove one of the four relative directional options for evasion?

Anyway, back to the far more important point about regression to the mean.

With the policy on siting of speed cameras being that they had to be placed in an area where there had been accidents (I suspect even without a stated policy - and if that policy has now been removed - that there would be the same effect), there is a tendency to site new cameras when there have been a number of qualifying accidents within the recent past. Accidents which are part of the "before" statistics. After the camera is placed, it is far more likely that the number of accidents in the locality will become closer to the long term mean than further away from it compared to the period before it was placed (given a typical stochastic accident distribution). Given an anomalously high number of accidents relative to the long term average in the before period (for the reasons given above), the number of accidents will reduce after the siting of the camera. Regression to the mean rather than any effect of the camera.

Apologies for the use of statistical terms - I'm hoping anybody interested can cope. Apologies for any accidental incorrect use of statstical terms - I'm not a statistician (I just have a basic understanding as sometimes required for problems in engineering), I hope it doesn't distract from the explanation.

I think I said something like that pages ago, aracer... No where near as eloquently though! 🙂

I can see how that works on an individual site, but when the stats are aggregated over a number of sites the gains are greater than regression to mean would allow

So you think accidents will be reduced if you remove one of the four relative directional options for evasion?

this was in the context of having all cars mandatedly limited to the speed limit in that location - some wanted the ability to accelerate beyond the speed limit to "accelerate out of trouble"

In that situation the ability to accelerate out of trouble would be so rare if it ever existed that it would cause very few if any crashes to remove the ability to do so, whereas removing the ability to accelerate in excess of the speed limit would reduce accidents considerably and minimise the consequences of these accidents

this was in the context of having all cars mandatedly limited to the speed limit in that location - some wanted the ability to accelerate beyond the speed limit to "accelerate out of trouble"

What? You mean this was all hypothetical? In the artificial context of a limited speed?

In that situation the ability to accelerate out of trouble would be so rare if it ever existed that it would cause very few if any crashes to remove the ability to do so, whereas removing the ability to accelerate in excess of the speed limit would reduce accidents considerably and minimise the consequences of these accidents

... in your opinion.

[quote=TJ]neal - or on the other hand you can pedatically pick holes in something whan you have no counter to the point made - which you have not.

It's not "Pedantic" to say that you made your statistics up in the attempt to prove your point 😯

Why do I have to "counter" your point ? I'm simply pointing out that your statistics were made up.

Something you don't appear to be able to defend, without deflecting onto me by accusing me of being pedantic 🙄

🙄

In that situation the ability to accelerate out of trouble would be so rare if it ever existed

Provide you conveniently ignore the situations where it does exist 🙄

I can see how that works on an individual site, but when the stats are aggregated over a number of sites the gains are greater than regression to mean would allow

Why would aggregrating the stats make a significant difference when the effect is likely to happen at most if not all camera sites? How much gain would regression to the mean allow? Not (particularly) arguing - just interested in the thoughts of somebody who might know more about stats than me.

[quote=TJ] 🙄

Don't see how that backs up your made up statistics ?

Or maybe it was your way of admitting you were wrong ?

Either way, good comeback.

.

By the way, according to the advert you couldn't quite remember, but were happy to "quote" anyway...

the projected survival chances when being hit by a car at 30mph Are[b] 45% [/b]

Rather than[b] 0% [/b]as you "Guessed" and passed off as fact.

Also, technically, it's not [i]hit at[/i] 30mph, or 25mph. It's hit by a car that was originally travelling at those speeds, assuming the same reaction times and braking distances for both examples, hence an actual collision speed of far less. Hence my original assertion, better to be paying attention and a little above the limit, than be below the limit but in your own little world. But that was a 'bullshit argument' apparently.

Well, if the accident site was just a statistical artifact. I.e. Somewhere has to be in the top 10% and putting the camera in place had no effect then the data from those spots, over time should give a result which is the same as the population mean. if the hotspots are real hotspots and the cameras were completely effective then we would still see the same 'mean' result. Of course if cameras were completely ineffective then the stats would remain high. So that, the stats drop a bit would seem to indicate that hotspots are real and cameras are doing something.

I think

Neal- however I said 35 🙄

Still think that if you use your car as the reference point, then saying you cannot accelerate, just limits your degrees of freedom

[Double post]

Nudge?

Are you ignoring the issue that cameras are typically put in place immediately after an anomalous high in local accident stats? The point is that the stats before are skewed not after.

If not, I don't think I understand your argument. Could you break it down a bit better - I think you're suggesting 3 scenarios, one where it's a statistical blip, one where the camera is effective, one where it's ineffective, but it's a bit blurred and I don't quite get what effect on the change in accident stats you're suggesting for each scenario. I'm suggesting that the statistical blip alone is plenty enough to drive the reduction in the stats, given that most locations are a statistical blip at the point the camera is sited.

Statistical blips will go to the mean, real sites will not.

TandemJeremy - Member
Neal- however I said 35

Yup, I made a typo sorry.

It was meant to say ...... :

.

The projected survival chances when being hit by a car at 35mph Are 45%

Rather than 0% as you "Guessed" and passed off as fact.

Mine was a typo (well spotted)

Yours were made up (and incorrect)

So, in Bullshit Top Trumps, you win by a mile.

You'll have to define a "real" site for me. How do you tell the difference between one of those and a statistical blip?

A real site would just be one where accidents anre consistently higher than the mean

And telling the difference would only be froml long term dats

Ah - long term stats. Strangely they don't normally present those. Meanwhile a site where accidents are consistently higher than the mean is still most likely to get a camera following a statistical blip.

What are you on about neal? 🙄

TJ, you're going to wear those rolling eyes right out, at this rate! Is that a sign that you are feeling a little bit wrong?

TandemJeremy - Member
What are you on about neal?

Now you don't know what I'm talking about.

That's convenient eh ?

Maybe have a read back through your own posts, if your having trouble keeping up.

Or better still. Don't make things up. The truth is easier to remember.

Nope - I am just amused at neals ranting

john_drummer
I think he may have been taking the p1ss. Happened to me recently on a long road with little overtaking possibilities, white van man behind started flashing me and indicating to pull over, I don't drive slow, but there were a few cars infront. I got the feeling it was a total rouse and ignored him. Nothing wrong with my car, he was just trying to either, entertain and impress his female passenger with his hilarious antics, take the piss and/or overtake by deception.
In the rear view, his female passenger appeared uninterested, so I assumed he just felt a bit better in himself when he fooled someone and got to his destination 1 second sooner.

I've got a great set of jammers installed on my RS4 - got me out of a dodgy situation yesterday. I know, it could have been a childs eyes or a dolphin or a swan or something but round here the rural roads are fair game for a bit of high speed fun in my opinion - didn;t expect the local rural policeman to have a speed gun handy. He did wonder why he couldn;t get a fix on me when he eventually caught up and as they are completely hidden I said nowt. All he did was suggest that i be careful if i am "proceeding with haste" for loose stock and aforementioned dolphins, childrens faces and swans.

But on topic, speed cameras are hidden here and there are no notices.

Col (no points)

TJ.

You really do struggle to admit your wrong don't you.

You can pretend to be "amused" all you like. It's a bit weak.

(btw. It's not a "rant" and I'm not being "pedantic" as you have tried to imply.
I'm just pointing out that you made stuff up. And you don't seem to like it)

D'you know. I was reading this thread and I suddenly had this startlingly vivid vision of what Hell must be like.

Ah - long term stats. Strangely they don't normally present those. Meanwhile a site where accidents are consistently higher than the mean is still most likely to get a camera following a statistical blip.

I've no doubt this occurs but we don't really know if it is a statistical blip or a hot spot. However, the evidence can be seen if we look at lets say national data and see if accidents / fatalities are reduced, nationally by the introduction of cameras. The statistics which claim reductions, if analysed simplistically will overestimate the effect of speed cameras. But in understood that the detailed analysis, which uses a control group, still shows a reduction beyond that predicted by regression to the mean.

TJ.

You really do struggle to admit your wrong don't you.

You can pretend to be "amused" all you like. It's a bit weak

I'm getting a bit lost with this now. As i understand it TJ was making the point that at lower speeds, fatalities are less likely. Some hyperbole was involved but nevertheless the point was made. I don't think he was being literal (were you TJ?). So I'm struggling to see what the argument is about. Neal do you think fatalities are less likely at lower speeds? (all other things being equal of course, which they probably are unless you have good reason for why they shouldn't be.)

You have it charlie.

TJ

You seem perfectly comfortable nit picking tiny holes in the numerous examples people have given when Acceleration may be the best way out of trouble.

But when you say this ...

[quote=TJ]...
at 25 mph a person who is hit by a car survives

at 35 mph[b] they do not[/b]
.

And I call bullshit (because it's totally made up)

You don't seem to like it ? And suddenly I'm being "Pedantic", and then you said I was "Ranting"

.
Simple question.

Did you make that up to prove your point ??

YES/NO

(one word answer please ?)

Regression to the mean rather than any effect of the camera.

You may find this study interesting. [url= http://www.cts.cv.ic.ac.uk/html/ResearchSeminars/seminarDetails.asp?seminarID=30 ]imperial college study[/url]

The other thing to be careful of is to assume that accident frequency is random. Frequency could increase through (for example) increased traffic volume, increased speed and poorer driver behaviour as well as through chance.

I'm getting a bit lost with this now.

The beef Neal has, as I understand it, was that TJ presented figures as "fact" to support his argument. Neal called him on this and presented corrected figures; TJ's response was to call him pedantic and 🙄 🙄 a lot.

Which, frankly, is a storm in a teacup in the grand scheme of things, but I'm a bit surprised in a bright bloke like TJ having to resort to passive-aggressive emoticons in lieu of actual discussion.

I can't be arsed arguing with him. Charlie clearly understands the point taht is was illustrative not literal as I would have thought anyone can and it has rather amused me watching Neal work himself up into such a lather over such an inconsequential point.

[quote=TJ]... over such an inconsequential point.

It wasn't inconsequential when you were using it to prove your point though was it ?

But, now it's been shown to be made up bollx, it is ? What a shock.

I'm not in any kind of "lather" TJ.

I'm just calling Bullshit on made up "Facts" that you don't seem able to defend.

(or willing to admit were wrong)

Poor show.

🙄

This shit is getting so boring now.

[quote=TJ] 🙄

.
No defence ?

I'll take that as you admitting you were talking bollx then.

TandemJeremy - Member
🙄

🙄

TandemJeremy - Member
🙄

aracer - Member
🙄

aracer - Member

TandemJeremy - Member
🙄

🙄

🙄

🙄

🙄

Ok, Here's a solution. TJ, you will have to admit that not [i][b]everyone[/b] [/i]survives an accident at 25 and not everyone dies at 35. However neal, you have to accept that whilst TJ's statement, whilst not true was not meant to be literal and was illustrative rather than made up. Then we get the the main argument back on track. can't we?

Charlie. TJ made something up to bolster his view. Simple as that.

Made it up, and passed it off as fact.

.
I never disagreed with the point that, in a collision with a pedestrian, increased vehicle speed increases the risk of serious injury/death for the pedestrian.

You'd have to be a muppet to disagree with that.

.
You would also have to be a Muppet to back up such an obvious point using made up and incorrect statements of fact.

still wittering on? How many times have you made that point now? you must be exceeding my record

🙄

"still withering on"

lmfao !

Pot_ kettle _ black.

Not close to your standard by a long way, from what people tell me.

Charlie. TJ made something up to bolster his view. Simple as that.

Made it up, and passed it off as fact.

It was illustrative, I don't think anyone else on here thought it was meant literally. You'd have to be a muppet to think that.

Yeah yeah, it's easy to say that [b]after[/b] getting pulled up for talking cack.

Whatever let's TJ remain in position as "Chief forum Beligerant"

You'd have to be a muppet to disagree with that.