SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
Speed cameras have been the focus of motorists' anger and frustration for years, although we are told repeatedly that they are an effective means of reducing death and injury on the roads. But is this really the case?
Whether speed cameras actually do save lives seems an easy assertion to test: measure the numbers of casualties at a site over a period, say two years; introduce a speed camera; re-measure the number of casualties over an equal period, and any reduction is due to the camera. But it's not really that simple. Many other factors are at play that might make cameras appear to be more effective than they really are. And these factors are often ignored when evaluating the performance of speed cameras at improving road safety.
Do speed cameras actually save lives?
[...] In road safety data, there is a general tendency for collision incidents at a site to reduce anyway following a short-term rise in their number, without any treatment (such as a speed camera) being applied. In statistics, this is known as regression-to-the-mean (or RTM). We also know that the long-term trend in collisions has generally been downward due to factors such as improved vehicle safety and better driver education[PDF].
So if we observe a reduction in casualties at a site following the installation of a camera, we need to ask how much of this reduction would have happened anyway (the RTM effect)? How much is due to general trends in road safety? And how much can we actually attribute to the camera itself?
[...] To make matters worse, half of the UK's fixed speed cameras may not even be turned on. So the situation is far from simple.
Methods to accurately account for RTM and trend often require knowledge of advanced statistics which may not always be available within a road safety team, and so it is likely that these confounding factors are not being considered consistently across the country.
[...] So, do speed cameras save lives? The answer is almost certainly yes, but probably not always to the extent that people are led to believe.
https://theconversation.com/do-speed-cameras-really-save-lives-87701
(Score: 3, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 21 2017, @08:04PM (3 children)
If saving lives is the top priority, then intubating everyone and locking them inside their own individual coffin-sized cells will enable you to save and preserve life for as long as the body and technology can sustain it.
Since no one seems to seriously be advocating for that approach, there are higher priorities. While it's sad to see the state of subjects of modern England, those across the pond where lip service is still paid to the idea of people being free alongside a government shackled to a limited list of enumerated delegated powers, the self-ownership of one's own meatsack along with all the consequences of that state is still the highest priority of many.
"If they can get you asking the wrong questions, they don't have to worry about answers."
(Score: 2, Insightful) by frojack on Tuesday November 21 2017, @08:12PM (2 children)
Why is it Mr. AC that I get the suspicion you would come down on EXACTLY the opposite side if the subject were texting while driving.
Don't get me wrong It was an excellent tin-foil rage, and probably quite cathartic for you.
But next time, just type it all out, experience the rage release, then close your browser before hitting submit.
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 21 2017, @08:40PM
I don't know why you pretend to be a mind reader. Only you could know that.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 21 2017, @10:16PM
I don't know, frojack; why do you get the suspicion that I [soylentnews.org] would come down on EXACTLY the opposite side (e.g. advocate FOR use of force of government against people) if the subject were texting while driving?
I try to keep a consistent set of worldviews, and those worldviews include "no victim, no crime". Speeding, recreational drug use, gun possession, human social interaction, and texting while driving all involve actions regarding choices which can be harmless or harmful. Those actions which produce no identifiable and verifiable harm cannot be considered crimes among a people who each own their own bodies exclusively. (Humans who do not have sole and exclusive ownership of their own bodies are slaves by definition.) For your "safety feels", there may be some mollification in that I do see a consistent approach with harshly dealing with actions that DO cause identifiable and verifiable harm to human individuals, primarily featuring restitution.