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, Insightful) by janrinok on Wednesday November 22 2017, @12:30PM (4 children)
At the time of my reading this, there are over 50 comments, many of which miss the entire point.
If you are NOT speeding, you cannot be caught by camera designed to catch vehicles that are speeding. Why don't people just obey the speed limits so that all these claims of being money-generating scams or major causes of accidents are irrelevant?
(Score: 2) by All Your Lawn Are Belong To Us on Wednesday November 22 2017, @08:29PM (1 child)
Because sometimes travelling with the speed of traffic flow is the best way to prevent an accident?
Because a machine has no judgement as to whether you might have an otherwise compelling reason?
Because machines should not rule men, it should be the opposite way around?
And I'll ask the opposite: Why do we focus on speed and not the larger issue of safety? If one is driving safely for the road conditions why should the state care about my speed? Except to get money from me, since driving safely at any speed implies there shall not be an accident?
This sig for rent.
(Score: 2) by janrinok on Thursday November 23 2017, @07:56AM
If the traffic is travelling at the speed limit then why should this be a problem? Or is your argument that because the car in front wishes to drive above the limit that you ought to do the same for safety reasons? Did your Mom/Mum ever ask you the question 'If you friend put his hand into the fire - would you put your hand into it too?' when you tried to use a similar justification for something you got wrong when a child?
Which is why you can always opt to go to court and argue your case there. If the judge agrees, he can throw out the charge.
I think that you will find that it is men who placed those cameras where they are - the cameras are entirely under our control. We haven't wandered that far into the dystopian future yet.
Because there is a clear and proven correlation between speed and safety. Speed affects breaking distances, requires that the vehicle is technically able to safely handle the speed involved, and that all drivers can reasonably be expected to have sufficient reaction speeds to manage with most of the unexpected events that might occur. Of course you (like every other driver) believes that you are a very good driver and it is the idiots in the other cars that cause the accidents. So keeping speed down to an agreed level ensures that the idiots in the other cars should be able to cope when they get confused by your use of indicators, or correctly changing lanes when you intend to turn of the road or highway you are travelling on. Additionally, if you are travelling at the speed limit + 30mph - because we all know that you are able to do so being the excellent driver that you are - you are probably going to cause accidents because your driving is beyond the abilities of other drivers to cope with.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 22 2017, @09:22PM (1 child)
How do you know this? These are typically proprietary corporation-controlled algorithms.
Also, the laws were written to be enforced by humans as necessary, which gives greater flexibility than a mindless algorithm; some speeding may not be dangerous and so may not warrant a ticket. Suddenly having perfect enforcement changes everything entirely, and not in a way that is satisfying to humans or even in a way that necessarily increases safety. Many cops know this, though sometimes there are ridiculous quotas they have to fill. Automated justice is not justice at all.
Because that doesn't solve the problem of mass surveillance, which you seem to be sympathetic to. I guess when it comes to cars, all bets are off. This is why I am against mandatory license plates; they make mass surveillance easy. Just like how in many US states, your drivers license or state ID photo is put into the FBI's facial recognition database.
We need better ways of obfuscating license plates to foil mass surveillance but ones which can't fool the human eye (since that could easily get you in trouble). Maybe just making it appear dirty would foil these things.
I'm not sure why people suddenly become extremely authoritarian whenever it comes to cars.
(Score: 2) by janrinok on Thursday November 23 2017, @07:42AM
Totally missing the point again. The law isn't stating that you are guilty of speeding and of being a danger to other road users, simply that you are speeding. If you are speeding then you are guilty - end of! But if you can justify it to the policeman who issues the ticket then perhaps he will accept your argument and let you off with a warning.
Radar speed traps rely simply on the Doppler effect and we, as a technically astute and knowledgeable group, know that there is no interpretation necessary. Physics is physics. Now if you are saying that some radar speed traps are rather more complicated than is necessary, then perhaps you ought to sort that problem out rather than just commit an offence?
Which has nothing to do with a discussion about speed cameras saving lives. And nowhere have I stated that that I support or I am sympathetic to mass-surveillance. That is a poor attempt at an ad hominem attack by suggesting that I do support such things. You voted your politicians into power - you should vote them out if you don't like the 'mass-surveillance' that you appear to be suffering under.
Oh, it's not just cars. I think we should enforce laws that combat murderers, burglars, rapists, con-men, drug dealers, thieves - in fact, I have that view that someone breaking the law should be punished appropriately. That doesn't necessarily mean harshly.