Speed cameras cause panic braking....

that in turn causes crashes.

http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/25/2576.asp

On Oct 26, 1:26 am, Brent P >
wrote:
> that in turn causes crashes.
>
> http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/25/2576.asp

Q: What prevents a driver from not panic braking at the sight of a
speed camera...?

A: Nothing.

So the conclusion is spurious, cameras do not "cause" a driver to
brake, much less "panic" brake.

The simplest answer is; drivers often operate beyond their skill set,
while exercising poor judgment and expectations.

<q>How many speed cameras are on UK roads?

The number of speed cameras has now reached about 6,000 across the
country, 2,500 of them being mobile speed cameras. </q>
http://www.speedcamerasuk.com/speed-camera-faqs.htm
-----

- gpsman

gpsman > wrote in
news:30cbeb2c-2e6d-4d2a-89a6-
legroups.
com:

> On Oct 26, 1:26 am, Brent P >
> wrote:
>> that in turn causes crashes.
>>
>> http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/25/2576.asp
>
> Q: What prevents a driver from not panic braking at the sight of
> a speed camera...?
>
> A: Nothing.
>
> So the conclusion is spurious, cameras do not "cause" a driver
> to brake, much less "panic" brake.
>
> The simplest answer is; drivers often operate beyond their skill
> set, while exercising poor judgment and expectations.

Even if one agrees to your premise it doesn't change the end
result:

more speed cameras = more crashes

So if the *real* goal is to reduce carnage, it's done the
opposite.

On Oct 28, 1:07 pm, Larrybud > wrote:
> gpsman > wrote in
> news:30cbeb2c-2e6d-4d2a-89a6-
> .
> com:
>
>
>
> > On Oct 26, 1:26 am, Brent P >
> > wrote:
> >> that in turn causes crashes.
>
> >>http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/25/2576.asp
>
> > Q: What prevents a driver from not panic braking at the sight of
> > a speed camera...?
>
> > A: Nothing.
>
> > So the conclusion is spurious, cameras do not "cause" a driver
> > to brake, much less "panic" brake.
>
> > The simplest answer is; drivers often operate beyond their skill
> > set, while exercising poor judgment and expectations.
>
> Even if one agrees to your premise

Kinda tough to disagree with, ain't it...?

> it doesn't change the end
> result:
>
> more speed cameras = more crashes
>
> So if the *real* goal is to reduce carnage, it's done the
> opposite.

"No significant difference was observed in the PIA rate for sites with
and without speed cameras."
http://www.thenewspaper.com/rlc/docs/04-trl595.pdf
-----

- gpsman

Ashton Crusher wrote:

> The portion you quoted is from the conclusion where they simply ignore
> this inconvenient little fact and talk ONLY about *work-zone*
> locations where the differences were , in statistical terms, not
> significant.

How about defining "work zone'? Dug-up streets with guys in orange
vests and shovels? Downtown business area? Something else?

--
Cheers, Bev
================================================== ===
Election 2008:
There's never been a better time to vote libertarian.

On Oct 30, 12:48*am, Ashton Crusher > wrote:
> On Tue, 28 Oct 2008 18:06:37 -0700 (PDT), gpsman
> > wrote:
>
> >"No significant difference was observed in the PIA rate for sites with
> >and without speed cameras."
> >http://www.thenewspaper.com/rlc/docs/04-trl595.pdf
>
> *Anyone looking at this objectively would have to hold their nose from
> the stench.

I don't think "objectively" consists of assuming every crash recorded
during the study was the result of a driver reaction to a camera.
-----

- gpsman

On Oct 30, 10:34*am, gpsman > wrote:

>
> I don't think "objectively" consists of assuming every crash recorded
> during the study was the result of a driver reaction to a camera.

Correction:

I don't think "objectively" consists of assuming every crash recorded
during the study in the presence of a camera was the result of a
driver reaction to the camera.

gpsman regrets the error.
-----

- gpsman

Ashton Crusher wrote:

> > wrote:
>
>>Ashton Crusher wrote:
>>
>>> The portion you quoted is from the conclusion where they simply ignore
>>> this inconvenient little fact and talk ONLY about *work-zone*
>>> locations where the differences were , in statistical terms, not
>>> significant.
>>
>>How about defining "work zone'? Dug-up streets with guys in orange
>>vests and shovels? Downtown business area? Something else?
>
> read teh report. If it's defined anywhere, that's where you'll find
> it.

Sorry, your synopsis wasn't sufficiently riveting.

--
Cheers, Bev
$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ $$$$$$$$$
Don't tax me. Don't tax thee. Tax that man behind the tree.

On Oct 31, 2:52*am, Ashton Crusher > wrote:
>
> The cameras were the variable.

<spit take> What about the weather, traffic, time of day, lighting
conditions, condition of the driver/s, driver/s distractions, the
vehicle, the tires of the vehicle, the speed of the vehicle, (in this
particular case, road construction activity) ad infinitum...?

It seems you are not familiar with what might constitute a "variable".

> I never said it was the "flash", all
> that's being said is that across multiple sites the data shows that
> the presence of speed cameras causes an increase in accidents.

Lol. Correlation/causation error.

Your assumption rises no higher than strawberry cream pie keeping
elephants out of the refrigerator.

> My
> position is supported by the data.

I'm afraid not. Winter is not caused by birds flying south.

> Your position is not.

My position is supported by simple irrefutable logic. Crashes are
caused by drivers, not cameras.
-----

- gpsman

In article
>,
gpsman > wrote:

> On Oct 31, 2:52*am, Ashton Crusher > wrote:
> >
> > The cameras were the variable.
>
> <spit take> What about the weather, traffic, time of day, lighting
> conditions, condition of the driver/s, driver/s distractions, the
> vehicle, the tires of the vehicle, the speed of the vehicle, (in this
> particular case, road construction activity) ad infinitum...?
>
> It seems you are not familiar with what might constitute a "variable".
>
> > I never said it was the "flash", all
> > that's being said is that across multiple sites the data shows that
> > the presence of speed cameras causes an increase in accidents.
>
> Lol. Correlation/causation error.
>
> Your assumption rises no higher than strawberry cream pie keeping
> elephants out of the refrigerator.
>
> > My
> > position is supported by the data.
>
> I'm afraid not. Winter is not caused by birds flying south.
>
> > Your position is not.
>
> My position is supported by simple irrefutable logic. Crashes are
> caused by drivers, not cameras.
> -----
>
> - gpsman

That last statement is nonsense.

--
Alan Baker
Vancouver, British Columbia
<http://gallery.me.com/alangbaker/100008/DSCF0162/web.jpg>