Speed cameras cause panic braking....

On 2008-10-31, Alan Baker > wrote:
> 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.

Oh this is rich coming from a speed kills idiot like gpstroll.

>> > 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.

> That last statement is nonsense.

Gpstroll, like most idiots doesn't look to the root cause. He sees the
driver do something stupid and stops there because that's all that's
needed for the control-freak mentality. Control freaks don't want to
examine root causes when it is their interference, their attempt to
control, that was what a person reacted too. The drivers react to the
camera and often do so in ways that are not safe.

It's something we see throughout the society, the current economic
'crisis' is looked upon by control freaks as simply lacking enough
control, not that their existing controls caused people to make
decisions they wouldn't have made otherwise. Not that their low interest
rates and other attempts to control the market sent people the wrong
signals. Like an underposted speed limit sends the wrong signal about
the road ahead.

Simple control systems logic would show that the attempt to control
becomes another input to the system, yet control freaks ignore this. The
camera is an input to the system, like a wet road or a sofa in the
road. Some drivers are going to over-react, some under-react and some
just right. It's the nature of the beast. Some people will weigh safety
vs. ticket while others won't think anything but about avoiding a
ticket.

The idea that a visible input like a speed camera van does *nothing* to
the system is absurd. Not only is it absurd, the very basis on which
the speed cameras are sold is that they *WILL* make a difference. Turns
out the difference is the opposite of what the enforcement control freak
crowd said would happen.

>> 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

So you admit it doesn't reduce crashes, GREAT!!!

THEREFORE, the only reason for theM is revenue, in which case they
should be taken down.

NEXT!

On Oct 31, 3:20*pm, Larrybud > wrote:
> >> 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
>
> So you admit it doesn't reduce crashes, GREAT!!!
>
> THEREFORE, the only reason for theM is revenue, in which case they
> should be taken down.
>
> NEXT!

Lol. The primary purpose of speed cameras is to enforce speed
limits. Reduced velocity means reduced kinetic energy.

In constructions zones I imagine the primary consideration of lowering
speed limits is the safety of the most vulnerable in the vicinity, the
workers.
-----

- gpsman

On Oct 31, 12:56*pm, Alan Baker > wrote:
> In article
> >,
> *gpsman > wrote:
>
> > My position is supported by simple irrefutable logic. *Crashes are
> > caused by drivers, not cameras.
> >
>
> That last statement is nonsense.

Sparkling refutation...
-----

- gpsman

In article
>,
gpsman > wrote:

> On Oct 31, 12:56*pm, Alan Baker > wrote:
> > In article
> > >,
> > *gpsman > wrote:
> >
> > > My position is supported by simple irrefutable logic. *Crashes are
> > > caused by drivers, not cameras.
> > >
> >
> > That last statement is nonsense.
>
> Sparkling refutation...
> -----
>
> - gpsman

Proportionate response.

But let me put another way for the obviously simple minded.

You're on an expressway and all of a sudden you encounter and brand new
uncontrolled intersection:

Is it simply the drivers' fault if there are more accidents, or did
inappropriate road safety design choices play a role?

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

In article
>,
gpsman > wrote:

> On Oct 31, 3:20*pm, Larrybud > wrote:
> > >> 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
> >
> > So you admit it doesn't reduce crashes, GREAT!!!
> >
> > THEREFORE, the only reason for theM is revenue, in which case they
> > should be taken down.
> >
> > NEXT!
>
> Lol. The primary purpose of speed cameras is to enforce speed
> limits. Reduced velocity means reduced kinetic energy.

Kinetic energy is not an important factor in whether or not accidents
happen.

>
> In constructions zones I imagine the primary consideration of lowering
> speed limits is the safety of the most vulnerable in the vicinity, the
> workers.
> -----
>
> - gpsman

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

On Oct 31, 5:36 pm, Alan Baker > wrote:
> In article
> >,
> gpsman > wrote:
> > On Oct 31, 12:56 pm, Alan Baker > wrote:
> > > In article
> > > >,
> > > gpsman > wrote:
>
> > > > My position is supported by simple irrefutable logic. Crashes are
> > > > caused by drivers, not cameras.
>
> > > That last statement is nonsense.
>
> > Sparkling refutation...
> > -----
>
> Proportionate response.

I have to agree...

> But let me put another way for the obviously simple minded.
>
> You're on an expressway and all of a sudden you encounter and brand new
> uncontrolled intersection:

This bizarrely unrealistic scenario relates to a simple requirement
for a reduction of velocity in a construction zone... how...?!

> Is it simply the drivers' fault if there are more accidents, or did
> inappropriate road safety design choices play a role?

How does a camera determine which vehicles to cause to crash?

For a speed camera to be found to be the cause of a crash it must also
cause all other vehicles in the vicinity to crash. Since the vast
majority of vehicles do not crash in the vicinity of speed cameras
there obviously must be another cause.

Crashes are caused by drivers, not cameras.
-----

- gpsman

On Oct 31, 5:37*pm, Alan Baker > wrote:
> In article
> >,
>
>
>
> *gpsman > wrote:
> > On Oct 31, 3:20*pm, Larrybud > wrote:
> > > >> 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
>
> > > So you admit it doesn't reduce crashes, GREAT!!!
>
> > > THEREFORE, the only reason for theM is revenue, in which case they
> > > should be taken down.
>
> > > NEXT!
>
> > Lol. *The primary purpose of speed cameras is to enforce speed
> > limits. *Reduced velocity means reduced kinetic energy.
>
> Kinetic energy is not an important factor in whether or not accidents
> happen.

But a reasonable person might expect the reduced velocity associated
with reduced kinetic energy would allow a greater margin of error in
maneuvering and shorter stopping distances, making crashing and
crashes in progress easier to avoid.

Unfortunately, it appears in our relevant example, drivers who feel no
need to reduce velocity manage to crash for no good reason, and the
cause of those crashes is obviously not a camera.
-----

- gpsman

On Oct 31, 10:17*am, Brent P >
wrote:

> Simple control systems logic would show that the attempt to control
> becomes another input to the system, yet control freaks ignore this. The
> camera is an input to the system, like a wet road or a sofa in the
> road. Some drivers are going to over-react, some under-react and some
> just right. It's the nature of the beast. Some people will weigh safety
> vs. ticket while others won't think anything but about avoiding a
> ticket.
>
> The idea that a visible input like a speed camera van does *nothing* to
> the system is absurd. *Not only is it absurd, the very basis on which
> the speed cameras are sold is that they *WILL* make a difference. Turns
> out the difference is the opposite of what the enforcement control freak
> crowd said would happen.

I have to drive through speed camera zones somewhat frequently.
Since I usually drive at approximately the posted speed limit, I never
have to brake for the camera zones.
Only those who are going SL+10 or better have to brake for the camera,
and in the areas I get to observe, they had no reason to be going that
fast. (flame suit ON).
If these speeders weren't speeding, they wouldn't have to react to the
cameras, and therefore the cameras would not be an input to the
system. Most of us can ignore the cameras completely, and they are a
non-issue.


Generally, my observation has been that they work as intended, in that
the faster outlying speeders have slowed down, and the number of
reported crashes on that stretch of road has decreased significantly.
(Maybe the media stopped reporting them after the cameras went in?
Not impossible, these days...) On that basis, I've mostly supported
their use (but not the financing of them).

However, the Arizona governor has had a lot more put in, specifically
for revenue enhancement as stated by the governor herself. This, I do
not support.

So, I absolutely support them, except when I absolutely do not.

In article
>,
gpsman > wrote:

> On Oct 31, 5:36 pm, Alan Baker > wrote:
> > In article
> > >,
> > gpsman > wrote:
> > > On Oct 31, 12:56 pm, Alan Baker > wrote:
> > > > In article
> > > > >,
> > > > gpsman > wrote:
> >
> > > > > My position is supported by simple irrefutable logic. Crashes are
> > > > > caused by drivers, not cameras.
> >
> > > > That last statement is nonsense.
> >
> > > Sparkling refutation...
> > > -----
> >
> > Proportionate response.
>
> I have to agree...
>
> > But let me put another way for the obviously simple minded.
> >
> > You're on an expressway and all of a sudden you encounter and brand new
> > uncontrolled intersection:
>
> This bizarrely unrealistic scenario relates to a simple requirement
> for a reduction of velocity in a construction zone... how...?!

You were flat out saying that the design decision to put speed cameras
in and the inherent effect that has on drivers trying overly hard to
avoid a ticket (when they should *only* be deciding whether or not to
proceed through the intersection on the basis of safety!) played no role
in increased accidents.

Nothing to do with construction zones at all.

>
> > Is it simply the drivers' fault if there are more accidents, or did
> > inappropriate road safety design choices play a role?
>
> How does a camera determine which vehicles to cause to crash?

It doesn't. How does a poorly signed exit ramp that doesn't let drivers
know what speed they should choose? It doesn't either, but you wouldn't
be arguing that such a poorly signed ramp doesn't play a role in the
accidents that are the inevitable result.

>
> For a speed camera to be found to be the cause of a crash it must also
> cause all other vehicles in the vicinity to crash. Since the vast
> majority of vehicles do not crash in the vicinity of speed cameras
> there obviously must be another cause.
>
> Crashes are caused by drivers, not cameras.

Crashes are caused by drivers making poor decisions with regard to
safety. Road conditions -- including signage and enforcement equipment
-- that make it harder to make good decisions play a role in the
accidents that result.

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