Speed cameras cause panic braking....

In article
>,
gpsman > wrote:

> 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.

Sure. But what you need is *enough* margin, not "more margin ad
infinitum".

>
> 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.

We were discussing red light cameras and since one has to deal with
reality (well, you don't, but the rest of us do), one must acknowledge
the psychological effects of causing drivers to decide whether or not to
stop at an intersection, not solely based on what is safest, but on
whether or not they're going to get a ticket. Those effects are *not*
going to enhance safety.

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

In article
>,
wrote:

> 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).

Other than getting where they are going in a minimum amount of time, you
mean, right?

After all, if that doesn't matter, let's lower all the limits to 1mph.

> 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.

Fact: most roads are underposted.

People are, for the most part, reasonable, and absent any road
conditions that aren't visible to them, they don't pick travel speeds
that are dangerous. This has been show again, and again.

Fact: people don't like paying fines for reasonable behaviour.

Conclusion: introduce cameras on underposted roads and when people see
one, they are going to suddenly brake.

>
>
> 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).

Produce some actual data...

>
> 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.

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

On 2008-11-01, > wrote:
> 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.

It would also be a non issue if the speed limit was set correctly. But
all speed kills control freaks do is get on about people obeying
some proclaimed authority who has no interest in safety only producing
revenue through theft which is why the speed limit is set so low in the
first place.

> 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).

The media rarely reports on crashes period.

On Nov 1, 1:16*am, Alan Baker > wrote:
> In article
> >,
>
>
>
> *gpsman > wrote:
> > 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.
>
> Sure. But what you need is *enough* margin, not "more margin ad
> infinitum".
>
>
>
> > 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.
>
> We were discussing red light cameras.

Check the subject of the thread.
-----

- gpsman

On Nov 1, 1:13*am, Alan Baker > wrote:
> In article
> >,
> *gpsman > wrote:
>
> > 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.

Lol. So... crashes are caused by speed limits?

A driver in compliance with the speed limit avoids trying overly hard
to avoid a ticket. "Problem" solved.

> Nothing to do with construction zones at all.

> > 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.

You're going to argue drivers are not provided adequate advance
warning of reduced speed limits and construction zones?!

> > 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.

Thank you.

> Road conditions -- including signage and enforcement equipment
> -- that make it harder to make good decisions play a role in the
> accidents that result.

How does a speed limit sign and an enforcement camera make good
decisions difficult?
-----

- gpsman

On Nov 1, 1:39*am, Alan Baker > wrote:
> In article
> >,
> wrote:
> > 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).
>
> Other than getting where they are going in a minimum amount of time, you
> mean, right?

Where did you get the idea the purpose of road systems are to allow
minimum travel time?!

> > 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.
>
> Fact: most roads are underposted.

<spit take> You have no data to support your position, not a single
shred.

In fact, you have not traveled on most roads.

> People are, for the most part, reasonable, and absent any road
> conditions that aren't visible to them, they don't pick travel speeds
> that are dangerous.

Driving is dangerous, and can be at every speed. Ask anyone who has
backed over a child.

55,926 people died doing it last year, and that doesn't include the
pedestrians drivers who thought the road was "underposted" ran over.
http://www-fars.nhtsa.dot.gov/Vehicl...lVehicles.aspx

> This has been show again, and again.

By the 6M reported crashes per year?

Generously assuming there are 300M vehicles in the US, 1 in 50 are
involved in a crash.

Every year at intersections:
– 9,100 Fatalities
– 1,500,000 Injuries
– 3,000,000 Crashes
Cost to Society $124 Billion / year
http://www.itsa.org/itsa/files/pdf/A...evelopment.pdf

> Fact: people don't like paying fines for reasonable behaviour.

When did violating the law to a significant degree become reasonable?

> Conclusion: introduce cameras on underposted roads and when people see
> one, they are going to suddenly brake.

Drivers in compliance with the speed limit +10 can just lift off the
throttle.
-----

- gpsman

On Oct 31, 11:27*pm, Brent P >
wrote:

> > 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.
>
> It would also be a non issue if the speed limit was set correctly.
True, mostly. There will always be the outliers, and I see them a few
times a week, out of the many thousands of cars on the road as I
commute. I remember that handful because of their speed or other
behavior. THOSE are the ones I want ticketed into oblivion.

>But
> all speed kills control freaks do is get on about people obeying
> some proclaimed authority who has no interest in safety only producing
> revenue through theft which is why the speed limit is set so low in the
> first place.
They aren't set so low around here, except in one instance. And yep,
it's generally ignored, which sets a bad example (in the setting and
the ignorance).
> > 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).
>
> The media rarely reports on crashes period.

Oh please. The blood and guts crashes lead the news whenever they
occur.
Especially when it matches other news stories, such as illegal
immigration, drinking, etc.

wrote:
> On Oct 31, 11:27 pm, Brent P >
> wrote:
>
>>> 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.
>> It would also be a non issue if the speed limit was set correctly.
> True, mostly. There will always be the outliers, and I see them a few
> times a week, out of the many thousands of cars on the road as I
> commute. I remember that handful because of their speed or other
> behavior. THOSE are the ones I want ticketed into oblivion.
>
>> But
>> all speed kills control freaks do is get on about people obeying
>> some proclaimed authority who has no interest in safety only producing
>> revenue through theft which is why the speed limit is set so low in the
>> first place.
> They aren't set so low around here, except in one instance. And yep,
> it's generally ignored, which sets a bad example (in the setting and
> the ignorance).
>>> 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).
>> The media rarely reports on crashes period.
>
> Oh please. The blood and guts crashes lead the news whenever they
> occur.
> Especially when it matches other news stories, such as illegal
> immigration, drinking, etc.

Most of the crashes that make the news involve any/all of youth,
alcohol, late nights, and extreme high speeds which is not what we're
talking about here. Most people just tooling along at 70 in a 55 on an
eight lane freeway in light traffic don't crash.

nate

--
replace "roosters" with "cox" to reply.
http://members.cox.net/njnagel

On 2008-11-01, > wrote:
> On Oct 31, 11:27*pm, Brent P >
> wrote:
>
>> > 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.
>>
>> It would also be a non issue if the speed limit was set correctly.
> True, mostly. There will always be the outliers, and I see them a few
> times a week, out of the many thousands of cars on the road as I
> commute. I remember that handful because of their speed or other
> behavior. THOSE are the ones I want ticketed into oblivion.

There are not enough outliers for cameras to be profitable. Profit is
the motive so speed limits stay low.

>>But
>> all speed kills control freaks do is get on about people obeying
>> some proclaimed authority who has no interest in safety only producing
>> revenue through theft which is why the speed limit is set so low in the
>> first place.

> They aren't set so low around here, except in one instance. And yep,
> it's generally ignored, which sets a bad example (in the setting and
> the ignorance).

to your personal preference. Obviously they are too low if the cameras
find that many people to ticket.

>> > 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).

>> The media rarely reports on crashes period.

> Oh please. The blood and guts crashes lead the news whenever they
> occur.

Only some of them, not all of them. If they weren't highly selective the
news would be one long traffic report.

In article
>,
gpsman > wrote:

> On Nov 1, 1:39*am, Alan Baker > wrote:
> > In article
> > >,
> > wrote:
> > > 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).
> >
> > Other than getting where they are going in a minimum amount of time, you
> > mean, right?
>
> Where did you get the idea the purpose of road systems are to allow
> minimum travel time?!

The purpose of the roads is to allow people to travel at their greatest
convenience (without

>
> > > 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.
> >
> > Fact: most roads are underposted.
>
> <spit take> You have no data to support your position, not a single
> shred.
>
> In fact, you have not traveled on most roads.

I have my own observations and common sense.

>
> > People are, for the most part, reasonable, and absent any road
> > conditions that aren't visible to them, they don't pick travel speeds
> > that are dangerous.
>
> Driving is dangerous, and can be at every speed. Ask anyone who has
> backed over a child.

Which disproves my thesis, how?

>
> 55,926 people died doing it last year, and that doesn't include the
> pedestrians drivers who thought the road was "underposted" ran over.
> http://www-fars.nhtsa.dot.gov/Vehicl...lVehicles.aspx

In how many total person-hours of the activity?

>
> > This has been show again, and again.
>
> By the 6M reported crashes per year?
>
> Generously assuming there are 300M vehicles in the US, 1 in 50 are
> involved in a crash.

Reference?

>
> Every year at intersections:
> * 9,100 Fatalities
> * 1,500,000 Injuries
> * 3,000,000 Crashes
> Cost to Society $124 Billion / year
> http://www.itsa.org/itsa/files/pdf/A...evelopment.pdf

And has that number declined where RLCs have been deployed?

>
> > Fact: people don't like paying fines for reasonable behaviour.
>
> When did violating the law to a significant degree become reasonable?

When an unreasonable law was enacted.

Look up our shared common law heritage and the concept of the
"reasonable man".

>
> > Conclusion: introduce cameras on underposted roads and when people see
> > one, they are going to suddenly brake.
>
> Drivers in compliance with the speed limit +10 can just lift off the
> throttle.

Maybe, but do they *know* that? *Can* they know that?

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