Talk:Safe Speed

Unjustified claims

I'm removing some of the claims from section on Political Background until they can be justified with evidence. How do you know that "Safespeed receives most support from those drivers who feel that legally prescribed speed limits present an unjustified limitation of their liberty" etc? (unsigned commend by user:Soundwave)

Safe Speed's claims

This section didn't represent Safe Speed's claims except in a very vague sense. I have now updated it but it still needs more. (unsigned commend by user:Soundwave)

• "Disprove it and I'll remove it": actually several people have disproved the one in three claim, which Smith still uses, and the 12mph claim, which is still there; other things have been disproved but he rejects the proof as "flawed" (in a way which the evidence he likes, strangely enough, is not). So this claim is highly problematic. It is also a reversal of the burden of proof, since none of the evidence supporting his claims, with the possibleexception of regression to the mean, stands up to the degree of scrutiny he demands of contradictory evidence. - Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] (W) AfD? 08:26, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

NPOV

This whole article has serious POV issues. Primarily, it isn't actually an article about SafeSpeed at all - rather, it's an article about the speed/safety camera controversy. Right from the very first sentence it subtly disparages the organisation ("claims to be a road safety organisation"). The whole thing reads like a hatchet job - a brief presentation of SafeSpeed's views and then a very much more lengthy denunciation of them.

The bulk of this article should be moved to something like speed cameras in the UK, and only the parts relating specifically to SafeSpeed left here. Don't get me wrong - I happen to think that Paul Smith is a selfish and irresponsible individual, and the policies advocated by organisations like SafeSpeed are fundamentally dangerous. Personally I would be heavily in favour of a large number of concealed speed cameras as a better way to reduce accidents. But I'm only saying that on a talk page, not in the article. OpenToppedBus - Talk to the driver 13:31, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

I think it is fair comment to say it "claims to be" a road safety organisation, when you consider that its agenda has pretty much zero overlap with every long-standing road safety campaign and organisation in the UK. The road safety tag is a smokescreen to obscure the fact that, fundamentally, Smith is a libertarian campaigning against speed enforcement. If you search the uk.transport Google archives you will see plenty of evidence of this. As to the lenght of the rebuttals, I think that reflects the fact that there is more evidence against Smith's claims than supporting them. But anyone is free to expand the claims, or summarise the rebuttals if it can be done in fewer words.

Here's an example for you: Smith says that one third of British road fatalities are due to speed cameras. That is an absurd claim predicated on a very simplistic model. But a proper rebuttal of the claim involves several separate strands of argument. There is the fact that his supposed loss of trend applies only to motorcyclists; the fact that it is not repeated in KSI; the fact that it occurs mainly on the roads least likely to have a camera; the fact that other things changed at the same time; the fact that the loss of trend is itself predicated on an overly simplistic model (linear decline); the fact that the figures are small enough to be vulnerable to stochastic variation; the fact that choosing a different two data points beforehand radically changes the outcome.

The Which? article on speed cameras has, as I remember, a very similar balance. The journalist writing the piece told me that he rapidly reached the conclusion that there was a very broad consensus, and that Smith was not part of it, but that his spurious authority was a dangerous bolster for those who simply don't want to believe that what they are doing is dangerous.

Actually the best thing might be to AfD it. With an Alexa rank of 658,778 it might just get canned, though probably not. - Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] (W) AfD? 23:25, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

ABD Support??

The point made that the Association of British Drivers gives limited support to SafeSpeed is abject nonsense. Paul Smith is a member of the ABD and is officially listed as their representative for Northern Scotland.unsigned comment by User:62.253.245.4

• So when one of their officers was interviewed about Smith's one in three claim, and repudiated it, that was not a limitation to their support? Or are you claiming that they do not support SafeSpeed at all, and it is merely coincidental that Smith is a member of the ABD? - Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] (W) AfD? 13:33, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

I thought Wikipedia was a source of information.

This article reads like one long ad-hominem from someone who has serious personal issues with Paul Smith. It is given a veneer credibility by the use of some jargon and a selection of "statistics" - most of which are old, discredited, or just plain wrong.

Rubbish like this has no place in a supposedly authoritative source of information.Unsigned comment by User:Jeff11

Nominate it for deletion then. - Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] (W) AfD? 13:30, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

I have. Thank you for the advice Mr Chapman.

No, you speedy tagged it. That is not the same thing: the article as written does not qualify as a speedy candidate. You need to go to WP:AFD. - Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] (W) AfD? 15:48, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

I concur that this entire article reads as the ventings of someone with an agenda against the founder of the SafeSpeed organisation and has little (if any) useful, impartial information on SafeSpeed itself.unsigned comment by User:83.67.70.164

Speedy tag

User:Jeff11 added {{db-attack}} on the grounds that "it is an abusive ad-hominem created by a known net-kook who has been banned from many relevant fora and is running out of places to vent his bile." The article has an edit history with around a dozen separate contributors, some anonymous and some logged-in. Please specify which test was added by which kook, and from which forums they have been banned. - Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] (W) AfD? 15:54, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

• You* Mr Chapman are the "net-kook" to whom I referred. You know as well as I that you've been banned from numerous cycling fora, and of course, SafeSpeed. You appear to have a serious personal problem with SafeSpeed's Mr Smith to the point that you've had accounts pulled because of your abusive and potentially libellous behaviour.

This "page" contributes nothing to, well, just about anything. I listed it for speedy deletion because it is, pure and simple an attack on a specific person. You, I assume, deleted the "db-attack" and similar requests - which, as the page originator, is as I see it in breach of Wikipedia's T&Cs. (Unsigned comment from User:Jeff11)

• Perhaps you could list the forums from which I have been banned. If I have been banned from SafeSpeed it is without my knowledge (or indeed caring), since despite at least two invitations from Paul Smith I have never been active on that forum; actually as a rule I don't web forums at all (I mostly stick to Usenet). So, proof, please, including a full list of accounts supposedly "pulled" for "abusive and potentially libellous behaviour". Interesting choice of terminology, incidentally - very similar to a form of words Paul Smith uses when confronted. Never to me that I can recall, but certainly elsewhere.

And for the record, much of the text to which you apparently object was added by User:Soundwave ([1]), including much of the personalisation which I mistakenly continued but have now reverted.

But thanks, I've always aspired to be a proper net.kook rather than just a wannabe :-) - Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] (W) AfD? 19:44, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

Way forward

OK, let's look at the way forward with this article. As I said earlier, I think that it's seriously flawed; not so much because of the bias, but because an awful lot of the article isn't about SafeSpeed at all, but is about the more general issue of speed cameras and the controversies surrounding them. I would like to suggest that a new article be created on Speed cameras in the United Kingdom. Much of the content from here would be moved there, and could then become a more general discussion of the issue rather than focussing on one person's view. This article would remain with a description of SafeSpeed, its membership and its aims, and a brief discussion of the controversy around them. What it doesn't need is a detailed refutation of each individual claim - it's enough to say that his views are not generally accepted by other road safety campaigners. What does anyone else think? OpenToppedBus - Talk to the driver 13:46, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

I am not so sure. I share the concern of others that the layout as per this am was unfair, in that it did not allow for a proper development of their argument before the counter-case was put (own fault acknowledged). I have reordered the article in line with normal practice, case at the top, counter-case at the bottom. I also removed some redundancy in the anti case. One key change is to depersonalise much of the counter-claim text, substituting SafeSpeed for Smith in most cases. I hope I haven't cut anything out, someone else should certainly have a look to see I've not dropped anything crucial, I am not neutral here and subconscious bias is quite possible. I had some reasonable exchanges wth Smith in the early days (before the three-month illness), but since then we have disagreed quite publicly. His supporters are distinctly uncomplimentary about me.

The counter-case is still larger, often because the claims are simplistic whereas the counter-claims have multiple facets (as stated above). One or two points might bear moving to Speed cameras in the United Kingdom, but the one-in-three claim, the 12mph claim, the distraction claim and some others are identifiably (and in many cases distinctly) SafeSpeed's, and Smith is their principal advocate, so there's a strong case for keeping them here. - Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] (W) AfD? 17:24, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

I don't feel that the issue is one of layout - so, not surprisingly, I don't feel that the reorganisation helps. You say that "I hope I haven't cut anything out", but I actually feel that most of this should be cut out. Why are we bothering with such a detailed refutation of all of SafeSpeed's claims? I don't think it's necessary, and I don't think it's NPOV. I think it'll be clearer if I produce another version - I'll stick something on a user subpage when I get a chance (this may not be till Monday). --OpenToppedBus - Talk to the driver 15:38, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

Sure, have a go. My reason for refuting their claims is simple: they are often repeated, and in reputable sources. Smith has been quoted on the BBC News website with his "one third" claim, and anyone coming to Wikipedia (as a trusted source) to reference SafeSpeed should be informed that this claim has no basis in reality. Actually one of SafeSpeed's claims is missing: that drivers forced to obey the law are outside their "zone of optimal performance" (a concept which I haven't seen mentioned in the road safety literature). I'm not sure how this affects people constrained by traffic (i.e. most people much of the time). - Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] (W) AfD? 16:13, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

Truncated section

The section headed "Paul Smith" ends with Smith also has outspoken views on issues such as disabled parking, and has been. Any idea what the rest of that sentence is supposed to say? User:Zoe|^(talk) 21:40, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

Copy & paste error, I think. It's been fixed now (by someone else). - Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] (W) AfD? 09:57, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

I do find it slightly amusing that, accordingf to his own and other anti-speed camera sites, that Mr Smith was quite happy to have his web site used to slander one of the safety camera managers and then kicked off in an sanctimonious and self righteous rage when the individual concerned fought back. It also seems odd that a post on one of Mr Smith's forums regarding this site and discussion mysteriously disappeared. Censorship, surely not.

Mr Smiths site Safespeed did not slander any SCP manager, and the SCP manager's response was not exactly correct in form or format. So, no, no censorship appears to have taken place. I would suggest that this is not the place for personal 'attacks' on any individuals.

Regression to the mean

The concluding sentence of this section is irrefutably wrong. Regression to the mean is an issue only insofar as how it skews the claimed benefits of speed cameras when placed at sites chosen under the ACPO criteria to have a camera placed at them. The RTTM 'benefit' would still occur regardless of whether a camera is visible, invisible or not even placed there. As for suggesting their locations should be unrestricted - this is tantamount to suggesting that treatments should be applied where they are not needed. Is the motivation then to save lives or punish people?

The issue that the author has failed to grasp is that the ACPO criteria for site selection needs to be changed so that camera effectiveness can be measured truly and accurately and resources deployed efficiently. Doing away with selection criteria altogether means accepting the currently flawed statistics on camera benefit as being accurate and losing completely the ability to scientifically measure effectiveness in future.unsigned comment by User:62.253.245.4

I thought the idea was to enforce the law? Naive, I know, but as far as I can tell there is widespread consensus that the consequences of breaking the law should normally be some kind of punishment. - Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] (W) AfD? 12:35, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

This reply fails to answer the question, except insofar as to suggest the purpose of law is to punish those who break it, disregarding/sidestepping the fact that the law exists in order to obtain a benefit to society. The question was asked - what does one consider to be the purpose of this method of enforcement - to save life or merely to punish those who offend? If you cannot answer in the former then I fear a hidden anti-motorist agenda behind this article.

The fact remains that the repudiation of RTTM effect is utterly false, and exists in this article merely as a weak justification for the unlimited, uncontrolled and therefor unaccountable (and potentially wasteful) use of cameras. There has to be a selection/use criteria whereby the maximum safety benefit for these cameras can be obtained. Why would anyone suggest otherwise? (unsigned comment by User:82.4.3.177)

So you say. Since the speed limit is the law - passed for well documented (and widely supported, then and now) safety reasons - and all the cameras do is enforce the law, and in doing so they pay for their own operation and return a small sum to Government coffers so being no drain on the public purse, that seems a rather weak argument to me. But it seems you are engaging in argument by assertion: perhaps you could cite a reputable source showing that regression to the mean would also apply to covert measures spread over the wider road network? I'm not aware of much literature on the subject. I am aware of some good quality peer-reviewed studies that support the idea that an overall reduction of speeds will improve safety. Oh, and please remember to sign your comments with ~~~~, and preferably create an account and log in. - Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] (W) AfD? 18:33, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

Again, the question goes unanswered.....

Which question would that be? I thought you were making assertions, not asking questions. - Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] (W) AfD? 21:28, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

I personally have yet to see any proof that reduction in speed limit has any benefit on safety, in fact, quite the opposite. In Germany the derestricted autobahns are seeing a reduction in deaths and injuries, despite an overall increase in the average speeds, and an increase in useage. Montana removed the daytime speed limits on the trunk roads, deaths and injuries were reduced, as soon as the speed limit was re-introduced deaths and injuries increased again. Nearly all PI accidents occur at a speed less than the legal limit. Our motorways are the safest roads, yet have the highest speed limits. These proven facts do not support a claim that reducing speeds are a benefit to safety.

As far as RTTM is concerned one should bear in mind that 'accidents' are essentially random. This means that in order to qualify for a camera that section of road must have seen a higher than average grouping of PI accidents in the previous few years. It is no surprise that accidents fall over the next few years is it? It has nothing to do with the camera though. As an aside if a section of road does have a high PI accident rate perhaps the road engineering should be investigated, a reduction in PI accidents could be possible by re-engineering some aspect of the road design, such as putting in a filter lane for turning etc. Cameras do not address the root cause of most PI accidents (about 95%) which are not caused by speed in excess of the speed limit.

In France in 2002 they started applying speed cameras and other road enforcement. This resulted in a 20%+ reduction in road fatalities in a single year, as far as I can recall the largest such fall year-on-year in any country since records began. Britain's motorways still have around half the fatality rate of the Autobahnen, and last I read they are applying speed limits to more sections of Autobahn. There is also compelling evidence that, for a given class of road, both incidence and severity of crashes rises with speed.

Insert - Produce this evidence please. We all know severity of crash outcome will be higher with a higher speed crash, simple physics tells you this, however there is no direct relationship between free travelling speed and impact speed, because things like concentration, observation, anticipation, vehicle condition and physical road conditions pay a much larger part than speed in determining impact speed.

And compelling evidence that severity of crashes increases with (inserted) 'impact' speed regardless of incidence.  How unsurprising, simple physics as in the previous statement which was the same.....

The probability of those "random" events rises with increasing speed,

Inserted - On what do you base this claim? The motorways have the lowest incidence of accidents, yet the highest speed, the highest incidence of accidents is in 30mph limits, these have the lowest speeds, therefore the evidence points to your statement being the reverse of the truth.

as does the severity of the outcome.

Insert - Boring, the third time you mention this obvious point.

 There is no significant informed dissent form these views, and it is informed opinion wich Wikipedia documents (read the policies). 

Insert - Informed opinion? Yours seems to be 'misinformed' opinion.

The reason MOntana saw a small drop in collisions was exactly the same as the reason the M25 has seen a drop in collisions with variable limits: the new limits were more widely obeyed, leading to a reduction in speed differentials.

Insert - Bullshit. Montana had NO SPEED LIMIT, I was driving in Montana at that time, it was a relatively large drop in accidents, not small and the speed differentials were sometimes very large. The reduction is likely to be because people were driving at the speed which was the best in their 'comfort zone' This is the speeed at which you have maximum concentration and therefore maximum awareness of conditions, this is the safest speed to drive at. This speed will vary from road to road, even from day to day on the same road because you are taking into consideration the current road conditions, other drivers etc.

All this is well documented in the road safetyu literature, if you can wade past the POV pushing by those who want limits cut to walking pace on one side and those who want them scrapped on the other. 

Insert - I do not advocate no speed limits, just sensible human policing based on principles of safety rather than an arbitrary number on a sign.

- Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] AfD? 22:40, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

I am almost unable to decipher your arguments interpsersed as you have placed them; on WP the usual practice is to put them after the full text to which you are replying (different from web forums and usenet, where interleavcing ios normal). You also forgot to sign them (use four tildes - ~ - to sign).

I base the claim that frequency of collisions rises with average speed on reports by TRL and others, cited in the article IIRC. You will also see that the false dilemma between automated and police enforcement is already covered. - Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] AfD? 23:03, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

IP Information

• User:82.4.3.177 (Special:Contributions/82.4.3.177) - NTL, Renfrewshire, Scotland
• User:62.253.245.4 (Special:Contributions/62.253.245.4) - Mitel, Glasgow, Scotland, apparently registered to Hillhead High School - close enough to Renfrew to support the inference (apparent in the text) that the two anons are one and the same.

You are right, the comment about other users at the same ISP is unfair. I have removed it. I have re-inserted the IP info because (until you register and start signing your comments) it's the only way of telling if this is two anonymous posters or one. I take it you do not dispute that both are you? - Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] (W) AfD? 21:18, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

Do some more research and discover how many potential users there are of this proxy. Dig another ignorant hole for yourself. Deleted - practice what you preach Mr Chapman. I do believe you refer to it in you own site as "Poisoning the Well - X seeks to discredit claims made by Y, by presenting unfavourable information about Y."

• User:88.107.34.125 (Special:Contributions/88.107.34.125) - Tiscali, Milton Keynes, possibly a different user although some of the text added appears to be very similar (e.g. using the words "quite rightly") and similarly POV.

Text removed 28/11/05

Reverted addition of panic braking, lack of observance of basic road sense, and behaviour of pedestrians and cyclists. Members AND guests can register and discuss their views on a wide range of topics concerning motorists and road users. from the last para noting that Smith has outspoken views on issues such as disabled parking.

I did this because:

• phrases like "and rightly so" are POV
• the second sentence has nothing to do with Smith, it's about the SafeSpeed web forum, and is generic to most web forums anyway (the fact that they have one is sufficient)
• his views on behaviour of pedestrians and cyclists are of no particular note, being widely held (see TRL Report 549, 2003: A key finding which should be noted was that, when commenting on the scenarios it was usually the behaviour of the cyclist that was criticised – no matter how small the misdemeanour. Few links were made between the cyclist’s behaviour and any external influences that could be affecting their choice of behaviour; i.e. the respondents’ comments indicated that they thought the cyclist’s actions were inherent and dispositional behaviours. In contrast, the motorists’ misdemeanours were excused or justified in terms of the situational influences. As this tendency seemed to continue across the groups and the individual depth interviews and was unprompted, it is unlikely that group dynamics had any significant effect on this finding. [...] This aligns with the psychological prediction of targeting of members of an ‘out group’)
• Smith's views on panic braking are adequately covered (depersonalised) later on

Modified the following: Even the drivers they do detect speeding, are allowed to continue speeding - perhaps to kill or maim a child, just a few yards along the road. This flies in the face of the so called "Safety Camera" label they are usually given. Even shoplifters - a so called victimless crime, where nobody gets killed, are detained as soon as possible!!

I did this because:

• it is speculative
• it is stated in strongly POV terms (note multiple shrieks)

I have left the comment in the section in a toned-down version. - Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] (W) AfD? 10:40, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

External links

I've removed most of the external links, because they make absolutely no mention of SafeSpeed or Paul Smith. Instead, they are more generally about the issue of speeding in the UK. Of the three that are left, one is SafeSpeed's own site, one is a profile of Paul Smith, and one is broadly opposed to their aims. (I'm still working on a major rewrite, but have limited time at the moment). OpenToppedBus - Talk to the driver 18:27, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

Yep, I broadly agree, with the possible exception of the PACTS document which specifically tackles some of SafeSpeed's claims, but I'm content to wait for your proposed new veriosn and see how you handle it. - Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] (W) AfD? 23:13, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

Revert 5 December, 2005

The following was removed:

Paul has been described as "the Martin Luther King of road safety", and is passionate in his belief that saving lives is more important than obeying arbitary laws. He has brought the horrendous level of UK road deaths to international attention, and has been opposed in this at every turn by the Safety Camera Industry. Paul has been the subject of some outrageous smears from this opponents, but refuses to respond in kind to such provocations - he has said he simply will not descend to the level of people who knowingly cause thousands of deaths in order to make millions from otherwise law-abiding motorists.

I can't find anything in there which meets WP:V, WP:NPOV, the Wikipedia:Manual of Style etc. Anyone who feels motivated to try NPOVing it is welcome to try. - Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] (W) AfD? 22:26, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

You know as well as I do that everthing in the original paragraph is true. Its removal is just another cynical piece of censorship from a discredited Politically Correct elite, who value their beloved speed cameras over the lives of the citizens of this great country. Mr Chapman, the paycheck you cash every month is written in the blood of innocent children killed by these infernal cameras - http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:SafeSpeed&action=edityou should be ashamed of yourself!

ROFLMAO! Presumably he walks on water as well :-D - Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] (W) AfD? 20:13, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

It could be equally accurately claimed that

Paul Smith has been described as "the biggest idiot this side of the Horsehead Nebula" and is passionate in his belief that his right to break the law is more important than other people's safety.

Everything in that paragraph is also true; and it's equally non-neutral and non-encyclopedic and equally has no place on Wikipedia. Not that I'm going to contribute anything to the page, because I think Safespeed is exceedingly non-notable and shouldn't be on Wikipedia anyway. - User:SimonBrooke

I want to know where those supposed cheques are going :-D Apparently the anon troll has not yet worked out that Soundwave is not me, either. - Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] (W) AfD? 22:46, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Are you actually denying you work for a Safety Camera Partnership, you grubby little parasite ? You have a vested interest in keeping road deaths from falling - it means you can justify more cameras.

My word, you do catch on quickly. Yes, I am indeed denying that I work for a safety camera partnership. Never have, probably never will. - Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] (W) AfD? 23:56, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

-

'as satirised in Kenneth Grahame’s Mr. Toad in 1908'

Where does Paul Smith say that Mr Toad is an example of a good driver, or the kind of driver he would like to see more of? It's just more abuse. Smith says he does not campaign against speed enforcement by human beings and frequently attacks 'nutters' and people who drive too fast for the conditions.

Nobody says he did. The point is that Grahame satirised speed-obsessed motorists and action against them a century ago - this is clearly not (as Smith claims) a recent problem. - Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] AfD? 17:15, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

-

Comment above was from me (Soundwave) not signed in.

The section on tolerance (36mph) is out of date, the ACPO guidline for enforcement in a 30mph limit has been 35mph for ages, and that is no legal guarantee as Hampshire SCP (at at least two sites on dual carriageways) are now enforcing at 32mph, so this will need updating but at the moment I can't think how to change it without losing the point or straying too off topic. User:Soundwave

The biased stuff about no one but SafeSpeed members believing Smith's claims etc. will have to be changed in time too, the examples of recent anti-speed-camera press reports are too numerous to list but here's one from two days ago in 'This is Lincolnshire'[2].

Revert 21 December 2005

Soundwave, you have twice reverted the addition of a link which names SafeSpeed directly, and discusses directly the effect that SafeSPeed and related campaigns are having. I replaced the old Grauniad link with this because the old Grauniad link was about the ABD (not really SafeSpeed at all), this one is about SafeSpeed. I know you don't like Monbiot, but the link is clearly relevant, and it makes it plain up front that it is sceptical of SafeSpeed, there is no attempt to deceive. - Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] AfD? 21:50, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Oh, and if he does say chopping down a tree is murder, and you want to add that to the article on tree, I'd defend your doing so. - Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] AfD? 21:51, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

I see you've added a balancing comment from the SS forum. Fair enough. - Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] AfD? 22:05, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

It's not that I don't like Monbiot, it's more the fact that he has joined the debate from a completely clueless position. His assertion that a 40% reduction in injuries has occured is either deliberately dishonest, or hopelessly naive. It is this same claim that Smith is attacking, so to use the claim to 'prove' Smith wrong is a circular argument. The claimed reduction has been higher (around 65%) in previous years, and this year's report admits that out of the 40%, 30 perecntage points are due to regression to the mean (although it is in appedix H, not exactly up front). This is the DFT's own report. The other 10 points are listed as due to 'other factors' (the whole of which could easily be traffic migration). Once you get part this, what has Monbiot got left? 'Paul Smith's a bastard and a libertarian'. You might as well say 'Alistair Darling is a twat and a communist', for all it advances the debate. It's just abuse. User:Soundwave

Apparently Smith thought enough of him to join in debate on the radio. Monbiot asked one very pertinent question: have any of SafeSpeed's claims ever been published in a peer-reviewed journal? Answer: no. Excellent question, important answer. - Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] AfD? 12:54, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

This is no longer true, as the four year report has confirmed regression to the mean, albeit only in the small print. User:Soundwave

Regression to the mean is not a claim originating with Smith. The unique claims originating with Smith are things like "one in three fatalities is now due to speed cameras" (I think he is still using that in his .sig), the "12mph" claim and so on. There is discussion of regression to the mean in the literature going back several decades (I have a book written in the mid 1980s which goes into some detail about this, and it was old hat then). All the anti-camera lobby has succeded in doing is ensuring that cameras are placed at locations where regression to the mean is most likely to happen, namely so-called "blackspots", with entirely predictable results. Just zis Guy you know? 17:05, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

The theory of RTM may well be "old hat", but even as recently as December 2003 PACTS and SSI, in their "10 Criticisms and why they are flawed" document were denying RTM was significant in the claims of reduced KSIs at camera sites. The DfT June 2004 "three-year report" never acknowleged it's significance either. Safe Speed were predicting the climb-down of the December 2005 "four-year report" years ago. -De Facto 17:24, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Even a stopped clock can be right twice a day. But none of the claims originated by Smith have ever been subjected to peer review. He actively refuses to do so. Just zis Guy you know? 00:08, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Article is flawed, biased and uninformative

The article conflates "speed in excess of the limit" and "speed inappropriate for the conditions" (except where it is convenient to keep the distinction, eg, in alleging that drivers are incapable of judging the latter) and uses this failure to distinguish between two entirely different concepts in a thinly veiled personal attack on SafeSpeed/Paul Smith.

Despite its length it conveys very little information on what SafeSpeed actually do. It does, however, clearly convey the feelings of the author about SafeSpeed.

Therefore I consider it to be inappropriate.

I feel though that I should refrain from making any alterations to the article myself in order to avoid the accusation of bias in the opposite direction, as it is trivial to deduce that I personally am in favour of SafeSpeed.

Pigeon.dyndns.org 03:13, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

It seems that many SafeSpeed supporters consider this article biased. Equally, some who do not support SafeSpeed consider it indefensibly flattering to them. For example, it doesn't mention Smith's offensive views on the disabled or his controversial statements about Mary Williams. Feel free to submit it for arbitration. - Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] AfD? 12:03, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

His comments weren't 'on the disabled'. They were on disabled parking, and are not 'offensive' or particularly unusual. A lot of people I know comment on the large numbers of disbaled parking spaces which go unused, while the rest of the car park is packed full. The allocation of disabaled parking spaces frequently shows a total lack of common sense, IMO. user:Soundwave

So you say. And I'm sure there are lots of other people who "can't see why the disabled should get special treatment". They would be the ones who have never met a disabled person, I expect. Meanwhile my dad, who can't walk more than a few yards unaided, is often forced to wait in the car because a conspiciously able-bodied person who "can't see why the disabled should get special treatment" has taken up the last disabled space. - Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] AfD? 23:42, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Yes I sympathise with that. But remember, for every occasion where the last disabled space is taken, there will be a time when the last non-disabled space is taken and there are 15 disabled spaces available. I see this all the time. Also the issuing of on street spaces seems to be totally unregulated. There is a couple in my street who have had a disabled space reserved for themselves, but they don't have a badge and are not disabled. The police will not stop them parking there as the space is advisory; yet people showing 'consideration' are leaving the space free for them to hog. Being against this kind of abuse is not the same as being 'offensive about the disabled'.::

"one third" additions

Request to validate additions by providing citations for the evidence and research you refer to with regard to:

• Damage caused in a collision increases with the difference in mass.

Source is NHTSA (other sources also exist), not specific to SUVs, collisions with greater mass differential lead to worse injuries for car occupants (this is actually touted as a selling point in some US SUV adverts).

• The change in fatality trend is largely not on roads where pedestrians are common.

Source is DfT data: the reversal in fatality trend (which applies, as it turns out, only to motorcyclists anyway) is on motorweays and rural roads. Most pedestrian injuries are in towns. This is in RCGB, in the detail tables of casualty type by road type and by road user type

• Studies of injuries to elderly pedestrians show that SUVs are disproportionately dangerous to this group.

source is BMJ [3]

Official recognition of RTM

Is there any evidence available that the UK Government, or any of its agencies, had acknowledged the likely magnitude of the contribution of the RTM phenomenon to the KSI benefits of speed cameras prior to its inclusion in their 2005 four-year report? - De Facto 18:43, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

It's irrelevant. They have always known about, and discussed, RTM. The fact that they did not quantify it before this is of no relevance to their recognition or otherwise of the phenomenon, which is discussed in other contextx in reports commissioned by them from TRL among other sources. You are painting this as if it's some kind of Damascean conversion, or perhaps a humiliating climbdown - the fact that there is "only" a 10% reduction in fatalities is still a pretty significant reduction (note: this reduction does not factor in extra safety measures applied at speed camera sites such as central reservations, pedestrian crossings, junction engineering and so forth) , and the fact that RTM applies when the siting of speed cameras has, as a result of lobbying fomr the likes of the ABD, been restricted to situations where RTM will by definition apply (the "three coffin rule") is a surprise to precisely nobody. Just zis Guy you know? 18:53, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

As far as I have been able to discover, up until the 2005 report, they had failed to accept that RTM made any significant contribution to the results at speed camera sites - otherwise why did the partnerships continue to make claims of vastly overstated figures (as some still do). If they knew about it why did these figures persist? Is there evidence that they knew the size of it? Did they wilfully ignore it? Has recent research revealed something Safe Speed has suspected to be the case for years? - De Facto 19:07, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Hanlon's Razor applies in respect of the camera partnerships, which are relatively recent bodies. DfT is run by civil servants who routinely provide highly detailed, accurate and balanced advice to Ministers (I have seen some of this). By the way, regression to the mean "particularly" to mobile cameras? Research on RTM centres on long term analysis of step change interventions at fixed sites. I know of no research which looks at RTM in the context of mobile enforcement of laws across multiple sites. Just zis Guy you know? 21:59, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

It should be pointed out that Paul Smith's claim never to have condoned or encouraged law-breaking is not entirely honest:

Paul Smith

I read the post about Paul Smith with interest.

I too tried to ask a question on the Safe Speed forum which challenged Paul Smith`s assertion that: "Safe Speed does not, nor has ever, advocated or condoned law breaking or civil disobedience."

http://www.safespeed.org.uk/forum/viewtopic.php?t=5354&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=60

I asked politely how this boast tallies with Paul Smith`s own words which were posted on the very same site, Safe Speed:

Google groups: uk.legal

http://groups.google.co.uk/group/uk.legal/browse_thread/thread/593a778e1e833c09/a44aa07eaf4b48f7?lnk=st&q=I+think+the+points+broker+is+a+brilliant+idea+too&rnum=1&hl=en#a44aa07eaf4b48f7

Students sell car licence points Messages 1-25 of 58 in topic Mr Justice S Tinks Sep 3 2001, 7:50 am

Sunday Times September 2 2001 Students sell car licence points Adam Nathan and Rachel Dobson

DRIVERS caught speeding by roadside cameras are paying students and other young people to say they were at the wheel in order to avoid penalty points on their licence.

Paul Smith Sep 3 2001, 9:50 am

I think the points broker is a brilliant idea too and I`ve added it to my website. I`ve also determined that the phrase "licence points broker" yields no hits with Internet search engines, so there`s an easy way to advertise.

Anyone care to give us a opinion about the legality of brokering licence points? Could it be conspiracy to pervert the course of justice or not? Anyway to dress it up to make it legal? Think creatively now! --Paul Smith Scotland, UK http://www.safespeed.org.uk

Alasdair Baxter Sep 3 2001, 10:26 am

Take this one stage further, ha, ha. What about the deceased? AFAIK, there is no compulsion on the executors of a deceased person to return their driving licence to DVLA. -- Alasdair Baxter, Nottingham, UK. Tel +44 115 9705100; Fax +44 115 9423263

Paul Smith Sep 3 2001, 11:01 am

You don`t even need to know the deceased. Just picking a name for the local newspaper`s obituary column has been known to work nicely. With a bit of care in your choice, there`s no one to call you a liar.

(It`s on my web site :-) -- Paul Smith Scotland, UK http://www.safespeed.org.uk

http://www.safespeed.org.uk/avoid.html

David Husband Sep 3 2001, 11:31 am

That is a damned good idea -- You could actually extend that to lots of other offences as well. -- David Husband, Portland, Dorset

Paul Smith Sep 3 2001, 11:46 am

One of a series of good ideas on:

http://www.safespeed.org.uk/avoid.html

Safe Speed removed the above material because (or so Smith claims) it is "operating a serious campaign to improve road safety" and "this information is sometimes used against us in discussions". Needless to say Smith deleted the above post and banned me from the site.

Plus there's the questions about Smith's honesty.

Preaching to the converted here, I know... Most of us got Paul Smith`s number a long time ago but his latest outburst has to be seen to be believed.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4646008.stm

Quote from above story: Paul Smith of road safety campaign group Safespeed said: "White van man poses less risk to pedestrians than even cyclists and is one of the very safest road user groups."

When you`ve picked yourself up laughing at this terrible, dangerous lie, take a look at the reasoning behind it.

Smith`s explanation:

http://www.safespeed.org.uk/forum/viewtopic.php?t=5737&highlight=

The usual Smith ploy of baffling with inappropriate statistical comparisons... Smith`s argument is that the risk of a van hitting a pedestrian per van mile driven is less than the risk of a bus or bicycle hitting a pedestrian per bus-mile driven or per mile cycled. This conveniently ignores the very different exposure to pedestrians of each mode: both buses and bicycles do most of their mileage on roads with comparatively high levels of pedestrian use; whereas total van mileage includes lots of motorway and trunk road travel with very low or zero pedestrian exposure.

No cyclists on motorways either.

Thus a totally meaningless conclusion is drawn from stats that look convincing because they are taken from real data. The funny thing is that Smith is so terribly pompous about his use of statistics: a quote from the SS forum: "We can win the arguments on bare facts and logic"!

What a laugh. If anyone would like to visit Safespeed and put this point directly to Smith then please go right ahead. I tried yesterday and my account was banned and the post deleted.

Five cyclists killed in London in the last year, and the BBC lend credibility to this dangerous charlatan and his mendacious "research".

Some here have completely failed to understand the message within the analysis, hence they cannot understand why such upstanding organisations continue to reference SS as a road safety campaign, even in 2006. Consider the relative examples of Cyanide and walking down the stairs; one is accepted to be extremely dangerous, yet the other claims orders of magnituds more lives than the other per annum in the UK.

Doncaster Pace Car Scheme

What was the thinking behind editing out the references to this ?

The fact that SafeSpeed is not a recognised authority, so there is no need to quite their view on every tiny facet of British motoring life (any more than we should quote George Monbiot's view on the scheme, or mine for that matter). This article is about Safe Speed the organisation and its major claims. Smith's view on the Pace scheme has no more place here than the fact that he "can't see why disabled people should have special treatment" and sees nothing wrong with parking in blue badge bays. Just zis Guy you know? 10:57, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Well, the Doncaster scheme was something that Paul released a press release about, and his supporters' hysterical reaction to it on the SafeSpeed web forum gives an interesting ( disturbing ? ) insight into their mentality. Still, I agree we can't clutter the page up with every example of Paul's lunacy.62.172.132.228 14:05, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Weasel words in Opposition and Criticism

Practically every sentence contains weasel words. Each and every criticism needs a correct and verifiable attribution. See Category:Citation templates for a selection of how to do it. All those without a reference should be removed. -De Facto 10:23, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Name the weasel words. Copy the section here and highlight the weasel bits. Mind you, the entire Safe Speed website is a massive weasel den, with many unproven and several disproven claims ;-) Oh, wait, the section on funding said they "apparently" had no charitable status. That's a weasely bit, I've removed "apparentrly". Just zis Guy you know? 10:39, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

"Opposition to Safe Speed and its claims comes from many sources ..." - attribute the sources.

Commented after the para. DfT, T2000, SSC, RoadPeace, Brake, TRL, RoSPA, Jocksch - to list them all would be absurd and bulk out the section to a ridicuouls degree.

"...given that informed opinion in general is strongly in support ..." - attribute the informed opinion.

TRL, DfT, ACPO, LARSOA - in fact, the road safety bodies and academics who do not support a link between increasing speed and increasing risk are the ones who are notable.

"Critics (including the Department for Transport) ..." - provide a wiki citation to attribute their criticism.

Will do.

"Critics have argued that Safe Speed is much more about speed than safety..." - attribute them.

Monbiot, for one, and the Which? report for another.

"...they also suggest is promoted by motoring magazines and TV ..." - name the "they".

Ditto.

"It is argued that by stoking the controversy over cameras..." - argued by whom?

Ditto.

"Other organisations advocating safer speed choices emphasis ..." - which "other organisations"?

Brake, T2000, RoadPeace, TRL, DfT, Uncle Tom Cobbleigh and All. I can't think of a single other supposed "road safety" body which does not support speed reduction as a way to improve safety.

"The statement that what is shown to be incorrect will be removed from the website, is both contentious and disputed" - by whom?

I dipsute it for a start :-) The Jocksch equation is still on the 12mph page despite Jocksch asking for his name ot be removed and citing chapter and verse for why it is invalid to apply it in that way. This is documented fact and proves that in at leats one instance Smith has not honoured the claim.

There's a few to start with. They're just from the first section, several sections full follow, when these are done perhaps you'll learn to spot the rest yourself ;-) -De Facto 10:51, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

While we're about is, perhaps we could see what reliable secondary sources exist to support Safe Speed's claims? Especially the claim that cameras increase risk? I'd love to see the journal in which that is printed :-)

Are you going to put all the appropriate references and attributes in the article text then and make the section credible, or are the weasel words to remain. -De Facto 11:56, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

I commend to DeFacto the following: WP:POINT. It is not particularly productive to slap a {fact} tag after, for example, the Highway code stating that the limit is a limit not a target (it's on the web), or the fact that there was a change in reporting mechanisms (it's on the DfT transtats in the notes on every series). What is important, as per recent discussions on WikiEN-l, is that the article accurately reflects the fact that this is a fringe group whose claims have no provable credibility. There is a problem that because none of these claims have been published in peer-reviewed journals, and none of them are taken seriously, there is no rebuttal in secondary sources, but the primary sources do, as stated, rebut the claims well enough. Just zis Guy you know? 14:40, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

I don't see anything of relevance in WP:POINT. You take issue with my requests for citations and attributions - merely my attempt to rid the article of so many unsupported assertions and weasel words. Perhaps you should take a look at WP:CITE, particularly Why sources should be cited, and at WP:WEASEL, especially Examples. You can cite the specific rule in the Highway Code. You can refer us to the paper or webpage detailing the reporting changes. The point is that practically every sentence contains assertions which have no proper attribution or citation. The Monbiot reference should point to the specific article in which he makes those specific claims. Who makes the "stoking the controversy over cameras" claim? You put a few references in HTML comments, these need to be properly visible <ref>citation...</ref> citations (see Category:Citation templates) so that the reader can easily check them without trawling through the html source. Accept it, it is simply not good enough for Wikipedia as it stands. I see you've reverted all my markup without fixing all of the problems. You may not agree will all (if any) of what 'Safe Speed' has to say, but you must appraise it and criticise it fairly and objectively, using references correctly to support your claims. -De Facto 15:25, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Criticism section

I'm about to very heavily prune this section. We're an encyclopaedia, not a tribunal, a journal, or any other organisation that attempts to evaluate claims on first principles. So, this section should not have anything other than actual published criticisms. To do otherwise violatios WP:OR. I'll add the sections I remove onto this talk page, so they can be re-included if any sources are found to back them up. Stevage 21:47, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Judging a safe speed

• Removed: apparently no one has actually published these arguments which "may be made"?

This argument is founded on the premise that without limits, drivers routinely choose a safe speed. It could justifiably be argued that speed limits exist precisely because they don’t. This dispute is, however, fundamental to disputes about speed enforcement generally. On one side are those who believe that they should be free to choose a speed they feel is appropriate, on the other are those who demand that drivers should select a speed which is both safe 'and' legal, as an admittedly crude means to limit the maximum risk they may pose on the highway.

Safe Speed’s contention that the limit is seen as a target is supported by evidence, though explicitly contradicted in the Highway Code – though many drivers profess ignorance of the contents of the Code (on which they are tested as part of the driving test).

Against the idea of drivers setting a 'safe' speed, the following arguments may be made:

• In the case of exceeding the speed limit, all the benefit of increased speed goes to the driver, whereas the risk applies to all road users. Few drivers are hurt in collisions which kill and injure pedestrians.
• Many drivers overestimate their own skill, a fact which has been documented by numerous studies and is not disputed by any known authority in road safety and regulation. In one study, 95% of drivers felt they were above average.
• Motor traffic is uniquely dangerous. For example, collisions with motor vehicles account for one in ten child injures resulting in hospital treatment, but these make up half of all injury deaths, so there is an additional burden on drivers to limit the danger they pose.
• The “ratchet effect”: a risk taken which does not result in a collision comes after a time to be discounted, and the baseline for future risks increases - Alan Lennox-Boyd stated that collisions come in the main “not from the taking of large risks, but from the taking of small risks very large numbers of times, a view which is widely accepted.

Removed, same reasoning. Any discussion about the validity of the claims themselves is simply misplaced in an article about "Safe Speed". It could arguably go on some Road safety article. But this article should only be about the group, a summary of their claims, and published criticisms of them

"Cameras don't catch dangerous drivers"

First and foremost this is an example of begging the question: it assumes that speeding is not itself dangerous, an idea which is at the very least open to dispute.

Further, research into the accident records of multiply-convicted speeders has showed that those with speeding convictions were around twice as likely as average to be involved in collisions, mileage adjusted. The statement that convictions alone do not necessarily modify behaviour is fair, and has been addressed by offering offending driver programmes as an alternative to penalty points, an initiative which has been broadly welcomed. Middle-aged male company car drivers, a strong constituency in the ABD, have a higher than average collision rate, mileage adjusted, though still lower than for young male drivers - but they typically have a high annual mileage.

The perception that dangerous driving is a problem of "other drivers" rather than something to address in one’s own driving has been identified by some authorities as a key barrier to achieving greater road safety.

There is at least some verifiable evidence that cameras do not catch some dangerous speeding drivers. On 22 November 2005, according to Cumbria's safety camera partnership, more than 150 vehicles were caught travelling at 70 mph or more in a section of contraflow near Tebay, where the temporary limit was 50 mph. However, the fog was so heavy that the cameras failed even to make out the shape of some of them (indicating visibility of under 50m).

Speed cameras can only measure speed, just as red light cameras can only catch vehicles passing through red lights; neither can detect other dangerous or illegal behaviour. There is no significant dissent from the view that automated enforcement is not a substitiute for traffic policing. France achieved a 20% reduction in road fatalities between 2002 and 2003 using a combination of both approaches.

Same problem again: the text is attempting to argue against the claims directly, rather than citing published sources. A letter to a newspaper would be ok, but I think citing unspecified Wikipedia talk pages is going a bit far :) I've changed HTML comments to (!-- for visibility here

Distraction

Even if a minority of drivers are distracted by speed cameras, the lower general speeds which result from enforcement would, according to the various research linking speed to fatality risk, have a greater effect. It is problematic to claim that an inanimate object such as a speed camera can cause a crash; clearly inappropriate driving is the true cause, the camera is at most a catalyst.

The alleged problem of distraction may be linked to the high visibility of cameras resulting from campaigning by Safe Speed and others. Opponents (!-- it's on the SS website and stated on Talk pages around WP as well --) of enforcement say that say hidden cameras would be even more distracting than visible ones as drivers would see them late and panic brake to an even greater degree; but panic-braking for speed cameras, which implies greater regard for a motorist's licence than either safety or observing the speed limit, is not behaviour that would normally attributed to safe and careful drivers.(!-- panic braking is a safety issue as well as a legal issue --)

The “one second problem” is also disputed. Measurements would indicate that the time to look at the speedometer may be closer to 1/3 or 1/2s. The distance covered in this time is less than the difference in combined thinking and braking distance between, say, 40 mph and 30 mph.

Cameras are set to allow a margin of error before being triggered, usually 10%+2 mph (i.e. 35 mph in a 30 mph limit). Fixed sites are notified in advance by roadside signage. A simple calculation shows that if the “distracted” driver were doing 30 mph instead of 40 mph the question would in any case be moot.

There are some citations here, but the citations do not appear to be responses to Safe Speed's claims. They are therefore not relevant for this article.

Traffic policing

The documented reduction in traffic police began in the early 1990s, when traffic policing was downgraded in the police performance measures(!-- Source is PACTS, ACPO and others - the performance measures are public recod --). Camera partnerships started some years later and the rate of camera deployment increased most sharply between 2001 and 2003(!-- source is PACTS and figures from camera partnerships, plus a FoI request from DfT --). There is no evidence of a correlation between numbers of cameras and numbers of traffic police. Nor is there any evidence that removing cameras, which are revenue-neutral, paying for their own operation through fines raised, would result in increased numbers of traffic police.

Most road safety groups would welcome an increase in traffic policing, in addition to speed enforcement. The idea that the two are necessarily exclusive is a false dilemma.(!-- no power to stop belongs in the SS section not the criticism section --)

It could be argued that safety camera partnerships have a conflict of interests, and that such organisations should receive funding direct from an independent source to guarantee their neutrality in collecting fines. Recent government announcements have suggested that this situation may be due for a change.

Section about their website is another criticism without an owner. I totally agree with it, but that's not the point. Has no published source complained about this?

The statement that what is shown to be incorrect will be removed from the website, is contentious:

• it reverses the burden of proof, which normally requires that in order to be accepted a claim must be proven rather than being made and then challenging others to disprove it
• it requires in some cases an impossible proof of a negative
• in many cases (e.g. "one third of fatalities") Safe Speed applies a higher standard of proof to opposing evidence than its own claims can meet
• where a claim seems to be based on false premises (the calculated 12 mph impact speed, which is arrived at by using an empirical relationship at speeds and in conditions outside its stated applicability), it has not been removed.

Same again...

There may be some merit in the suggestion that the speed limit suggests that a given speed is safe for the road, regardless of conditions, but this is explicitly contradicted by the Highway Code[4] and there is little verifiable evidence to support it except for ignorance of the code claimed by some drivers. While it is true that the safe speed for a road under given conditions may often be much lower than the speed limit, there is a no significant dissent from the view that both probability and severity of collisions rises with increasing speed.

Can anyone find a source for "Opponents of Safe Speed..."?

Travel Speed vs Impact Speed

Safe Speed states that only 2% of pedestrians who are hit by cars die, but severity of outcome is strongly dependent on impact speed, and even in their one second “distraction” example the 40 mph and 30 mph drivers will stop at approximately the same point. In the majority of cases where the driver is not “distracted” the 30 mph driver will stop well before the 40 mph driver and if a collision happens it will be at a significantly lower speed. (!-- These are facts, not opinions. Stopping distances can be verified by calculation, fatality risk vs. speed is well doucumented --)

Opponents of Safe Speed say that the page claiming that "We use figures from official sources and well respected research to show that we could reduce all UK speed limits to just 12 mph and still have the same numbers killed on the road" is another example of a claim being proven false without being removed from the website.

Some more. Some of these are hinted at in the Which article (eg, motorcyclists and mobile phones), but that article doesn't give the citations below. I think the real problem with this kind of thing is that Safe Speed's claims are based on layperson science, and our comments below are layperson science, so they don't really stack up as a criticism. When we publish criticisms coming from professional, peer-reviewed science, we're starting to get somewhere.

• The fatality trend has been declining approximately exponentially, with the rate of change decaying as it tends towards an asymptotic constant level. To project a straight line as Safe Speed does is therefore invalid, so it is just as well as Safe Speed doesn't do that. Exponential graphs have been plotted by Safe Speed using recent figures from the DfT, the trend is significantly aboce the predicted line for the last few years.
• Road fatalities are subject to stochastic variation; with a fatality rate of approximately 3,000 per year from 15-20 million cars, the rate is low enough that individual events (a year with bad fog, for example) can influence the figures significantly. It is therefore invalid to extrapolate from differences between individual years, as Safe Speed do, as do the SCPs.
• Documented changes in reporting mechanisms at around the time claimed mean that the figures before and after 1993 cannot be directly compared.
• The Killed or Seriously Injured (KSI) rate, which is less subject to fluctuation, exhibits a more consistent downward trend, however this may be influenced by increasingly safer cars, both for occupants and pedestrians.
• The fatality trend for car drivers is also still downward, the levelling off of the overall trend is largely due to an increase in the number of motorcyclist deaths (possibly an effect of increasing motorcycling due to congestion and fuel costs), but how does this compare with far steeper insurance costs and continued safety measures applied on roads and to vehicles?
• The fatality trend is worst for motorways and cross-country roads (where cameras are rare) and best for urban minor roads (where they are more common) - however, this may again be influenced by safer cars for occupants and pedestrians, the latter of which there are few of on motorways and trunk roads.

If one were to accept the claim that the road fatality trend has become worse since 1990, there are other problems with attributing this wholly to changes in speed enforcement policy:

• Mobile phone use has grown during this period, and mobile phone use is detrimental to driving performance.
• There has been a significant growth in the number of large SUVs on the roads, and these have been shown to be more likely to kill others (especially pedestrians) in collisions. According to the British Medical Journal, SUVs cause disproportionately serious injuries to elderly pedestrians.
• There has been a sustained period of economic growth, which is historically correlated with more road deaths.
• Car designs have changed, with thicker door pillars causing larger front-quarter blind spots. Safe Speed has campaigned on this issue. This could explain increased fatalities among motorcyclists, due to so-called SMIDSY collisions.
• Fatality trends do not correlate with the numbers of cameras; radar detectors were first introduced in the mid 1970s but numbers of cameras rose most sharply between 2001 and 2003 (at which point the fatality trend had already flattened out and started to decline again, coincidental with a loss of growth in the economy).

These issues have been brought to the attention of Safe Speed, whose response has been to dismiss them out of hand.

More argumentation which is a bit misplaced in this article. In any case the first part of what I'm copying here isn't even a criticism, it's in agreement.

Regression to the mean

The idea of "accident blackspots" is regarded as excessively simplistic by many road safety activists, being subject both to regression to the mean and accident migration, and the Government's "three coffin rule" for siting, combined with the high visibility of fixed cameras, means that camera sites have now been placed in the same general class as accident "blackspot" treatments, with similar problems, rather than being used to reduce speeds over the road network in general. Location constraints and conspicuity are a response to opposition to speed cameras – it could be argued that Safe Speed has actively contributed to reducing the efficacy of speed enforcement; that if cameras were concealed and their locations unrestricted, contributing to an overall reduction in speeding over the wider road network, the regression to the mean effect would be decreased.

It has recently been announced by the government that the criteria for siting cameras are to be relaxed to "take account of all injury accidents as well as the level of KSIs, look back five years rather than three; and allow camera enforcement on routes where there is a serious problem of speeding and casualties, without the problem necessarily being concentrated at one particular location." This may address the regression-to-the mean issue.

As much as I hate removing well-cited sources, these two aren't relevant:

See the DfT "three-year" report and "two-year" report , which take no account of RTM, for differing conclusions to that of Safe Speed.

I will move the remaining "four year report" to a "further reading" section, as the discussion on regression to the mean is quite interesting. Stevage 14:59, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

More original research attempting to debunk Safe Speed's claims. Possibly relevant at a Speed kills article? Stevage 15:03, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Speed kills, kills

Speed enforcement goes back to the earliest days of motoring and the slogan speed kills has been used since at least the 1970s, a period over which, as Smith notes, road fatalities declined steadily. Some motorists have opposed regulation since the beginning of motoring - the UK’s largest motorists’ organisation was founded to warn members of speed traps, and the problem was clearly significant in the public mind by 1908 when Kenneth Grahame satirised the conflict using the character of Mr Toad.

There appears to be no evidence to link the slogan, or the idea that speed kills, with the advent or growth of cameras.

Smith claims "Speed Kills, Kills", but the slogan has been used since the 1970s. In Davis' "Death on the Streets" there is a 1970s poster with that on it. The fact that the Automobile Association was founded to spot speed traps is also a matter of record and we say so in the article. The point here is that none of this is new, it's been going on since forever. - Just zis Guy you know? 16:20, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

I've reduced this section to a simple statement - can someone fill in the relevant details of exactly what was originally claimed, what Jocksch took objection to, and in what form he expressed that? Stevage 17:54, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Jocksch

Safe Speed do not appear to dispute the relationship between impact speed and fatality risk. The 12 mph calculation is, however, invalid: it is derived from Jocksch’s empirical formula relating the probability of fatality to the fourth power of the impact speed, for occupants of motor vehicles in highway collisions, which Jocksh has said is not applicable at speeds below around 40 mph and does not apply to pedestrian fatalities at all.(!-- Jocksch's message to Smith was on the website for a while stating precisely this --)

This discussion is illuminative in the tactics used by proven liars and perverters of justice like Paul Smith.

We have the usual threats, playground insults and lies from the speedophile contingent when they realise their arguments have failed, and an almost hysterical desire to make the argument personal.

I think the pro speeding lobby are like the classic absurdly self-important driver who asserts that he is the only safe driver on the road!

Put it this way.

Easyjet fly to Krakow.

You can take a bus or train from Krakow to the small town of OSWIECEM and tour the camp there.

You can see block 11, the punishment block where children were castrated, prisoners were tortured and Father Kolbe was starved to death. Over a million and a half people died in squalor and despair.

And the pro-speeding lobby have the gall, the sheer affrontery to compare the introduction of safety cameras to The Holocaust.

jamie_duff

Location: Aberdeenshire Posted: Thu May 18, 2006 7:39 am Post subject:

This is the Forth (sic) Reich starting now in London.

http://www.safespeed.org.uk/forum/viewtopic.php?t=7176

smeggy

Posted: Wed May 03, 2006 11:53 am Post subject:

I reckon the SCPs are trying to drum up support any way they can, this time by giving a recognised purpose to these ‘hitler youth’ who quite obviously don’t have a life of their own.

http://www.safespeed.org.uk/forum/vi...highlight=nazi

Smeggy, a return flight to Krakow costs less than £50.

I'll even pay your fare if you visit Auschwitz and discover for yourself that comparing a £60 traffic fine to what you will see there is beneath contempt and reveals nothing so much as your complete hysteria over this subject.

You should really apologise for what you wrote on Safespeed , havinge an opinon on road safety is fine but comparing yourself to persecuted jews suggests to me that you have some perspective issue.

I am the aforementioned poster on the SS site named Smeggy

It has become clear that a certain well known internet troll is trying to use this comment out of the context for which it was meant.

It is Spindrift (and the various persona of) who has made the Jewish inference, not I as can be clearly seen from the text above. The events of that regime touch the lives of a great many people the world over, not just the Jewish. To claim the reference is ignorant, outrageously offensive and bordering on libel.

I have merely highlighted the parallel of those who blindly sacrifice much of their personal resource to sycophantically support a corrupt regime, one that is using propaganda and lies to help keep their position in society, knowingly at the cost of lives. I have already explained this directly to this person but he refuses to take any heed.

No apology is necessary.

This same person is also responsible for spreading lies and unfounded rumours around the Internet regarding the founder of the SS campaign.

Spindrift, if you have any decency, you will leave my edit for all to view.

Furthermore, you have copied the text from other websites without permission; this is against Wiki policy.

References

The weakening case for speed cameras

This section isn't discussing speed cameras ( which Paul opposes ), but speed limit enforcement ( which he claims to support ).

You tube link removal

1 link removed - Clip was possible TV news footage, but no indication that uploader had rights in footage concerned. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 14:12, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Bad article

This page reads worse than the Post Office union page did. I shall attempt to clean it up, and improve the formatting. The article should be completely non-biased. Parrot of Doom (talk) 20:23, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

There is a great deal of content here which is not referenced in any way. I have added more than a few, but many of the claims made on behalf of the SS site are not referenced. I would be grateful if anybody who knows where these claims are, could include them in the article using the ref template. Parrot of Doom (talk) 20:55, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Also, I will delete any unreferenced material from this article in a few weeks, if no such references are found by those who insert them. Parrot of Doom (talk) 20:58, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Mr Smiths professional engineering qualifications.

Mr Smith claims to be a professional engineer, but many people have doubts about this. Mr Smith has refused say what his engineering qualifications are, and to which professional engineering organisation he belonged to. 82.2.141.215 (talk) 17:56, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

The term Professional engineer is reserved for those with Chartered engineer status, thus Paul smith should not be using it. To quote Paul Smith. http://groups.google.com/group/uk.transport/browse_thread/thread/4aceba69c7694b68/e2606ebcd367a15b?lnk=st&q=qualifications#e2606ebcd367a15b "

 I'm not a chartered engineer.
 
 I may have misunderstood your exact question. My early work (70s) was
 as an design engineer. There was no other phrase. Later (80s) I did a
 decade as a consultant engineer. My use of the term clearly fits the
 OED definition, and I believe I meet the entry qualifications for the
 IEEE. But I'm singularly unimpressed by "letters".
 -- 
 Paul Smith
 Scotland, UK
 http://www.safespeed.org.uk
 please remove "XYZ" to reply by email 

" 82.26.29.2 (talk) 02:19, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

I do not believe you are correct about 'professional engineer' being a reserved title. Controversies_over_the_term_Engineer#United_Kingdom. The article says that a Chartered engineer is a reserved status, and that a Chartered engineer may be a professional engineer, but it does not state that use of the term 'professional engineer' is reserved - only that use of the term 'chartered engineer' or 'incorporated engineer' without said qualifications is illegal. If you feel so strongly about use of this word then perhaps you should create an article about Paul Smith, and link to it from the SafeSpeed article. Parrot of Doom (talk) 14:47, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

[[5]] "In general, there is no restriction on the right to practice as an engineer in the UK. There are a few fields of practice, generally safety related, which are reserved by statute to licensed persons.[11] The Engineering Council UK grants the titles Charter or Incorporated Engineer, and declares them to be "professional engineers." [12]" Thus the term "profession engineer" is granted to those with Chartered Status. Mr Smith never had a Chartered status, and should not have been calling himself a "Professional Engineer". He used this claim to give credence to his work. His claim to be a Professional Engineer is clearly a fallacy, and should not be included in this article. Creating an article specifically about Mr Smith to rebut his "Professional" claim would be pointless. 82.26.29.2 (talk) 16:46, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

My suggestion was not to create an article solely to rebut his claim, but to expand on his personal life and qualifications. He was certainly a notable figure and worthy of an article. Do you have any evidence to rebut his claim to be a 'professional engineer', other than the limited internet research you have likely conducted? I'm guessing you have not. Anyway, I will change the article to read in a manner that perhaps you will find more acceptable. Parrot of Doom (talk) 17:43, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Pressure Group

I think the fact that SS are a pressure group is one that is easily discovered by observation rather than by research or reference to the use of English by journalists. The approach of lobbying through the media and public opinion is that of a pressure group. The term pressure group is in no way defamatory.Benny the wayfarer (talk) 10:33, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Proposed deletion

The subject of this article is most certainly notable. The group may be found in various reliable sources including The Telegraph [6], Paul Smith was a regular interviewee on BBC News, and various radio stations. George Monbiot has devoted more than a 'trivial' amount of his time refuting the claims of this group. Parrot of Doom (talk) 11:25, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

None of which is cited on the article itself, bar George Monbiot's article. Even on of the articles cited isn't about Safe Speed - the mention of them is truly incidental. Just because the group was notable to Monbiot, doesn't make them notable to society at large. The cited references aren't verifiable - every reference other than Monbiot's is either from the Safe Speed website, or in the case of MCN uploaded by a reader (or not about Safe Speed at all). And whilst Paul Smith may have been a regular interviewee, there has rarely been any other representative of Safe Speed right up until his death. Safe Speed is barely a group. Perhaps an article on Paul Smith as a notable person would be more appropriate? Kouros (talk) 11:56, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

If you feel the article needs more citations (it certainly does, but I'm far too busy with other things), then rather than propose deletion you should perhaps add them. It isn't difficult, an hour of work could see most claims in this article full cited. A quick search of Google News reveals dozens of hits for Safespeed. Parrot of Doom (talk) 12:22, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Because I don't feel the article needs more citations - I feel it should be deleted. A quick search of Google News reveals mostly barely disguised press releases from Safe Speed, and articles which are about speeding in general, but mention Safe Speed in passing. And that's pretty much what Safe Speed amounts to - the work of one woman and her late husband self promoting their beliefs. Its hardly a group, and certainly not a national or international organisation any more than any online forum is. In fact, I fail to see anything which Safe Speed have done which is even remotely noteworthy. Kouros (talk) 14:46, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Aside from the ABD they are just about the only group to have opposed the activities of Safety Camera Partnerships, and to denigrate the modern fallacy that reducing speed will improve safety. I think that makes them notable. You don't. Take it to AFD if you want a full discussion. Parrot of Doom (talk) 15:06, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

I don't think the organisation exists any more. It was one person and a web site, since his death the site has frozen and its only activity is an intermittent press release on a yahoo! mailing list. I don't know if there is any hard criteria for liveness of an organisation, but this one is pretty close to breaking anything which exists. That means put it up for deletion, or rework it in the past tense. Another option would be to create page "UK motorists rights groups" which would cover this, ABD, RAC/AA, etc, etc, let there be one argument about the existence of a "war on motorists" in one place, rather than scattered through the site. SteveLoughran (talk) 15:10, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Strange and pointless sentence at the end

What is effectively the last sentence of this article says "Reduction of traffic speeds in residential areas (including by use of home zones and shared space) remains a core road safety policy in the UK." It seems totally without context. It is also unarguable. Why is it there?

HiLo48 (talk) 23:11, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

the article is in a very poor state, feel free to delete or tag whatever is not cited, I'd attend to that myself but I'm away from my desktop. Parrot of Doom 08:26, 3 July 2010 (UTC)