Talk:Road-rule enforcement camera

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of the Law Enforcement WikiProject, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of law enforcement. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. If you know of any articles that should be a part of this wikiproject, please place this banner - {{Law enforcement}} - on their talk pages, thankyou.

B

This article has been rated as B-Class on the assessment scale.

Contents 1 Update and comment about specific cases 2 Mautbrucken 3 Counter technology 4 Revenue Earners? 4.1 Government Revenue 4.2 Camera Partnerships 4.3 Summary 5 External links 6 Safe Speed Link 7 Safe Speed Link (again) 8 Legal issues 9 Effectiveness issues 10 Confidence in goverment presentation of evidence 11 Photo radar 12 Crimes occurring after red light cameras have been installed 13 UK effectiveness 14 Reverted edit 15 Bad move 16 Deleted external links 17 highwayrobbery.net 18 BMJ study 19 Neutrality

[edit] Update and comment about specific cases

I did an extensive update and reorganised the page somewhat. Some bits of the page had become disjointed and legal issues were spread across several pages. In general there was a tendancy to include too many minor legal judgements (I couldn't believe there was a link to some guy in the UK who happened to have been prosecuted for running a red light). In general I think we should try only to include legal judgements which have wide interest rather than concentrating on minor legal cases. I hope that I have maintained a neutral point of view while doing this but I have also removed some of the less well evidenced claims on this page. In general, I'm afraid, I thought the article had started to get the tone of "a man down the pub said" rather than being an encyclopedia article --Richard Clegg 13:14, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Mautbrucken

If these are "toll bridges" why are they in a page about cameras? I think something needs clarifying about these but the only pages I can find are in german? --Richard Clegg 13:36, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Counter technology

A lot of the stuff on the "counter technology" section of this looks like real rubbish to me. The idea of a flashing camera at the same time as a camera takes your picture seems so unlikely as to be science fiction? Are any of these items real or has someone been taken in by adverts in magazines here? --Richard Clegg 16:20, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

'Slave flashes' are commonly used in photography. They detect the firing of the 'master' flash and fire themselves. As this takes microseconds, it could be possible to over expose the film in the speed camera. Markb 08:04, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

This still seems more than a little unlikely. A speed camera by definition must be able to take a picture VERY quickly or it is useless in catching speeding cars (the plate would be blurred). Plus, the flash would be a distant one -- hard to distinguish from a normal change in lighting. If you tried this, surely the flash you had would be going off all the time? It has a ring of "the man down the pub tried to sell me this device" to me. --Richard Clegg 17:51, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

As the cameras take two pictures with an internal flash gun that fires twice in quick succession you would need a flashgun that was capable of firing twice in quick succession in the car to defeat both photographs, it would have to have a mighty quick recharge time. This smells like boswellox to me. TiHead 20:00, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

I got so annoyed by this junk I deleted it. I have kept a copy below for anyone who wants a laugh. "*GATSO cameras can be defeated by placing a camera flash gun in the rear window of the car (or front windscreen), connected to a photosensitive cell. When the speed camera fires the internal flashgun to take the photograph, the flashgun in the car is also triggered by the photocell, over exposing the photograph. This is illegal in the UK." TiHead 09:41, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Revenue Earners?

[edit] Government Revenue

Speed Cameras are often accused as being nothing more than Revenue Earners rather than to do with road safety. Well in the UK at least, the issue is far more complex than that. The nation's network of speed cameras earned the Treasury £350 million last year. In terms of treasury budgets, this amount of money doesn't even qualify as petty cash. The government department that I deal with spends far more than that in an afternoon.

In 1997, when the current Labour government came to power, they wanted to raise more money to spend on their pet projects. Normally, they would do what they normally do and raise taxes. However, this government were to some extent hamstrung by the EU Growth and Stability Agreement which severely resticted such a move. The alternative was to divert budgets from other areas. Among the many areas targeted was the £7.8 billion road safety budget inherited from the previous government. The decision was made to make speeding and red traffic light offences the road safety priority and to enforce it with automatic roadside cameras. The idea was that the project should be self funding. To justify the policy a trial was carried out by carefully selecting a trial area where the death rate was at least 2 standard deviations higher than the average (coincidentaly or not - but it was). However, all didn't quite go according to plan. It was found that the speed cameras earned over 90% of the revenue generated, and the red light cameras were quietly dropped from the final report (they didn't even pay for themselves). Red light cameras have thus not proliferated, however, some additions have been made, presumably for genuine road safety reasons. The accident rate naturally Regressed to the Mean (actually passed it) as many would expect, and the government were able to 'prove' that the cameras reduced deaths by 18%. Adding the 4 years before and after completely betrays the trick as the average deth rate remained more or less exactly the same.

Of importance is that all other Road Safety policy, and its associated expenditure, was abandoned. It has certainly been noticed that there are virtually no traffic police on the roads any more. A few units have been retained to deal with major incidents, but they spend the rest of the time driving around as a token force.

[edit] Camera Partnerships

Sometime later, the Government hit on the idea of using the actual revenue of the speed cameras themselves to pay for new cameras (the so called 'hypothecation' scheme - don't bother looking it up, the word was coined). Several options were considered. Adding a surcharge onto the fixed penalty and using that. Using all the revenue (as has been placed in the article as fact - it isn't, it was rejected).

In order to prove the viability of such a scheme, a trial was launched in 8 areas of the country. By coincidence, 7 of them had death rates prior to the trial that exceeded the average by more than 2 standard deviations, thus ensuring that Regression to the Mean phenomenon would give the required results. The 8th area had a death rate close to the average, but was so small that it was never going to influence the results significantly.

Eventually the Government decided to follow its contoversial public/private partnership policy, and allowed local authorities to form partnerships with a private company.

The arrangement is that the local authority enters into a partnership with a private company who installs and maintains the cameras and also generates and sends out the tickets to offending drivers. They are also responsible for enforcing unpaid tickets. The treasury returns 15% of the fixed penalty tickets to the partnership. The private company extracts a percentage (believed to be 30%, but information is hazy on this point - probably a closely guarded secret). The remainder must be spent on road safety improvements (there is no stipulation that it is to be spent on more cameras, but that is the obvious target). The wrinkle is that the local authority part of the relationship is not required to maintain its contribution to the road safety budget, and is free to reduce it by whatever contribution is made by the cameras.

There is an additional wrinkle, in that there seems to be evidence that the partnership only get their 15% from fixed penalty tickets that are paid unchellenged. If the motorist pleads 'not guilty' then the case is heard by a Magistrates' Court, and the treasury then keeps all of any fine if one is handed down (presumably to contribute to the cost of operating the court).

The partnerships have been accused of trying to get as many tickets unchallenged as possible. They will not, generally, provide any evidence of the offence to the motorist unless he first pleads 'not guilty' - as they are not obliged to, presumably hoping that the motorist won't risk a higher penalty by challeging it. They have also been accused of sending out the ticket regardless of whether the photographs are actually acceptable to a court (or even to all the vehicles in a single shot). There is considerable anecdotal evidence that when a ticket is challenged, that in a significant number of cases, an apologetic letter is received stating that the ticket was sent out in error.

Cameras are required to be visible for 100 metres on the approach side - many are not, being hidden behind trees; road signs or even, in Stevenage, a bus shelter (which was erected the day after the camera was installed).

[edit] Summary

It seems very likely that speed cameras were not introduced into the UK as revenue earners as has often been the accusation - they just don't earn the treasury anything like a drop in the ocean. However, subsequent moves to increase the numbers of camaers through private/public partnerships have allowed local authorities to exploit loop holes in the way the financial mechanism works to effectively channel a proportion of the proceed into their coffers.

To put my position in perspective: I am unreservedly in favour of traffic light cameras. I also favour speed cameras provided they are installed such as to deter speeding in locations where speed really is the principal cause of accidents. Unfortunately, virtually all the UK speed cameras are not in such locations. And (touch wood), I have not received a single ticket for speeding from a speed camera, so hold no malice for them. 20.133.0.13 12:37, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

OK. Most of the stuff you mention above has been covered in many previous discussions. The point at hands seems to be that you seem to want to add an edit saying that 15% of camera revenues can be used on road safety and imply that this is used by councils as a general funding mechanism as they can then reduce the road safety budget. (1) Where is the 15% figure coming from? (2) Do you have evidence for this reduction of safety budget?

It is not exactly 15% (and I have added the the word roughly), but is dependent to a large extent on budgetary issues (I have added a reference to the current rules which lays out how exectly it is calculated - the previously referenced rules were a proposal and are obsolete, though I have left the reference.

There are no guidelines as to how councils are obliged to spend their council tax. The councils are free to aportion their budget more or less how they like. They can reduce their spending on road safety, to take into account the money received from camera partnerships. The rules are unable to rule on the matter. I only have to look at my own county council's spend accounts (delivered each year with the council tax bill) to see that the road safety spending has reduced by £1.5 million. Coincidentally almost the same money received from the Camera Partnership to be spent on road safety. Other council tax bills (where there is a partnership) tell similar stories. The media has been full of them.

If the media is "full of them" then there should be no problem finding some hard figures rather than media speculation. --Richard Clegg 15:45, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

I think the point here is that the original article claimed that 100% of the camera revenue went to the partnerships. It even provided a broken link to support it. This is most certainly not the case. I don't know the exact figure, though I think I have seen numbers of the 15% mark quoted around some of the UK camera websites. Somewhere between 10% and 15% would sound about right. Maybe the article could be made a little more vague by romoving the rather precise figure and replacing it with (say) 10-15%. I B Wright 18:03, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

You make an assertion about the SPECS system (that it is not supposed to be used in multiple lanes). Please provide some evidence for this before reinserting it. --Richard Clegg 15:45, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

This has only been revealed in the last few days. The manufacturer of the SPECS system has confirmed it in the UK media, so it is from the horse's mouth.

Then could you provide a reference? --Richard Clegg 15:45, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Well I read it on the BBC News website on Monday (16th Oct)ish? The BBC are usually a fairly reliable source of these things. It probably made most of the UK papers as well, but I don't get time to read such things. I B Wright 18:03, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

I note that some kind soul has added a reference in the article itself. I B Wright 13:56, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

You have now certainly gone over the wikipedia "three revert rule" WP:3RR.

I presume that there is a rule about deleting fact and inserting fiction? - it is supposed to be an encyclopedia afer all. I don't know what the effect of the 3 revert rule will be, given that we have dynamic IP addressing in the UK. Next time I log in my IP address will be different. I kep getting messages, but none of them are ever for me.

Essentially the same editor should not revert things three times. You have quite clearly done this, albeit from different IP addresses. You assert this is fact to be included, you have three times ignored them and reinserted it. Please refrain from doing this. I (unfortunately) have already reverted your edit twice (and two other editors once each) and will not do so a third time but I believe another editor should do so. --Richard Clegg 15:45, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

(Oh, and the word hypothecation long predates road safety cameras -- it appears in Webster 1913). --Richard Clegg 14:32, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

The authoritative dictionary of English is the Oxford English Dictionary. The word does not appear in my copy. A Google of English web sites (including dictionary sites) fails to turn up the word in any context other than speed cameras. I know of no English dictionary called Webster. Is it an American dictionary perchance? If so, it doesn't count, because this isn't America, and America doesn't use the language anyway (at least it hasn't for over 2 centuries). If you are an American (as I suspect), then you are hardly an authority on the subject, except for obsolete information as appears to be the case.

Suggest you get a more complete OED. From the Oxford English Dictionary: "1681 STAIR Instit. I. xiii. §15 (1693) 122 With us there remains the Tacit Hypothecation of the Fruits on the Ground..belonging to the Possessor, for the Terms or the Years Rent. 1755 [see HYPOTHECATE]. 1756 ROLT Dict. Trade s.v. Hypotheca, It was held, that, by the maritime law, every contract of the master implies an hypothecation; but at common law it is not so. 1861 Kent's Comm. (1873) I. xvii. 378 The admiralty has cognizance of maritime hypothecations of vessels and goods in foreign ports. 1875 POSTE Gaius III. (ed. 2) 371 Hypothecation was effected by mere convention without delivery of possession." This rather predates the road-rule enforcement camera. But this is rather a side issue and irrelevant to the matter at hand. --Richard Clegg 15:45, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Just out interest, I looked it up in my Oxford Dictionary that I bought just last year. It ain't there! I wonder if it appears in the complete version which, by the way, no one is likely to own as it runs to (last time I looked) 26 volumes (plus 2 volumes for the supplement). I B Wright 18:03, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for responding in the proper manner 20.133.0.13 14:58, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] External links

Per WP:EL, internal links are preferred to external, and there should be balance in controversial articles between links to the various POVs. At present there are many more links to the anti groups than supporting the orthodox view, which is clearly against policy.

I am removing the following links for the following reaosns:

• Traffic Light Signals and Red Light Cameras

- geocities page, no evident authority..

• Association of British Drivers - (UK) - should be an internal link to Association of British Drivers
• SafeSpeed Fighting speed enforcement & statistical lies(UK) - shoudl be an internal link to SafeSpeed
• Radardetector.co.uk - (UK) - too many UK links already
• UK Radar Detector Discussion Forum (UK) - ditto, plus this is a duplicate to the above
• MD5 and Speed Cameras - monograph, no evident authority.

More need to go to balance the article per WP:EL. - Just zis Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] AfD? 12:23, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

I think we should also be careful in the section about "Issues of effectiveness" to include controlled scientific studies not "a leading policeman/politician/campaigner said". Lots of people have strong opinions on this subject and we could fill the page with links to newspaper articles pro/anti. --Richard Clegg 16:59, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Please explain what you call as "no evident authority". I have checked WP:EL, which is a style guide but not a guideline or policy. These things may or may not be "What should be linked to", like in a grey area.--Jusjih 14:23, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Read WP:EL. The idea of external links is primarily to link to references (i.e. reliable sources) used in the compilation of the article. Some articles have links to every minor group who has ever ventured an opinion on a subject, but this is not the norm and is not encouraged. We do not allow POV forks of articles, and it is common to extend the same principles to external links. Per WP:NPOV articles should reflect the balance of informed opinion, which in this case is that (a) enforcement of road traffic law is valid and (b) reducing speeds saves lives. Just zis Guy you know? 17:49, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

I have read WP:EL but there are always grey zones. You sound like a supporter of photo enforcement based on your opinions (a) and (b). However, how to enforce road traffic laws involve different methods. Your claim that reducing speeds saves lives is only partially true. I do not like edit wars be arbitrary page reversion, but removal of these external links will not stop opponents from accessing them and they and the National Motorists Association will be ready to fight opinions like yours.--Jusjih 13:30, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Safe Speed Link

I really think we should NOT have a link to the wikipedia page Safe Speed. Whatever my personal opinions about the Safe Speed website and its author, this is a page about a campaign which is only really focused on the British debate and, in any case, the wikipedia page about it is simply awful (frankly, I don't think Safe Speed is important enough to merit inclusion in Wikipedia anyway but that is another matter).--Richard Clegg 12:46, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Safe Speed is important because it presents a strongly reasoned view contrary to the orthodox view of 'speed cameras'. It is often cited in the British press and its founder appears in debates and in documentaries and on news shows on radio and television. The Safe Speed Wikipedia article is well established and should be referenced. If you are unhappy with the quality of that article why not improve it rather than pretend it doesn't exist by removing the link to it. - De Facto 13:07, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

For some values of "reasoned". Not one single SafeSpeed claim has ever been subjected to peer-review. But the site is worth linking as an example of the lengths camera opponents go to in order to pretend that enforcement should only apply to the offences they choose not to commit :-) Guy 13:50, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

The safe speed site is certainly better than it WAS a few years ago (the worst of its statistical errors and silly claims have been gradually removed though it still contains some howlers) -- I still contest that it is "strongly reasoned" though. However, the point remains that the whole site is only really of minor interest in the British part of the debate though it does generate some press coverage in this country, however, this is supposed to be an encyclopedia article for an international audience and I think focussing too much on what is largely a UK only phenomenon is a distraction.

As for fixing up the Safe Speed wikipedia article, I don't really think the site is important enough to deserve a wikipedia article hence I've no interest in fixing up the article. --Richard Clegg 10:10, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

I agree that SS is of strictly limited relevance here. I had several discussions with Paul Smith before the "full-time" thing; it is very clear that his starting point is "given that cameras are evil, then..." - every single piece of analysis he does starts from the assumption that his desired result is true. The one-in-three claim, for example, which he still uses in his Usenet sig, is patently unsupportable, not least because there is a coincident change (increase in mobile phone use) which is proven to impact on driver performance in a way that cameras are not. This may well explain why no reputable journal has ever repeated or published these claims - the closest we have is Which?, whose article showed SS in a very unfavourable light. But he is widely quoted by anti-camera activists, primarily because SS is one of the very few sites even pretending to give anything other than a libertarian argument against enforcement. The fact that the arguments are for the most part absurd or specious is irrelevant to those citing them.Just zis Guy you know? 11:15, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

I agree SafeSpeed has a bigger contribution than acredited for and therefore should not be ignored particularly since it was Paul Smith who went head to head with Robert Gifford both of whom provided the information for Prof. Stones report.[1]--KKKaz 13:00, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Safe Speed Link (again)

Safe Speed is an established article - good, or bad. It appears that the main reason that Safe Speed was formed was to respond to UK Government propaganda with respect to speed cameras. For thoses reasons it is appropriate for a link to appear in the 'See also' section of an article discussing speed cameras. - De Facto 18:35, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

That is your opinion and you are entitled to it. However, at the moment two people (of which I am one) have voiced the opinion that it is inappropriate to include a link here and only you have voiced the opinion that it is appropriate. Remember this is an international article. It is already over-filled with UK based examples IMHO. --Richard Clegg 18:55, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Defacto (so that's 2 - 2 :-) ) as pointed out in the other SafeSpeed section Paul Smith (i.e. SafeSpeed)was one of two contributors to the data for Prof. Stone's report and therefore should not be dismissed. It may be an international article but presently it is being edited by people from the UK - if this is a problem then maybe the article should be split to reflect specific countries concerns regarding the UK and those abroad - in any case I believe that many of the points raised apply and are equally of international interest and agree that the page is mainly UK oriented, but that censorship so that only a onesided politically correct view is aired is much worse than possibly confusing or upsettign the international community. --KKKaz 13:27, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Legal issues

Extended this section to provide more accurate representation of the UK situation and legal challenges pending since it did not stop at the high court ruling as implied.

[edit] Effectiveness issues

The DfT report explicitly says "some" not "most" of the casualties are caused by regression to the mean. In private conversation with one of the report's authors he has said that this is his belief. Could anyone give a citation which claims most from the DfT report under discussion? The figure quoted by DeFacto does not appear in the report in any relevant contact. Please cite document and page. --Richard Clegg 20:20, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Remembering that it is KSIs we are talking about...

The report in question - Section 4.7 - Page 60 "A substantial proportion of the reduction observed in KSIs and a modest proportion of that in PICs could be attributable to regression-to-mean.".

In a brief to the Parliamentary Labour Party (made public on the website of Labour MP Rob Marris [2]) titled "Road Safety: Greater Funding and Flexibility for Road Safety as New Report Shows Cameras Working", issued by the office of Alistair Darling, Secretary of State for Transport, the table on page 2 shows that killed or seriously injured (KSI) casualty reductions totalled 1745. Assuming the RTTM found at the urban sites with data analysed was typical the estimated rate for both the total KSI figures shown total 873. Given that the report states that the RTTM at rural sites (which weren't analysed) is likely to be greater than that at urban sites (which were analysed) it is reasonable to assume that most of the KSI reductions at camera sites are due to RTTM - De Facto 00:13, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

You are right that the proportion for KSIs is higher (in fact the report is talking about FSCs in this part). I'm afraid the link you provide is a bit of a "dodgy dossier" -- from that report I quote "[The report (meaning the DfT four year report) concludes that it is not possible from this small sub-set accurately to assess the regression-to mean effect of the national programme.] However were these results typical, then the following level of reductions in KSI would still have been seen." When statisticians tell you there is not enough data to make an estimate then going ahead and making the estimate anyway is certainly irresponsible. I have taken the actual figures from the DfT report to avoid continuing a most/some edit war --- I think this gives people the full facts about the report as the authors intended it and will hopefully satisfy both of us. The DfT report is linked into this article so you can check there is no sleight of hand in my figures. --Richard Clegg 16:10, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

I have rewritten the section on Prof M. Stone to include a reference to his actual work (though he is not a trasport researcher) rather than a reference to his reference to his work. In essence I think most of his criticisms of the three year DfT report are dealt with by the four year DfT report but I have tried to remain npov throughout. In fact I would prefer not to ref Prof M. Stone even though overall he is positive about Speed Cameras because again we are focusing just on the UK debate when this is supposed to be an international article. --Richard Clegg 16:05, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Added the long overdue the revelations by the governmant that the mobile speed camera LTi 20-20 is inaccurate and most likely resulted in wrongful prosecutions. --KKKaz 13:30, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Hope you won't mind a rewrite (and move to right section) since that is obviously a much much wider issue than an issue in a specific country with a specific camera. If we included every "speed camera X in country Y catches wrong person" story then the page would be 200 times as long" :-) --Richard Clegg 20:28, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Confidence in goverment presentation of evidence

This is a perfectly valid political sub-section, the spin placed on the results of research affects the public perception, and needs mentioning. - De Facto 16:18, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

In that context it is a complaint by one non-expert researcher on one government report where he freely admits he does not know the methodology used and therefore should certainly NOT be mentioned. In the other context you might have had a report. Read Stone's full Radio Four report not his summary. --Richard Clegg 16:24, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

I agree with DeFacto there is a high degree of political 'spin' involved with the issue of speed cameras - I personally find it amazing that the RTTM issue and the governments response to it is not seen as political - that their indifference to previous claims of inaccuracies in the equipment that has most likely lead to wrongful prosecution of some motorists is not seen as political, the reversal of the burden of proof another example of political interferance that has dangerous conitations for a so called democratic society. The political aspect should not be ignored. There are also wider implications as the acceptance of closely montoring the so called 'rule-breaking' motorists is in my opinion a prerequisite to the mass surveillance of the wider public.--KKKaz 12:47, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

That is as maybe but this article is no place for a discusion of such things as government spin, burden of proof and so on. --Richard Clegg 20:29, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Photo radar

Can someone confirm or provide a reference for this term? I have never heard it used. It would seem an odd and inaccurate term. --Richard Clegg 23:46, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

This term is used, for example, at [3].--Jusjih 13:41, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. Unscientific, but googlefight shows "photo radar" 328,000 versus "speed camera" 2,020,000. Perhaps "sometimes known as photo radar" would be more accurate? The reason I'm not happy with what stands is that many such devices don't use radar and the name "speed camera" is much more common. That said, since you have shown me that the name is used, I'm not too unhappy with the sentence standing as is. I guess the name photo radar is merely supposed to imply it uses a photograph and a radar (rather than some bizarre technology called "photo radar". --Richard Clegg 17:37, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

The term is used in California law, Vehicle Code 21455.6(c), to wit: "The authorization in Section 21455.5 to use automated enforcement systems does not authorize the use of photo radar for speed enforcement purposes by any jurisdiction." But because of the greater 'net popularity of 'speed camera' it's is a good idea to use both terms.

Do you happen to know if, in this legal context, it refers ONLY to radar based systems or to any method of measuring speeding? Would be useful information. --Richard Clegg 09:16, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Crimes occurring after red light cameras have been installed

In addition to vandalisms to red light cameras and even assaults to their operators, I, do have a very reasonable ground to believe that:

"As some people have been robbed when waiting for red lights, especially in rough neighbourhoods, some opponents against red light cameras may argue that when cameras tempt drivers to stop suddenly to avoid being summoned for red light running, prospective robbers may wait to rob stopped motorists so cameras may potentially increase robberies. Even though supporters for red light cameras may counter-claim that there may not have been evidence of increased robberies at cameras, it is undeniable that people should always be aware of their surroundings. Some safety experts say if a driver who is stopped at a red light feels threatened by crimes, running the red light to prevent being hurt should be considered if that would not endanger other traffic."

Per Wikipedia:No original research, I am not adding this to the article while there are no widely known reports about robberies at red light cameras. However, any real robberies would be very costly. Vandalisms to red light cameras and even assaults to their operators are already reported, known, and costly.--Jusjih 15:10, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

I remember a news story some years back about a young man in Norway who threw a radar camera into the sea and was caught doing so. I've tried to look for information but have been unable to find any, unfortunately. If anyone should happen to remember particulars about this spirited response to Big Brother tactics, I think it would be worthy of mention. Afalbrig 05:20, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] UK effectiveness

I rejigged the UK section on effectiveness so that it all occurs in time order (Previously we had a 2004 report then a 2005 report then a 2004 report then a 2003 report). I also removed some snippets of language which I considered NPOV -- for example I put "suggests" instead of "plausibly suggests". An article like this should merely attempt to say that something has been suggested and summarise the what is known rather than rule on whether a suggestion is plausible. I also changed "the four year report only includes statistical modeling of the RTM effect based on a reduced set of camera sites" by removing the word "only". The word "only" makes it look like it was some kind of trick omission whereas if you read the report, the reason this is done is perfectly clear. --Richard Clegg 16:55, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

oops -- and thanks DeFacto for fixing the links I broke when doing so. *blush* --Richard Clegg 17:28, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Reverted edit

I reverted the following edit which is certainly non NPOV

"Proponents of speed cameras claim they have saved many lives, however they fail to take into account concepts such as regression to the mean, and the probability that an accident is unlikely to happen in the same place regardless of the installation of a camera, yet the local camera partnership will quickly claim responsibility for any fall in accidents at a camera site.

In recent years it has become obvious that speed cameras are being sited on roads with an unreasonably low speed limit (where it is perfectly safe to travel at a higher speed than the posted limit) and are solely installed for the purposes of raising revenue. For this reason they are commonly known as revenue cameras or scameras."

The first part is discussed later. The second part is unevidenced and highly biased. --Richard Clegg 19:54, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Bad move

Someone has moved this article without justification from "Road rule enforcement camera" to "Road rule". This should be reverted ASAP. Are there any admins reading who can handle the details JQ 00:44, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Absolutely agreed. This is an article about cameras. I don't know who has changed it or why but it should certainly be changed back. --Richard Clegg 10:22, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Done. Just zis Guy you know? 10:34, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks JzG! --Richard Clegg 13:13, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks from me also, JQ 23:55, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Deleted external links

Softgrow, a couple of questions triggered by your recent edits:

1. Does the word association have a special legal meaning in Australia, if not why should "a group of people organized for a joint purpose" be listed on ASIC?
2. What do you mean by anonymous in relation to RoadSense - they have a name, they have a postal address, they have an email address - which wiki policy are you invoking?

-De Facto 17:26, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

I'd back Softgow up in saying that both those links look pretty rubbish. At a guess, just individuals on a soap box. -- Solipsist 22:02, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Association has a legal meaning in Australia. They are not associations. The removal though was more a case of Wikipedia policy on references. They are anonymous and essentially the work of an anonymous individual hence their deletion (particularly as there are other sources which are quite real like the ABD etc). Wikipedia:Reliable sources#Self-published_sources Softgrow 22:31, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] highwayrobbery.net

After reviewing a few things on highway robbery .net, I think that it probably shouldn't be used in wikipedia, (see Talk:Phishing and Talk:Social engineering (security). The content is probably appropriate in this article though. Feel free to do with this as you see fit. McKay 13:24, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

I would as soon see it removed.

1) It is specific to one area so is not relevant outside California and

2) Provides information on ways to uses a legal loophole to drive illegally fast in that area.

I think we should stick to more general discussion of the subject of legislation on cameras and its enforcement rather than getting bogged down in such minute issues

Other opinions? --Richard Clegg 15:09, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

There are two issues -- the use of the highwayrobbery site and the use of the fake ticket example. I think fake tickets are relevant and consequently the site is necessary to back it up. For an article that is, "already over-filled with UK based examples" I don't see the problem with including something from California. England has a population of 49 million (25.8m registered automobiles). California has a population of 37 million (30m registered autos). If the former is relevant, so is the latter. Beyond that, things that California municipalities do generally spread to the rest of the country. It seems to me you are importing your country's particular legal outlook. In what way are these notices "real"? Other than being printed on paper, they have no weight. They are not sanctioned by law. They are not recognized by the court. Instead, they are issued by a private company to collect money. They are no different than junk mail (if throw it away, no consequences; if you respond, you pay). That the public-private partnership turns to such tactics paints a broader picture about the motivation behind road-rule enforcement cameras. That's why it isn't minutia. --Taxcheat 9:02, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

I specifically argue that this article shouldn't have so many UK based examples either. --Richard Clegg 09:44, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Taxcheat has addressed Richard Clegg's first reason to have highwayrobbery.net removed. I will address the second. Clegg calls it "information on... a legal loophole." The legal profession would call that a "successful defense tactic." Is there a ban on legal defense tactics here? Also, we should clarify that the site is not about [allegedly] "driving illegally fast" - a subject well-covered by decades of literature, but is about something much newer - red light camera tickets.

Also, may I request that this discussion continue in the discussion section of the article on Phishing (look for heading "Add Phishing by the Police"), rather than being spread out all over the place?--Einsteininmyownmind 03:35, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] BMJ study

I snipped the following:

-- A 2006 British Medical Journal article also points out that police road injury statistics used to substantiate the effectiveness of speed cameras do not match the actual number of admissions recorded in hospitals. Police have claimed the injury rate fell from 85.9 per 100,000 in 1996 to 59.4 in 2004, while hospital statistics show the injury rate increased from 90.0 in 1996 to 91.1 in 2004. "The overall fall seen in police statistics for non-fatal road traffic injuries probably represents a fall in completeness of reporting of these injuries," the authors concluded.[4] --

This study has been brought up a couple of times. It is only relevant to an article on speed cameras if it is shown that this fall takes place more in speed camera areas than other areas. It could be that this increases, decreases or has no effect on camera effectiveness. It should also be remembered that this is just one comparatively recent study. I am not sure if we should include this. If we do so then we should certainly do so with more neutral wording than this. --Richard Clegg 10:16, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

This wiki article cites the road injury statistics used to justify speed cameras. The BMJ (and the Statistics Commission, with an admission that they're right from DfT -- it's not "just one") point out these very statistics are optimistic. There is no way that is not relevant. It is your personal opinion that a nationwide number is not relevant. I disagree. Beyond that, the same police reports that created this nationwide number are the ones used to generate site-specific data. So unreliability of the data demonstrated in the big picture number means site-specific numbers are equally questionable. I don't believe you should delete reference to a legitimate study you are "not sure" about based on it not agreeing with your personal point of view. I will accept that the wording may not be sufficiently neutral and will reapply data word for word from the report. --Taxcheat 11:06, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Look -- the report doesn't affect fatality statistics at all. It suggests under-reporting by police. This would not produce a drop at camera sites only. Even if the report was 100% accurate it wouldn't change the results of the studies reported because those studies explicitly control for the overall drop in injury rates countrywide. That is why I believe it irrelevant. I will try another rewording. --Richard Clegg 11:27, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Taxcheat. The data used to plot the trends, which are then used to justify the continued use of cameras, is that same data gathered by the police that is the subject of those studies. The studies suggest that the downward trend in accidents is a reflection of under-reporting, not of actually reduced number of accidents. The data use therefore, to claim downward trends at camera sites, is not necessarily reliable, so it is reasonable to point that out in the article. -- de Facto (talk). 11:37, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

KSI has never been accurate. Fatality stats are very close to 100% accurate. Inaccuracy of KSI has little relevance to a discussion of fatality trends. Also, there is no indication that the STATS19 figures themselves are becoming more or less incomplete, this could equally plausibly be due to a greater likelihood of rpesentation at A&E for injuries of lesser severity. Until the debate has been thrashed out in the peer-reviewed journals I think we are conducting original research. Guy 11:45, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

The study cited is published in the BMJ, so this is not OR. Many of the claimed trends supporting camera use are of non-fatal accidents, so are very much brought into question if accident numbers are shown not to have decreased, but to have been under-reported. -- de Facto (talk). 11:55, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Defacto, Taxcheat -- read the DFT reports in their entirity. A long job but rewarding. What you will find is that those reports allow that road casualties are declining country wide. This effect is statistically accounted for and removed from the trends. From this article "Based on the RTM modeling undertaken the report suggests that for personal injury collisions (non-serious collisions resulting in injuries) a 16.2% reduction in injuries was due to the cameras, a 6.7% reduction was due to regression to the mean and a 7.9% reduction was due to the general downward trend in accidents over the period." If the BMJ study is 100% correct then it is a study of the 7.9% reduction due to the general downward trend... --Richard Clegg 12:14, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Reviewing the DfT three and four year reports, they do not appear to use STATS19 data anyway (unless you guys know better -- in which case please let me know). Section D of both DfT reports describes how the recorded data are cleaned, checked and then compared against RCGB (which derives from STATS19). I *think* the DfT data was specially collected but I am not 100% sure. I have tried to edit again. None of the reports we mention actually relies solely on STATS19 injury data and only one appears to use it at all. I have removed the huge caveat that had been put in because it is silly to have a huge caveat when none of the reports we mention rely only on injury data and 2 of the 3 may not use STATS19 at all. --Richard Clegg 14:47, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

The Christie et al. report "Are mobile speed cameras effective? A controlled before and after study " also refers to STATS19 data. -- de Facto (talk). 08:48, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

You are right -- another wording try coming up. --Richard Clegg 08:55, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Neutrality

I don't see this as a very neutral article on the technology. Yes, there have been many issues with it but this article just launches into the negative aspects of it. Opinions? --EricJosepi 04:12, 26 October 2006 (UTC)