Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
How redflex chooses an intersection.
14 views
Skip to first unread message
Brent
May 17, 2013, 9:25:14 AM5/17/13
to
gpsman
May 17, 2013, 10:58:26 AM5/17/13
to
On May 17, 9:25 am, Brent <tetraethylleadREMOVET...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> http://thenewspaper.com/news/41/4103.asp
Still getting your info from an anonymous blog, and still don't
realize your ignorance is willful, I see.
> It's all about the numbers.... the profit numbers.
A for-profit company is interested in profit...
You are, undoubtedly, a new, special kind of imbecile.
-----
- gpsman
> http://thenewspaper.com/news/41/4103.asp
Still getting your info from an anonymous blog, and still don't
realize your ignorance is willful, I see.
> It's all about the numbers.... the profit numbers.
You are, undoubtedly, a new, special kind of imbecile.
-----
- gpsman
Chicago Paddling-Fishing
May 20, 2013, 1:51:18 AM5/20/13
to
gpsman <gps...@driversmail.com> wrote:
If you recall, long before the news latched onto this, I filed a number of FOIA
requests with the state and posted data here showing spikes in accident numbers
for intersections with red light cameras after we were arguing this here;
From last weeks trib;
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/ct-met-inspector-general-red-light-cameras-0515-20130515,0,5266605.story
'City Hall can't prove red light cameras make streets safer, watchdog says
Inspector general's report cites CDOT's 'alarming lack of analysis'
City Hall cannot back up claims that its controversial red-light camera
program is designed to make intersections safer, according to a watchdog's
report released Tuesday.
Inspector General Joseph Ferguson said the city cannot provide documents to
prove that the cameras went up at intersections with the most side-impact
crashes. He also questioned why cameras remain at intersections with no
recent history of such crashes, which the $100 ticket-issuing "cops-in-a-box"
are designed to prevent.
"We found a lack of basic record keeping and an alarming lack of analysis for
an ongoing program that costs tens of millions of dollars a year and generates
tens of millions more in revenue," Ferguson wrote in a letter addressed to
Mayor Rahm Emanuel and other city officials. ...'
From the FOIA requests I made in the past here are some postings;
This is the data I got for Peterson and Western;
(you'll see rear end accidents nearly double)
http://groups.google.com/group/chi.general/browse_thread/thread/8d12be94e242f9ca/b56db15614c002c6?q=red+light+camera+angle+group:chi.general+author:jwn%40ripco.com#b56db15614c002c6
This is the data I got for Foster and Western;
(rear end accidents double from 2003 to 2004 and stay higher than they were)
http://groups.google.com/group/chi.general/browse_thread/thread/ada7697f290650d/65a27c7e23da5619?q=red+light+camera+group:chi.general+author:jwn%40ripco.com#65a27c7e23da5619
You can find more of these old postings with actual data too... Eventually I
was being refered to a supervisor for these requests and replies stopped once
the media started investigating (I had sent my data to NBC)
--
John Nelson
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chicago Area Paddling/Fishing Page
http://www.chicagopaddling.org http://www.chicagofishing.org
(A Non-Commercial Web Site: No Sponsors, No Paid Ads and Nothing to Sell)
requests with the state and posted data here showing spikes in accident numbers
for intersections with red light cameras after we were arguing this here;
From last weeks trib;
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/ct-met-inspector-general-red-light-cameras-0515-20130515,0,5266605.story
'City Hall can't prove red light cameras make streets safer, watchdog says
Inspector general's report cites CDOT's 'alarming lack of analysis'
City Hall cannot back up claims that its controversial red-light camera
program is designed to make intersections safer, according to a watchdog's
report released Tuesday.
Inspector General Joseph Ferguson said the city cannot provide documents to
prove that the cameras went up at intersections with the most side-impact
crashes. He also questioned why cameras remain at intersections with no
recent history of such crashes, which the $100 ticket-issuing "cops-in-a-box"
are designed to prevent.
"We found a lack of basic record keeping and an alarming lack of analysis for
an ongoing program that costs tens of millions of dollars a year and generates
tens of millions more in revenue," Ferguson wrote in a letter addressed to
Mayor Rahm Emanuel and other city officials. ...'
From the FOIA requests I made in the past here are some postings;
This is the data I got for Peterson and Western;
(you'll see rear end accidents nearly double)
http://groups.google.com/group/chi.general/browse_thread/thread/8d12be94e242f9ca/b56db15614c002c6?q=red+light+camera+angle+group:chi.general+author:jwn%40ripco.com#b56db15614c002c6
This is the data I got for Foster and Western;
(rear end accidents double from 2003 to 2004 and stay higher than they were)
http://groups.google.com/group/chi.general/browse_thread/thread/ada7697f290650d/65a27c7e23da5619?q=red+light+camera+group:chi.general+author:jwn%40ripco.com#65a27c7e23da5619
You can find more of these old postings with actual data too... Eventually I
was being refered to a supervisor for these requests and replies stopped once
the media started investigating (I had sent my data to NBC)
--
John Nelson
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chicago Area Paddling/Fishing Page
http://www.chicagopaddling.org http://www.chicagofishing.org
(A Non-Commercial Web Site: No Sponsors, No Paid Ads and Nothing to Sell)
gpsman
May 20, 2013, 8:13:41 AM5/20/13
to
On May 20, 1:51 am, Chicago Paddling-Fishing <j...@ripco.com> wrote:
lack of data renders running red lights reasonable and prudent
behavior... or motorists are great drivers as long as they don't have
to lift off the throttle...?
Or is it the IG is a moron for whom correlation = causation unless the
data might suggest a RLC is preventing side-impact crashes?
-----
- gpsman
> Inspector General Joseph Ferguson said the city cannot provide documents to
> prove that the cameras went up at intersections with the most side-impact
> crashes. He also questioned why cameras remain at intersections with no
> recent history of such crashes, which the $100 ticket-issuing "cops-in-a-box"
> are designed to prevent.
>
> "We found a lack of basic record keeping and an alarming lack of analysis for
> an ongoing program that costs tens of millions of dollars a year and generates
> tens of millions more in revenue," Ferguson wrote in a letter addressed to
> Mayor Rahm Emanuel and other city officials. ...'
>
> From the FOIA requests I made in the past here are some postings;
>
> This is the data I got for Peterson and Western;
> (you'll see rear end accidents nearly double)http://groups.google.com/group/chi.general/browse_thread/thread/8d12b...
> prove that the cameras went up at intersections with the most side-impact
> crashes. He also questioned why cameras remain at intersections with no
> recent history of such crashes, which the $100 ticket-issuing "cops-in-a-box"
> are designed to prevent.
>
> "We found a lack of basic record keeping and an alarming lack of analysis for
> an ongoing program that costs tens of millions of dollars a year and generates
> tens of millions more in revenue," Ferguson wrote in a letter addressed to
> Mayor Rahm Emanuel and other city officials. ...'
>
> From the FOIA requests I made in the past here are some postings;
>
> This is the data I got for Peterson and Western;
>
> This is the data I got for Foster and Western;
> (rear end accidents double from 2003 to 2004 and stay higher than they were)http://groups.google.com/group/chi.general/browse_thread/thread/ada76...
> This is the data I got for Foster and Western;
>
> You can find more of these old postings with actual data too... Eventually I
> was being refered to a supervisor for these requests and replies stopped once
> the media started investigating (I had sent my data to NBC)
Is your point the IG can't find data such as you obtained, or that
> You can find more of these old postings with actual data too... Eventually I
> was being refered to a supervisor for these requests and replies stopped once
> the media started investigating (I had sent my data to NBC)
lack of data renders running red lights reasonable and prudent
behavior... or motorists are great drivers as long as they don't have
to lift off the throttle...?
Or is it the IG is a moron for whom correlation = causation unless the
data might suggest a RLC is preventing side-impact crashes?
-----
- gpsman
Chicago Paddling-Fishing
May 21, 2013, 1:07:28 AM5/21/13
to
gpsman <gps...@driversmail.com> wrote:
>> ?prove that the cameras went up at intersections with the most side-impact
>> ?crashes. He also questioned why cameras remain at intersections with no
>> ?recent history of such crashes, which the $100 ticket-issuing "cops-in-a-box"
>> ?are designed to prevent.
>>
>> ?"We found a lack of basic record keeping and an alarming lack of analysis for
>> ?an ongoing program that costs tens of millions of dollars a year and generates
>> ?tens of millions more in revenue," Ferguson wrote in a letter addressed to
>> ?Mayor Rahm Emanuel and other city officials. ...'
I know your argument is just because rear end collisions doubled (or more) at
these intersections after the cameras were installed doesn't prove causation
(unless of course we review the actual accident reports for each accident which
they might object to for privacy reasons since they would contain PII).
So lets look at some data from those posts;
Data for Foster at Western;
|----------------- Accident Type --------------------------------|
Year RearEnd Angle HeadOn Pedis SideSwipe Turning FO OO Parked Ukn Bike
2001 6 5 1 0 S- 5 O- 0 12 1 1 1
2002 6 4 0 1 S- 4 O- 0 12
2003 7 6 0 2 S- 1 O- 0 10 1 2
2004 14 9 S- 2 10 2
2005 10 1 1 1 S- 4 13
2006 18 4 1 1 S- 2 O- 1 5 1
Sideswipe "S-" = same direction, "O-" = opposite direction.
Not only did rear end accidents double, but angle increased, then dropped off,
then returned to normal but rear end accidents remained elevated.
No data was reported for HeadOn for one year. We can't call it 0 because they
didn't report 0 as they did for the other figures.
This is for Western and Peterson the year before, year of and year after;
Rear-end Angle Turning Sideswipe Headon Pedestrian Cl/Ra/Sn/Ns
2002 8 9 22 1-s 1-o 0 1 35/06/00/00
2003 11 2 16 2-s 0-o 0 0 23/08/00/01
2004 20 9 18 1-s x-o x x 37/08/01/02
Again, where they reported "x", I reported "x". I don't know if that meant
0 or 10 as we didn't speculate.
For Western and Peterson they sent me weather info too... As you can see,
it's most dangerous when it's clear (Cl), Rain (Ra) is second most dangerous
time, Snow (Sn) appears to be safest and Ns simply means Not Stated. I didn't
expect it to go that way, but I guess people drive their worst when it's clear
and dry thinking they can stop ok...
>Or is it the IG is a moron for whom correlation = causation unless the
>data might suggest a RLC is preventing side-impact crashes?
> -----
The data doesn't appear to suggest a sustained decrease in the fields.
Kim Vatis from NBC was requesting more data as when I gave her the 4
intersections I had (2 north side, 2 south side) she thought perhaps they
were just poorly designed intersections but it doesn't appear anyone has
managed to find data to justify the cameras, if they had I suspect they
would tout it.
>On May 20, 1:51?am, Chicago Paddling-Fishing <j...@ripco.com> wrote:
>> gpsman <gps...@driversmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> >A for-profit company is interested in profit...
>>
>> ?Inspector General Joseph Ferguson said the city cannot provide documents to
>> gpsman <gps...@driversmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> >A for-profit company is interested in profit...
>>
>> ?prove that the cameras went up at intersections with the most side-impact
>> ?crashes. He also questioned why cameras remain at intersections with no
>> ?recent history of such crashes, which the $100 ticket-issuing "cops-in-a-box"
>> ?are designed to prevent.
>>
>> ?"We found a lack of basic record keeping and an alarming lack of analysis for
>> ?an ongoing program that costs tens of millions of dollars a year and generates
>> ?tens of millions more in revenue," Ferguson wrote in a letter addressed to
>> ?Mayor Rahm Emanuel and other city officials. ...'
>>
>> From the FOIA requests I made in the past here are some postings;
>>
>> This is the data I got for Peterson and Western;
>> (you'll see rear end accidents nearly double)http://groups.google.com/group/chi.general/browse_thread/thread/8d12b...
>>
>> This is the data I got for Foster and Western;
>> (rear end accidents double from 2003 to 2004 and stay higher than they were)http://groups.google.com/group/chi.general/browse_thread/thread/ada76...
>>
>> You can find more of these old postings with actual data too... Eventually I
>> was being refered to a supervisor for these requests and replies stopped once
>> the media started investigating (I had sent my data to NBC)
>Is your point the IG can't find data such as you obtained, or that
>lack of data renders running red lights reasonable and prudent
>behavior... or motorists are great drivers as long as they don't have
>to lift off the throttle...?
The data is out there if they chose to use it.
>> From the FOIA requests I made in the past here are some postings;
>>
>> This is the data I got for Peterson and Western;
>> (you'll see rear end accidents nearly double)http://groups.google.com/group/chi.general/browse_thread/thread/8d12b...
>>
>> This is the data I got for Foster and Western;
>> (rear end accidents double from 2003 to 2004 and stay higher than they were)http://groups.google.com/group/chi.general/browse_thread/thread/ada76...
>>
>> You can find more of these old postings with actual data too... Eventually I
>> was being refered to a supervisor for these requests and replies stopped once
>> the media started investigating (I had sent my data to NBC)
>Is your point the IG can't find data such as you obtained, or that
>lack of data renders running red lights reasonable and prudent
>behavior... or motorists are great drivers as long as they don't have
>to lift off the throttle...?
I know your argument is just because rear end collisions doubled (or more) at
these intersections after the cameras were installed doesn't prove causation
(unless of course we review the actual accident reports for each accident which
they might object to for privacy reasons since they would contain PII).
So lets look at some data from those posts;
Data for Foster at Western;
|----------------- Accident Type --------------------------------|
Year RearEnd Angle HeadOn Pedis SideSwipe Turning FO OO Parked Ukn Bike
2001 6 5 1 0 S- 5 O- 0 12 1 1 1
2002 6 4 0 1 S- 4 O- 0 12
2003 7 6 0 2 S- 1 O- 0 10 1 2
2004 14 9 S- 2 10 2
2005 10 1 1 1 S- 4 13
2006 18 4 1 1 S- 2 O- 1 5 1
Sideswipe "S-" = same direction, "O-" = opposite direction.
Not only did rear end accidents double, but angle increased, then dropped off,
then returned to normal but rear end accidents remained elevated.
No data was reported for HeadOn for one year. We can't call it 0 because they
didn't report 0 as they did for the other figures.
This is for Western and Peterson the year before, year of and year after;
Rear-end Angle Turning Sideswipe Headon Pedestrian Cl/Ra/Sn/Ns
2002 8 9 22 1-s 1-o 0 1 35/06/00/00
2003 11 2 16 2-s 0-o 0 0 23/08/00/01
2004 20 9 18 1-s x-o x x 37/08/01/02
Again, where they reported "x", I reported "x". I don't know if that meant
0 or 10 as we didn't speculate.
For Western and Peterson they sent me weather info too... As you can see,
it's most dangerous when it's clear (Cl), Rain (Ra) is second most dangerous
time, Snow (Sn) appears to be safest and Ns simply means Not Stated. I didn't
expect it to go that way, but I guess people drive their worst when it's clear
and dry thinking they can stop ok...
>Or is it the IG is a moron for whom correlation = causation unless the
>data might suggest a RLC is preventing side-impact crashes?
> -----
Kim Vatis from NBC was requesting more data as when I gave her the 4
intersections I had (2 north side, 2 south side) she thought perhaps they
were just poorly designed intersections but it doesn't appear anyone has
managed to find data to justify the cameras, if they had I suspect they
would tout it.
gpsman
May 21, 2013, 8:31:43 AM5/21/13
to
On May 21, 1:07 am, Chicago Paddling-Fishing <j...@ripco.com> wrote:
> gpsman <gps...@driversmail.com> wrote:
>
> >Is your point the IG can't find data such as you obtained,
>
> gpsman <gps...@driversmail.com> wrote:
>
> >Is your point the IG can't find data such as you obtained,
>
> The data is out there if they chose to use it.
So, the IG is full of shit...?
> I know your argument is just because rear end collisions doubled (or more) at
> these intersections after the cameras were installed doesn't prove causation
> (unless of course we review the actual accident reports
to any RLC.
Few motorists crash in the presence of RLCs, and RLCs have no method
by which to single out motorists to attack and cause to crash.
> >Or is it the IG is a moron for whom correlation = causation unless the
> >data might suggest a RLC is preventing side-impact crashes?
> The data doesn't appear to suggest a sustained decrease in the fields.
>
> Kim Vatis from NBC was requesting more data as when I gave her the 4
> intersections I had (2 north side, 2 south side) she thought perhaps they
> were just poorly designed intersections but it doesn't appear anyone has
> managed to find data to justify the cameras, if they had I suspect they
> would tout it.
We don't need any data to know motorists run red lights, or have
>
> Kim Vatis from NBC was requesting more data as when I gave her the 4
> intersections I had (2 north side, 2 south side) she thought perhaps they
> were just poorly designed intersections but it doesn't appear anyone has
> managed to find data to justify the cameras, if they had I suspect they
> would tout it.
little regard for traffic code in general. Speeding and following too
closely are ubiquitous, and increasing speed in response to yellow
signals and green lights recognized as stale is common.
Do you happen to know the parameters of your acquired data? Due to
the "willful misconduct" described above above some crash data
includes crashes within 1000' feet of RLC intersections.
-----
- gpsman
Chicago Paddling-Fishing
May 24, 2013, 9:41:30 AM5/24/13
to
gpsman <gps...@driversmail.com> wrote:
RLC lowered accidents, then the IG is correct (although I would call it weasel
words). They don't appear to lower accidents (they appear to increase them).
>> I know your argument is just because rear end collisions doubled (or more) at
>> these intersections after the cameras were installed doesn't prove causation
>> (unless of course we review the actual accident reports
>No, my argument is motorists cause crashes; no crash is attributable
>to any RLC.
Ah, much like the gun lobbys claim that guns don't kill people, people kill
people...
There tend to be many factors in an accident and equipment (both vehicle
itself and intersection) may be a major factor.
>Few motorists crash in the presence of RLCs, and RLCs have no method
>by which to single out motorists to attack and cause to crash.
You apparently chose to ignore the data as it appears rear end collisions
double (or nearly so) after a RLC is installed. For some of the intersections
there were spikes in other forms of accidents, for others, the other accidents
remained flat. Try to read the data and remember that larger numbers are
worse than smaller numbers, think of it as golf scores...
>> >Or is it the IG is a moron for whom correlation = causation unless the
>> >data might suggest a RLC is preventing side-impact crashes?
>> The data doesn't appear to suggest a sustained decrease in the fields.
>>
>> Kim Vatis from NBC was requesting more data as when I gave her the 4
>> intersections I had (2 north side, 2 south side) she thought perhaps they
>> were just poorly designed intersections but it doesn't appear anyone has
>> managed to find data to justify the cameras, if they had I suspect they
>> would tout it.
>We don't need any data to know motorists run red lights, or have
>little regard for traffic code in general. Speeding and following too
>closely are ubiquitous, and increasing speed in response to yellow
>signals and green lights recognized as stale is common.
As Brent has pointed out often. Given a sufficent yellow light allows motorist
to plan and stop. When a Red Light Camera is installed, motorist tend to slam
on the brakes, hence the surge in rear end collisions after cameras are
installed.
I personally like the walk sign counters because then I know how much longer
the green light will be green, and can plan accordingly. I always prefer to
coast rather than have to hit the brakes.
>Do you happen to know the parameters of your acquired data? Due to
>the "willful misconduct" described above above some crash data
>includes crashes within 1000' feet of RLC intersections.
I will have to do some digging as 2007 is several computers ago to find the
original PDF's as if you read the original posts you'll see I posted all the
data for people to see as well.
>On May 21, 1:07?am, Chicago Paddling-Fishing <j...@ripco.com> wrote:
>> gpsman <gps...@driversmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> >Is your point the IG can't find data such as you obtained,
>>
>> The data is out there if they chose to use it.
>So, the IG is full of shit...?
Depends on what the IG said. If the IG said they can't provide documents saying
>> gpsman <gps...@driversmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> >Is your point the IG can't find data such as you obtained,
>>
>> The data is out there if they chose to use it.
>So, the IG is full of shit...?
RLC lowered accidents, then the IG is correct (although I would call it weasel
words). They don't appear to lower accidents (they appear to increase them).
>> I know your argument is just because rear end collisions doubled (or more) at
>> these intersections after the cameras were installed doesn't prove causation
>> (unless of course we review the actual accident reports
>No, my argument is motorists cause crashes; no crash is attributable
>to any RLC.
people...
There tend to be many factors in an accident and equipment (both vehicle
itself and intersection) may be a major factor.
>Few motorists crash in the presence of RLCs, and RLCs have no method
>by which to single out motorists to attack and cause to crash.
double (or nearly so) after a RLC is installed. For some of the intersections
there were spikes in other forms of accidents, for others, the other accidents
remained flat. Try to read the data and remember that larger numbers are
worse than smaller numbers, think of it as golf scores...
>> >Or is it the IG is a moron for whom correlation = causation unless the
>> >data might suggest a RLC is preventing side-impact crashes?
>> The data doesn't appear to suggest a sustained decrease in the fields.
>>
>> Kim Vatis from NBC was requesting more data as when I gave her the 4
>> intersections I had (2 north side, 2 south side) she thought perhaps they
>> were just poorly designed intersections but it doesn't appear anyone has
>> managed to find data to justify the cameras, if they had I suspect they
>> would tout it.
>We don't need any data to know motorists run red lights, or have
>little regard for traffic code in general. Speeding and following too
>closely are ubiquitous, and increasing speed in response to yellow
>signals and green lights recognized as stale is common.
to plan and stop. When a Red Light Camera is installed, motorist tend to slam
on the brakes, hence the surge in rear end collisions after cameras are
installed.
I personally like the walk sign counters because then I know how much longer
the green light will be green, and can plan accordingly. I always prefer to
coast rather than have to hit the brakes.
>Do you happen to know the parameters of your acquired data? Due to
>the "willful misconduct" described above above some crash data
>includes crashes within 1000' feet of RLC intersections.
original PDF's as if you read the original posts you'll see I posted all the
data for people to see as well.
gpsman
May 24, 2013, 5:12:25 PM5/24/13
to
On May 24, 9:41 am, Chicago Paddling-Fishing <j...@ripco.com> wrote:
> gpsman <gps...@driversmail.com> wrote:
> >On May 21, 1:07?am, Chicago Paddling-Fishing <j...@ripco.com> wrote:
>
> >> I know your argument is just because rear end collisions doubled (or more) at
> >> these intersections after the cameras were installed doesn't prove causation
> >> (unless of course we review the actual accident reports
> >No, my argument is motorists cause crashes; no crash is attributable
> >to any RLC.
>
> gpsman <gps...@driversmail.com> wrote:
> >On May 21, 1:07?am, Chicago Paddling-Fishing <j...@ripco.com> wrote:
>
> >> I know your argument is just because rear end collisions doubled (or more) at
> >> these intersections after the cameras were installed doesn't prove causation
> >> (unless of course we review the actual accident reports
> >No, my argument is motorists cause crashes; no crash is attributable
> >to any RLC.
>
> There tend to be many factors in an accident and equipment (both vehicle
> itself and intersection) may be a major factor.
No, there are always many factors in a crash, and the intersection
> itself and intersection) may be a major factor.
cannot be suspected as deficient unless a significant -percentage- of
motorists crash there.
> >Few motorists crash in the presence of RLCs, and RLCs have no method
> >by which to single out motorists to attack and cause to crash.
>
> You apparently chose to ignore the data as it appears rear end collisions
> double (or nearly so) after a RLC is installed.
equal, remove camera, crash occurs anyway.
And the light changes at the same instant for both motorists.
> For some of the intersections
> there were spikes in other forms of accidents, for others, the other accidents
> remained flat. Try to read the data and remember that larger numbers are
> worse than smaller numbers, think of it as golf scores...
naturally, and that relationships between small numbers produce great
percentages.
> >We don't need any data to know motorists run red lights, or have
> >little regard for traffic code in general. Speeding and following too
> >closely are ubiquitous, and increasing speed in response to yellow
> >signals and green lights recognized as stale is common.
>
> As Brent has pointed out often. Given a sufficent yellow light allows motorist
> to plan and stop.
> When a Red Light Camera is installed, motorist tend to slam
> on the brakes,
Let us assume true; why does only one motorist tend to slam on the
brakes?
Might some if not many motorists depend on the motorist to their front
for their situational awareness?
> hence the surge in rear end collisions after cameras are
> installed.
> >Do you happen to know the parameters of your acquired data? Due to
> >the "willful misconduct" described above above some crash data
> >includes crashes within 1000' feet of RLC intersections.
>
> I will have to do some digging as 2007 is several computers ago to find the
> original PDF's as if you read the original posts you'll see I posted all the
> data for people to see as well.
parameters, but the data is still irrelevant wrt crashes in which a
camera was a factor. Cameras can only be coincidental.
-----
- gpsman
gpsman
May 24, 2013, 7:44:17 PM5/24/13
to
On May 24, 5:12 pm, gpsman <gps...@driversmail.com> wrote:
> On May 24, 9:41 am, Chicago Paddling-Fishing <j...@ripco.com> wrote:
>
> > hence the surge in rear end collisions after cameras are
> > installed.
>
> Proof by assertion.
That is not proof by assertion.
> On May 24, 9:41 am, Chicago Paddling-Fishing <j...@ripco.com> wrote:
>
> > hence the surge in rear end collisions after cameras are
> > installed.
>
> Proof by assertion.
gpsman regrets the error.
-----
- gpsman
Chicago Paddling-Fishing
May 25, 2013, 2:41:58 AM5/25/13
to
gpsman <gps...@driversmail.com> wrote:
rear ends you because they are distracted. Per the NTHSA, in 2009 (the last
year they have numbers posted for), 20% of accidents were caused by distracted
drivers (they also go on to note that "distraction" is a subset of
"inattention" which also includes fatigue, physical and emotional condition
of the driver).
See table 1109 in http://www.census.gov/compendia/statab/2012/tables/12s1108.pdf
The intersection may come into play, and even a supposedly straight section of
road may come into play in the cause of an accident.
Please post data showing that "there are always many factors in a crash".
>> >Few motorists crash in the presence of RLCs, and RLCs have no method
>> >by which to single out motorists to attack and cause to crash.
>>
>> You apparently chose to ignore the data as it appears rear end collisions
>> double (or nearly so) after a RLC is installed.
>It's irrelevant. Why a motorist may brake is irrelevant. All things
>equal, remove camera, crash occurs anyway.
Please cite how one motorist braking in front of another is irrelevant to
an accident.
>And the light changes at the same instant for both motorists.
Yes and no. The perceived point of change may vary from driver to driver
based on reaction time and if they are paying attention ahead. If they
are traveling fast enough time dilation and length contraction come into
play.
>> For some of the intersections
>> there were spikes in other forms of accidents, for others, the other accidents
>> remained flat. Try to read the data and remember that larger numbers are
>> worse than smaller numbers, think of it as golf scores...
>Try to remember the number of crashes at any intersection varies
>naturally, and that relationships between small numbers produce great
>percentages.
Try to remember the phrase statistically significant... and look at numbers
that double. True, if it doubles from 1 to 2, that isn't really something
to look at, but when it averages 22 for several years and then suddenly jumps
to 45 and remains higher than the previous average, one should look for what
changed.
> > >We don't need any data to know motorists run red lights, or have
>> >little regard for traffic code in general. ?Speeding and following too
changes quickly.
>> When a Red Light Camera is installed, motorist tend to slam
>> on the brakes,
>Source?
"... Spaulding recommended the cameras be deactivated at the intersection
because there were more serious crashes caused by rear-end collisions
than were attributable to vehicles running red lights, the paper said.
The cost to run the cameras also factored into the decision."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/rosenwald-md/post/md-town-to-red-light-cameras-goodbye/2012/07/11/gJQAkUP0cW_blog.html
"... ST. PETERSBURG - Red light cameras have been up for about a year at ten
St. Petersburg intersections.
Thousands have been caught running the red lights, leading to more than
$700,000 in fines.
But City Council member Wengay Newton is wondering if the cameras are
really helping.
The data that shows that the crashes are up by ten percent does not lend
credence to the fact that we want to put nine more cameras in."
Wengay is questing why statistics involving that increase in total
crashes were left out of a 122-page report compiled by city staffers. ..."
http://www.abcactionnews.com/dpp/news/region_south_pinellas/st_petersburg/crash-numbers-questioned-in-red-light-camera-debate#ixzz2UHM8jcSK
Continue on to the KCBS/KCAL story.
>Let us assume true; why does only one motorist tend to slam on the
>brakes?
It's called distracted driving. The number one cause of accidents. See text
earlier in this posting.
>Might some if not many motorists depend on the motorist to their front
>for their situational awareness?
See distracted driving.
>> hence the surge in rear end collisions after cameras are
>> installed.
>Proof by assertion.
"... When we asked, the LAPD became very defensive. The sergeant in charge told me in an e-mail, .The city would hope that it is the goal of KCBS/KCAL to
discuss the positive aspects of the photo red light program.'
So we filed a public records request. The department charged us more than $500
for a computer run. When we got the numbers back, they told a different story.
.
.
.
Charging extravagant prices for information requests is a common tactic by
cities with ticket camera programs who are trying to hide unfavorable results
(one city recently took it one step further and just stopped keeping track
once they figured out that accidents were increasing.)
.
.
.
So why did accidents increase at camera-enforced accidents?
'People see the light flash and they slam on their brakes,' [local
attorney Sherman] Ellison said. 'That's just human nature. As a result,
more accidents, more rear end accidents..
That's what happened to Dale Stephens, who knew the yellow light up ahead
had a camera.
'Because I had that in the back of my mind I knew I had to stop. And it's
so expensive to get a ticket I knew I had to stop. Well they had no
inclination to stop,' Stephens said.
'They' are the two cars that hit him from behind.
David Goldstein: 'Do you think the red light camera caused the accident?'
Dale Stephens: 'Yes, definitely.'
He's not alone. Study after study show that red-light cameras can
actually cause accidents and some cities are taking notice. ..."
We'd call it correlation. We need more data to say causation but the people
with the data have chosen to keep it very close to the vest.
>> >Do you happen to know the parameters of your acquired data? ?Due to
>On May 24, 9:41?am, Chicago Paddling-Fishing <j...@ripco.com> wrote:
>> gpsman <gps...@driversmail.com> wrote:
>> >On May 21, 1:07?am, Chicago Paddling-Fishing <j...@ripco.com> wrote:
>>
>> >> I know your argument is just because rear end collisions doubled (or more) at
>> >> these intersections after the cameras were installed doesn't prove causation
>> >> (unless of course we review the actual accident reports
>> >No, my argument is motorists cause crashes; no crash is attributable
>> >to any RLC.
>>
>> There tend to be many factors in an accident and equipment (both vehicle
>> itself and intersection) may be a major factor.
>No, there are always many factors in a crash, and the intersection
>cannot be suspected as deficient unless a significant -percentage- of
>motorists crash there.
Not really. As an example, you can be stopped at a red light and someone
>> gpsman <gps...@driversmail.com> wrote:
>> >On May 21, 1:07?am, Chicago Paddling-Fishing <j...@ripco.com> wrote:
>>
>> >> I know your argument is just because rear end collisions doubled (or more) at
>> >> these intersections after the cameras were installed doesn't prove causation
>> >> (unless of course we review the actual accident reports
>> >No, my argument is motorists cause crashes; no crash is attributable
>> >to any RLC.
>>
>> There tend to be many factors in an accident and equipment (both vehicle
>> itself and intersection) may be a major factor.
>No, there are always many factors in a crash, and the intersection
>cannot be suspected as deficient unless a significant -percentage- of
>motorists crash there.
rear ends you because they are distracted. Per the NTHSA, in 2009 (the last
year they have numbers posted for), 20% of accidents were caused by distracted
drivers (they also go on to note that "distraction" is a subset of
"inattention" which also includes fatigue, physical and emotional condition
of the driver).
See table 1109 in http://www.census.gov/compendia/statab/2012/tables/12s1108.pdf
The intersection may come into play, and even a supposedly straight section of
road may come into play in the cause of an accident.
Please post data showing that "there are always many factors in a crash".
>> >Few motorists crash in the presence of RLCs, and RLCs have no method
>> >by which to single out motorists to attack and cause to crash.
>>
>> You apparently chose to ignore the data as it appears rear end collisions
>> double (or nearly so) after a RLC is installed.
>It's irrelevant. Why a motorist may brake is irrelevant. All things
>equal, remove camera, crash occurs anyway.
an accident.
>And the light changes at the same instant for both motorists.
based on reaction time and if they are paying attention ahead. If they
are traveling fast enough time dilation and length contraction come into
play.
>> For some of the intersections
>> there were spikes in other forms of accidents, for others, the other accidents
>> remained flat. Try to read the data and remember that larger numbers are
>> worse than smaller numbers, think of it as golf scores...
>Try to remember the number of crashes at any intersection varies
>naturally, and that relationships between small numbers produce great
>percentages.
that double. True, if it doubles from 1 to 2, that isn't really something
to look at, but when it averages 22 for several years and then suddenly jumps
to 45 and remains higher than the previous average, one should look for what
changed.
> > >We don't need any data to know motorists run red lights, or have
>> >closely are ubiquitous, and increasing speed in response to yellow
>> >signals and green lights recognized as stale is common.
>>
>> As Brent has pointed out often. Given a sufficent yellow light allows motorist
>> to plan and stop.
>And...???
And what? The goal is for motorist to safely stop. They can't when a light
>> >signals and green lights recognized as stale is common.
>>
>> As Brent has pointed out often. Given a sufficent yellow light allows motorist
>> to plan and stop.
>And...???
changes quickly.
>> When a Red Light Camera is installed, motorist tend to slam
>> on the brakes,
>Source?
because there were more serious crashes caused by rear-end collisions
than were attributable to vehicles running red lights, the paper said.
The cost to run the cameras also factored into the decision."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/rosenwald-md/post/md-town-to-red-light-cameras-goodbye/2012/07/11/gJQAkUP0cW_blog.html
"... ST. PETERSBURG - Red light cameras have been up for about a year at ten
St. Petersburg intersections.
Thousands have been caught running the red lights, leading to more than
$700,000 in fines.
But City Council member Wengay Newton is wondering if the cameras are
really helping.
The data that shows that the crashes are up by ten percent does not lend
credence to the fact that we want to put nine more cameras in."
Wengay is questing why statistics involving that increase in total
crashes were left out of a 122-page report compiled by city staffers. ..."
http://www.abcactionnews.com/dpp/news/region_south_pinellas/st_petersburg/crash-numbers-questioned-in-red-light-camera-debate#ixzz2UHM8jcSK
Continue on to the KCBS/KCAL story.
>Let us assume true; why does only one motorist tend to slam on the
>brakes?
earlier in this posting.
>Might some if not many motorists depend on the motorist to their front
>for their situational awareness?
>> hence the surge in rear end collisions after cameras are
>> installed.
>Proof by assertion.
discuss the positive aspects of the photo red light program.'
So we filed a public records request. The department charged us more than $500
for a computer run. When we got the numbers back, they told a different story.
.
.
.
Charging extravagant prices for information requests is a common tactic by
cities with ticket camera programs who are trying to hide unfavorable results
(one city recently took it one step further and just stopped keeping track
once they figured out that accidents were increasing.)
.
.
.
So why did accidents increase at camera-enforced accidents?
'People see the light flash and they slam on their brakes,' [local
attorney Sherman] Ellison said. 'That's just human nature. As a result,
more accidents, more rear end accidents..
That's what happened to Dale Stephens, who knew the yellow light up ahead
had a camera.
'Because I had that in the back of my mind I knew I had to stop. And it's
so expensive to get a ticket I knew I had to stop. Well they had no
inclination to stop,' Stephens said.
'They' are the two cars that hit him from behind.
David Goldstein: 'Do you think the red light camera caused the accident?'
Dale Stephens: 'Yes, definitely.'
He's not alone. Study after study show that red-light cameras can
actually cause accidents and some cities are taking notice. ..."
We'd call it correlation. We need more data to say causation but the people
with the data have chosen to keep it very close to the vest.
>> >Do you happen to know the parameters of your acquired data? ?Due to
>> >the "willful misconduct" described above above some crash data
>> >includes crashes within 1000' feet of RLC intersections.
>>
>> I will have to do some digging as 2007 is several computers ago to find the
>> original PDF's as if you read the original posts you'll see I posted all the
>> data for people to see as well.
>It would also be interesting to know if there have been changes to the
>parameters, but the data is still irrelevant wrt crashes in which a
>camera was a factor. Cameras can only be coincidental.
Cite.
>> >includes crashes within 1000' feet of RLC intersections.
>>
>> I will have to do some digging as 2007 is several computers ago to find the
>> original PDF's as if you read the original posts you'll see I posted all the
>> data for people to see as well.
>It would also be interesting to know if there have been changes to the
>parameters, but the data is still irrelevant wrt crashes in which a
>camera was a factor. Cameras can only be coincidental.
gpsman
May 25, 2013, 7:13:22 AM5/25/13
to
On May 25, 2:41 am, Chicago Paddling-Fishing <j...@ripco.com> wrote:
> gpsman <gps...@driversmail.com> wrote:
> >On May 24, 9:41?am, Chicago Paddling-Fishing <j...@ripco.com> wrote:
>
> >> There tend to be many factors in an accident and equipment (both vehicle
> >> itself and intersection) may be a major factor.
>
> >No, there are always many factors in a crash, and the intersection
> >cannot be suspected as deficient unless a significant -percentage- of
> >motorists crash there.
>
> Not really. As an example, you can be stopped at a red light and someone
> rear ends you because they are distracted. Per the NTHSA, in 2009 (the last
> year they have numbers posted for), 20% of accidents were caused by distracted
> drivers (they also go on to note that "distraction" is a subset of
> "inattention" which also includes fatigue, physical and emotional condition
> of the driver).
>
> See table 1109 inhttp://www.census.gov/compendia/statab/2012/tables/12s1108.pdf
> gpsman <gps...@driversmail.com> wrote:
> >On May 24, 9:41?am, Chicago Paddling-Fishing <j...@ripco.com> wrote:
>
> >> There tend to be many factors in an accident and equipment (both vehicle
> >> itself and intersection) may be a major factor.
>
> >No, there are always many factors in a crash, and the intersection
> >cannot be suspected as deficient unless a significant -percentage- of
> >motorists crash there.
>
> Not really. As an example, you can be stopped at a red light and someone
> rear ends you because they are distracted. Per the NTHSA, in 2009 (the last
> year they have numbers posted for), 20% of accidents were caused by distracted
> drivers (they also go on to note that "distraction" is a subset of
> "inattention" which also includes fatigue, physical and emotional condition
> of the driver).
>
>
> The intersection may come into play, and even a supposedly straight section of
> road may come into play in the cause of an accident.
>
> Please post data showing that "there are always many factors in a crash".
Really...? After you just posted some yourself...?
> The intersection may come into play, and even a supposedly straight section of
> road may come into play in the cause of an accident.
>
> Please post data showing that "there are always many factors in a crash".
"Many factors are associated with every traffic crash."
http://www.scienceservingsociety.com/tsd/CH04.htm
> > Why a motorist may brake is irrelevant. All things
> > equal, remove camera, crash occurs anyway.
>
> Please cite how one motorist braking in front of another is irrelevant to
> an accident.
> >And the light changes at the same instant for both motorists.
>
> Yes and no.
> The perceived point of change may vary from driver to driver
> based on reaction time and if they are paying attention ahead. If they
> are traveling fast enough time dilation and length contraction come into
> play.
> >> For some of the intersections
> >> there were spikes in other forms of accidents, for others, the other accidents
> >> remained flat. Try to read the data and remember that larger numbers are
> >> worse than smaller numbers, think of it as golf scores...
> >Try to remember the number of crashes at any intersection varies
> >naturally, and that relationships between small numbers produce great
> >percentages.
>
> Try to remember the phrase statistically significant... and look at numbers
> that double. True, if it doubles from 1 to 2, that isn't really something
> to look at, but when it averages 22 for several years and then suddenly jumps
> to 45 and remains higher than the previous average, one should look for what
> changed.
22-45 seems a large jump. In the context of the 10s and 100s of
thousands of motorists that pass the same point on the planet who do
not crash, not so much.
> > > >We don't need any data to know motorists run red lights, or have
> >> >little regard for traffic code in general. ?Speeding and following too
> >> >closely are ubiquitous, and increasing speed in response to yellow
> >> >signals and green lights recognized as stale is common.
>
> >> As Brent has pointed out often. Given a sufficent yellow light allows motorist
> >> to plan and stop.
> >And...???
>
> And what? The goal is for motorist to safely stop. They can't when a light
> changes quickly.
Are you saying you routinely run red lights because yellow intervals
are too short?
> >> When a Red Light Camera is installed, motorist tend to slam
> >> on the brakes,
> >Source?
>
> "... Spaulding recommended the cameras be deactivated at the intersection
> because there were more serious crashes caused by rear-end collisions
> than were attributable to vehicles running red lights, the paper said.
No mention of motorists tending to slam on the brakes.
> "... ST. PETERSBURG - Red light cameras have been up for about a year at ten
> St. Petersburg intersections.
>
> Thousands have been caught running the red lights, leading to more than
> $700,000 in fines.
>
> But City Council member Wengay Newton is wondering if the cameras are
> really helping.
>
> The data that shows that the crashes are up by ten percent does not lend
> credence to the fact that we want to put nine more cameras in."
>
> Wengay is questing why statistics involving that increase in total
> crashes were left out of a 122-page report compiled by city staffers. ..."
>
>
> Continue on to the KCBS/KCAL story.
No mention of motorists tending to slam on the brakes.
> Continue on to the KCBS/KCAL story.
> >Let us assume true; why does only one motorist tend to slam on the
> >brakes?
>
> It's called distracted driving. The number one cause of accidents. See text
> earlier in this posting.
Can we not deduce the distracted motorist in a rear-end crash at a
signalized intersection would have run the light and perhaps crashed,
or caused one...?
> >Might some if not many motorists depend on the motorist to their front
> >for their situational awareness?
>
> See distracted driving.
> >> hence the surge in rear end collisions after cameras are
> >> installed.
> >Proof by assertion.
>
> "... When we asked, the LAPD became very defensive. The sergeant in charge told me in an e-mail, .The city would hope that it is the goal of KCBS/KCAL to
> discuss the positive aspects of the photo red light program.'
>
> So we filed a public records request. The department charged us more than $500
> for a computer run. When we got the numbers back, they told a different story.
> .
> .
> .
> Charging extravagant prices for information requests is a common tactic by
> cities with ticket camera programs who are trying to hide unfavorable results
> (one city recently took it one step further and just stopped keeping track
> once they figured out that accidents were increasing.)
> So why did accidents increase at camera-enforced accidents?
>
> 'People see the light flash and they slam on their brakes,' [local
> attorney Sherman] Ellison said. 'That's just human nature. As a result,
> more accidents, more rear end accidents..
psychologist. Drag out some documented natural reaction for humans to
react to flashes of light by slamming on brakes, or having their legs
involuntarily extend.
RLC flashes flash indiscriminately to motorists, as traffic is stopped
and as it passes through green lights. Why don't the latter motorists
slam on the brakes?
> That's what happened to Dale Stephens, who knew the yellow light up ahead
> had a camera.
>
> 'Because I had that in the back of my mind I knew I had to stop. And it's
> so expensive to get a ticket I knew I had to stop. Well they had no
> inclination to stop,' Stephens said.
>
> 'They' are the two cars that hit him from behind.
>
> David Goldstein: 'Do you think the red light camera caused the accident?'
>
> Dale Stephens: 'Yes, definitely.'
>
> He's not alone. Study after study show that red-light cameras can
> actually cause accidents and some cities are taking notice. ..."
>
> We'd call it correlation. We need more data to say causation but the people
> with the data have chosen to keep it very close to the vest.
one, which is why you didn't cite one, and you shouldn't bother
looking for it. The conclusion is grossly fallacious.
> >> >Do you happen to know the parameters of your acquired data? ?Due to
> >> >the "willful misconduct" described above above some crash data
> >> >includes crashes within 1000' feet of RLC intersections.
>
> >> I will have to do some digging as 2007 is several computers ago to find the
> >> original PDF's as if you read the original posts you'll see I posted all the
> >> data for people to see as well.
> >It would also be interesting to know if there have been changes to the
> >parameters, but the data is still irrelevant wrt crashes in which a
> >camera was a factor. Cameras can only be coincidental.
>
> Cite.
RLCs,and RLCs have no method by which to single-out motorists to
attack and cause to crash.
Same with icy conditions, etc. The media frequently reports crashes
are caused by conditions of snow, ice, fog, etc., but these are
logical fallacies.
The preceding vehicles did not crash, and the following vehicles did
not crash. Emergency crews/cops respond to those crash sites without
crashing... so we know conditions were not the cause of the crash.
To find a condition to be the cause of a crash at minimum all like-
type vehicles subject to those same conditions must also crash.
-----
- gpsman
Chicago Paddling-Fishing
May 29, 2013, 4:29:19 AM5/29/13
to
gpsman <gps...@driversmail.com> wrote:
back to 1962 to reach conclusions doesn't really account for modern vehicles
or habits (in fact, in some of those studies predate seat belts and unleaded
gas, let alone airbags and abs).
Back in the 60's, 70's and 80's things like antilock brakes weren't available
to everyone. Also, much of your data is from the United Kingdom, and while I
love a "round-about" as much as the next guy, it really doesn't pertain to
right angle traffic accidents in the USA.
Of the 81 documents listed as sources, 2 were from 1990, the rest were from
the 1980's, 1970's and 1960's.
Data that old doesn't accurately reflect modern automobiles or distractions.
I owned a cell phone back in the 80's but if I hadn't worked at Moto on the EMX
project, I might not have. Few people had them at first as they were pricey.
Back in the late 80's it was suggested we pull over to make calls and we didn't
send text messages. We didn't have ipods and most didn't have CD players in
their cars until late 80's. There were cassettes and perhaps some left over
8tracks.
Alas, there are new distractions, texting, ipods (someone slammed into a parked
car in my neighborhood a few months back as I was out jogging and when I ran to
the car the girl was all upset about the stupid thing she just did while
reaching for her ipod which had fallen off the seat next to her).
Many causes for that accident or simply a distracted driver?
Lets look at a recent government report compiled using data from 2005 to 2007
(the modern era)
http://www-nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/Pubs/811059.PDF
"National Motor Vehicle Crash Causation Survey"
Slightly over 40% of the accidents fall into the "paying attention" category.
A little over 34% fall into decision error such as too fast, too close and
other mistakes.
Now, I know you've jumped into the logic "assertion" bandwagon repeatedly
here, but we should really be dealing with correlation and causation.
And that makes the NHTSA report good because they investigate and assign
causation to every accident in the report. We aren't left to speculate.
Causation is what we want, because that goes to numbers much more so than a
philosophical logic argument.
>> > Why a motorist may brake is irrelevant. ?All things
How is it that me hitting my brake hard in front of you won't affect your
next move? You have no choice but to react, or you will be in an accident.
>> >And the light changes at the same instant for both motorists.
>>
>> Yes and no.
>No, just yes.
From the perception of each motorist, it may not change at the same time.
Lights change when it is reconigzed to have changed.
>> The perceived point of change may vary from driver to driver
>> based on reaction time and if they are paying attention ahead. ?If they
to the light realizes it has changed. You can't run thru the vehicle in front
of you.
>> >> For some of the intersections
>> >> there were spikes in other forms of accidents, for others, the other accidents
>> >> remained flat. Try to read the data and remember that larger numbers are
>> >> worse than smaller numbers, think of it as golf scores...
>> >Try to remember the number of crashes at any intersection varies
>> >naturally, and that relationships between small numbers produce great
>> >percentages.
>>
>> Try to remember the phrase statistically significant... and look at numbers
>> that double. ?True, if it doubles from 1 to 2, that isn't really something
I would argue that in addition to the increase in accidents, traffic has
dropped. When I discover a new camera, I just change my route to avoid it.
Other people may do the same, which means the rate more than doubles in some
cases because as accidents rise, traffic drops.
>> > > >We don't need any data to know motorists run red lights, or have
>> >> >little regard for traffic code in general. ?Speeding and following too
>> >> >closely are ubiquitous, and increasing speed in response to yellow
>> >> >signals and green lights recognized as stale is common.
>>
>> >> As Brent has pointed out often. Given a sufficent yellow light allows motorist
>> >> to plan and stop.
>> >And...???
>>
>> And what? ?The goal is for motorist to safely stop. They can't when a light
and is paying attention.
>Are you saying you routinely run red lights because yellow intervals
>are too short?
I often say a little prayer as the golden caddilac screeches to a halt just
off my rear bumper because someone wasn't paying attention when the light
changed.
We shouldn't need to pray and hope nearly as often.
>> >> When a Red Light Camera is installed, motorist tend to slam
>> >> on the brakes,
>> >Source?
>>
>> "... Spaulding recommended the cameras be deactivated at the intersection
>> ? ? ?because there were more serious crashes caused by rear-end collisions
>> ? ? ?than were attributable to vehicles running red lights, the paper said.
>> ? ? ?The cost to run the cameras also factored into the decision."http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/rosenwald-md/post/md-town-to-red-...
>No mention of motorists tending to slam on the brakes.
>> "... ST. PETERSBURG - Red light cameras have been up for about a year at ten
>> ? ? ?St. Petersburg intersections.
>>
>> ? ? ?Thousands have been caught running the red lights, leading to more than
>> ? ? ?$700,000 in fines.
>>
>> ? ? ?But City Council member Wengay Newton is wondering if the cameras are
>> ? ? ?really helping.
>>
>> ? ? ?The data that shows that the crashes are up by ten percent does not lend
>> ? ? ?credence to the fact that we want to put nine more cameras in."
>>
>> ? ? ?Wengay is questing why statistics involving that increase in total
>> ? ? ?crashes were left out of ?a 122-page report compiled by city staffers. ..."
If we could you would (as you are already doing speculate everything would
go your way, just as I would mine).
Data is required for a decision, not speculation. That's what makes the other
reports handy.
>> >Might some if not many motorists depend on the motorist to their front
>> >for their situational awareness?
>>
>> See distracted driving.
>So, motorists are distracted by the vehicle to their front?
>> >> hence the surge in rear end collisions after cameras are
>> >> installed.
>> >Proof by assertion.
>>
>> "... When we asked, the LAPD became very defensive. The sergeant in charge told me in an e-mail, .The city would hope that it is the goal of KCBS/KCAL to
>> discuss the positive aspects of the photo red light program.'
>>
>> So we filed a public records request. The department charged us more than $500
>> for a computer run. When we got the numbers back, they told a different story.
>> .
>> .
>> .
>> Charging extravagant prices for information requests is a common tactic by
>> cities with ticket camera programs who are trying to hide unfavorable results
>> (one city recently took it one step further and just stopped keeping track
>> once they figured out that accidents were increasing.)
>Irrelevant, and I think you're inebriated.
I didn't make up that text, that's part of KCBS/KCAL story saying the
government charged them $500 for the info because they didn't want to give it
out, and the police complained that KCBS should focus on the positives and
ignore the negatives... not exactly what you'd want the media to do.
In my case, after supplying data for 4 intersections, I contacted IDOT for
more after I had passed the data on to NBC Kim Vatis and I was forwarded to
a supervisor who told me they were revising their policies. From that point
on I didn't get any more data from the state. When I talked to Kim she had
also contacted the state because she wanted to verify the data I had given
her and get more.
>> So why did accidents increase at camera-enforced accidents?
>>
>> ? ? 'People see the light flash and they slam on their brakes,' [local
>> ? ? attorney Sherman] Ellison said. 'That's just human nature. As a result,
>> ? ? more accidents, more rear end accidents..
>Proof by assertion. Ellison is a lawyer, not a doctor or
>psychologist. Drag out some documented natural reaction for humans to
>react to flashes of light by slamming on brakes, or having their legs
>involuntarily extend.
>RLC flashes flash indiscriminately to motorists, as traffic is stopped
>and as it passes through green lights. Why don't the latter motorists
>slam on the brakes?
>> ? ? That's what happened to Dale Stephens, who knew the yellow light up ahead
>> ? ? had a camera.
>>
>> ? ? 'Because I had that in the back of my mind I knew I had to stop. And it's
>> ? ? so expensive to get a ticket I knew I had to stop. Well they had no
>> ? ? inclination to stop,' Stephens said.
>>
>> ? ? 'They' are the two cars that hit him from behind.
>>
>> ? ? David Goldstein: 'Do you think the red light camera caused the accident?'
>>
>> ? ? Dale Stephens: 'Yes, definitely.'
>>
>> ? ? He's not alone. Study after study show that red-light cameras can
>> ? ? actually cause accidents and some cities are taking notice. ?..."
statistics.
Here is a 2011 study;
http://health.usf.edu/NR/rdonlyres/2511FA2D-6BC2-4091-9FD5-DBF711F420AA/0/2011pp00109FPHROrbanetal.pdf
Table 1 gives costs and what should probably be of most interest to you is
that the cost of accidents and injury goes up after installing a red light
camera.
This is a human cost;
* Fatalities rose from 0.50% to 0.80%.
* Incapacitating injuries rise from 7.70% to 8.50%
* Non-severe injury rose from 30.80% to 37.40%
* Weighted cost to society rose by a little over $18k
Of course, the governments collecting the fees aren't paying most of those
costs, so it's a win for them, but society as a whole bears those costs.
>> >> >Do you happen to know the parameters of your acquired data? ?Due to
>> >> >the "willful misconduct" described above above some crash data
>> >> >includes crashes within 1000' feet of RLC intersections.
>>
>> >> I will have to do some digging as 2007 is several computers ago to find the
>> >> original PDF's as if you read the original posts you'll see I posted all the
>> >> data for people to see as well.
>> >It would also be interesting to know if there have been changes to the
>> >parameters, but the data is still irrelevant wrt crashes in which a
>> >camera was a factor. ?Cameras can only be coincidental.
your view.
>Same with icy conditions, etc. The media frequently reports crashes
>are caused by conditions of snow, ice, fog, etc., but these are
>logical fallacies.
Please provide an actual citation rather than your opinion that road
conditions have no effect on accidents.
>The preceding vehicles did not crash, and the following vehicles did
>not crash. Emergency crews/cops respond to those crash sites without
>crashing... so we know conditions were not the cause of the crash.
>To find a condition to be the cause of a crash at minimum all like-
>type vehicles subject to those same conditions must also crash.
Au contrair. I've been on I-57 near Champaign in a fog/ice patch in the mid
1980's and it was like night of the living dead with cars all over the side
of the road and people wandering back and forth.
It's called a chain reaction. I don't know if I was saved by being in a
FWD car or the condition had already cleared (my girlfriend and I were in
my dad's 82 cutlass). There were probably 20 vehicles involved and I was
very happy not to be driving my pinto that day.
A road condition can affect a small number a vehicles, or a large number.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/01/15/sweden-highway-pileup_n_2481384.html
is a story about a 100+ car/truck crash this year on E4 during January on an
icy highway in Sweden
>On May 25, 2:41?am, Chicago Paddling-Fishing <j...@ripco.com> wrote:
>> gpsman <gps...@driversmail.com> wrote:
>> >On May 24, 9:41?am, Chicago Paddling-Fishing <j...@ripco.com> wrote:
>>
>> >> There tend to be many factors in an accident and equipment (both vehicle
>> >> itself and intersection) may be a major factor.
>>
>> >No, there are always many factors in a crash, and the intersection
>> >cannot be suspected as deficient unless a significant -percentage- of
>> >motorists crash there.
>>
>> Not really. As an example, you can be stopped at a red light and someone
>> rear ends you because they are distracted. ?Per the NTHSA, in 2009 (the last
>> gpsman <gps...@driversmail.com> wrote:
>> >On May 24, 9:41?am, Chicago Paddling-Fishing <j...@ripco.com> wrote:
>>
>> >> There tend to be many factors in an accident and equipment (both vehicle
>> >> itself and intersection) may be a major factor.
>>
>> >No, there are always many factors in a crash, and the intersection
>> >cannot be suspected as deficient unless a significant -percentage- of
>> >motorists crash there.
>>
>> Not really. As an example, you can be stopped at a red light and someone
>> year they have numbers posted for), 20% of accidents were caused by distracted
>> drivers (they also go on to note that "distraction" is a subset of
>> "inattention" which also includes fatigue, physical and emotional condition
>> of the driver).
>>
>> See table 1109 inhttp://www.census.gov/compendia/statab/2012/tables/12s1108.pdf
>>
>> The intersection may come into play, and even a supposedly straight section of
>> road may come into play in the cause of an accident.
>>
>> Please post data showing that "there are always many factors in a crash".
>Really...? After you just posted some yourself...?
>"Many factors are associated with every traffic crash."
>http://www.scienceservingsociety.com/tsd/CH04.htm
Certainly old data is good for somethings, but quoting a report using data
>> drivers (they also go on to note that "distraction" is a subset of
>> "inattention" which also includes fatigue, physical and emotional condition
>> of the driver).
>>
>> See table 1109 inhttp://www.census.gov/compendia/statab/2012/tables/12s1108.pdf
>>
>> The intersection may come into play, and even a supposedly straight section of
>> road may come into play in the cause of an accident.
>>
>> Please post data showing that "there are always many factors in a crash".
>Really...? After you just posted some yourself...?
>"Many factors are associated with every traffic crash."
>http://www.scienceservingsociety.com/tsd/CH04.htm
back to 1962 to reach conclusions doesn't really account for modern vehicles
or habits (in fact, in some of those studies predate seat belts and unleaded
gas, let alone airbags and abs).
Back in the 60's, 70's and 80's things like antilock brakes weren't available
to everyone. Also, much of your data is from the United Kingdom, and while I
love a "round-about" as much as the next guy, it really doesn't pertain to
right angle traffic accidents in the USA.
Of the 81 documents listed as sources, 2 were from 1990, the rest were from
the 1980's, 1970's and 1960's.
Data that old doesn't accurately reflect modern automobiles or distractions.
I owned a cell phone back in the 80's but if I hadn't worked at Moto on the EMX
project, I might not have. Few people had them at first as they were pricey.
Back in the late 80's it was suggested we pull over to make calls and we didn't
send text messages. We didn't have ipods and most didn't have CD players in
their cars until late 80's. There were cassettes and perhaps some left over
8tracks.
Alas, there are new distractions, texting, ipods (someone slammed into a parked
car in my neighborhood a few months back as I was out jogging and when I ran to
the car the girl was all upset about the stupid thing she just did while
reaching for her ipod which had fallen off the seat next to her).
Many causes for that accident or simply a distracted driver?
Lets look at a recent government report compiled using data from 2005 to 2007
(the modern era)
http://www-nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/Pubs/811059.PDF
"National Motor Vehicle Crash Causation Survey"
Slightly over 40% of the accidents fall into the "paying attention" category.
A little over 34% fall into decision error such as too fast, too close and
other mistakes.
Now, I know you've jumped into the logic "assertion" bandwagon repeatedly
here, but we should really be dealing with correlation and causation.
And that makes the NHTSA report good because they investigate and assign
causation to every accident in the report. We aren't left to speculate.
Causation is what we want, because that goes to numbers much more so than a
philosophical logic argument.
>> > Why a motorist may brake is irrelevant. ?All things
>> > equal, remove camera, crash occurs anyway.
>>
>> Please cite how one motorist braking in front of another is irrelevant to
>> an accident.
>Straw man. It's "why", not "how".
Thanks professor, but will stick with how.
>>
>> Please cite how one motorist braking in front of another is irrelevant to
>> an accident.
>Straw man. It's "why", not "how".
How is it that me hitting my brake hard in front of you won't affect your
next move? You have no choice but to react, or you will be in an accident.
>> >And the light changes at the same instant for both motorists.
>>
>> Yes and no.
>No, just yes.
Lights change when it is reconigzed to have changed.
>> The perceived point of change may vary from driver to driver
>> are traveling fast enough time dilation and length contraction come into
>> play.
>Straw man, those factors are irrelevant to the speed of light.
Those factors are not "irrelvant". The light changes when the person closest
>> play.
>Straw man, those factors are irrelevant to the speed of light.
to the light realizes it has changed. You can't run thru the vehicle in front
of you.
>> >> For some of the intersections
>> >> there were spikes in other forms of accidents, for others, the other accidents
>> >> remained flat. Try to read the data and remember that larger numbers are
>> >> worse than smaller numbers, think of it as golf scores...
>> >Try to remember the number of crashes at any intersection varies
>> >naturally, and that relationships between small numbers produce great
>> >percentages.
>>
>> Try to remember the phrase statistically significant... and look at numbers
>> to look at, but when it averages 22 for several years and then suddenly jumps
>> to 45 and remains higher than the previous average, one should look for what
>> changed.
>Might it be people are stopping for red lights...?
>22-45 seems a large jump. In the context of the 10s and 100s of
>thousands of motorists that pass the same point on the planet who do
>not crash, not so much.
Once again, the parties with that information are no longer offering it.
>> to 45 and remains higher than the previous average, one should look for what
>> changed.
>Might it be people are stopping for red lights...?
>22-45 seems a large jump. In the context of the 10s and 100s of
>thousands of motorists that pass the same point on the planet who do
>not crash, not so much.
I would argue that in addition to the increase in accidents, traffic has
dropped. When I discover a new camera, I just change my route to avoid it.
Other people may do the same, which means the rate more than doubles in some
cases because as accidents rise, traffic drops.
>> > > >We don't need any data to know motorists run red lights, or have
>> >> >little regard for traffic code in general. ?Speeding and following too
>> >> >closely are ubiquitous, and increasing speed in response to yellow
>> >> >signals and green lights recognized as stale is common.
>>
>> >> As Brent has pointed out often. Given a sufficent yellow light allows motorist
>> >> to plan and stop.
>> >And...???
>>
>> changes quickly.
>Then how are the vast majority accomplishing it?
They slam on the brakes and hope the person behind isn't following too close
>Then how are the vast majority accomplishing it?
and is paying attention.
>Are you saying you routinely run red lights because yellow intervals
>are too short?
off my rear bumper because someone wasn't paying attention when the light
changed.
We shouldn't need to pray and hope nearly as often.
>> >> When a Red Light Camera is installed, motorist tend to slam
>> >> on the brakes,
>> >Source?
>>
>> "... Spaulding recommended the cameras be deactivated at the intersection
>> ? ? ?than were attributable to vehicles running red lights, the paper said.
>> ? ? ?The cost to run the cameras also factored into the decision."http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/rosenwald-md/post/md-town-to-red-...
>No mention of motorists tending to slam on the brakes.
>> "... ST. PETERSBURG - Red light cameras have been up for about a year at ten
>>
>> ? ? ?Thousands have been caught running the red lights, leading to more than
>> ? ? ?$700,000 in fines.
>>
>> ? ? ?But City Council member Wengay Newton is wondering if the cameras are
>> ? ? ?really helping.
>>
>> ? ? ?The data that shows that the crashes are up by ten percent does not lend
>> ? ? ?credence to the fact that we want to put nine more cameras in."
>>
>> ? ? ?Wengay is questing why statistics involving that increase in total
>> ? ? ?crashes were left out of ?a 122-page report compiled by city staffers. ..."
>>
>> http://www.abcactionnews.com/dpp/news/region_south_pinellas/st_peters...
>>
>> Continue on to the KCBS/KCAL story.
>No mention of motorists tending to slam on the brakes.
>> >Let us assume true; why does only one motorist tend to slam on the
>> >brakes?
>>
>> It's called distracted driving. The number one cause of accidents. See text
>> earlier in this posting.
>So... how is that the fault of the camera...???
>Can we not deduce the distracted motorist in a rear-end crash at a
>signalized intersection would have run the light and perhaps crashed,
>or caused one...?
We can't speculate that any more than we can speculate on an accident cause.
>> http://www.abcactionnews.com/dpp/news/region_south_pinellas/st_peters...
>>
>> Continue on to the KCBS/KCAL story.
>No mention of motorists tending to slam on the brakes.
>> >Let us assume true; why does only one motorist tend to slam on the
>> >brakes?
>>
>> It's called distracted driving. The number one cause of accidents. See text
>> earlier in this posting.
>So... how is that the fault of the camera...???
>Can we not deduce the distracted motorist in a rear-end crash at a
>signalized intersection would have run the light and perhaps crashed,
>or caused one...?
If we could you would (as you are already doing speculate everything would
go your way, just as I would mine).
Data is required for a decision, not speculation. That's what makes the other
reports handy.
>> >Might some if not many motorists depend on the motorist to their front
>> >for their situational awareness?
>>
>> See distracted driving.
>So, motorists are distracted by the vehicle to their front?
>> >> hence the surge in rear end collisions after cameras are
>> >> installed.
>> >Proof by assertion.
>>
>> "... When we asked, the LAPD became very defensive. The sergeant in charge told me in an e-mail, .The city would hope that it is the goal of KCBS/KCAL to
>> discuss the positive aspects of the photo red light program.'
>>
>> So we filed a public records request. The department charged us more than $500
>> for a computer run. When we got the numbers back, they told a different story.
>> .
>> .
>> .
>> Charging extravagant prices for information requests is a common tactic by
>> cities with ticket camera programs who are trying to hide unfavorable results
>> (one city recently took it one step further and just stopped keeping track
>> once they figured out that accidents were increasing.)
>Irrelevant, and I think you're inebriated.
government charged them $500 for the info because they didn't want to give it
out, and the police complained that KCBS should focus on the positives and
ignore the negatives... not exactly what you'd want the media to do.
In my case, after supplying data for 4 intersections, I contacted IDOT for
more after I had passed the data on to NBC Kim Vatis and I was forwarded to
a supervisor who told me they were revising their policies. From that point
on I didn't get any more data from the state. When I talked to Kim she had
also contacted the state because she wanted to verify the data I had given
her and get more.
>> So why did accidents increase at camera-enforced accidents?
>>
>> ? ? attorney Sherman] Ellison said. 'That's just human nature. As a result,
>> ? ? more accidents, more rear end accidents..
>Proof by assertion. Ellison is a lawyer, not a doctor or
>psychologist. Drag out some documented natural reaction for humans to
>react to flashes of light by slamming on brakes, or having their legs
>involuntarily extend.
>RLC flashes flash indiscriminately to motorists, as traffic is stopped
>and as it passes through green lights. Why don't the latter motorists
>slam on the brakes?
>> ? ? had a camera.
>>
>> ? ? 'Because I had that in the back of my mind I knew I had to stop. And it's
>> ? ? so expensive to get a ticket I knew I had to stop. Well they had no
>> ? ? inclination to stop,' Stephens said.
>>
>> ? ? 'They' are the two cars that hit him from behind.
>>
>> ? ? David Goldstein: 'Do you think the red light camera caused the accident?'
>>
>> ? ? Dale Stephens: 'Yes, definitely.'
>>
>> ? ? He's not alone. Study after study show that red-light cameras can
>> ? ? actually cause accidents and some cities are taking notice. ?..."
>>
>> We'd call it correlation. We need more data to say causation but the people
>> with the data have chosen to keep it very close to the vest.
>Proof by assertion. No study finds a RLC caused a single crash, not
>one, which is why you didn't cite one, and you shouldn't bother
>looking for it. The conclusion is grossly fallacious.
Well, once again lets drop philisophic argument style and move to a truer
>> We'd call it correlation. We need more data to say causation but the people
>> with the data have chosen to keep it very close to the vest.
>Proof by assertion. No study finds a RLC caused a single crash, not
>one, which is why you didn't cite one, and you shouldn't bother
>looking for it. The conclusion is grossly fallacious.
statistics.
Here is a 2011 study;
http://health.usf.edu/NR/rdonlyres/2511FA2D-6BC2-4091-9FD5-DBF711F420AA/0/2011pp00109FPHROrbanetal.pdf
Table 1 gives costs and what should probably be of most interest to you is
that the cost of accidents and injury goes up after installing a red light
camera.
This is a human cost;
* Fatalities rose from 0.50% to 0.80%.
* Incapacitating injuries rise from 7.70% to 8.50%
* Non-severe injury rose from 30.80% to 37.40%
* Weighted cost to society rose by a little over $18k
Of course, the governments collecting the fees aren't paying most of those
costs, so it's a win for them, but society as a whole bears those costs.
>> >> >Do you happen to know the parameters of your acquired data? ?Due to
>> >> >the "willful misconduct" described above above some crash data
>> >> >includes crashes within 1000' feet of RLC intersections.
>>
>> >> I will have to do some digging as 2007 is several computers ago to find the
>> >> original PDF's as if you read the original posts you'll see I posted all the
>> >> data for people to see as well.
>> >It would also be interesting to know if there have been changes to the
>> >parameters, but the data is still irrelevant wrt crashes in which a
>>
>> Cite.
>The vast majority of motorists do not crash in the presence of
>RLCs,and RLCs have no method by which to single-out motorists to
>attack and cause to crash.
Your opinion isn't a citation. Please provide a citation to a study backing
>> Cite.
>The vast majority of motorists do not crash in the presence of
>RLCs,and RLCs have no method by which to single-out motorists to
>attack and cause to crash.
your view.
>Same with icy conditions, etc. The media frequently reports crashes
>are caused by conditions of snow, ice, fog, etc., but these are
>logical fallacies.
conditions have no effect on accidents.
>The preceding vehicles did not crash, and the following vehicles did
>not crash. Emergency crews/cops respond to those crash sites without
>crashing... so we know conditions were not the cause of the crash.
>To find a condition to be the cause of a crash at minimum all like-
>type vehicles subject to those same conditions must also crash.
1980's and it was like night of the living dead with cars all over the side
of the road and people wandering back and forth.
It's called a chain reaction. I don't know if I was saved by being in a
FWD car or the condition had already cleared (my girlfriend and I were in
my dad's 82 cutlass). There were probably 20 vehicles involved and I was
very happy not to be driving my pinto that day.
A road condition can affect a small number a vehicles, or a large number.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/01/15/sweden-highway-pileup_n_2481384.html
is a story about a 100+ car/truck crash this year on E4 during January on an
icy highway in Sweden
gpsman
May 30, 2013, 9:48:31 AM5/30/13
to
On May 29, 4:29 am, Chicago Paddling-Fishing <j...@ripco.com> wrote:
> gpsman <gps...@driversmail.com> wrote:
> >The vast majority of motorists do not crash in the presence of
> >RLCs,and RLCs have no method by which to single-out motorists to
> >attack and cause to crash.
>
> Your opinion isn't a citation. Please provide a citation to a study backing
> your view.
It's self-evident.
> gpsman <gps...@driversmail.com> wrote:
> >The vast majority of motorists do not crash in the presence of
> >RLCs,and RLCs have no method by which to single-out motorists to
> >attack and cause to crash.
>
> Your opinion isn't a citation. Please provide a citation to a study backing
> your view.
> >Same with icy conditions, etc. The media frequently reports crashes
> >are caused by conditions of snow, ice, fog, etc., but these are
> >logical fallacies.
>
> Please provide an actual citation rather than your opinion that road
> conditions have no effect on accidents.
the cause.
> >The preceding vehicles did not crash, and the following vehicles did
> >not crash. Emergency crews/cops respond to those crash sites without
> >crashing... so we know conditions were not the cause of the crash.
> >To find a condition to be the cause of a crash at minimum all like-
> >type vehicles subject to those same conditions must also crash.
>
> Au contrair. I've been on I-57 near Champaign in a fog/ice patch in the mid
> 1980's and it was like night of the living dead with cars all over the side
> of the road and people wandering back and forth.
> It's called a chain reaction.
> I don't know if I was saved by being in a
> FWD car or the condition had already cleared (my girlfriend and I were in
> my dad's 82 cutlass). There were probably 20 vehicles involved and I was
> very happy not to be driving my pinto that day.
> A road condition can affect a small number a vehicles, or a large number.
>
> is a story about a 100+ car/truck crash this year on E4 during January on an
> icy highway in Sweden
Weather is a factor, not a cause, nitwit. You don't know how many
> icy highway in Sweden
vehicles had marginal brakes, improperly inflated tires, snow/ice
covered windshields, ad infinitum.
-----
- gpsman
Chicago Paddling-Fishing
Jun 22, 2013, 3:39:46 AM6/22/13
to
gpsman <gps...@driversmail.com> wrote:
>On May 29, 4:29 am, Chicago Paddling-Fishing <j...@ripco.com> wrote:
>> gpsman <gps...@driversmail.com> wrote:
refute, so you tried to hide it without comment, so let me add it back for you
to ponder once again as we go down the logical folly of attempting to argune
statisical causation thru logic...
http://www-nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/Pubs/811059.PDF
"National Motor Vehicle Crash Causation Survey"
Slightly over 40% of the accidents fall into the "paying attention" category.
A little over 34% fall into decision error such as too fast, too close and
other mistakes.
has components over 50 years old.
>> >The vast majority of motorists do not crash in the presence of
>> >attack and cause to crash.
>>
>> Your opinion isn't a citation. Please provide a citation to a study backing
>> your view.
>It's self-evident.
Actually, the government claims you are incorrect;
>>
>> Your opinion isn't a citation. Please provide a citation to a study backing
>> your view.
>It's self-evident.
"... suburbs have not caught up to Chicago's aggressive campaign to blanket accident-prone intersections with red-light cameras. ..."
http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2009-01-26/news/0901250693_1_red-light-tickets-red-light-cameras-bus-drivers
Per the city, they are installing RLC's at "accident prone intersections".
If they are accident prone, that implies they have a higher number of accidents
than a non-accident prone intersection.
Are we good on that professor?
"Accident prone" means more accidents, not less. Majority = more.
Is your claim most accidents happen in the middle of the block?
You need to put up a citation to this claim.
>> >Same with icy conditions, etc. ?The media frequently reports crashes
>> >are caused by conditions of snow, ice, fog, etc., but these are
>> >logical fallacies.
>>
>> Please provide an actual citation rather than your opinion that road
>> conditions have no effect on accidents.
>Straw man. I didn't say they were not factors, I said they were not
>the cause.
Except, you ignored the citation which contains causations.
>> >logical fallacies.
>>
>> Please provide an actual citation rather than your opinion that road
>> conditions have no effect on accidents.
>Straw man. I didn't say they were not factors, I said they were not
>the cause.
Remember, correlation does not yield causation.
Please, look up the defination of "causation" and reread the report titled
"National Motor Vehicle Crash Causation Survey".
>> >The preceding vehicles did not crash, and the following vehicles did
>> >crashing... so we know conditions were not the cause of the crash.
>> >To find a condition to be the cause of a crash at minimum all like-
>> >type vehicles subject to those same conditions must also crash.
>>
>> Au contrair. I've been on I-57 near Champaign in a fog/ice patch in the mid
>> 1980's and it was like night of the living dead with cars all over the side
>> of the road and people wandering back and forth.
>Which side of the road did you crash on?
The cause may have been fog which had already cleared when I arrived.
>> >To find a condition to be the cause of a crash at minimum all like-
>> >type vehicles subject to those same conditions must also crash.
>>
>> Au contrair. I've been on I-57 near Champaign in a fog/ice patch in the mid
>> 1980's and it was like night of the living dead with cars all over the side
>> of the road and people wandering back and forth.
>Which side of the road did you crash on?
In the report I listed, it might be listed in the table;
"Critical Pre-Crash Event of Vehicles with Critical Reasons "
>> It's called a chain reaction.
>The result is called a chain reaction, not the cause.
"Critical Reasons for Critical Pre-Crash Event Attributed to Drivers"
>> I don't know if I was saved by being in a
>> FWD car or the condition had already cleared (my girlfriend and I were in
>> my dad's 82 cutlass). There were probably 20 vehicles involved and I was
>> very happy not to be driving my pinto that day.
>Oh. So, the fog/ice didn't attack you... but you don't know why...?
Roadway and Atmospheric Conditions " may have already subsided by the time
I arrived. That is another table in the report.
>> A road condition can affect a small number a vehicles, or a large number.
>>
>> http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/01/15/sweden-highway-pileup_n_2481...
>> is a story about a 100+ car/truck crash this year on E4 during January on an
>> icy highway in Sweden
>Weather is a factor, not a cause, nitwit. You don't know how many
>vehicles had marginal brakes, improperly inflated tires, snow/ice
>covered windshields, ad infinitum.
Did you read " Weighted Frequencies of Crash-Involved Drivers of Case Vehicles
by Age and Interior Non- Driving Activities "?
0 new messages