4 ms·

Any chance you can link to the evidence that the cameras reduce deaths?

tialaramex 2y ago
Here's a study performed in the US, specifically Pennsylvania https://www.iihs.org/topics/bibliography/ref/1820 https://www.iihs.org/topics/bibliography/ref/1820
- cosmotic 2y ago
  The executive summary says it reduced the number of people running through the red light, but it doesn't indicate the impact on accidents or safety.
  - tialaramex 2y ago
    That's correct. The paper assumes that we understand that compliance results in safety. From your response I gather you want to disagree?
    - cosmotic 2y ago
      I think it's probably the most important and powerful statistic they could have published, if it were true. Its ommission implies to me that it does not increase safety.
      - tialaramex 2y ago
        The problem is that you'd need a much bigger experiment to get a statistically significant result on the axis you've decided matters instead, and yet you've got no argument for why this much more expensive and longer experiment is needed beyond that you're not convinced.
        cosmotic 2y ago
        Matters instead? I feel like it's the only statistic that matters here. Here's the reason: if it makes a negative impact on safety, the cameras should certainly be removed, and if it makes no impact on safety, the money to install those cameras and monitor them should be spent on something that does have a positive impact on safety. Otherwise, it's just a cash grab and safety theater. The state of Illinois specially requires a statistical analysis to prove they don't make a negative impact on safety. As far as I know, the cities that have the cameras haven't done the required analysis; I've inquired with a few. I'm not sure why you think it would be more expensive to study the safety. I'm sure police have the data. Are accidents just so rare both before and after install that there's no chance of achieving statistical significance? That just seems like reason enough to abandon the project.
        tialaramex 2y ago
        > I'm not sure why you think it would be more expensive to study the safety. Because you'd have to run a much larger experiment. The end point you're measuring (RTAs or possibly deaths depending) is significantly rarer than just running a light. But you're still trying to collect enough data to achieve confidence, so you'll need a larger experiment. My very strong impression is that your priorities are messed up and what you're looking for isn't safety at all, so that no matter what studies are done you'll find another excuse as to why enforcement isn't a good idea, at which point of course any further study is a waste of their time. For example you suggest in this comment that somehow police data would be good enough, and Chicago has police data showing the same thing, but no doubt you'll say you have a different reason why Chicago's police data doesn't satisfy you.
        cosmotic 2y ago
        I'm sorry, I thought I was clear. My priority is the safety. I don't like the Chicago police data because it fails to address the safety.

Here's a study performed in the US, specifically Pennsylvania https://www.iihs.org/topics/bibliography/ref/1820 https://www.iihs.org/topics/bibliography/ref/1820

cosmotic 2y ago
The executive summary says it reduced the number of people running through the red light, but it doesn't indicate the impact on accidents or safety.
- tialaramex 2y ago
  That's correct. The paper assumes that we understand that compliance results in safety. From your response I gather you want to disagree?
  - cosmotic 2y ago
    I think it's probably the most important and powerful statistic they could have published, if it were true. Its ommission implies to me that it does not increase safety.
    - tialaramex 2y ago
      The problem is that you'd need a much bigger experiment to get a statistically significant result on the axis you've decided matters instead, and yet you've got no argument for why this much more expensive and longer experiment is needed beyond that you're not convinced.
      - cosmotic 2y ago
        Matters instead? I feel like it's the only statistic that matters here. Here's the reason: if it makes a negative impact on safety, the cameras should certainly be removed, and if it makes no impact on safety, the money to install those cameras and monitor them should be spent on something that does have a positive impact on safety. Otherwise, it's just a cash grab and safety theater. The state of Illinois specially requires a statistical analysis to prove they don't make a negative impact on safety. As far as I know, the cities that have the cameras haven't done the required analysis; I've inquired with a few. I'm not sure why you think it would be more expensive to study the safety. I'm sure police have the data. Are accidents just so rare both before and after install that there's no chance of achieving statistical significance? That just seems like reason enough to abandon the project.
        tialaramex 2y ago
        > I'm not sure why you think it would be more expensive to study the safety. Because you'd have to run a much larger experiment. The end point you're measuring (RTAs or possibly deaths depending) is significantly rarer than just running a light. But you're still trying to collect enough data to achieve confidence, so you'll need a larger experiment. My very strong impression is that your priorities are messed up and what you're looking for isn't safety at all, so that no matter what studies are done you'll find another excuse as to why enforcement isn't a good idea, at which point of course any further study is a waste of their time. For example you suggest in this comment that somehow police data would be good enough, and Chicago has police data showing the same thing, but no doubt you'll say you have a different reason why Chicago's police data doesn't satisfy you.
        cosmotic 2y ago
        I'm sorry, I thought I was clear. My priority is the safety. I don't like the Chicago police data because it fails to address the safety.