Talk:Speed limit enforcement

Page contents not supported in other languages.
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

New article

New article created with content of 'Speed limit enforcment' section of Traffic enforcement camera following discussion on associated talk page. PeterEastern (talk)

There is
speed trap to get this started. The existing content moved into this article is disjointed, incorrect or places undue weight on particular local issues, so it's also going to need a Herculean cleanup. Socrates2008 (Talk) 00:56, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply
]
Yes, Hercules will be busy. I agree with such a merge. This article has a much better title and would seem to be a good umbrella term for the activity that includes speed traps, which is very much a slang or jargon term - not good for Wikipedia. HiLo48 (talk) 03:10, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • To be clear I had to do a lot of work to even pull all the content about speed limit enforcement together into one section in Traffic enforcement camera! Now that we have almost all the content into one place we can work on it. PeterEastern (talk) 05:41, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Headings for individual countries?

I am sure there is a name for it, but this article (and also Speed trap) both have lots of details associated with individual countries and such lists tend to grow as with the

Highways before I spun such content out into Highway systems by country which was a bit brutal but seemed to be necessary. There are already headings for a number of countries and more will be added by the potential merge from Speed Trap. Some of these details (such as the legal challenge of Speed Camera Partnerships in the UK) have general relevance and should probably be integrated into an appropriate main section but I propose that we avoid headings for countries in the final article. Possibly we could pass the detail to a Speed limit enforcement by country article if it is considered notable? PeterEastern (talk) 05:43, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply
]

Article structure

I have had a brief look through the content and am starting to think about a suitable structure. Here are my initial thoughts:

  • History - to give a historical perspective with examples from different places at different times including key new technologies and a few legal/legislative events. Current too UK centric
  • Motivation - A brief description of why speed limits are used and why they need to be enforced and what other approaches (such as traffic calming) can be used.
  • Detection/Measurement/Method - To cover the main methods of collecting evidence, not sure what the title should be. Each main technology should probably have its own article with all the detail (and many already do). This section should probably also discuss the reliability, effectiveness and accuracy of each technology given that the these aspects are likely to vary considerably between types.
  • Effectiveness - where speed cameras are used do they reduce speeding, casualties, how many people are caught, what fines are raised etc?
  • Politics/Legislation - Again, not sure about the title for this one, but this section would cover the political discussions about whether they are used, whether they are marked (in the UK they have to be bright yellow), issues about 'only doing it as a revenue earner' etc. This section could also possibly cover the EU Human Rights challenge and questions about compatibility with various constitutions and places where speed limits cameras have been banned or removed.
  • Avoidance/evasion - covering all the ways in which people try to avoid being caught (legal and otherwise)

--PeterEastern (talk) 06:41, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Controversial"=POV

The Acme-Rent-a-Car episode was most certainly controversial, by any measure. It enjoyed wide press coverage at the time, privacy and civil liberty advocates were up in arms, courts ruled in favour of plaintiffs and academic papers (one of them cited) have been written about the implications to society of the approach. So use of the adjective "controversial" is not

POV usage here. Socrates2008 (Talk
)

I think we have to be really careful in Wikipedia with any adjective that describes behaviour. It's usually unnecessary because the rest of the text tells the story anyway. However, the emphasis was also wrong. I've changed the article, with the word still there, although I would prefer to take it out. Many companies that hire out/rent out vehicles use GPS to track their vehicles. It's usually recognised as the right of an owner. What is the more sensitive issue is how the data is used, and that was the problem in this case. HiLo48 (talk) 10:27, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks - I'm good with your last edit. Socrates2008 (Talk) 10:59, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed move of UK enforcement section

We (Defacto and myself) propose that we move the expansive UK enforcement section to the Road speed limits in the United Kingdom article and just keep a stub here. PeterEastern (talk) 10:06, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Agree. Socrates2008 (Talk)

Badly sourced POV addition

User John Nevard has added this to the History section...

"On May 2 2011, members of the Victorian Police union voted to take strike action, which included flashing their headlights and emergency ligths at cars to warn them of the presence of speed cameras, promoting road safety without the government collecting revenue from motorists."

I reverted it with the Edit summary "That's incredibly poorly reported. It's NOT a strike. It's just as much a whinge about their boss. And 2,000 members is only one sixth of the Force! Not a meaningful vote". That is a far more realistic description of what's going on here.

It is sourced to two newspapers not even published in the state of Victoria, and my Edit summary describes my thoughts on this addition.

This material is clearly being added with POV intent. I am very uncomfortable with it becoming part of this article.

HiLo48 (talk) 11:26, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see any mention of 'a whinge' in the reliable sources I added. I believe a newspaper in New South Wales is quite capable of reporting on events in Adelaide, as they would be similarly capable of reporting on events in Arizona or Abu Dhabi. Nevard (talk) 02:00, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
And that shows how out of touch you are. The story is about police in the state of Victoria, Australia. Adelaide in another state all together. You have not responded to most of the points I have made, and where you did, you got it wrong. You obviously know nothing of the broader conflicts happening between members and police command in the state involved, which are highly relevant to the actions being threatened, which are clearly NOT a strike, as your addition claims. HiLo48 (talk) 08:28, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not really interested in original research about some context that you say is there. The references are in reliable sources and they support the content. Nevard (talk) 02:28, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
A refusal to discuss, combined with an instant revert, is equivalent to vandalism. I suggest you wait for other editors to join this discussion. I'm keen to hear others' views. How about you? HiLo48 (talk) 08:12, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not refusing to discuss. You are. Where have you contributed to improving the content.. if there is anything to support your position? Where have you found reliable sources to back up your position? Twinkle is a tool used to revert vandalism, not the addition of real content that you seem reluctant to contribute to. I'm not going to restore the real content I added and that you are reluctant to discuss to the article again, as I have no desire to join you in violating the
3RR. Nevard (talk) 08:52, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply
]
I for one, cannot see the relevance of the addition however sourced it may be. It's really not that important or notable for an understanding of the topic at hand, looks more like
WP:Coatracking than vandalism though. Still it doesn't belong here. Alex Sims (talk) 11:08, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply
]
I apologise for not having the time recently to fully address this issue so far. Like Alex Sims, I wonder what the purpose of this addition is. This article's history reaks of POV additions based on inadequate sources. We had two sources here. One called it a strike. The other very explicitly said it wasn't a strike, The content was added claiming it was a strike. With sources like that, and interpretations like that, it's very questionable. I first heard of this "action" by Victoria Police in an ABC radio news service, where the reason for the action was said to be the dramas of police command, nothing to do with the pay claim. And 2000 votes out of 12,000 police is NOT convincing. In fact, one could argue that 10,000 out of 12,000 did not support the action. So why add this stuff at all? HiLo48 (talk) 11:41, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I would have deleted the re-insertion but was beaten to it. This could be looked at again after June 7th, for the meantime remember that Wikipedia is not a
crystal ball. Some police might take industrial action where some of the things they do might change as a result. Too many somes and speculation about what might happen at some point in the future, which keeps moving. Alex Sims (talk) 04:50, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply
]
I also see this as a trivial, temporary one off event, much more related to the industrial action than speed limit enforcement. The Police are not arguing for any permanent or long term change. That in itself rather defeats the obvious POV intentions of those wanting it in the article. HiLo48 (talk) 04:59, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

DeFacto's Stupid Edit summary justifying a POV change

DeFacto insists that a road toll reduction in Victoria, Australia was not "achieved", but just, sort of, happened. (Even though the use of "achieved" is very common usage in this context.) His Edit summary said that it was "certainly not by any effort, skill or courage on behalf of 'Victoria' ". This is just plain stupid, insulting, and shows massive bias and/or ignorance. The Victorian government has made huge efforts over 50 years to reduce the road toll. It began with being the first place in the world to make seat belt wearing compulsory, and continued with many further efforts, almost mercilessly against people like DeFacto who seem to hate any action that slows drivers down. I won't revert now, because I don't want a revert war or to go near 3RR.

He took offence at some words I posted on his Talk page accusing him of taking a very biased and ignorant position. Perhaps I went a little over the top, but he had insulted thousands of people who have worked very hard to reduce the road toll. Most of those words are now here.

Had he not used such a stupid Edit summary as justification, I might have ignored his change, but now that his motives and POV are more clearly on display, it really needs to be changed back.

He claims he wants to make the article better, but only posts anti-speed enforcement material. Taking such an obvious POV will not improve the article. HiLo48 (talk) 07:56, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Road toll statistics fluctuate from day to day, week to week, month to month and year to year. Recently the overall trend has been downwards. There are many factors involved including vehicle design, road system design, driver abilities and attitudes, etc. To cherry-pick one snapshot of the data and to then characterise (with no supporting reliable source) the fact that the results were better than ever before as an "achievement" of just one of the bodies involved and to attempt to associate that result with just one of the potential influencing factors is, at best, non-neutral. For that reason I edited-out that verb and that implication.
I won't comment further on the personal attack and apparent attempt to discredit my contribution by misrepresenting my views and motives which is also present in HiLo48's above statements, other than to suggest that it is withdrawn.
-- de Facto (talk). 08:45, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You are arguing with common usage, a point I raised, and you have ignored. You do not discuss matters. You ignore what others post, and simply spout dishonest and illogical dogma from organisations who don't want stronger road policing. Please discuss, not just tell. HiLo48 (talk) 08:52, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not arguing with common usage, I'm arguing against the non-neutral language used. The use of the verb achieve implies a cause and effect which simply has not been demonstrated. If you can justify (including appropriate reliable sources) the use of that verb please do - otherwise please accept the NPOV version. -- de Facto (talk). 09:23, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry but I don't see "Victoria achieved" as a POV, a low road toll was achieved whether by speed limit enforcement or just by chance (two years in a row), stating it was by chance and rewording is in fact your POV. Bidgee (talk) 09:04, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I see that you have restored the content that we are unhappy with. Do you believe that the use of that word in that context, and especially given the reservations that others have expressed over its use, improves the quality of the article? Perhaps a less controversial wording, one that we all feel comfortable with, would have been a more constructive edit - what do you think? -- de Facto (talk). 09:36, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"We"? I'm sorry but I only see one editor who is unhappy. A low road toll was achieved, If it stated that "Speed limit enforcement achieved a record low road toll in Victoria", you would have had a case but "Victoria achieved" is hardly controversial. Bidgee (talk) 09:41, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The plural "we", yes. Perhaps you haven't been following this one too closely and missed this edit by Proverbtalvin. The word implies a non-neutral and over simplified interpretation of the many and complex factors involved. There are more acceptable ways of saying what has happened - why not use one of those and attempt to avoid any misunderstandings? -- de Facto (talk). 09:53, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No I didn't see that edit but that wasn't really a good reason to change it. I'm not going to repeat what I've already stated more then once! Bidgee (talk) 10:05, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
So would you now be happy to accept a sentence conveying the essential facts, but without the use of that particular word that we have objected to? -- de Facto (talk). 11:01, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I never said that I support Proverbtalvin's or your change in wording, I see no issues with "Victoria achieved", as it (lowest road toll) happened (whether speed limit enforcement played a major part or not) and isn't a POV. I don't know why I have to keep repeating myself. Bidgee (talk) 11:33, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You appear to have misunderstood my question. As at least two of us have expressed reservations about the current wording of that sentence, I was wondering if you would accept a sentence which gave the same factual information (that the toll was at an all-time low), but which did not contain that ambiguous/controversial use of the verb "achieve"? If not, why not? -- de Facto (talk). 12:11, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The word "achieved" is neither controversial nor ambiguous. It is very common usage in this context. The only reason I can imagine that you want it removed is that you want to take all credit for the lower road toll away from the state. That would be an extremist, insulting, POV position. You are soapboxing. HiLo48 (talk) 17:55, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If support can be provided for the implication that no-one and nothing other than the state played any part in the reduction then a suitable cite should be provided and the statement, and that implicit POV, will stand unchallenged. If there is no such support, then the statement needs to be be re-written to reflect a more neutral, and more realistic POV. -- de Facto (talk). 18:43, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's absolute rubbish. Simply because the state DID have something to do with it (which is obvious, like the sky is blue, and doesn't need sourcing) the use of the word is justified. I say again (and you do force people to repeat themselves), IT IS COMMON USAGE! Your position demonstrates a ridiculously narrow POV and is being shown to be more fringe and extreme with everything you post. HiLo48 (talk) 20:54, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's non-neutral POV, and have explained why. You stubbornly refuse to contemplate a more neutral and more acceptable wording - apparently because of your personal prejudices. You have even resorted to
incivility and ad hominem in your desperate attempts to counter my points. I guess therefore that you have no rational reason against a subtle change of the wording to a more genuinely neutral form. -- de Facto (talk). 08:20, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply
]
DeFacto, I think you are misinterpreting what is "Victoria". It could be the government(politicians), the people(citizens) or the police/hospitals(public servants). Whoever contributed is to be congratulated, particularly as it represents an even more substantial reduction of both deaths per vehicle/km and deaths per head of population which (I think) are more relevant measures. Any reasonable person would regard a reduction in number of deaths as desirable and something to be strived for and hence "achieved". Alex Sims (talk) 09:14, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No, I get what 'Victoria' implies - although I agree even that is ambigous. My main concern is the implication of the use of the verb 'achieve'. Its Oxford Dictionaries definition being: "successfully bring about or reach (a desired objective or result) by effort, skill, or courage". Victoria (people, government or whatever) were not the only, or even necessarily the main reason why that year's toll was so low. Another word or even an altered phrasing could clarify it and give a more neutral and thus acceptable message. -- de Facto (talk). 09:36, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • The disputed expression "Victoria achieved record low road tolls" is not good in this context. "The state of Victoria recorded low death rates on its roads" is better (removing ambiguity as to what Victoria is and what the toll here refers to.) Certainly the good people of Victoria can be pleased that the trend is down. But its down in many places in the world. And if you read respectable risk research (Adams, et al) you will see that Victoria's traffic dept has an unfortunate history of attributing its good progress to certain interventions without developing strong evidence for their conclusions. (Examine the introduction of seat belt legislation, for example.) So, although WP can repeat reputable sources, we should not blindly repeat this mistake and hence we can maintain NPOV. Ephebi (talk) 09:07, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You have it all wrong. It is NOT appropraite to imply that we are just talking about the "state" (=governemnt). That just gives you the tiniest, but still invalid, justification to remove "achievement". The massive reduction in Victoria's road toll over the past 50 years is due to efforts by successive governments (of different parties), many public servants, academics (particularly at the Monash University Accident Research Centre), major newspapers, and the bulk of the general public. You are grasping at straws. It is insulting to all of those people that you want to claim otherwise due to your fringe views on this matter. Take your speeding desires and poor logic to somewhere else where they're welcome HiLo48 (talk) 10:28, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
(Direct reply on HiLo's talk page). Your recent edits are based on a popular newspaper report quoting some police publicity, not a quality report from an expert traffic accident research body. You are trying to introduce a new claim into this article where there appears to be no better facts than second-hand hearsay. To make this article anything more than a report of a particular POV it is for editors to show that the reasoning for the welcome drop in fatalities is anything more than PR spin. So, if you do have access to better sources that show a clear contribution then please, please add it as it will be a valuable contribution to the article.
Also note that it is a tenet of WP to AGF, and I ask you learn a bit of civility when addressing other editors. For that reason I have removed the perjorative description of this sub-heading. Ephebi (talk) 13:22, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You have made a foolish assumption (about what my recent edits are based on). You are just plain wrong. And DeFacto's WAS a stupid Edit summary (Did you actually read it?), so I have restored MY comments on the Talk page. (Polite Wikipedia editors never change others' words here). HiLo48 (talk) 19:18, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Now, after two and half days of no further contribution to the discussion here, DeFacto has just added neutrality and relevance tags to the part of the article he doesn't like. The latter tag asks for discussion. Anyone reading this discussion will see how silly that request is. And since I was motivated to start this discussion and then criticised for calling his earlier Edit summary stupid, I just have to quote his new one here - "2008 toll is not related to speed limit enforcement". I really cannot comprehend how anyone can claim that the road toll is not related to speed limit enforcement, especially in the state of Victoria, Australia. I will remove the tags he has added. If he is unhappy with that he can rejoin the Discussion he apparently craves. HiLo48 (talk) 22:30, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dispute #1 - POV neutrality

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

I have re-added the 'neutrality is disputed' tag which was prematurely removed by HiLo48. The reason I added it is that there is currently a disagreement about the use of the word "achieved" in that context. Currently there is no consensus about the wording, and certainly no consensus that that word is appropriate, so the neutrality dispute is still unresolved. Until the dispute is resolved the tag should be left in place. Let's attempt to agree upon an acceptle wording rather than warring over this please.

How about: "The state of Victoria recorded record low road tolls in..." - similar to Ephebi's suggestion? Just the straight facts with no ambiguity or one-sided POV. -- de Facto (talk). 07:02, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You are trying to change wording that is common language for this kind of material. To move away from the language that is in common usage is clearly intended to more support your seeming POV that efforts by road traffic authorities, and academics, and the general public, and the media, etc, etc, etc, achieve nothing on the road safety front. Your stupid Edit summaries reinforce that view. Yours is the POV position. The tags in the article are just ugly tactics of yours to push that POV. HiLo48 (talk) 07:12, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The word implies a POV which is not neutral, we can and must do better than that. What is the problem with the wording I suggest above? -- de Facto (talk). 07:18, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It's not common usage, which for some strange reason, you're trying to avoid. And you have not convinced me that there is anything wrong with suggesting that some credit is due for the reduction in the road toll. HiLo48 (talk) 07:33, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I don't understand your "common usage" argument - is not a good argument for using an ambiguous and disputed phrase when there is an alternative which is less likely to be misunderstood and which conveys the facts more clearly. Why obfuscate the situation? Why not go for clarity? -- de Facto (talk). 08:05, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It is hardly point of view when the fact is that Victoria did archive a low road toll, whether it was from speed limit enforcement or not. Bidgee (talk) 08:29, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Wiki content has a potential worldwide audience, so we cannot rely on everyone having an intimate knowledge of the politics of Victoria or the colloquialisms and euphemisms used by the locals. The current wording is ambiguous - it can be misunderstood (and if it can be, it will be). We need to write it in plain English, and support any assertions with reliable sources.
All I am saying is that the statement should be worded more clearly. Why is that such an unacceptable position to take? What is wrong with my suggested wording? Why can't we work towards a consensus rather than stubbornly insisting that we keep the disputed wording? -- de Facto (talk). 08:52, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It is unacceptable because it is totally removing any connection between the topic of this article and the lower road tolls. It may be your POV that there is no connection, but obviously not a mainstream one. You are putting yourself on the fringe in this discussion. Any dispute about the present wording is only coming from people out there on the fringe with you. HiLo48 (talk) 08:59, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If that is what you want to say, say it clearly and unamiguously. The current statement is unclear and easily misunderstood. How about something like this then: "The state of Victoria recorded record low overall road tolls in 2009. A newspaper report states that the local authorities claim credit for the small drop in relation to the 2008 figures, including the suggestion that increased use of speed cameras played a part.
As I've said elsewhere, my (and your) personal views should be of no consequence to the article content. We need clear and unambiguous RS wording. -- de Facto (talk). 09:32, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
There is a lot more than a suggestion that speed limit enforcement (the actual topic - stop playing word games) contributes to lower road tolls. It's a certainty. HiLo48 (talk) 11:12, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
HiLo48, please explain your "stop playing word games" comment. I know the topic of the article which is why I raised this issue. Can you suggest an alternative to my suggestion which avoids the ambiguity and non-neutral POV of the current article wording, and that says what needs to be said (and that is supported)? -- de Facto (talk). 11:22, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I see no point in trying. The vast majority of people automatically accept the existence of a link you are denying the existence of. We are starting from very different basic positions. I can see yours. I don't think you are seeing mine. HiLo48 (talk) 11:28, 13 June 2011 (UTC) HiLo48 (talk) 11:28, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not denying that - I'm asking for a neutral, unambiguous and RS supported wording - that is all. You seem to be insisting that we keep the current amiguous and unclear wording. Please explain your reluctance to even attempt to reach a consensus on the wording of this. -- de Facto (talk). 11:34, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Are you (or anyone else) going to suggest an alternative neutral wording, or shall we go with mine for now as there are no rational arguments against it? -- de Facto (talk). 06:41, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That would be unwise. I'm awaiting constructive input from others. I suggest you do too. There is no need to rush. HiLo48 (talk) 08:04, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I take it that you don't have a problem with my wording then. Let's go with it in the absence of any rational argument against it. We can't leave the current disgracefully non-neutral wording any longer. We can always review it if others chip in with suggestions later. -- de Facto (talk). 09:11, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Socrates2008, thanks for trying to help resolve this - but the netrality issue is with the use of the word "achieved", and the implication that the small toll drop is solely (or even largely) due to actions taken by the authorities. Please substitute "achieved" for "recorded", or restore the tag. -- de Facto (talk). 11:58, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Cannot help responding here. This displays the POV problem with DeFacto's position. The article does not say that "the authorities" achieved anything. It just says "Victoria". Many posts have highlighted that it refers to the whole state - academics, the general population, the media, etc. That DeFacto repeatedly falls back to his problem with unnamed "authorities" is what we are really facing here, not the word "achieved". It is a soapbox position. HiLo48 (talk) 17:15, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)A question for User:DeFacto, I've read your arguements and looked at your edits. I've read the material that has been sourced in the article regarding achievements and I too see this as common wording, expressing the outcome of having succesfully worked towards a goal. My understanding of your comments is that you think correlation does not imply causation in this case. Is that a correct understanding? If so, could you provide sources related to your position vis-a-vis the lack of correlation / causation as it pertains to a reduction in Victoria? What verifiable sources support this position? If you can provide usable references that can be included in the article, I don't necessarily see a problem with changing the wording. Show me your sources? --LauraHale (talk) 12:01, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The current sources (2 newspaper reports) support nothing more than a statement along the lines of my most recent edit; that the authorities are claiming the credit for the toll drop. To use those self-congratulatory statements as support for any assertion implying causation is, at best, misleading. Do you (
WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV which deals with this very point. -- de Facto (talk). 12:24, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply
]
NOT "the authorities" (which you seem to have some hatred of), but "Victoria". (See above) HiLo48 (talk) 17:15, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps you haven't noticed the recent change in wording? Whether you have, or not - "achieved" implies a non-netral POV. Can you come up with something less biased please? I favour "recorded" - it says all that we need to say - with no unjustified implications. -- de Facto (talk). 17:50, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No, that would say what YOU WANT it to say, a move away from common, impartial language. It's you that wants to say something non-mainstream here. Your unexplained, irrational hatred of traffic authorities and lack of logic has become obvious to all. HiLo48 (talk) 20:43, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If you don't like my latest suggested wording (because it's too neutral apparently), then make an alternative suggestion that we can consider. -- de Facto (talk). 21:22, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The word "achieved" is used in the newspaper articles. Personally I don't have issue with this terminology, because reducing road casaualties is an objective that the state has been aiming for, rather than something that just happended. A bigger concern for me was the bias applied when that information was selectively transfered to this article in a way that would suggest that speed cameras are (soley) responsible for the drop - anyone who reads the two articles will notice that that a number of actions in broad campaign contributed to the reduction, and that speed cameras are not even mentioned in the context of the 2008 drop. So at this time, I would strongly urge you to leave my wording in place as you do not have any consensus for yours. Socrates2008 (Talk) 22:23, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The word is used in just one of the newspaper reports, and is based on a non-neutral POV, the personal POV of someone with a vested interest in it being the case (see Ephebi's eloquent submission to the debates). Wiki insists on a neutral POV and of honest attribution of whose opinion biased POV such as this actually is. If we keep it, we need to be clear whose POV it actually is. I agree that your inclusion of some of the other possible factors helps to clarify the significance of the part that speed limit enforcement makes, but even they are only a part of the story - and still rely solely on biased opinions - so need to state that too. -- de Facto (talk). 06:32, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I believe the wording is fine. Where is my vested interest? You throw accusations of bias and POV around very freely. Now you're alleging vested interests. It's a pretty dirty game you're playing. I really do wonder what the goal of the game is. HiLo48 (talk) 08:06, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The wording is only fine if it's properly attributed as to whose POV it represents, otherwise it needs to be made neutral. The POV is self-evidently biased - it doesn't mention any of the other, some would say more likely, factors that might be involved. The newspaper report that it is based on attributes the opinions to police and the TAC - are you saying that they don't have a vested interest in the effectiveness of the road safety and specifically speed limit enforcement policies and strategies in Victoria? My goal is a neutral-POV article as demanded by the Wiki policies - what is yours? -- de Facto (talk). 08:26, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly what are the vested interests of me, the police and the TAC? HiLo48 (talk) 08:30, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Why have you added yourself - do you believe that you too have a vested interest in giving credit to just that sub-set of factors? -- de Facto (talk). 08:35, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I give up. I have to go out and provide a community service in another way. Communicating with you is impossible. I don't think you've absorbed any of the points I have made over several days. A true obsession. HiLo48 (talk) 08:38, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Have you actually made a rational or relevent point in this discussion? If you have, please re-iterate it. Will you object if I revert back to the more neutral wording if you've given up arguing against it? -- de Facto (talk). 08:46, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
WP:WORDS doesn't have anything about "archived", it would have been listed if it was though that it would be used as a POV word. I have no idea why we have to keep saying the same thing which you keep dismissing for your own POV. oh FYI, I dislike cameras, speed traps (Highway Patrol hiding on roads) ect but I don't allow my view on them get in the way, however I feel that you are. Bidgee (talk) 09:02, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply
]
I'm not talking weasel words here, I'm talking unattributed non-neutral POV. See
WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV. There are two solutions: a re-wording to make it more neutral (my preference) or attribution of the source of the POV as expessed in the newspaper article (the Victoria authorities I believe). But to leave it as an apparent assertion of fact rather than as attributed personal opinions goes againt Wiki policy. -- de Facto (talk). 09:15, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply
]
You're doing yourself a disservice by flogging this further. Your point of view has been heard and considered, but the consensus has not fallen your way this time, so suggest that this
uncool discussion is now closed. Socrates2008 (Talk) 09:08, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply
]
I think this whole edit war should go "
straight to the pool room" (partial quote from The Castle). Bidgee (talk) 09:13, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply
]
Thanks for your advice Socrates2008. But I believe that the Wiki principle of NPOV is worth defending. -- de Facto (talk). 09:18, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Dispiute #2 - relevance of the mention of the 2008 toll

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

I have also re-added the 'off-topic?' tag. This is a separate issue to the one mentioned above. This is in relation to the lack of any attempt to relate the 2008 toll reduction to the subject of this article. The fact that the road toll was at a record low in 2008 may well be correct, but without any reliably sourced comment or opinion that it is in some way related to the subject of this article (as is present in the cited newspaper article for the 2009 reduction) it does not belong here. We need to relate it - reliably sourced not just because of our personal POV, or remove it. -- de Facto (talk). 07:15, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It would be quite irrational to think that speed limit enforcement had nothing to do with a record low road toll. HiLo48 (talk) 07:36, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That may be your POV, but it is not supported by the cited references. Currently the 2008 stuff is off-topic in this article because there is nothing linking it to the subject.
There are two ways forward: 1. find a reliable source (preferably from a neutral non-involved party) linking speed limit enforcement with the record and incorporate it as their opinion; 2. remove the 2008 associatiation. There is no justification for leaving the current content as it stands - it violates Wiki policy. -- de Facto (talk). 08:17, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It would be quite irrational to think that speed limit enforcement had nothing to do with a record low road toll. HiLo48 (talk) 08:21, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
However, your (or my) personal POV isn't what Wiki is about, which is why we need to add only reliably sourced, and neutral, POV to the article. Have you read the Wiki policies on this? Currently there is nothing in that section of the article linking the 2008 toll with the subject of the article - so we need to either support it with appropriate cites or remove it. -- de Facto (talk). 08:35, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
(DeFacto) Did you even bother looking at this cited source?[40] It is an article about the record low road toll in 2008 (bit hard to be the road toll 2009 when it was published on the very first day of 2009). Bidgee (talk) 08:22, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I did read that source, and not finding anything in it relating to speed limit enforcement, challenged the 2008 content as off-topic. If you read the report you will probably come to the same conclusion - let us know. Wiki articles aren't supposed to comprise an assortment of random and unreleated facts, they are supposed to discuss a specific subject - speed limit enforcement in the case of this article. -- de Facto (talk). 08:42, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I note that User:Bidgee has now, despite this discussion being still ongoing, made the unilateral and unjustified decision to remove the tag relating to this discussion from the paragraph. -- de Facto (talk). 09:09, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I would have thought that your action in adding the tag after two and half days of no discussion was the unilateral and unjustified one. I thought you had wisely seen the point and that the discussion was over. HiLo48 (talk) 09:15, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No consensus has yet been reached, so adding the tag was justified to alert readers to the ongoing discussion. Do you think that not alerting readers to the fact that there is discussion about the content is a good idea? -- de Facto (talk). 09:58, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Unrelated? It would be quite irrational to think that speed limit enforcement had nothing to do with a record low road toll. HiLo48 (talk) 08:48, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it is currently unrelated by any statement in the article to 'speed limit enforcemet'. If it is related to speed limit enforcement (as it may well be, but that isn't my point - at all), then state it clearly in the article - and provide the supporting cites (as is the case for the 2009 data). -- de Facto (talk). 08:56, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Still missing the point. HiLo48 (talk) 09:15, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Certainly you seem to be. The point is this: the relevence to the article of the data about the 2008 road toll is not currently stated in the article, and there is nothing about speed limit enforcement in the reference. If it is related please make it clear how. -- de Facto (talk). 10:03, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The relevance of speed limit enforcement to road toll reduction is obvious to all normal people. HiLo48 (talk) 11:08, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
In some circumstances it may be relevant, yes. What we need here is wording to explain, and references to support, any claimed relevance in this case. As is generally the case with Wikipedia articles. -- de Facto (talk). 11:30, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You seem determined to push the view that speed limit enforcement has nothing to do with road toll reduction. That is a fringe view. Please take your soapbox elsewhere. HiLo48 (talk) 02:34, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
All I'm doing is pointing out a deficiency in some of the content, not imposing any views about that content. Let me say it once more: this isn't about my views or your views - fringe, or otherwise - it is about whether the drop in the 2008 toll is connected to speed limit enforcement and if it is, then it should be stated how it is in the article. Currently that isn't stated, so the 2008 stuff remains off-topic. If the relationship is so clear to you, then you should have no trouble in adding how it is and thus making it actually relevant to this article. Please
assume good faith
here and don't personalise the discussion.

We are wasting an unnecessary amount of time on this - shall we take it out altogether until the time when something supporting its inclusion can be found? -- de Facto (talk). 06:35, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There is no deficiency in the content. The article is premised on the most commonly held understanding of these matters. Yours is nowhere near that perspective. We should probably be asking you to prove that there is no link between speed limits and the road toll. HiLo48 (talk) 08:06, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
What about if I put a statement such as "The annual road toll in the state of Victoria increased in both of the previous two years up until the end of May 2011" (reliably sourced), similarly not explicitly tying it to the article content. Would that be acceptable, and would you accept the implication that speed limit enforcement was having a negative effect there? -- de Facto (talk). 08:39, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Stop grasping at straws. As I have already suggested, take your soapbox elsewhere. I don't plan to post here again until after input from others. (Or perhaps some more really dumb stuff from you, but I think you are starting to see reality.) HiLo48 (talk) 08:49, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You didn't answer the question - we'd all be interested in your view on that one. Or has it now dawned on you that your stance on this is unsupportable? -- de Facto (talk). 09:05, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
HiLo, you continually push the viewpoint that there is a direct causation between enforcement of polices and fatalities. (I agree this view is commonly encountered in the traffic hierarchy, where there is a vested interest in getting the 'right' results.) However, that simplistic POV can be looked down on in risk management circles, where they research the bigger picture and where 'risk compensation' is nowadays recognised as an accepted phenomenon that can undermine such apparently straight-forward cause-and-effect logic. A broader analysis often shows that the expected results were not delivered because individuals have displaced their risks (and fatalities) elsewhere.
Having said that, it is quite possible that the death toll references you have produced are 1) significant enough that they fall outside the long term downward trend, 2) statistically valid and 3) were influenced by the Victoria Police establishment's enforcement policies. (In fact, I would be surprised if there was no change, as there is a long-term trend towards ~5% annual decrease in road fatalities in the developed world, with or without new interventions. There will also be statistical fluctuations and we have seen that a series of interventions will often have a (temporary) effect. But it is challenging to isolate the cause(s) of any decreases recorded, and we have many examples of myths being propagated in this field.) However, we are writing an encyclopaedia which should encompass all significant views, and avoid introducing leading words and expressions. Thus, to attribute causation, it requires a more reliable source than a re-interpreted press release . (I am busy in real life so apologies for my delayed response) Ephebi (talk) 13:01, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Please don't put words in my mouth. I don't believe I have claimed "that there is a direct causation between enforcement of polices and fatalities." DeFacto is pushing a position that there is no relationship. That is my concern. It's a quite irrational and biased position. HiLo48 (talk) 17:22, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Now you are putting words in dF's mouth... I understand that he wishes the claims to be accurately attributed. I think we are both concerned that claims of efficacy are being introduced through this edit. I don't doubt your good motives in doing so, but my fear is that the claims are not as black and white as The Age reporter claimed and so they need to be couched carefully. Ephebi (talk) 09:32, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Some exact words from Defacto - "2008 toll is not related to speed limit enforcement" Where have I put words in his mouth? HiLo48 (talk) 21:14, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It isn't in this article, and if you read the first paragraph in this "dispute #2..." thread, you'll see an explanation of the reason why I used that edit summary when adding the tag that prompted this discussion. The reason is that details of the 2008 toll drop were added (to this article about speed limit enforcement) but without attempting to relate them in any way to "speed limit enforcement". That is: they were not related to the subject of the article, or any explanation given for their inclusion. This contrasts with the 2009 toll drop, which was related to the subject of the article (as I said previously) by the comment in the newspaper report giving some of the credit to the 2009 drop to speed limit enforcement. That's the only reeason that I added the "Off-topic?" tag, and why we are having this discussion.
Let me re-iterate: the 2008 toll content is off-topic because it hasn't been related in any way to the article subject. On the other hand, the 2009 toll has been related by comments from the reference. Is that clearer now for you? -- de Facto (talk). 23:00, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I disagree - the 2008 article helps to illustrate that speed cameras were not a contributory factor in reducing speed that year - so it's quite useful to include it along with the 2009 article, which on its own, would probably lend greater weight to their contribution to the overall reduction. Can we move on now please? Socrates2008 (Talk) 23:09, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
OK, if it helps to move on I can acknowledge that my reaction was to what seemed a silly Edit summary. I now see that what was meant was more complex than that, but I would have hoped that my earlier concerns about another inflammatory Edit summary may have led to more care in choice of words. I would have problems with any claim "that speed cameras were not a contributory factor in reducing speed that year". We may not have a source yet to say that they were, but the absence of a source so far is not proof that one doesn't exist. This is a very complex area. I wish I had the days necessary to dig up the masses of research material that I know exists on this matter. Simplistic analysis, especially one coloured by an "I hate speed cameras" starting point, will never deliver a good article. HiLo48 (talk) 23:20, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for this acknowledgement. Your so-far fruitless search for sources underscores one of the huge problems in this field - sound proof of the broad utility of such an 'obvious' claim is actually hard to find. Thus, if Monash or some other reputable Victorian body has figures then this is important evidence. It would show that widespread behaviour change can be achieved, and could justify the use of covert cameras and interventionist methods which would be controversial in many jurisdictions. (When the DTP/DfT/TRRL etc in UK have done detailed meta research in these fields they also found big problems with data quality and proving correlation. Of course, lack of evidence has never stopped a politician making claims!) Ephebi (talk) 08:05, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

To help HiLo48 understand my objection to the current inclusion of the comment about the 2008 toll (as my explanations above seem to have pased him by), let me explain what is required to rectify the situation... A reliably sourced opinion, from a notable commentator, needs to be added (and fully attributed if it as biased as the opinions already included about the 2009 toll drop) claiming a link between the 2008 toll drop and speed limit enforcement. Simple really - I can't understand all the fuss and waste of time over this. -- de Facto (talk). 23:15, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

FACTUAL CLARIFICATION: I know we are asked to not add anything here, but I must correct yet another misunderstanding and significant inaccuracy. In Ephebi's final post above he refers to my "so-far fruitless search for sources". I have not had a fruitless search. I have not had time to make ANY search, and I can tell that nobody else has bothered. I suspect this will not be the final discussion on this matter. HiLo48 (talk) 08:15, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of reliably sourced notable and pertinent content

I see that HiLo48 has again removed content from the article relating to the decision of Victoria police to attempt to reduce the revenue gathering potential of speed limit enforcement cameras, whilst at the same time not affecting road safety, in their state as part of their industrial action campaign. The excuse given in the edit comment that "This has already been extensively discussed on the Talk page".

To remove/disallow content which is clearly notable and worthy content, and which directly addresses one of the key speed limit enforcement conundrums - that of revenue generation versus road safety benefit - I believe that we need a more compelling reason. -- de Facto (talk). 08:11, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You have chosen to ignore the entire discussion above. No point in responding to your thoughts until you respond to, or more preferably join, the earlier discussion. HiLo48 (talk) 08:22, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The industrial dispute doesn't be long here, maybe better suited in the Victoria Police article. Bidgee (talk) 09:05, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Do you have a particular reason why you think that the attitude of an entire police force to speed limit enforcement policy doesn't belong in an article called Speed limit enforcement? -- de Facto (talk). 09:14, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The Victorian Police are using this industrial action (which hurts the Government more then what strike action would) to get better wages from the Government rather then using strike action. If they were doing this because they believe that speed limit enforcement does nothing to lower the road toll, then it may belong here but this is being done as part of their industrial action.The fact is people will still get fined if they speed past a fixed camera, where the police flash their lights or not. Bidgee (talk) 09:27, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Which "discussion above" - the one which seems to hinge around whether the police action is technically a "strike", or not? If so, I am not particularly interested in tht one.
My interest here, and my point is that the action by the police force, apparently with almost unanimous support, and which tends to imply that there is a widely held view in the force that the revenue generation aspect of the cameras isn't a wholly necessary requisite for road safety, is notable, and thus should certainly be included in this article. Are there any valid (in terms of Wiki policy) reasons for not including it? I can't currently see any, so propose to add again something relating to this story.
-- de Facto (talk). 09:10, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The road safety debate is an intense and complex one. For you to simplistically drag out a piece of industrial action in one state of one small (by population) country and argue that it is relevant to this global article is really cherry picking. That the police are ONLY doing this as part of the industrial action, and are not arguing for it's continuation after that is over, actually negates your point. There has been no evidence presented that it has unanimous support either. What I have seen is that a very high proportion of those who voted in an online poll supported it, but only 2000 out of 12000 voted in that poll. As for the claim that safety is not impacted by the action, that is arguable. Those in favour of the unmarked cameras widely used in Victoria point out that they make drivers slow down everywhere, because drivers don't know if a camera will be around the next bend. Having police highlight the cameras actually reduces this effect. As I said, it's a complex and emotive issue. Your position appears to be driven strongly by emotion. I have actually worked for one of the organisations you insulted in your silly Edit summary. (I don't any longer.) I know of hundreds of people who have spent years of their lives developing policies on vehicle design, road design, driver training AND speed limits and their policing. It IS something that "Victoria" has done. It's just plain silly of you to suggest that all that work has had no effect. HiLo48 (talk) 09:27, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You are evading the point. The action is notable and the action is directly relevant to the article. Your emotionally-charged personal syntheses (see
WP:OR) add nothing to the debate. -- de Facto (talk). 09:43, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply
]
No HiLo48 isn't, what they have stated is what has already been stated by media outlets. This is industrial action, they are not doing because they think the public is being ripped from from the Government from speed limit enforcement, speed cameras are still working. Bidgee (talk) 09:47, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You hit the nail on the head. They are doing it - and because it is notable because of who they are and because it is reliably sourced and because it is directly related to this article it should be included. The rest is personal synthesis (unless you can reliably source it to a notable commentator, in which case add that too). It is futile to attempt to exclude worthy content with such weak reasoning.
To keep it out of the article you need to convince us that an event reported upon in many reliable sources and which apparently involves the disruptiion, by the police force, of the method of use of speed limit enforcement equipment, with the intention of reducing government revenue whilst not impacting the safety of the public, is not notable enough to be included in an article about speed limit enforcement. -- de Facto (talk). 10:15, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Please do not take my comments out of context to suit your own. It has nothing to do with "speed limit enforcement", no one has to slow down if they see police warning them of a speed camera. Again I've pointed out the media have stated this. Again this is better suited in the Victorian Police article as it really has nothing to do with enforcing the speed limit. This is becoming like the local radio station playing the same song over and over! Bidgee (talk) 10:23, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
What do you think that the speed cameras there for if it isn't speed limit enforcement? What do you think motorists will do if, whilst breaking the speed limit, they see the flashing lights of a police car up ahead - slow down a little, possibly? This story is certainly related to this article and will not go away without a convincingly reasoned explanation as to why it must not be included. -- de Facto (talk). 10:35, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, the story WILL go away, as soon as the INDUSTRIAL ACTION ceases, which could be tomorrow. It's short term. It's trivial. It is NOT evidence that the police disapprove of the speed cameras. Just a very clever attention seeking move for their wage campaign. It's NOT about speed limit enforcement. HiLo48 (talk) 10:43, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The action may end but the story will live on as a notable stand by the police in support of their pay dispute. The fact that they chose to target speed cameras as revenue generators will remain as a notable event related to the history of speed limit enforcement in Victoria, Australia. The point isn't about whether the cameras are effective at enforcing speed limits, it's about the police choice of speed limit enforcement equipment in their campaign. -- de Facto (talk). 10:56, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

DeFacto, Three questions to you:
  1. There are eight actions proposed by the Police Association, what about for example the ban on emails? Why is this one significant and the others not?
  2. Why is the proposed Victorian action notable but for example the WA action in 2009 not?
  3. Please respond to my concerns about
    crystal ball gazing above (or wait a few days and it will resolve itself). Alex Sims (talk) 11:14, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply
    ]
Ah, so DeFacto wants to connect speed cameras and revenue raising. Of course cameras raise revenue. No-one disputes that. I've seen public transport drivers choose to not collect fares as part of industrial action. That hurts government revenue. Does it belong here too. I believe D.F... is trying to suggest that the cameras are more about revenue raising than speed enforcement, but none of the sources for this action say that. Surely this isn't a POV matter is it? HiLo48 (talk) 11:25, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That police have chosen to undermine a controversial speed limit enforcement strategy as part of their industrial action has become a notable event and certainly worthy of inclusion in an article about speed limit enforcement. Similarly, if PT drivers chose to undermine some controversial strategy used in their line of business, and that became a notable fact, then that could well be included in an article covering the subject of that tactic - why not? NPOV, and not the supression of any apparently inconvenient facts, should be the goal here. -- de Facto (talk). 11:57, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Alex, three answers for you:
  1. That action is directly relevent to this article - the one targetting the revenue gathering efficiency of speed cameras. That action is also the one most commonly highlighted in the reliable sources, and so has become the more notable. Given that Wiki policy dictates that content should be on-topic, notable and reliably sourced, that makes the mentioned action an ideal candidate for inclusion in tis article.
  2. Remind me what the 2009 WA action was, and where we discussed its notability with respect to this article.
  3. What I added wasn't speculative - it was based on reliably sourced information.
-- de Facto (talk). 11:33, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Material can be reliably sourced, but clearly of a populist, shock-jock nature, adding nothing to a good encyclopaedic article. HiLo48 (talk) 17:51, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Let's not get too excited over this- it's entirely possible RedFlex has an internal report demonstrating that there were actually two 120Y's, one fitted with a Rover V8 just to make automated ticket creation look silly. Nevard (talk) 14:46, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Are the NSW police engaged in an industrial dispute too? If not, then perhaps their views of revenue raising would suffice for the article... Socrates2008 (Talk) 13:21, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Factual clarification

(Moved here from outside of the "closed" discussion in "#Dispiute #2 - relevance of the mention of the 2008 toll" above, and in reply to HiLo48's addendum there.)

HiLo48, it is you attempting to defend the addition of unsubstantiated claims to the article - the onus is therefore on you to support them (see

WP:BURDEN). You have, to date, failed to do so. -- de Facto (talk). 08:46, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply
]

Yes, that's what I just said. (I knew you wouldn't understand, and probably still won't.) HiLo48 (talk) 11:53, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
What I don't understand is why you refuse to accept the removal, or even modification of such blatantly non-compliant material. -- de Facto (talk). 12:02, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You don't read nor comprehend my posts. No point in continuing this. HiLo48 (talk) 12:12, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I certainly read them. What leads you to assert that I don't comprehend them? My understanding is that you are admitting that the material in question is non-compliant (contains unsupported assertions or unattributed opinions), yet you refuse to tolerate my attempts to make it more compliant. If I've misunderstood you, please explain your position. We seem to be going around in circles here. -- de Facto (talk). 12:24, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Is the revenue raised actually relevant to Speed limit enforcement?

DeFacto has added a paragraph about how much revenue the government in Victoria, Australia raised "from fines levied on drivers breaking Victorian road rules".

This is relevant to those wanting to mount a case that the reason for speeding fines is to raise revenue rather than for road safety purposes, but it's not actually part of Speed limit enforcement, the topic of this article. And, if you look above at what the figure actually represents, it's not the revenue from speeding fines. It's for the breaking of ALL road rules.

I say that it's a soapbox addition, and doesn't belong.

I can just about guarantee that this will lead to a fight here, but at least it highlights DeFacto's real motivation for posting in this article at all. HiLo48 (talk) 08:01, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Revenue figures are relevant to the article as they are verifiably directly attributable to enforcement activity. Also, that there is a causal relationship is an undisputed fact.
If, as we should be, we are worried about POV and soapboxing in the article, we should first address, not the verifiable facts in the article, but the unattributed POV and speculation relating to the effects of enforcement on state-wide road toll counts.
-- de Facto (talk). 08:48, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Your Edit summary describes this as an inconvenient truth (presumably for me), thereby again demonstrating the fact that you have a POV goal in posting this. I have no problem at all with the figures being public. I just don't believe they belong here in this article. I gave my reasons. You haven't refuted them. You have posted matters irrelevant to this discussion. Being true (of which there is no question) doesn't override irrelevance. Again, please try to discuss the points others have made, rather than soap-boxing. HiLo48 (talk) 09:53, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
What reason? That "it's a soapbox addition, and doesn't belong"? I try to keep away from fallacious arguments such as personal attacks, attempted smears and incivility, and keep to discussion about the article content itself.
The question of revenue generation seems to feature quite prominently in discussions about speed limit enforcement measures, especially in Australia, and recently Victoria particularly - so rightly belongs in the article.
-- de Facto (talk). 10:35, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly what is that question? HiLo48 (talk) 11:26, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The question is this: is the revenue raised actually relevant to speed limit enforcement? Based on recent events in Victoria the police there, as well as the government, the citizens and news reporters, certainly seem to think that it is - hence, possibly, the A-G Office's interest. What's your take on that question? -- de Facto (talk). 12:29, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"Seem to think". "Possibly". Hmmmm. You have no solid evidence at all. This is pure OR. It must go. HiLo48 (talk) 20:28, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

HiLo48, please at least attempt to justify the removal of this content before removing it. Your POV about my POV is not a justification. I've just restored it because it's completely on-topic for this article. -- de Facto (talk). 08:24, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sadly, you know little about debating. I have made several points here. You haven't refuted them. You keep saying the same thing in defence of your position and ignore what others say. I see little point in continuing, and can only hope that others will join this discussion. I think your choice of adding this material without any discussion also shows how irrational and stubborn your position is. No matter how strongly you feel, you should have the courage to ask others for a view, AND to take notice of the replies. At this stage, I don't think you can see that there is another possible point of view on this matter. I really wish governments would keep the camera regimes exactly as they are, use demerit points even more aggressively, and abolish the fines. Then we would see whether you are happy with the cameras, or whether your real goal is to be allowed to speed. I really believe this needs more peoples' input. (And should have got it BEFORE you added your material. HiLo48 (talk) 08:47, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
There you go again, launching into a personal attack. Fallacious arguments won't wash. This is an article about speed limit enforcement, and on Wikipedia, not in the in-house magazine of the speed camera adoration society. We are all entitled to edit articles, and even encouraged
be bold
! My opinions about the subject are not relevant: which is why I haven't aired them, which means your assertions about what they might be can only be creations of your own imagination. Please keep to the subject and dicuss the subject, not the person you are arguing against.
Speed limit enforcement cameras generate huge amounts of revenue and it is inevitable that the subject will be discussed, and indeed that discussion is widespread in places where speed cameras are used, and so it is perfectly on-topic for this article.
I notice that you are not so critical about the details that are added supporting speed camera use, and don't seem to care that the 2008 road toll figures aren't in any way even associated with speed camera use in the article. I notice too that you don't mind unattributed and biased POV being used to support the association of the 2009 road toll figures with speed camera use. Yet you attempt to suppress the addition of the indisputable fact that cameras generate revenue - resorting to
attacking the messenger
as justification. Perhaps you need to examine your own motives before getting involved further with this one.
-- de Facto (talk). 09:17, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Again, you have no idea about how discussion and negotiation works. It's always a wise strategy, when one person is taking an extreme position (and if you don't recognise that you are, that's a huge problem), to try to understand the motives of that person. Quite frankly, I don't believe that allegations of revenue raising have anything at all to do with Speed limit enforcement. It's red herring, generally created by people who have been caught and are cranky about it. HiLo48 (talk) 10:18, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
(Ignoring the personalised comments again) Your POV on the article subject is not relevant. Notable on-topic material cannot be suppressed on that basis. The relevance is whether the roads would be as safe, or even safer without the use of the current measures which make revenue. Experiences elsewhere would suggest that they would. It could be that the best solution isn't being used because it wouldn't raise the same revenue -- de Facto (talk). 10:29, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Because I really think this needs more than just two opinions, I have raised it at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard#Speed limit enforcement HiLo48 (talk) 09:04, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Body of article not in agreement with referenced material

In the Wiki article introduction it states "However, a meta-analysis of studies finds automated ticketing machines that enforce speed limits may have reduced the number of traffic injuries and deaths.[1]" however in the referenced article it says "Due to considerable heterogeneity between and within included studies, a meta-analysis was not appropriate." and later is states "The quality of the included studies in this review was judged as being of overall moderate quality at best". Recommend that the above sentence in the wiki article be replaced with: "A review of 35 studies on the effectiveness of speed cameras versus no enforcement concluded that they clearly demonstrates a positive direction in the effect but that the overall magnitude of this effect is currently not deducible due to heterogeneity and lack of methodological rigour. More studies of a scientifically rigorous and homogenous nature are necessary, to provide the answer to the magnitude of effect." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.144.172.231 (talk) 11:46, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You may have a point about the interpretation of the review, but the language of the wording you suggest is probably a little too complex for the lead, which is meant to give a quickly understood summary of the rest of the article. HiLo48 (talk) 12:09, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 4 external links on

nobots
|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018.

regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check
}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

Cheers.—

Talk to my owner:Online 09:51, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Inaccurate lead

The first sentence of the lead is inaccurate in at least two ways. Firstly, the point of enforcement is not merely to check compliance, but to attempt to ensure or improve compliance. Speed surveys are used to check compliance - and they do not involve enforcement. Secondly, it is drivers who are responsible for compliance, not vehicles. I attempted to fix this, but was reverted by

Wikipedia sense, it is an appropriate verb in this context when we are talking about an effort to achieve a goal. What better word is there? -- de Facto (talk). 06:37, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

As there has been no response here after more than a week, I've re-worded the first sentence, trying to take account of the unclear objection to the word "attempt". -- de Facto (talk). 21:16, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed merge with
TASCAR

Does not seem to have enough content or notability to warrant its own article Willy No1lakersfan (Talk - Edits) 03:58, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Given that, as written, it's a UK-specific abbreviation, I think that it should instead merge to the UK-specific article, Road speed limit enforcement in the United Kingdom. Klbrain (talk) 11:53, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"Tolerances" Section

I feel like the "A study of over 1000 drivers..." paragraph in the tolerances section is completely out of place, but wanted a second opinion. The section starts by stating the US attitude to tolerances, a sentence on the UK tolerances (for transparency, that sentence was me), then goes into a fairly large paragraph about a US study which showed varying fines depending on officers, what was said to them, and other factors. It then jumps back to talking about tolerances in other non-US countries. Is there somewhere else we can put this paragraph? Runipedia (talk) 11:36, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

France

Might France be included in this article?

If so here are elements which could be included: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Speed_limit_enforcement&diff=988184636&oldid=987881160

Those elements might need to be rewritten in a better style: the robot detected it as "poorly written additions". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.136.216.31 (talk) 19:03, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Speed_limit_enforcement&oldid=1201298540"