Wurzel

iTrader: (1)

http://www.sky.com/skynews/article/0...129415,00.html

j.r-xrs

Theres lies, damn lies and Statistics!

'nuff said

Geezer

What a crock! The figures are for sites around the cameras, as stated, the overall death rate has hardly dropped at all! Justification for them to have more speed cameras eh? Soon there will be one every few hundred yards.

Can anyone come up with a money making scheme for catching real criminals? The police might actually do some real work then

eezer

Jye

If you believe 'anything' this goverment says that is.

Brendan Hughes

I thought the ADB were trying to be credible? What ********.

"Britain has the worst record in the EU at reducing road deaths since cameras became widespread, with deaths down just 4% from their 1994-98 average, compared with France down 12.6%, Germany down 22.9% and Portugal down 35.5%."

Er yes, that's because the other countries started with significantly higher road death rates, horrifically so in the case of Portugal. According to last year's stats, we still have the lowest road death rates in Europe. We should be proud that we're keeping that position, rather than claiming it's a failing.

Jerks

davegtt

either way if u didnt speed then speed cameras would have no effect against any 1...

u cant complain at something thats just enforcing the law, if u are going 35 in a 30 then no matter what you say your speeding and breaking the law, how can u argue against that?

j.r-xrs

Speed cameras are only the start, soon enough they'll strat using your personal sat nav to fine you the instant you exceed the limit!

Senior_AP

Police make a staement :

"More accidents happen in March than they do in September"

Reason being in March everything is coming into bloom and people concentrate more on the beautiful surroundings than on the road.

We all know its utter bollox.....but we could never prove this.

I hope you get my point.

unclebuck

"an independent report published by the Government."

That just happens to support everything they claim. Hmm... strange that.

UB

j.r-xrs

Lots of this is probably due to advances in car safety as well. People are people, you can't stop them making mistakes, accidents are going to happen whether there is a speed camera nearby or not!

OllyK

Maybe, but our road death figures have not decreased for a long time, we have stagnated. Cameras have not changed that as exceeding the speed limit is not necessarliy dangerous, the innapropriate use of speed for the conditions is however, and that may be within the speed limit.

Other factors such as drink, drugs, poor vehcile maintenance etc etc are much bigger factors and cameras do nothing to stop that. Indeed the seem to be far fewer police on the roads now that I would not be surprised if drink driving was on the increase as people think that as long as they keep below the speed limit they will be safe.

The focus is wrong, driver observation is such an important factor in driving and yet the government keep pushing that not exceeding the speed limit is the most important thing, the emphasis is all wrong.

Faire D'Income

This is the most valid post yet. Statistics show that at best, accident rates have flat lined for the last eight years since the introduction of speed cameras and yet the Government perpetuates the myth that they significantly reduce the number of deaths on our roads.

The other big lie that is ridiculous is the mantra so often repeated that "speed kills" - of course it does and it's always a factor regardles of whether a vehicle is doing 5mph or 500mph.

This whole netting off scam is merely a way to pass the burden from the Police onto the camera systems, thereby reducing the cost of policing our roads and whilst I've no doubt that in some instances cameras have saved lives all this will achieve is to drive an even greater wedge between the general public and the Police.

MattW

Drink Driving - good point.

I was only sitting outside the pub the other day catching a beer with a friend. On seeing one of the DD regulars jump in his car and slowly drive out of the car park after 6-7 pints, how ironic it was I commented, "at least he's not speeding"

ALi-B

iTrader: (1)

Strange how those statistic came from North Wales...which as well all know - has the motorist's most friendly Chief Constable

Coincidence? I think not!

unclebuck

Better than that, it turns so called 'policing' into a nice little earner for the Goverment. A fact which I'm sure is not lost on our illustrious, scottish chancellor.

A more cynical bunch than this lot, you could not hope to find.

UB

Jye

Now now UB, you might be on the wrong thread me thinks He may indeed be Scottish but he's a new labia MP and that is enough in itself

unclebuck

LOL I tried the 'other' thread but it's just loads of people shouting and not listening. Awful...

UB

EvilKyote

qoute: 'independent report published by the Government'

Can anyone spot the contradiction in that scentence?

EvilKyote

Quote: 'Transport Secretary Alistair Darling said the figures proved "that cameras save lives".'

I agree..... WHEN USED PROPERLY!!!!!!

The whole problem is that the who speed camera thing is abused time and time again and probably 95% of camera's do not have any affect other than lining the police/governments pockets!

Bloody lieing retarded politicians!

hedgehog

This is an admission of failure on the part of the government. There are about 5000 cameras which are only supposed to be at sites where there is a record of fatalities etc. The camera partnerships are claiming amazing success figures for each camera in terms of cutting fatalities and accidents (usually about 40%) and yet we discover that the best the government can fake is that they have saved 100 lives.

If each camera has, by the guidelines, to be placed where there have been previous fatalities and if each is seeing a 40% reduction in fatalities then how come there is a single fatality?

If each camera saved one life per year there would be -1600 people not killed on the roads!

The best the government can claim from this figure is that only 100 of the 5000 cameras (assuming the best case situation for them) have worked. That means that 4900 haven't worked and are only there for revenue generation and to persecute the motorist off the road.

In truth even this shocking revelation ignores the effects of regression to the mean. Say a bus crashes off the road outside my house this morning killing 14 people. There has never been a bus crash outside my house before and so the mean number of road deaths outside my house has always been 0. At lunch time I place an empty coke tin by the road. In the afternoon the accident statistics for the road outside my house return to normal, they regress to the mean, and no one is killed all afternoon. In the evening I claim that setting out a coke can has reduced road deaths outside my house by 14. An amazing trick which totally depends upon flawed statistics, the only significant event was the initial accident.

Of course I then go on TV and tell people that my magic coke cans stop road deaths and have already reduced them by a huge percentage right outside my house. I neglect to mention, in the same report, that the national average has gone up because there are no longer police on the roads, people are spending all their time looking out for magic coke cans and people think that as long as there is a coke can nearby they are safe and so they can ignore basic driving skills.

That's how the camera scam works folks. Just remember that the ultimate aim is to get you and me right off the road. There is no such thing as a correctly placed camera.

hedgehog

Oh, and I forgot to add, and for some reason the government have forgotten to mention in their appearances in the press today, that casualties actually INCREASED at 743 of the camera locations!

jaf01uk

We had a road safety meeting the other week and the cop was trying to work out why their drink drive figures are increasing and the reply I gave him was as stated above, that because of the scameras there has been a significant number of patrol cars taken off traffic so if they are still catching more DD's then proportionally the increase is probably even higher than they think. I also suggested to him that because of the local area there is a large number of people come in from 6 to 17 miles away for a night out and we have the highest taxi fares in Scotland (£75 for a 17 mile journey at Christmas) that due to there being less cops (no traffic after 2am) that people are taking cars into town at the start of the night rather than get ripped off for taxi then at 3am when the wits out and there is so few cops they take the chance. Sorry I digress, what I am trying to say is that speeding figures may drop but other driving related stats will not because of lack of bums in seats of cop cars as a result of the revenue from the cameras being so good,
PS, the thing about % reductions, if there is 1 fatal RTA on road A, and none next year that is a 100% reduction - easy really except for the fact that accidents are usually exactly that and there is no reason that one would happen in the same place again unless there was an engineering fault on the road, but they are not goin to spend money fixing the road they'll just put a camera there!!

Gary

Leslie

I think Hedhehog has got it as close as any. They will of course say whatever they like in an effort to justify this particular "milch cow". This lot are very good at saying exactly what they would like to hear even though they know what they are saying is rubbish. Statistics are the least reliable proof of anything in the wrong hands.

Les

suprabeast

Thats is such a narrow minded argument. Take your head out of your *** and get with the real world.

OllyK

That would be called "regression to the mean"

boomer

I have just had a look at some of the spreadsheets referred to above

There seem to be an awful lot of camera locations with zero KSIs prior to installation (so why were they justified) and an awful lot of sites whose KSIs increased recently.

Some also compare previous average quarterly KSIs which are based on 25% of the annual ones with a single quarter after. Previous might be, say, 0.3 per quarter (1.3 annual) and after is recorded as zero. That's because you can't KSI a third of a person - but wait until next month!!!!!

What a bunch of statistical lies

mb