The Speed Camera Partnership in North Wales call themselves "Arrive Alive".

The stories just keep coming.

It's time to resign Mr Brunstrom.

William Shaw. Image from BBC web site.

Introduction

William Shaw, a 71 year old retired bank manager, was recently "convicted" for 39 mph while overtaking a tractor. Read the BBC story (here). Needless to say there's a bit of a row brewing, and the local MP (Martyn Jones) has become involved. The article below appeared in the local paper: The Daily Post on 9th July 2003.

In support of the MP's complaints, we decided to write to "Arrive Alive" and question the precise basis of their casualty reduction figures (below).

new 29th July 2003: In an astonishingly heavy handed and unnecessary move, the Police called a press conference to attack Mr Shaw. Read the BBC story here: (click here) There's reek of complete desperation about Arrive Alive's recent activity. See below for the Daily Mail article about this astonishing incident.

Perhaps we'll soon be able to write about a meltdown in North Wales.

new 4th August 2003: Arrive Alive continue to work very hard to lose every last scrap of public support. This time they have attacked an on duty ambulance driver - in his ambulance. See below.

Is it more fun to persecute motorists than catch burglars, Mr Brunstrom? What do you have to say about last Saturday's Daily Mail article? (click here) Why don't you answer our questions properly? (click here)

10th July 2003

Inspector Dave Jones
Project Manager
Arrive Alive
PO Box 66
Flint
CH8 8YA

Dear Dave

claims of casualty reductions on “Arrive Alive” routes

I read on the Arrive Alive web site that you claim 38% reduction in fatalities and a 34% reduction in serious injuries on Arrive Alive routes in your area. See page:

http://www.arrivealive.org.uk/readnews/index.asp?nid=27

I find the claims astonishing, and I wonder how carefully you have prepared your figures. I expect a brief but clear and accurate answer to each numbered point.

1) How have you compensated for site level regression to the mean?

2) Have you properly adjusted your figures to allow for improvements in national trends? (Obviously where there is a national trend in a particular class of accident or casualty, it would be unreasonable to attribute that part of the local improvement to your cameras.)

3) How big are the sites where you claim these improvements? Are the cameras really responsible for the claimed improvements at the more distant points within the sites?

4) What has been the effect of other safety treatments applied along Arrive Alive routes that may have been installed at a similar time to the camera?

5) What percentage of the entire improvement have you attributed to speed cameras? What is your justification for the figure?

6) Have you measured and compensated for any change in traffic volumes along the Arrive Alive routes?

7) Have you examined the accident figures for casualty displacement that may have been caused by the cameras? What are your general findings?

8) If the items above have been properly considered, what is the statistical significance of the remainder?

9) I note that you appear to be comparing a 1998 to 2000 inclusive average with 2002. What is your justification for choosing this comparison? What is wrong with 2001? Does making these rather strange choices of periods exaggerate the claimed “benefit”?

10) If you look at whole county figures going back at least fifteen years and spanning the introduction of speed cameras, do you see any change in trends over the period of camera introduction? Please be sure to examine separately figures for casualties, serious injuries and fatalities. Which three-year period shows the greatest overall improvement? Was that before or after the cameras?

11) I would also be interested to hear your comments on the following web page, where it appears very clear indeed that your damnable cameras are targeting entirely the wrong people. http://www.safespeed.org.uk/wrong.html

I am quite sure that you understand the importance of openness, honesty and accuracy when providing accident information to the public. It is quite literally a matter of life and death - anything less than proper rigour would clearly be completely unacceptable.

I look forward to your considered reply, which I intend to publish to the Safe Speed web site.

Yours sincerely

Paul Smith

cc:
Martyn Jones MP
Tim Collins MP
Mr Richard Brunstrom
Mr William Shaw
welshnews@dailypost.co.uk
http://www.safespeed.org.uk/arrivealive.html [this page]

More in the Daily Post:

In response to our letter to Arrive Alive, the Daily Post printed the following story. The part about middle aged drivers speeding refers to the story on the following web page: (click here)

Comments

William Shaw and many hundreds of thousands of other safe drivers each year should not be convicted by dumb speed enforcement. The so-called "safety camera partnerships" appear to understand very little about road safety and are just pointlessly upsetting decent members of the public. This must stop.

It will be interesting to see them try to justify their extraordinary claims for casualty reduction. We will certainly publish any reply here on this page.

We have noted errors in the claims made by speed camera partnerships before and report on the methods (here).

Should you wish to question the casualty reduction claims made by a Speed Camera Partnership you will find an outline letter (here).

Any comments can be sent to the following (email)

Let's make speed cameras as unacceptable as drink driving

We have a strict editorial policy regarding factual content. If any fact anywhere on this web site can be shown to be incorrect we promise to remove it or correct it as soon as possible.