Paul,
Sorry if this is dragging up old nonsense, but This is the trolls latest reply to me, and I wondered if you could help me put it to bed.
--------------------------------
"why hasnt anone been able to successfully contest it? Paul states that he will correct any incorrect data if found to be so."
Try this;
http://chapmancentral.demon.co.uk/Web/p ... Paul_Smith
or;
http://chapmancentral.demon.co.uk/Web/p ... enDocument
"Perhaps you should join in the debate over there and help educate Paul to the error of his ways?"
I did.
Paul Smith claimed that speed bumps killed 500 ambulance patients last year.
I asked for the source of this claim and he highlightes a Safespeed press release.
I explained that the press release was garbage.
500 people were not killed by speed bumps and the London Ambulance Service confirmed this.
I even posted a statement from the LAS which proved that Paul Smith was talking cobblers.
The thread was removed and I was banned.
A guy called Mark Belchamber (whose website
http://www.belchamber.org is mainly concerned with his love for his Lotus sports car) between 2002 and May 2003 asked 36 paramedics what they thought about speed humps and how they responded to their use when driving. This limited ‘research’ was the original source of those ‘humps cost 500 lives a year in London’ stories. Despite the research itself noting that the findings could not be generalised due to the small sample size and methodological shortcomings Belchamber ‘s figures were extrapolated to give the supposed ‘500 lives lost’ claim.
What then happened was that the report was brought to the attention of Sigurd Reinton of the LAS who, taking the report at face value, and expressed concerns that that humps MIGHT reduce response times and so possibly led to a rise in the deaths rate for cardiac patients. However, no one in the Ambulance service itself actually made any claim that humps actually were costing lives.
Once Reinton had shown expression of concerns about a possible effect of speed humps on response times was ‘spun’ by the right wing press and anti-speed control lobby to give the impression that LAS believed humps WERE causing fatalities, and that the scale of these was the ‘500 per year’ figure unjustifiably extrapolated from the original private research by our Lotus fan.
LAS were quick to try to reduce the damage done by the misrepresentation of Reinton’s expression of concern, although of course the speedophiles and right-wing press all but ingored these corrections. The following is from a Green Party Press release of 11th Dec 2003
London's Deputy Mayor welcomes ambulance chief statement on road humps myth
Jenny Jones, the Green Deputy Mayor of London has welcomed clarification from the Chair of the Ambulance Service that road humps do not cause 500 deaths, as well as evidence from serving officers that congestion is the primary cause of delays in ambulance response times.
After hearing evidence at the London Assembly, Jenny has withdrawn her call for the Chair of the London Ambulance Service, Mr Sigurd Reinton, to resign after he stated that, " I'm being accused of saying that lives are lost and I'm actually saying is lives may be lost.. We are not saying that all traffic calming is bad... Obviously, speed cameras cause no problem for us at all."
Jenny Jones asked, "So you have never said that road humps cause 500 deaths?" Sigurd Reinton replied, "I don't recall saying that."
Mr Mullin, an Islington team leader within the ambulance service, said, "In Islington the main strategic roads are Holloway Rd, Liverpool Rd, Caledonian Road. These are gridlocked, so we go down side roads to get round the problem.... At three o'clock in the morning we can get to emergencies a hell of a lot quicker... and sometimes without meeting any traffic calming at all."
Jenny said, "The real solution to ambulance delays is rolling out congestion charging across London and investing in other traffic reduction measures which will deal with the thousand pinch points on the London road network. We should also be looking at the alternatives to speed humps such as the greater use of cameras and the introduction of speed limiters."
Naturally the speedophiles and right wing press failed to demand the replacement of humps with speed cameras or robust action being taken to reduce congestion levels in order to speed up ambulance response times, which just goes to show that they were more concerned about giving drivers the ‘freedom’ to speed than actually saving the lives of patients in ambulances...
Many others were also able to show the shortcomings of the methodology and extrapolation of the original ‘research’ by our Lotus driving friend, Mr Belchamber. For example:
LONDON BOROUGH OF CAMDEN
Minuites of meeting of the ROAD SAFETY SCRUTINY PANEL held on TUESDAY, 20th JANUARY 2004 at 7.00 p.m. in Committee Room 1, at the Town Hall, Judd Street London WC1H 9JE.
MATTERS ARISING
London Ambulance Service
The Chair informed the panel that he was looking at the whole issue of the impact of road humps on the response time of the London Ambulance Service as part of his homework.
Sam Monck reported that the London Ambulance Service had now responded to the council on what their key routes in the borough were. He would now open up talks with them regarding the traffic schemes in Camden and how they could work in co-operation in the future.
Stephen Plowden reported that he had been chasing up an officer from Surface Transport, who had made a statement that an increase in response time of an ambulance of one minute would save 60 – 70 lives a year and not 500 as quoted by the London Ambulance Service.
See
http://www3.camden.gov.uk/templates/com ... =10945.htm
All in all the whole story seems to be little more than a bit of politically motivated and rather clever mischief by a motorphile who knew full well how his ‘research’ would be used by the right wing press and anti-speed control groups. That said Sigurd Reinton and the LAS were also partly responsible, not least for 'failing to produce evidence to back up this claim and for neglecting to attend consultative meetings where new humps are discussed' as the Guardian story above notes. Who knows, perhaps Reinton and Belchamber collaborated on this...
Smith was granted an opportunity to set the story straight and print a retraction.
He refused.
Login
Register
FAQ
Search
Members
-- Paul Smith Scotland, UK 
and her husband.
Now he may be right but it's just the sort of thing Howard et al would use to discredit Paul. 
She miaowed a little and then claws hit keyboard - so I read....