Safe Speed Forums

Yes - I have only briefly skimmed the report (I am supposed to be working!) but I was suprised that they appeared to take the questionnaire at face value and didn't comment on the blatantly biased questioning. All it did was average the results and plot some graphs. The graphs of the press coverage were interesting though.

Gareth

I totally agree, I don't see how they can say that no reliable method has been established for accounting for RTM. The standard clinical trial technique of having an untreated control group, for example, is a long-established way of dealing with the problem.

Incidentally, as they are saying there will be more humps, is there convincing data on the safety benefits of speed humps?

I am not convinced there will be more humps or 20 mph zones than there otherwise would have been - it's just window-dressing.

Local residents seem to be increasingly rejecting humps anyway as they realise it is their own lives the humps will make a misery.

_________________
"Show me someone who says that they have never exceeded a speed limit, and I'll show you a liar, or a menace." (Austin Williams - Director, Transport Research Group)

Any views expressed in this post are personal opinions and may not represent the views of Safe Speed

"official" news is starting to hit the media....camera report shows cameras proved to be doing a good job...hundreds of lives saved blah blah blah....


http://www.itv-motoring.com/news/2005/december/15/7645.asp

_________________
Speed camera policy Kills

More humps means more 'rat runs' through the residential streets to avoid vehicle damage - or we all start buying off-roaders to cope with the obstacles & debris falling off the chavs cars. Tranny2000 pundits will be up in arms. Ha!

Paul seems to be getting plenty of calls to comment - I'm sure he will get all the points across.

Gareth

So, hypothecation/netting-off is dead, but cameras and policy and 'the message' is to stay the same.

It'll be interesting to see how this plays out in practice. Clearly they have done their accounting and worked out how much the system rakes in, otherwise how could they be proposing this increased 'road safety' budget?

I have an unhealthy feeling that this will make the whole system even less transparent as the accounts become centralised. A battle has been won today but the war rages on. Moreover, the enemy is wounded thanks to the RTTM admission.

One crumb of satisfaction - Steve Callaghan and his ilk will have plenty words to be eating right now....

Hundreds? I thought best estimate was 100 even before this! If in doubt, just up the size of the lie.

Safe Speed issued the third PR of the day on the subject at 15:11 this afternoon:

PR267: Face facts, Mr Darling, and resign

news: for immediate release

The Department for Transport's (DfT) move away from speed cameras is a
shameful and cowardly attempt to pretend that their policy has been working
and it's clearly time to move on.

The truth is that speed camera policy has been grossly overestimated and
misunderstood by an increasingly incompetent DfT.

That truth emerged today buried deep in the rear pages of the 4th year report
of the speed camera funding scheme.

The report admits that gross statistical errors have overestimated the
benefits of speed cameras by up to a factor of five. (This is mainly the RTTM
error, see notes for editors below, and appendix H of the new report)

Realising the gross error, DfT now seeks to move quietly away from speed
cameras and the disastrous speed camera funding scheme.

Paul Smith, founder of the Safe Speed road safety campaign
(www.safespeed.org.uk) said: "The proper reaction from the Department for
Transport now is to admit their errors and pull the plug on the failed and
hopelessly overestimated speed camera programme. I am absolutely disgusted
that they are attempting to shirk their responsibilities to road safety and
wind it down quietly."

"It is extremely urgent that confidence is restored in official road safety
messages and while they choose to pretend that nothing is wrong this simply
will not happen."

"Be a real man, Mr Darling. Admit your mistake, pull the plug and resign. Your
policies are responsible for thousands of road deaths which proper policies
could have prevented."

<ends>

Notes for editors
=================

Briefing document issued Wednesday:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/SafeSpeedPR/message/112

RTTM PR issued this morning:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/SafeSpeedPR/message/115

RTTM primer page:
http://www.safespeed.org.uk/rttm.html

Letter about errors in the third year report:
http://www.safespeed.org.uk/heydecker2.html

New DfT report:
http://www.dft.gov.uk/stellent/groups/d ... 610816.pdf

_________________
Paul Smith
Our scrap speed cameras petition got over 28,000 sigs
The Safe Speed campaign demands a return to intelligent road safety

Don't pedestrians and cyclists need to take some responsibillity for thier own life (or death)

_________________
Speed limit sign radio interview. TV Snap Unhappy
“It has never been the rule in this country – I hope it never will be - that suspected criminal offences must automatically be the subject of prosecution” He added that there should be a prosecution: “wherever it appears that the offence or the circumstances of its commission is or are of such a character that a prosecution in respect thereof is required in the public interest”
This approach has been endorsed by Attorney General ever since 1951. CPS Code

Having had a chance to digest all the feedback, yesterday's report can be put down as a textbook example of modern politics. Transport 2000 are trumpeting the headline claims for KSI reductions (RTTM notwithstanding) as a vindication, so the loonie anti-car mob are happy.

We can see the meat-and-drink of this report as being a severe amputation of the scamera partnerships, so we feel a little better, and the local councillors who were concerned at the shady accounting practices of the partnerships are resting a little easier.

One thing is for certain, and that is that post Iraq War II, this government and any of its members will never admit any wrongdoing or failure.

Cambridgeshire Scamera Pratnership must know they are sinking. Their logo has got a life belt!

[/img]http://www.cambs.police.uk/camops/safetycameras/index.asp

I emailed Steve Hounsham (T2000's "Director of Communications") calling their honesty and accuracy into question over the "42%" in their news report, and telling him exactly where to look for the real figures. To my astonishment he wrote back almost immediately to tell me that he "couldn't find anything in my statement to agree with" but "wishing me well". I wrote back and suggested that he should actually read the report a little further than the executive summary then he might have some idea of what I was on about... I don't expect any further communication.

No point posting anything to their "forum" as anything considered even slightly heretical is instantly moderated into non-existance.

_________________
"Politicians are the same the world over... We build bridges where there aren't any rivers." - Nikita Kruschev