Safe Speed Forums

The campaign for genuine road safety
It is currently Fri Nov 14, 2025 02:10

All times are UTC [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 14 posts ] 
Author Message
PostPosted: Fri Sep 03, 2010 17:38 
Offline
Friend of Safe Speed
Friend of Safe Speed
User avatar

Joined: Sun Sep 25, 2005 10:16
Posts: 7986
Location: Moved to London
visordown.com, from rospa.com

Quote:
Ten Reasons to Maintain Speed Camera Enforcement

Excessive Speeding Kills Hundreds of People a Year
In 2008, 362 people were killed, and 1,935 seriously injured, because drivers or motorcyclists exceeded speed limits. 1 A further 224 people were killed, and over 2,000 seriously injured in accidents where someone was travelling too fast for the conditions. Inappropriate speed also magnifies other driver errors, such as driving too close or driving when fatigued or distracted, multiplying the chances of these types of driving causing an accident. Even where speed is not the main factor in a crash, it fundamentally affects both the likelihood of the crash occurring, and its severity for those involved.

Speed Cameras Reduce Speeding and Save Lives
Cameras are a very effective way of persuading drivers not to speed, and thereby reducing the number of people killed and seriously injured. An evaluation of their effectiveness in 2005 2 showed that they were saving around 100 lives a year, and preventing over 1,600 serious injuries. A wide range of UK and International research studies consistently show that cameras are very effective at saving lives. 3

Without Cameras, Speed Enforcement will Disappear
Cameras enable a much higher level of speed enforcement to be conducted than is possible using police officers on their own. In 2008, cameras provided evidence for 84% of the 1.2 million fixed penalty notices issued for speeding offences. 4 Without cameras, the level of enforcement would almost certainly dwindle to a very low level, especially as the Police service is also facing financial cuts. The deterrent against speeding would almost completely disappear. It is highly likely that speeding would increase, followed inexorably by an increase in the number of people killed and injured on the road.

Speed Cameras Save Money
Not only do safety cameras save lives and prevent injury, they also save the public purse many millions of pounds. Apart from their human cost, road accidents are extremely expensive in financial terms. Safety cameras more than pay for themselves, and so from a purely financial point of view, cutting them does not make sense. The four year evaluation of the national safety camera programme2 estimated that the annual economic benefit of cameras in place at the end of the fourth year was over £258 million, compared with enforcement costs of about £96 million.

Cameras are Educational, not just Punitive
Cameras are an effective way of identifying drivers who would benefit from attending a Speed Awareness Course, and so they provide a good opportunity to re-educate, and not just punish, drivers who are caught speeding, but who are not massively violating speed limits. These courses are now becoming available across the country. Even where drivers are fined and given penalty points, this acts as a warning to the driver to consider his/her driving before they begin to tot-up further points, with the risk of being disqualified if they gain 12 or more points.

Road Safety Partnership Do More than Speed Enforcement
Road Safety Partnerships, who manage safety cameras around the country, do many more road safety activities in addition to operating the cameras. They are heavily involved in delivering road safety education services, as well as other types of road safety enforcement.

For example, the Kent & Medway Safety Camera Partnership use safety camera vans for mobile phone and seatbelt offences, and in one six month period detected 108 drivers using a hand-held mobile phone and 859 people failing to wear their seat belts. 5

The War on Motorists is a Myth
Despite claims about a war on motorists, Home Office data 6 shows that the number of speeding tickets issued from cameras has been falling in recent years. There were substantial rises during the first half of the decade, but then reductions from 2004/2005. The reasons for the reductions are not clear, but will probably include a fall in the number of drivers speeding (In 1999, 67% of car drivers exceeded the 30 mph speed limit; by 2009 this had dropped to 48% 7) and an increasing proportion of the drivers who are caught by a speed camera being able to do a Speed Awareness Course instead of receiving the fine and penalty points.
Fixed penalties for offences detected by cameras, 2000 to 2008.

Cameras Support the Wider Road Safety Strategy
Cameras are only one part of a comprehensive road safety strategy, which has helped to reduce deaths on Britain's roads from around 5,000 a year at the start of the 1990s to 2,222 in 2009. Persuading drivers to drive at safe speeds requires a mix of enforcement, education and engineering. Cameras are used alongside road engineering measures, such as better speed limit signing, traffic calming and road design, and education measures, such as publicity campaigns and driver training. Many car drivers unintentionally exceed the speed limit, often without realising it. Modern cars are so powerful and comfortable they give drivers little sensation of their speed. It is too easy to creep above the limit, but there are some simple and practical things drivers who find it difficult to stay with speed limits can do to help themselves. For more advice see RoSPA's Top Ten Tips To Stay Within the Limit. (PDF 155kb) 8

Cameras are one of the Reasons Britain is a World Leader in Road Safety

The UK has one of the best road safety records in the world, and in common with other countries that have very good road safety records (Sweden, the Netherlands, Australia) has included speed management in its road safety strategies. The importance of addressing speed is also included in UN Resolution 62/244, "Improving global road safety" 9, which underlines "the importance for Member States to continue using the World Report on Road Traffic Injury Prevention as a framework for road safety efforts and implementing its recommendations by paying particular attention to five of the main risk factors identified, namely, the non-use of safety belts and child restraints, the non-use of helmets, drinking and driving, inappropriate and excessive speed and the lack of appropriate infrastructure". An EC project, SUPREME, 10 to identify the best ways of preventing road deaths gave the speed camera programme in the UK the highest rating, citing it as best practice, and highlighting the structured programme, with national guidelines on the deployment of cameras, the use of local partnerships to manage them, and the arrangements to use fine revenue for other road safety measures.

There is Strong Public Support for Cameras
The original Safety Camera Partnerships commissioned surveys in their areas to assess the public's views about cameras. The level of support was consistently high with 79% of people agreeing that "the use of safety cameras should be supported as a method of reducing casualties". Two thirds (68%) of those questioned agreed that the primary use of cameras was to save lives. 2 Public opinion surveys continue to be conducted regularly. A very recent example 11 is one by the South Yorkshire Safety Camera Partnership of over 3,000 residents across the county that showed that 80% of South Yorkshire residents think that safety cameras are meant to encourage drivers to drive within the speed limits and 55% thought that safety cameras (fixed cameras, mobile cameras and average speed cameras) are the most effective type of speed enforcement.

_________________
Views expressed are personal opinions and are not necessarily shared by the Safe Speed campaign


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
PostPosted: Fri Sep 03, 2010 17:42 
Offline
Friend of Safe Speed
Friend of Safe Speed
User avatar

Joined: Sun Sep 25, 2005 10:16
Posts: 7986
Location: Moved to London
My own personal rebuttle to this:

Ten Reasons to End Camera Enforcement

Does Excessive Speeding Really Kill Hundreds of People a Year?
Cameras cannot prevent or detect "travelling too fast for the conditions" or "Inappropriate speed". It is wrong to use these irrelevant factors as justification for cameras.
The speed camera policy, and the misleading claims surrounding them, has resulted with speed cameras largely replacing the only means to detect these instances of poor driving: traffic patrols.

It is unfortunate that recent changes to speed limits actually exacerbate factors such as tailgating and fatigue, as well as devaluing speed limits and eroding respect of law. Again this is partly thanks to the misleading claims surrounding camera effectiveness.

Speed Cameras Induce Danger and DO NOT Save Lives
Speed cameras are only effective at inducing adverse reactions from drivers; the bunching up and panic braking at camera sites are proof of this.
ICM Research recently claimed that 1% of all road accidents now have speed cameras as a contributory factor to the accident (*a).

The speed camera policy have not been proven to have saved any lives at all.
A wide range of UK and International research studies constantly dismiss the confounding effects effect of the illusion benefits of 'Regression To The Mean' (RTTM: *1) and Long-Term trends.
The four Year Report rightly shows there is only a 10% genuine "scheme effect" benefit at camera sites (where the SCPs are wrongly claiming about 55%) when considering two confounding factors such as RTTM and Long-Term Trends. However, the report does not account for the further factor of 'Bias On Selection' (BOS - new web page under review). This where other non-camera related measures are introduced within a 'camera site', so giving another misleading impression that cameras are more beneficial than they actually are. For example, the addition of a pedestrian crossing near a speed camera will be spun as 'reduction of KSIs at a camera site'.
Proper consideration of BOS may show that cameras are actually causing accidents, even with the 55% fall of KSIs at camera sites.

Only 5.4% of all accidents involve a driver exceeding the limit (*b), even then it is only one of several contributory factors for each casualty accident (not a root cause); that figure includes groups that speed cameras do not affect, such as: criminals, joyriders, the impaired, and those trying to evade justice.

Without Cameras, Speed Enforcement will NOT Disappear
Thankfully, speed cameras have not completely replaced traffic patrols.
Traffic police are far more effective than cameras at preventing law-breaking; only patrols can prevent dangerous or anti-social behaviour. It is sensible that some of the recent rises of vehicle taxes and fuel duties should be directed to traffic patrols. Grants for cameras should instead be directed at traffic patrols.
As far as the criminal fraternity are concerned, speed cameras are not enforcement of any kind because detection and identification are so easily circumvented - cameras allow the most dangerous drivers get away with it.

We should be campaigning against the cut of road safety budget, as well as campaigning against the reliance on cameras.

Speed Cameras Do Not Save Money
Speed cameras do not pay for themselves. Drivers who are needlessly criminalized by them pay for them. Only the SCP’s speed cameras managed to worm their way into the lucrative position of 'cost recovery', thanks to misleading claims of their effectiveness.

The economic benefit of cameras do not account for the confounding factors stated earlier. Proper consideration of all these benefit illusions will result with the actual economic benefit being substantially lower than claimed, or even detrimental.

Cameras are Not Educational
Cameras do not educate; they merely document evidence of a technical infringement.
Traffic police consider mitigating and aggravating circumstances, and can give a speed awareness 'course' at the roadside, or any course following any road offence.

Cameras are weapons of mass distractions (*2)

Road Safety Partnership are Desperate to Appear to 'Do More than Speed Enforcement'
Safety camera partnerships charge +£70 for courses that should be offered to every driver as part of driving tuition. There is no reason for these courses to be exclusively offered by SCPs - except to make the SCPs appear useful than they actually are.

Safety camera partnerships also manage red light cameras; a tool that creates needless queues and have resulted with a substantial increase in crashes at red light camera sites. (citation needed, or can be dropped altogether)

Is The War on Motorists is a Myth?
The driver is becoming smarter. Commuters and long-distance travellers have recognised the value of camera warning systems. This is one reason why detected offences have fallen, and does not mean the targeting of motorists had abated.

Cameras Do Not Support the Wider Road Safety Strategy
It is said that "Cameras are used alongside road engineering measures, such as better speed limit signing, traffic calming and road design".
This is an example of what we called 'Bias On Selection', described earlier.

Speed cameras have gained preference over genuine road safety measures that are many times more effective than the cameras, such as: pedestrian crossings/barriers/guardrails, improved lighting, anti-skid surfaces, clearer markings, etc, as well as traffic patrols.

It is said that "Many car drivers unintentionally exceed the speed limit, often without realising it.".
VAS (Vehicle Activated Signs) are perfect for these drivers; the use of speed cameras here isn't reasonable and serves only to punish.
VAS has been proven to be many times more cost effective than speed cameras. (*3)

Cameras are one of the Reasons Britain Lost Its Crown as the World Leader in Road Safety
Britain used to be the world leader, now we slipped to 15th in world rankings (*4); this failure has been spun as a success.
A "Fatality Gap" has become apparent (*5) where the nationwide fall of fatalities suddenly deviated from a 50 year-long trend (~50% reduction per decade to the year 1996, accounting for net distance travelled) to around half that rate (~25% per decade to the year 2006). The deviation occurred, and rose in sympathy, with speed camera use. The annual UK fatality rate should have been a thousand lives lower than it is today.

There is No Genuine Public Support for Cameras
Claims of public support for cameras are misleading. The questions used for surveys showing apparent support are loaded with clauses. For example,
The recent AA survey stated: "70% of motorists supported their use, so long as it was seen as improving road safety, and not designed simply to raise money."

The results from other surveys paint a clearer picture:
"Two thirds (66%) believe speed cameras are mainly used as a revenue generating opportunity" [Swift Cover]
"Only 27% think speed cameras improve road safety" {Admiral/Youguv]

Support would be even lower if the public were told the truth about the confounding factors such as RTTM and BOS, instead of letting the SCPs to make their misleading claims without accounting for any factor.


*1: http://www.safespeed.org.uk/rttm.html
*2: http://www.safespeed.org.uk/sideeffects.pdf
*3: http://www.safespeed.org.uk/vas.html
*4: citation coming
*5: http://www.safespeed.org.uk/sscw.html
*a: http://www.driving.org/news/2010/08/09/ ... 00-crashes, http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... ecade.html
*b: Table 4a: Reported Road Casualties Great Britain 2008 (DfT)

_________________
Views expressed are personal opinions and are not necessarily shared by the Safe Speed campaign


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
PostPosted: Fri Sep 03, 2010 18:05 
Offline
Life Member
Life Member
User avatar

Joined: Sun Sep 25, 2005 21:17
Posts: 3734
Location: Dorset/Somerset border
I don't even know where to start pointing the errors out in that.

Quote:
In 2008, 362 people were killed, and 1,935 seriously injured, because drivers or motorcyclists exceeded speed limits.


I assume this is based on some newspeak definition of exceeding speed limits that includes not exceeding speed limits. Not a good start.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
PostPosted: Fri Sep 03, 2010 18:42 
Offline
Friend of Safe Speed
Friend of Safe Speed
User avatar

Joined: Tue Mar 09, 2004 23:09
Posts: 6737
Location: Stockport, Cheshire
And surely the "war on motorists" goes much further than speeding prosecutions, and includes speed limit reductions, "traffic calming", reallocation of road space, increasing fuel duty, congestion charging, raising parking costs, heavy-handed parking enforcement and all the rest.

_________________
"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


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
PostPosted: Fri Sep 03, 2010 20:31 
Offline
Member
Member

Joined: Fri Oct 26, 2007 19:08
Posts: 3434
Who is funding ROSPA these days, the SCPs?

_________________
My views do not represent Safespeed but those of a driver who has driven for 39 yrs, in all conditions, at all times of the day & night on every type of road and covered well over a million miles, so knows a bit about what makes for safety on the road,what is really dangerous and needs to be observed when driving and quite frankly, the speedo is way down on my list of things to observe to negotiate Britain's roads safely, but I don't expect some fool who sits behind a desk all day to appreciate that.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
PostPosted: Sat Sep 04, 2010 11:23 
Offline
Gold Member
Gold Member
User avatar

Joined: Wed Dec 08, 2004 14:26
Posts: 4364
Location: Hampshire/Wiltshire Border
Pure speculation, but is the head of ROSPA a Common Purpose graduate by any chance?

_________________
Malcolm W.
The views expressed in this post are personal opinions and do not represent the views of Safespeed.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
PostPosted: Sun Sep 05, 2010 00:24 
Offline
Member
Member

Joined: Wed Feb 16, 2005 18:54
Posts: 4036
Location: Cumbria
ROSPA wrote:
Ten Reasons to Maintain Speed Camera Enforcement

Excessive Speeding Kills Hundreds of People a Year
In 2008, 362 people were killed, and 1,935 seriously injured, because drivers or motorcyclists exceeded speed limits. 1 A further 224 people were killed, and over 2,000 seriously injured in accidents where someone was travelling too fast for the conditions. Inappropriate speed also magnifies other driver errors, such as driving too close or driving when fatigued or distracted, multiplying the chances of these types of driving causing an accident. Even where speed is not the main factor in a crash, it fundamentally affects both the likelihood of the crash occurring, and its severity for those involved.

So an admission, I think, that exceeding the speed limit is the cause of NOTHING LIKE 1/3 of accidents, as the government would have originally had us believe!
ROSPA wrote:
Speed Cameras Reduce Speeding and Save Lives
Cameras are a very effective way of persuading drivers not to speed, and thereby reducing the number of people killed and seriously injured. An evaluation of their effectiveness in 2005 2 showed that they were saving around 100 lives a year, and preventing over 1,600 serious injuries. A wide range of UK and International research studies consistently show that cameras are very effective at saving lives.

Not if you look at the national figures and subtract the "baseline" rate of reduction that preceded the introduction of cameras! :lol:
ROSPA wrote:
Without Cameras, Speed Enforcement will Disappear
Cameras enable a much higher level of speed enforcement to be conducted than is possible using police officers on their own. In 2008, cameras provided evidence for 84% of the 1.2 million fixed penalty notices issued for speeding offences. 4 Without cameras, the level of enforcement would almost certainly dwindle to a very low level, especially as the Police service is also facing financial cuts. The deterrent against speeding would almost completely disappear. It is highly likely that speeding would increase, followed inexorably by an increase in the number of people killed and injured on the road.

...as has clearly been demonstrated in Swindon over the last year... :roll:
ROSPA wrote:
Speed Cameras Save Money
Not only do safety cameras save lives and prevent injury, they also save the public purse many millions of pounds. Apart from their human cost, road accidents are extremely expensive in financial terms. Safety cameras more than pay for themselves, and so from a purely financial point of view, cutting them does not make sense. The four year evaluation of the national safety camera programme2 estimated that the annual economic benefit of cameras in place at the end of the fourth year was over £258 million, compared with enforcement costs of about £96 million.

So, who's buls%$*!!&%g who, then? I thought they'd been ditched to SAVE money????
ROSPA wrote:
Cameras are Educational, not just Punitive
Cameras are an effective way of identifying drivers who would benefit from attending a Speed Awareness Course, and so they provide a good opportunity to re-educate, and not just punish, drivers who are caught speeding, but who are not massively violating speed limits. These courses are now becoming available across the country. Even where drivers are fined and given penalty points, this acts as a warning to the driver to consider his/her driving before they begin to tot-up further points, with the risk of being disqualified if they gain 12 or more points.

They're a way of educating drivers to spot (and slow down for) cameras.
ROSPA wrote:
Road Safety Partnership Do More than Speed Enforcement
Road Safety Partnerships, who manage safety cameras around the country, do many more road safety activities in addition to operating the cameras. They are heavily involved in delivering road safety education services, as well as other types of road safety enforcement.
For example, the Kent & Medway Safety Camera Partnership use safety camera vans for mobile phone and seatbelt offences, and in one six month period detected 108 drivers using a hand-held mobile phone and 859 people failing to wear their seat belts. 5

...so...all these claimed "benefits" aren't exclusively down to the speed cameras then?! They must be even LESS effective than I thought!
ROSPA wrote:
The War on Motorists is a Myth
Despite claims about a war on motorists, Home Office data 6 shows that the number of speeding tickets issued from cameras has been falling in recent years. There were substantial rises during the first half of the decade, but then reductions from 2004/2005. The reasons for the reductions are not clear, but will probably include a fall in the number of drivers speeding (In 1999, 67% of car drivers exceeded the 30 mph speed limit; by 2009 this had dropped to 48% 7) and an increasing proportion of the drivers who are caught by a speed camera being able to do a Speed Awareness Course instead of receiving the fine and penalty points.
Fixed penalties for offences detected by cameras, 2000 to 2008.

So the "war" is a myth because fewer people are getting pinged? Does that mean that the war in Afghanistan would be a myth if fewer soldiers got shot?
ROSPA wrote:
Cameras Support the Wider Road Safety Strategy
Cameras are only one part of a comprehensive road safety strategy, which has helped to reduce deaths on Britain's roads from around 5,000 a year at the start of the 1990s to 2,222 in 2009. Persuading drivers to drive at safe speeds requires a mix of enforcement, education and engineering. Cameras are used alongside road engineering measures, such as better speed limit signing, traffic calming and road design, and education measures, such as publicity campaigns and driver training. Many car drivers unintentionally exceed the speed limit, often without realising it. Modern cars are so powerful and comfortable they give drivers little sensation of their speed. It is too easy to creep above the limit, but there are some simple and practical things drivers who find it difficult to stay with speed limits can do to help themselves. For more advice see RoSPA's Top Ten Tips To Stay Within the Limit. (PDF 155kb) 8

Oh, so this 100 lives a year in Point 2 probably ISN'T all down to cameras then? That must make then VERY ineffective indeed!
ROSPA wrote:
Cameras are one of the Reasons Britain is a World Leader in Road Safety
The UK has one of the best road safety records in the world, and in common with other countries that have very good road safety records (Sweden, the Netherlands, Australia) has included speed management in its road safety strategies. The importance of addressing speed is also included in UN Resolution 62/244, "Improving global road safety" 9, which underlines "the importance for Member States to continue using the World Report on Road Traffic Injury Prevention as a framework for road safety efforts and implementing its recommendations by paying particular attention to five of the main risk factors identified, namely, the non-use of safety belts and child restraints, the non-use of helmets, drinking and driving, inappropriate and excessive speed and the lack of appropriate infrastructure". An EC project, SUPREME, 10 to identify the best ways of preventing road deaths gave the speed camera programme in the UK the highest rating, citing it as best practice, and highlighting the structured programme, with national guidelines on the deployment of cameras, the use of local partnerships to manage them, and the arrangements to use fine revenue for other road safety measures.

That must have really stuck in their throat! Considering we didn't have "one of" the best safety records in the world, but "THE" best safety record before we started using cameras! Of all the twisted, perverse and downright misleading things to say!!! I mean, are there ANY countries that DON'T address speed management? Still, I guess it wouldn't sound quite as good if they said "in common with X,Y,Z countries (that happened to have a spectacularly lousy safety record) that included speed management..."! :lol:
ROSPA wrote:
There is Strong Public Support for Cameras
The original Safety Camera Partnerships commissioned surveys in their areas to assess the public's views about cameras. The level of support was consistently high with 79% of people agreeing that "the use of safety cameras should be supported as a method of reducing casualties". Two thirds (68%) of those questioned agreed that the primary use of cameras was to save lives. 2 Public opinion surveys continue to be conducted regularly. A very recent example 11 is one by the South Yorkshire Safety Camera Partnership of over 3,000 residents across the county that showed that 80% of South Yorkshire residents think that safety cameras are meant to encourage drivers to drive within the speed limits and 55% thought that safety cameras (fixed cameras, mobile cameras and average speed cameras) are the most effective type of speed enforcement.

Ah they saved the best until last!

"There is strong public support for cameras"...
...(source: Scamera partnership surveys). :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:
I wonder if some pro-hunting group commissioned a survey, whether they might similarly find "strong public support" for hunting???

Well, That's my little rant over. Steve's is much more sensible and considered - though I'm not sure this tosh justifies a serious answer! ROSPA was never an organisation I took seriously and this hasn't done anything to enhance it's credibility.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
PostPosted: Sun Sep 05, 2010 01:08 
Offline
User

Joined: Tue Apr 20, 2004 03:58
Posts: 267
Location: west yorks
Quote "There is strong public support for cameras"...

Yeah right ! I remember only too well the surveys WYCP did online , Needless to say the results were quickly removed !, If i remember rightly Earnest also published Cumbrias survey results here and they were also removed quickly from their site.

And of course there was this one from 2004 (thank you Paul )

Press Release: Speed camera survey "A pack of lies"

A motorists' pressure group has condemned the results of a survey into public attitudes towards speed cameras as one of the most bare-faced fabrications they have ever heard of.

Last week The Tayside Speed Camera Partnership published the results of a survey which they claimed showed that 89% of the public in Tayside supported the use of speed cameras.

This result is in direct conflict with many other, independent surveys, which show a very different picture. A poll conducted by Auto Express Magazine earlier this year registered 37,000 votes and showed 86% opposed to speed cameras. An RAC/Autocar survey last October found that 47% of drivers would condone the vandalising of speed cameras. And in March this year, Autonational Rescue, a breakdown services company found that 77% of drivers did not think that speed cameras saved lives or prevented accidents.

Eamon Scott, Tayside Coordinator of the Association of British Drivers, and organiser of the Tayside "Stand and Deliver" campaign said, ?The Tayside Police survey is a joke. Who did they ask ? their own staff and their families? The questions were loaded so as to only allow one answer, the survey was carried out by their own people and not by an independent polling organisation. At the end of the day, only 200 people responded - hardly a cross-section of the community!

Scott continued "People in Tayside are smarter than that. They know road deaths went up by 37% last year and are set to soar even further this year. They won't fall for this pack of lies.?

A full criticism of the survey has been posted on the new "Stand and deliver" website, on http://www.safetayside.com .
viewtopic.php?f=13&t=1446&p=13250&hilit=camera+survey#p13250

_________________
nigel_bytes


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
PostPosted: Sun Sep 05, 2010 08:02 
Offline
Supporter
Supporter
User avatar

Joined: Thu Oct 16, 2008 13:45
Posts: 4042
Location: Near Buxton, Derbyshire
nigel_bytes wrote:
Quote "There is strong public support for cameras"...

This result is in direct conflict with many other, independent surveys, which show a very different picture. A poll conducted by Auto Express Magazine earlier this year registered 37,000 votes and showed 86% opposed to speed cameras. An RAC/Autocar survey last October found that 47% of drivers would condone the vandalising of speed cameras. And in March this year, Autonational Rescue, a breakdown services company found that 77% of drivers did not think that speed cameras saved lives or prevented accidents.


Surveys of enthusiastic drivers are bound to give a very different result to surveys of the population as a whole.

_________________
When I see an adult on a bicycle, I do not despair for the future of the human race. H.G. Wells
When I see a youth in a motor car I do d.c.brown


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
PostPosted: Sun Sep 05, 2010 08:35 
Offline
Friend of Safe Speed
Friend of Safe Speed
User avatar

Joined: Tue Mar 09, 2004 23:09
Posts: 6737
Location: Stockport, Cheshire
dcbwhaley wrote:
Surveys of enthusiastic drivers are bound to give a very different result to surveys of the population as a whole.

Can you point us to any surveys "of the population as a whole" not using the loaded questions used by the SCPs?

_________________
"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


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
PostPosted: Sun Sep 05, 2010 08:47 
Offline
Life Member
Life Member
User avatar

Joined: Sun Sep 25, 2005 21:17
Posts: 3734
Location: Dorset/Somerset border
Mole wrote:
So an admission, I think, that exceeding the speed limit is the cause of NOTHING LIKE 1/3 of accidents, as the government would have originally had us believe!


Though in a recent letter I received from the DfT, they "reminded" me that the figure was 25%, so even the official lie varies.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
PostPosted: Sun Sep 05, 2010 09:05 
Offline
Supporter
Supporter
User avatar

Joined: Thu Oct 16, 2008 13:45
Posts: 4042
Location: Near Buxton, Derbyshire
PeterE wrote:
dcbwhaley wrote:
Surveys of enthusiastic drivers are bound to give a very different result to surveys of the population as a whole.

Can you point us to any surveys "of the population as a whole" not using the loaded questions used by the SCPs?


No. Does that invalidate my point?

_________________
When I see an adult on a bicycle, I do not despair for the future of the human race. H.G. Wells
When I see a youth in a motor car I do d.c.brown


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
PostPosted: Sun Sep 05, 2010 11:41 
Offline
Gold Member
Gold Member

Joined: Thu Nov 09, 2006 14:06
Posts: 3654
Location: Oxfordshire
Does one become an "enthusiastic driver" merely by taking out breakdown cover then?

_________________
Regulation without education merely creates more criminals.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
PostPosted: Sun Sep 05, 2010 12:41 
Offline
Supporter
Supporter
User avatar

Joined: Thu Oct 16, 2008 13:45
Posts: 4042
Location: Near Buxton, Derbyshire
RobinXe wrote:
Does one become an "enthusiastic driver" merely by taking out breakdown cover then?


Dunno. But I was really thinking about the Auto Express readers.

_________________
When I see an adult on a bicycle, I do not despair for the future of the human race. H.G. Wells
When I see a youth in a motor car I do d.c.brown


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 14 posts ] 

All times are UTC [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 8 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You can post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
cron
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group
[ Time : 0.023s | 12 Queries | GZIP : Off ]