Safe Speed Forums

The campaign for genuine road safety
It is currently Tue May 26, 2020 13:18

All times are UTC [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 10 posts ] 
Author Message
PostPosted: Sat Sep 22, 2007 12:43 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Sat Mar 06, 2004 06:46
Posts: 16903
Location: Safe Speed
Live at 1:30pm and repeated later I expect.

They are outside setting up now.

About 6 points for S172.

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


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Sep 22, 2007 14:02 
Offline
Friend of Safe Speed
Friend of Safe Speed

Joined: Sat Mar 06, 2004 12:01
Posts: 4814
Location: Essex
You came across well IMHO.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Sep 22, 2007 21:33 
Offline
Friend of Safe Speed
Friend of Safe Speed
User avatar

Joined: Sun Sep 25, 2005 10:16
Posts: 7986
Location: Moved to London
Sky News video clip.

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


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Sep 22, 2007 23:41 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Sat Mar 06, 2004 06:46
Posts: 16903
Location: Safe Speed
smeggy wrote:


Can someone check that 'clip' quick and confirm that they are attributing stupidly low numbers of S172 offences to DfT?

I'm on a cellular connection and can't really do video clips. And I see a PR opportunity...

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


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Sep 23, 2007 01:35 
Offline
Friend of Safe Speed
Friend of Safe Speed
User avatar

Joined: Sun Sep 25, 2005 10:16
Posts: 7986
Location: Moved to London
SafeSpeed wrote:
Can someone check that 'clip' quick and confirm that they are attributing stupidly low numbers of S172 offences to DfT?

I don't think anything of that nature was said.

There were 3400 prosecutions for failure to ID, 2300 found guilty. Sounds like they are winning, but there's no mention of how many cases were dropped before getting to court.


"killed by a speeding driver"
For anyone who wants to know: Nova’s 18 year-old son Dominic was killed in 2004 while riding as a passenger in a friend’s car. The driver was exceeding 60mph in a 30mph limit when he overtook on a bend and crashed.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Sep 23, 2007 02:38 
Offline
Friend of Safe Speed
Friend of Safe Speed

Joined: Sat Mar 06, 2004 12:01
Posts: 4814
Location: Essex
The headline splash did indeed show "3400 No ID" and the newscaster voiceover said "Latest annual figures show that there were 3,400 prosecutions for failure to identify a speeding driver. 2,300 were found guilty, given 3 points and a £1,000 fine."

I wonder if they got this wrong by dividing the treasury figure of £2.3M by 1000 and then multiplied it up by the prosecution failure ratio to get their 3,400?


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Sep 23, 2007 05:32 
Offline
Member
Member
User avatar

Joined: Wed Mar 17, 2004 18:17
Posts: 794
Location: Reading
SafeSpeed wrote:
smeggy wrote:


Can someone check that 'clip' quick and confirm that they are attributing stupidly low numbers of S172 offences to DfT?

Confirmed. While the figures were being displayed, we also got large, clear capitals saying "SOURCE: DEPARTMENT FOR TRANSPORT". Goodness me they've stooped low if they're now deliberately releasing wrong numbers.

I was a little disappointed in Sky as the report seemed somewhat biased (e.g. talking about "loopholes", and also saying that an accident was "caused by a speeding driver"...somehow I doubt it). But at least Paul got his few seconds.

_________________
Paul Smith: a legend.

"The freedom provided by the motor vehicle is not universally applauded, however: there are those who resent the loss of state control over individual choice that the car represents. Such people rarely admit their prejudices openly; instead, they make false or exaggerated claims about the adverse effects of road transport in order to justify calls for higher taxation or restrictions on mobility." (Conservative Way Forward: Stop The War Against Drivers)


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Sep 23, 2007 09:31 
Offline
Friend of Safe Speed
Friend of Safe Speed
User avatar

Joined: Sun Sep 25, 2005 10:16
Posts: 7986
Location: Moved to London
I interpreted ‘attributing’ in the context of being a cause rather than a source, was I wrong in that? Is so, sorry Paul.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Sep 23, 2007 13:58 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Sat Mar 06, 2004 06:46
Posts: 16903
Location: Safe Speed
smeggy wrote:
I interpreted ‘attributing’ in the context of being a cause rather than a source, was I wrong in that? Is so, sorry Paul.


Yeah, but not to worry. Obviously I was ambiguous.

Safe Speed issued the following PR at 12:25 this afternoon:

PR536: DfT: Sorry, Wrong Number (Of S172 convictions)

news: for immediate release

Figures in the news today and attributed to Department for Transport (DfT) are
not only wrong, they are absolutely wildly wrong says Safe Speed.

Figures reported by The Times (Saturday), Sky TV News (Saturday) and BBC News
24 (Sunday) and attributed to Department for Transport suggest that around
3,400 prosecutions resulted in 2,400 convictions for 'section 172' 'failing to
identify the driver' offences. The assumption is that it is an annual figure,
but no period has been stated or confirmed.

But these figures are absurd. Safe Speed estimates indicate that S172
convictions are running at about 270,000 per annum in England and Wales.
Attempts to get official figures from the Home Office have failed because (they
claim) that S172 figures are bundled into a 'miscellaneous' category before
they are received (at the Home Office). Of course each individual Police force
will have S172 statistics.

However the Home Office have twice claimed in recent years that S172 offences
are the reason for the rapid growth of the miscellaneous offence category.
Earlier trends indicate that the miscellaneous category was shrinking
significantly before the rapid rise of S172 offences brought on by the rapid
rise of speed camera offences.

The latest (2004) figures indicate 346,700 miscellaneous offences. Safe Speed
estimates that about 200,000 of those were S172 convictions. Since 2004, S172
convictions have been on the rise and have very likely reached 270,000 by now.

But many S172 cases are lost. 270,000 convictions implies some 380,000
prosecutions, of which 110,000 were found innocent.

The rise of the Home Office 'miscellaneous' category is not the only estimate
of S172 offences. We should also consider what percentage of camera detected
speeding offences end up as S172 cases. With some 3.1 million prosecution
starts in the last year on record (from camera partnership accounts) we can
estimate that 'a percentage' end up as S172 offences. 10% is a fair starting
guess which implies immediately 310,000 cases. Safe Speed believes that the
reality is rather higher at about 12%. This confirms the 380,000 cases
estimate.

Paul Smith, founder of SafeSpeed.org.uk, said: "Sorry, DfT. Wrong Number. The
numbers you are quoting for these offences are ridiculous. The incompetence is
breathtaking."

"Our road safety is in your hands and your numbers are out by a factor of 100.
It is almost unbelievable that DfT officials have such a poor grip on the
numbers that rubbish like this can be handed to press."

"What are the real numbers DfT? We need to know and we need to know now. We
also need to know who (within the DfT) gave out the rubbish numbers and why."

"If DfT cannot provide full and accurate numbers immediately, we should also
question the entire basis of the change in the law." (As it happens we don't
believe that DfT do have full and accurate information.)

"Department for Transport is not fit for purpose. Their road safety policies
have failed, and these extraordinary errors with basic data are simply
inexcusable."

<ends>

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

Home Office sources and figures:

>From Page 6, Motoring Offences and breath test statistics 2004

"11. The number of miscellaneous motoring offences dealt with was larger in
2004 at 347,000, a rise of 30 per cent on 2003, than in any other year shown in
Table 2. There had been small reductions each year since 1997 (280,000)
although there was a rise in 2001 which reflected a large increase in
prosecutions under sections 172(3) and 172(4) of the Road Traffic Act 1988 -
persons keeping vehicle failing to give driver’s name and address on demand.
There was a further large increase between 2002 and 2003 by 21 per cent to
267,000."


>From page 6 Motoring Offences and breath test statistics 2001

"9. Other offence groups which have shown long term reductions are careless
driving, which was highest in 1981 (although this also showed a small increase
between 1996 and 1997), and load offences, which were highest in 1991. Lighting
and noise offences were five times more often subject to police action in 1971
and 1981 than in 2001. There was however a reversal of the trend in long term
reductions for dangerous driving, accident offences, unauthorised taking or
theft of a motor vehicle and miscellaneous motoring offences. The latter
showing a high increase in prosecutions under sections 172(3) and 172(4) of the
Road Traffic Act 1988 - persons keeping vehicle failing to give driver's name
and address on demand."

Year Miscellaneous Motoring Offences (1,000s) Source: Home Office

1998 278.1
1999 258.1
2000 223.1
2001 227.7
2002 220.4
2003 267.0
2004 346.7

Earlier Safe Speed PR on S172 licence points change:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/SafeSpeedPR/message/396

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


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Sep 24, 2007 07:45 
Offline
User

Joined: Thu Mar 24, 2005 09:44
Posts: 516
Location: Swindon, the home of the Magic Roundabout and no traffic planning
Shame they didn't give a bit more time to you Paul.

The chin wig is getting quite impressive :D

_________________
"Are you sh**ing me?"
"John Spartan, you are fined one credit for a violation of the verbal morality statute."


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 10 posts ] 

All times are UTC [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 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 cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group
[ Time : 0.641s | 13 Queries | GZIP : Off ]