Safe Speed Forums

The campaign for genuine road safety
It is currently Mon Oct 14, 2019 17:28

All times are UTC [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 32 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2  Next
Author Message
 Post subject: Sites cut in Cumbria?
PostPosted: Tue Jul 19, 2005 00:16 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Sat Mar 06, 2004 06:46
Posts: 16903
Location: Safe Speed
This DfT document:

http://www.dft.gov.uk/stellent/groups/d ... 038961.pdf

Appears to show that the number of speed camera sites in Cumbria in 2003 was 33 and in 2004 was 16. What's the story here?

_________________
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: Tue Jul 19, 2005 00:32 
Offline
User
User avatar

Joined: Tue Feb 15, 2005 00:15
Posts: 5232
Location: Windermere
It's almost certainly a mistake... However, I suspect that it is because where there is more than one site on one road, it only got counted once.
This weeks schedule shows 16 sites - although some are definately more than one position, e.g. M6, A6, A66,A590 all have several talivan positions.

I see Ings is back on the posted list - it was missing for a while - presumably because it was to become a fixed camera site, but did'nt, so now the talivan is back!!!! :wink:

The fool list is here:http://www.cumbriasafetycameras.org/library/SiteListAndMap.htm

_________________
Time to take responsibility for our actions.. and don't be afraid of speaking out!


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Jul 19, 2005 10:52 
Offline
Camera Partnership Staff
Camera Partnership Staff

Joined: Mon Jan 17, 2005 15:38
Posts: 413
SafeSpeed wrote:
This DfT document:

http://www.dft.gov.uk/stellent/groups/d ... 038961.pdf

Appears to show that the number of speed camera sites in Cumbria in 2003 was 33 and in 2004 was 16. What's the story here?


Total number (2003-2004) is 49 that is correct should be another column showing TOTAL

JJ


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Jul 19, 2005 10:56 
Offline
Member
Member

Joined: Thu Mar 11, 2004 00:24
Posts: 2400
Location: Kendal, Cumbria
JJ wrote:
SafeSpeed wrote:
This DfT document:

http://www.dft.gov.uk/stellent/groups/d ... 038961.pdf

Appears to show that the number of speed camera sites in Cumbria in 2003 was 33 and in 2004 was 16. What's the story here?


Total number (2003-2004) is 49 that is correct should be another column showing TOTAL

JJ

So the stats are for sites approved during each the relevant years then, with each site then staying approved for x years?

_________________
CSCP Latin for beginners...
Ticketo ergo sum : I scam therefore I am!


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Jul 19, 2005 11:12 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Sat Mar 06, 2004 06:46
Posts: 16903
Location: Safe Speed
JJ wrote:
SafeSpeed wrote:
This DfT document:

http://www.dft.gov.uk/stellent/groups/d ... 038961.pdf

Appears to show that the number of speed camera sites in Cumbria in 2003 was 33 and in 2004 was 16. What's the story here?


Total number (2003-2004) is 49 that is correct should be another column showing TOTAL


Oh RIGHT! So the increase in camera sites is associated with an increase in road deaths then. I was puzzled to see sites down and deaths up. That's not the usual pattern.

How the hell do you sleep at night?

_________________
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  
 
PostPosted: Tue Jul 19, 2005 13:36 
Offline
Camera Partnership Staff
Camera Partnership Staff

Joined: Mon Jan 17, 2005 15:38
Posts: 413
SafeSpeed wrote:
JJ wrote:
SafeSpeed wrote:
This DfT document:

http://www.dft.gov.uk/stellent/groups/d ... 038961.pdf

Appears to show that the number of speed camera sites in Cumbria in 2003 was 33 and in 2004 was 16. What's the story here?


Total number (2003-2004) is 49 that is correct should be another column showing TOTAL


Oh RIGHT! So the increase in camera sites is associated with an increase in road deaths then. I was puzzled to see sites down and deaths up. That's not the usual pattern.



How the hell do you sleep at night?


Very easy and I drink Horlicks. But you already knew how many sites are listed on the CSC website so why bring the matter up


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Jul 19, 2005 13:46 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Sat Mar 06, 2004 06:46
Posts: 16903
Location: Safe Speed
JJ wrote:
But you already knew how many sites are listed on the CSC website so why bring the matter up


When official figures are in conflict I ask questions.

Remind me, what percentage of crashes are caused or contributed to by otherwise responsible motorists exceeding a speed limit?

You don't answer difficult questions do you? (Please prove me wrong).

_________________
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  
 
PostPosted: Tue Jul 19, 2005 15:47 
Offline
Camera Partnership Staff
Camera Partnership Staff

Joined: Mon Jan 17, 2005 15:38
Posts: 413
SafeSpeed wrote:
JJ wrote:
But you already knew how many sites are listed on the CSC website so why bring the matter up


When official figures are in conflict I ask questions.

Remind me, what percentage of crashes are caused or contributed to by otherwise responsible motorists exceeding a speed limit?

You don't answer difficult questions do you? (Please prove me wrong).

I'll tell you what Paul, as we are responsible for enforcing the speed limit at accident hot spots and not for imposing or deciding upon speed limits, why don't you direct your campaign towards those who are responsible for setting the speed limit?
As your campaign is largely negative, i.e. trying to stop something being done, why don't you concentrate on what you consider to be the positive side of your campaign, i.e. the increase of some speed limits and a reduction in enforcement? If you have the courage of your convictions regarding this, this is surely the action a reasonable campaigner would take but it isn't is it?
The reason you don't do this is because you know very well that there is a large majority of drivers and the public who simply regard you as a crank and quite wrong as did the presenter and the studio guests on the Bannister programme last Thursday night. Oh I forgot the 2 rerspondents who didn't agree also.
So come on, stop the negative actions, it will get you nowhere, concentrate on what you (not many others) regard as the positive side of your case and see how far you get.
You seem to have developed into a one-trick-pony with a single track record that is trying to defy the laws of the universe and convince others that you are right. There must be a name for that condition surely.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Jul 19, 2005 16:18 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Sat Mar 06, 2004 06:46
Posts: 16903
Location: Safe Speed
JJ wrote:
SafeSpeed wrote:
JJ wrote:
But you already knew how many sites are listed on the CSC website so why bring the matter up


When official figures are in conflict I ask questions.

Remind me, what percentage of crashes are caused or contributed to by otherwise responsible motorists exceeding a speed limit?

You don't answer difficult questions do you? (Please prove me wrong).

I'll tell you what Paul, as we are responsible for enforcing the speed limit at accident hot spots and not for imposing or deciding upon speed limits, why don't you direct your campaign towards those who are responsible for setting the speed limit?
As your campaign is largely negative, i.e. trying to stop something being done, why don't you concentrate on what you consider to be the positive side of your campaign, i.e. the increase of some speed limits and a reduction in enforcement? If you have the courage of your convictions regarding this, this is surely the action a reasonable campaigner would take but it isn't is it?
The reason you don't do this is because you know very well that there is a large majority of drivers and the public who simply regard you as a crank and quite wrong as did the presenter and the studio guests on the Bannister programme last Thursday night. Oh I forgot the 2 rerspondents who didn't agree also.
So come on, stop the negative actions, it will get you nowhere, concentrate on what you (not many others) regard as the positive side of your case and see how far you get.
You seem to have developed into a one-trick-pony with a single track record that is trying to defy the laws of the universe and convince others that you are right. There must be a name for that condition surely.


Mmmm. Smell that P45.

Oh, and I notice you didn't answer the question...

_________________
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  
 
PostPosted: Tue Jul 19, 2005 17:14 
Offline
Friend of Safe Speed
Friend of Safe Speed
User avatar

Joined: Thu Mar 11, 2004 11:19
Posts: 1795
JJ wrote:
You seem to have developed into a one-trick-pony with a single track record that is trying to defy the laws of the universe and convince others that you are right. There must be a name for that condition surely.


I think that describes pratnerships and their camera schemes more accurately. If speed was that deadly then every rally, racing and motorsport driver would be dead within seconds. Anyone can crash at 5 mph if they fail to steer or stop or observe correctly. You can even kill at that speed without difficulty if you are stupid enough. A clot is clot no matter what speed they drive at.

I am glad to say that the public is finally waking up to the fact that the camera schemes have failed and the promised reduction in fatalities hasn't materialised. I used to believe that cameras could prevent accidents but once you look under the spin, statistical mistakes and down right ignorance they in fact do virtually nothing. Slowing people down for the sake of it doesn't remove the cause of the accidents, educating them does however.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Jul 19, 2005 17:45 
Offline
Life Member
Life Member
User avatar

Joined: Sat Jul 24, 2004 13:36
Posts: 1339
JJ wrote:
I'll tell you what Paul, as we are responsible for enforcing the speed limit at accident hot spots and not for imposing or deciding upon speed limits, why don't you direct your campaign towards those who are responsible for setting the speed limit?


That's not really true though is it; it depends what you mean by 'we'.

Surely the County Council or Highways Agency are responsible for setting speed limits? Who are the members listed in your partnership again?

ImageImageImageImage


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Jul 19, 2005 18:10 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Sat Mar 06, 2004 06:46
Posts: 16903
Location: Safe Speed
I just realised that there are questions here that I didn't answer. Not wishing to shirk any question, I thought it best to answer them.

JJ wrote:
I'll tell you what Paul, as we are responsible for enforcing the speed limit at accident hot spots and not for imposing or deciding upon speed limits, why don't you direct your campaign towards those who are responsible for setting the speed limit?


Because it isn't the law causing the problem. It's enforcement practice. That's you pal.

JJ wrote:
As your campaign is largely negative, i.e. trying to stop something being done, why don't you concentrate on what you consider to be the positive side of your campaign, i.e. the increase of some speed limits and a reduction in enforcement? If you have the courage of your convictions regarding this, this is surely the action a reasonable campaigner would take but it isn't is it?


By far the biggest road safety issue is the obsession with speed cameras. It now costs 1,200 lives per year.

JJ wrote:
The reason you don't do this is because you know very well that there is a large majority of drivers and the public who simply regard you as a crank and quite wrong as did the presenter and the studio guests on the Bannister programme last Thursday night. Oh I forgot the 2 rerspondents who didn't agree also.


Yeah right. The government has issued a load of old tosh and brainwashed many. I'm putting that right. Step by step.

JJ wrote:
So come on, stop the negative actions, it will get you nowhere, concentrate on what you (not many others) regard as the positive side of your case and see how far you get.
You seem to have developed into a one-trick-pony with a single track record that is trying to defy the laws of the universe and convince others that you are right. There must be a name for that condition surely.


If you think I'm a one trick pony, meet the Radio Cumbria challenge. I'd like to hear you explain why you're NOT a one-trick pony. But you don't dare do you? You know that you would lose any honest debate. You know your cameras don't save lives because deaths are up.

And I still don't know how you sleep at night.

_________________
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  
 
PostPosted: Tue Jul 19, 2005 18:55 
Offline
Life Member
Life Member

Joined: Sat Mar 27, 2004 13:50
Posts: 2643
teabelly wrote:
Slowing people down for the sake of it doesn't remove the cause of the accidents, educating them does however.


Have you heard the radio ad for the Wiltshire scamera pratnership?

"Working together to educate drivers to slow down!"

:puke:

Cheers
Peter

_________________
Only when ideology, prejudice and dogma are set aside does the truth emerge - Kepler


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Jul 20, 2005 10:03 
Offline
Life Member
Life Member
User avatar

Joined: Sat Jul 24, 2004 13:36
Posts: 1339
Zamzara wrote:
That's not really true though is it; it depends what you mean by 'we'.

Surely the County Council or Highways Agency are responsible for setting speed limits? Who are the members listed in your partnership again?


Hello? JJ?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Jul 20, 2005 13:35 
Offline
Camera Partnership Staff
Camera Partnership Staff

Joined: Mon Jan 17, 2005 15:38
Posts: 413
Zamzara wrote:
Zamzara wrote:
That's not really true though is it; it depends what you mean by 'we'.

Surely the County Council or Highways Agency are responsible for setting speed limits? Who are the members listed in your partnership again?


Hello? JJ?

They don't set the speed limits on a national basis you chump! I was refering to the 70 mph speed limit and the legislation regarding speed limits. Not the site specific limits.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Jul 20, 2005 18:07 
Offline
Life Member
Life Member

Joined: Sat Mar 27, 2004 13:50
Posts: 2643
JJ wrote:
They don't set the speed limits on a national basis you chump! I was refering to the 70 mph speed limit and the legislation regarding speed limits. Not the site specific limits.


:? And just where did you even remotely imply that then?
You just shift the goalposts around to suit your argument - and then have the temerity to be insulting about it.

_________________
Only when ideology, prejudice and dogma are set aside does the truth emerge - Kepler


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Jul 20, 2005 18:20 
Offline
Friend of Safe Speed
Friend of Safe Speed
User avatar

Joined: Tue Mar 09, 2004 23:09
Posts: 6735
Location: Stockport, Cheshire
JJ wrote:
They don't set the speed limits on a national basis you chump! I was refering to the 70 mph speed limit and the legislation regarding speed limits. Not the site specific limits.

And what proportion of Cumbria's fixed and mobile sites are in national limits?

In some counties like Surrey and Oxfordshire national limits have virtually disappeared now except from tiny lanes.

_________________
"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  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Jul 20, 2005 18:39 
Offline
User

Joined: Tue Feb 15, 2005 15:52
Posts: 461
Why wont you meet Paul for a debate JJ ?


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Jul 20, 2005 21:42 
Offline
User

Joined: Thu Jun 10, 2004 18:58
Posts: 306
Location: LanCA$Hire ex Kendal
Or tell us how many lives you have save since commencing in business?


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Jul 21, 2005 08:15 
Offline
User
User avatar

Joined: Tue Feb 15, 2005 00:15
Posts: 5232
Location: Windermere
kendalian wrote:
Or tell us how many lives you have save since commencing in business?

It's wrong to take any one months figures and try to base results on it - or even a quarterly result.
However on the defunct CSCP forum, Steve did just that, last April.

When Kevin was on Radio Cumbria, he quite rightly said it was wrong of me to point out figures were alreadt worse THIS year.
But why stop at a quarter - it is wrong to take any one YEAR and say deaths are up or down - you need to look at the long term trend, which is..... Oh Dear :oops:
July is really going to spoil the figures - last year there were NO fatals, while this year, there have been at least 7 already.

I guess Steve will have to double up on the Horlicks at night. :( or convince himself that since the accidents were not at camera sites, or did not involve speeding, he could not have saved those lives... so why not make way for somebody who CAN?

_________________
Time to take responsibility for our actions.. and don't be afraid of speaking out!


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 32 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2  Next

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 : 0.322s | 11 Queries | GZIP : Off ]