Safe Speed Forums

You are accusing me of "spin", but your accusation is not justified and I object.

The figures I offererd (all with full references) are capable of verification and the method used is fair and accurate.

If you wish to accuse me of producing misleading information you will find a clear procedure on the first page of the web site, together with a promise to correct it. (Right side, second item: "Web site honesty policy").

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

Correct. However, a reasonable level of skill will allow any given bend to be negotiated at a much higher speed with near absolute safety and without drama than would be achievable by an unskilled driver at the same speed and in the same vehicle. In other words, the safe cornering speed for a given bend is highly dependent upon the skill of the driver. That's why better training is a much better approach to road safety than indiscriminate enforcement.

On average we are just over a third less than national average - even in a "bad year". 2002/2003 remained static 42 K and 233 SIs - compared to Lancs 86K and 962 SI - but of these - far too many are result of those damned bikers. We have not got our act together properly on this - which is bad. However - apart from a bad year 2001 to 2002 on SIs in particular - we do appear to be continuing to keep a decrease going in real terms. (2003 did have more traffic on aggregate - so arguably even though it appears similar to 2002 - it did reduce marginally.)

We show similar showings against S Wales and Humberside - similar size regions and geography to ours and Lancs.


We have one fixed camera and the rest of our enforcement is via the division which includes traffic police, pandas, unmarked cars and our mobile speed camera unit - so yes - we do have cameras here - but the mobile variety. So - bit of a fallacy to say we ain't got no cameras - cos we have - but we try to deploy them where they serve most use and benefit to residents and visitors alike.

But George - we can have cameras, even black tracking boxes in cars - but we will never prevent human beings from being silly and having accidents. I would love to find a way of getting through to bikers of all ages and backgrounds around here that speeding at ridiculous speeds on some of our NSLs is just plain dangerous. If we catch them alive - we lock them up...

Fixed cam would not work that well in this respect either....one heck of a problem area - and it is one area with which we agree with Brunstrom - born again bikers are lethal to themselves and everyone else. We are now considering embarking even more so upon the shock tactics - like giving graphic descriptions and showing really really scary photos to people we pull at the ridiculous.

Errr, steady on old chap. That should read: " - a minority of born again bikers are lethal to themselves and everyone else."

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

From the officer's comments I assume his patch to be Durham. Firstly may I point out that I'm fully in sympathy with him over bikers - I am yet to see one obeying the speed limit and I agree with him and others that speed cameras are no substitute for good policing but are a useful addition. I think the spin and yes it was spin was premature considering neither of us had yet given the officer a chance to answer.

Now to Durham.

My first bit of evidence comes from the other ABD site http://www.abd.org.uk/local/durham.htm which shows fatalities have increased for the two years to 2002 and then stand higher than 1993.

I would then ask people to visit the BBC site http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/3305719.stm where we see Mr Jamieson quite rightly in my opinion castigated Durham for their cavalier attitude:

Last Updated: Wednesday, 10 December, 2003, 09:12 GMT

E-mail this to a friend Printable version

Force in row over speed cameras


Static speed cameras are not used in Durham
A police force in the north-east of England has been told to rethink its anti-speed camera policy after a rise in the number of road deaths.
Road Safety Minister David Jamieson said Durham Police must explain why more people were being killed and injured on its roads.

The force has just one static speed camera and focuses on mobile and hand-held cameras instead.

But last year 42 people died on County Durham's roads - an increase of 56% on the previous year.


Mr Jamieson has told Chief Constable Paul Garvin to look again at his controversial policy.

The force has said it considers the figure a "blip" and remains confident its approach of using mobile and hand-held cameras is a more effective long-term solution to speeding.

But Mr Jamieson said: "The chief of police would perhaps have to explain to local people why it is from 2001-2002 casualties in terms of deaths and serious injuries, and particularly those to children, it is actually one of the few areas where they are going up rather than down.

"I think perhaps they need to re-examine their policy to see if some of those casualties can be reduced by installing safety cameras.

"He will have to explain why deaths are rising in this area."

Mr Jamieson said static speed cameras had cut road deaths and serious injuries by 35%.

And most "sensible" motorists backed their use.

He added: "When we see the figures on how we are reducing deaths, particularly amongst children, the vast majority of motorists who drive safely and carefully know that is good sense."

The Durham force has set up a Casualty Reduction Partnership, which it says relies less on the use of speed cameras and more on education and promotion of road safety issues.

Chief constable Paul Garvin said: "What we find is that there is not a single location within the county where you could say speed cameras would be useful in addressing a road casualty problem.

"We are still seeing the level of road casualties in County Durham are 33% below the national average.

"I sympathise with every person who is a victim or family of a road accident in this county or anywhere.

"But I am trying to put my resources to the best use to reduce road casualties.

"Simply looking at speed cameras as the panacea to all evils, in my view, is not the way of doing things."

The road safety charity Brake has also criticised Durham's stance on speed cameras.

It says the government should compel Durham to establish a Safety Camera Partnership (SCP), which focuses on the use of both static and mobile cameras, to cut road deaths.

Recent government figures showed forces which use static as well as mobile speed cameras, saw road deaths fall dramatically.

May the spin now begin.....................

I would support the generallisation. Although must agree with SS. A proportion of born again bikers are extremely dangerous. As are a number of young bikers.

I've been involved with the all too chilling carnage created by wreckless bike riders. Unfortunately this is a behavioural trend which will be extremely difficult to change. So you may be better off buying a Land Rover and sitting pretty above the bikes. And their riders.

Jeeze - you are a piece of work aren't you? I give you honest figures and you call them spin.

Then you quote blatant and offensive spin in reply!

Deaths up by 56%? Here are the official figures:

1997 36
1998 44
1999 33
2000 23
2001 27
2002 42
2003 42

You don't have to be a statistical genius to spot natural random variation with no overall trend. I don't have pre 1997 figures prepared to the same definitions. Deaths are rising indeed. It's not spin. It's a lie.

For your next trick you quote the BBC quoting Jamieson - deaths and serious injuries down by 35% at speed camera sites. That's a sort of lie as well.

They have not allowed for the large and important regression to the mean error. See this:

http://www.safespeed.org.uk/pr127.html
http://www.safespeed.org.uk/heydecker2.html (no reply)

(and follow the links from those two pages).

I don't spin. I don't lie. These other people do. I offer proof.

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

And from the same page:

"As our graphs show, the number of fatal accidents in 2002 was in fact less than in 1995, 96, & 98; and injury accidents remain lower than 1996–98."

So yes, 2002 wasn't a good year for Durham, but as both Durham and the ABD suggest, based on the previous 12 years of data it does appear - at the moment - to be nothing more than a statistical blip. If in 10 years time we look at that graph again and see a year on year rise in fatalities, then maybe those against Durham's policies could pat themselves on the back and say "I told you so" to those of us who didn't believe them at the time. But based on the information we have available right now, it'd be dangerous to assume Durham's policies are failing in any way or to force any changes in the way their roads are being policed.




It seems to me that Mr Jamieson is simply annoyed at Durham continuing not to play ball with the rest of the country, lap up the pro-camera spin supplied by the government and install lots of nice shiny new cameras all over the county, and is using this blip in the figures as an excuse to go on the offensive. So long as there's at least one county refusing to swallow the camera hype and spin and continue to police its roads using tried and tested methods (i.e. trapfol on patrol), there's always the risk that their ability to keep fatalities down will be an embarrassment for the government and its pro-camera stance. Much easier to massage the figures for how "well" cameras are doing if there's nothing left to compare them against...

And to suggest that the Durham police force is cavalier in its approach to road safety is a bit strong. You might not personally agree with their methods, you might be happier if they fell into line with everyone else and relied on cameras, but until we see concrete evidence that their methods are less effective than other counties (and this one year blip is certainly not such evidence) it's unfair to accuse them of behaving in anything other than a professional manner. They genuinely believe their approach is the right one for the roads they're policing, and when the evidence to support cameras seems to be eroding on a daily basis, we shouldn't be putting any pressure on Durham to change.

Not where speeds are regularly in excess 0f 130 mph they ain't. Mind you - we tend to chicken out when it gets to that level as we get the "red mist" and "Go on - Chase ME!" Perhaps we generalise when we lump them all together under one brolly - but we have a problem. We have got the handle on the boy racing up to a point .... and still battling this too.




Cavalier? US up here?????? He's just miffed cos we like spending money on police officers and not PeeCee Jobsworthy in a Kodak lab.....

We actually COST more money than we make on fines an d we make a fair few bob outa that too..... this does not go down well.....

Ah! This old story ..... just cos our renegade lot said "We like sayin' in person " Shat it ! Ya NIPPED!" rather than wait 14 days for them get a NIP and then go foamin' all over about it!

Sorry - in high spirits (and had a little bit of the amber nectar) over the Mad Doc's news - his wife is my cousin and I am 10 years older than she is and ended up babysitting her once when I was a student and she was just a child. (er - she was a handful then too! )

It was really because we increased to 42 in 2002 against 23- 27 in 2000/2001. Was admittedly a bad year for us. WE are still collating why we had such a blip - which was still LESS than anywhere else any way. Lancs had 65 in 2000 and 76 in 2001, 66 in 2002 and up to a whopping 86 in 2003 despite year on year increase in speed cameras.


More traffic - means more humans - means sadly more likelihood of an accident. 2001 - we had little traffic through here - possibly as result of FMD - then in 2002 to 2003 - we started to get a real problem with boy racers and a section of the biking community which has compacted negatively on our figures. Niether of these problems can be tackled by a speed camera - but by proper policing - hence the demand for more police officers and no more cameras. Tis that simple Gerorge!




This was published last year when we had to declare that 15 more people had died on our roads in 2002 (42- against 2001.(27) We stayed static for 2003 and more traffic flowed through our patch as well




And so it is ... because we do not have the "brake for f the scamera" at all. We are clearly visible too - and some still continue on their meery way of 10% plus 5 (We nobble at the plus 4s and give advice on road safety too to try to prevent more of this carry on )

We do appear to be slowing down the bulk by maintaining the presence - but we have that hard core same as the scamerati mobs



We have been very pr-active in the schools on Green Cross - and we did see improvement in 2003 .. Many of the child deaths - boy racers through housing estates caused significant number as well.. Others .. preventable if road sense had been greater on each side.



So why are Lancs, Wales and a lot of scamera hot spots still doing worse than we are? Those figures are on their own official web sites - same as ours.


But it is not a case of "nanannannananana!" It is case of deploying the resources constantly and consistently in the correct and methodical way. The trend may be because people know where these cams are - and simply find an alternative route to avoid them.

OK - so we do indicate where we are likely to be with the mobiles - as the whole point is to target a blackspot and make people speed aware enought to lift off the throttle. We do not advertise where we are gonna lurk in the partol car though hehehe!

But this kind of policing is paying off long term - and may not have cracked it yet with a certain hard core of born again bikers and chavs - we still reckon we are doing fair job on aggregate.



Exactly - not an idle boast. And George - most of the drivers targetted do not like hearing the acid lectures and home truths - but siginifcant number take note and modify longer term.

"I sympathise with every person who is a victim or family of a road accident in this county or anywhere.



He will be proven right. He has the full commitment and backing of the entire force. Jolly good bloke to work for! ( um - he lurks 'ere you know .. )




Well ... judging from latest stats from the areas concerned .... we are now seeing the trend buck ...

As for our Mary - she would support this! ....She did not get very far with this family when she asked our bereaved and injured to back the campaign on speed cams. The accidents were not speed related - and whilst the family fully support the charity's work on victim support, camapigns against tired and impaired drivers and the excellent work achieved in tightening up garage and repair services - they will not support the pro-speed camera argument.

Does he indeed?

Welcome Paul. Please be sure to let me know if I can offer any assistance with your brave and sensible road safety policies.

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

Our guy is not the only one not convinced and holds serious reservations about the speed cams - Della Cannings - who has really turned North Yorks into a great Force like ours is also not convinced and has said in interview that she does not intend to invest in cameras, but in police officers.

So George - with respect - these two great bosses are certainly not daft nor "soft". They are the ones who really understand what policing is about.

They also have very sharp copper's noses and sniff out what goes on outside their offices too!

Your graph is an estimation of impact speed. To know the true impact speed, we must know the exact speed the vehicle was traveling at, we must also know the exact amount of time the brakes were applied before impact.

These are unknown, and impact speeds of actual accidents are not realistic, they are nothing more than fantasy.




Pedestrians are the biggest causation factor in pedestrian fatalities, it is all very simple:

If the pedestrian was not on the road, they would not get run over in nearly all events

_________________
Steve

Indeed. Bowing to the pressure to 'back' cameras opens the door to 'redeployment' of police resources away from police forces and into the hands of the other members of the scamerati.

Good on Durham for seeing beyond the fake safety 'blackmail' and seeing the wider political picture!!

I'm not sure I understand this. Are you saying that the Ashton Mackay results are rubbish? (It's their graph).

I'm perfectly satisfied that we know for sure that the average impact is pretty tiny, and the average impact speed is very far removed from any observable free travelling speed.

Braking before impact is only a part of the story. Slowing down in areas of danger is likely to be the big component.

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

Wow In Gear stand back and look:

I have said many times that there should be no reduction in police officers they should not be replaced by cameras but use them in addition. You then state that valuable resources are used to service these "scameras". But if they are "scameras" implying that they make money as the ABD and other site says, and I don't disagree, then this money SHOULD be used to a) finance the resources used in their maintenance, b) used for more road safety measures INCLUDING the deployment of more officers on traffic duties.

Ah but then that's taking officers away from other duties including murder etc. THEN RECRUIT AND TRAIN MORE BL___Y OFFICERS THEN! ----Can't attract quality people, then make conditions better.

Think globally and long term and let's save lives.

We can talk about should and should not, but what has actually happened is that we have about half the number of trafplods about that we had ten years ago. The scameras themselves aren't the real problem IMO, that's like blaming the TV for not getting dinner. I think the problem is the policy behind the scameras that assumes that speed control is a panacea for all the problems on our roads that may cause crashes, and that trafplods aren't needed so much. That's like expecting the TV to get the dinner.

_________________
Make everything as simple as possible, but not simpler - Einstein

We agree then Gatso. More trafficplod and more cameras to pay for them. That should be our aim.

Hmmm! At the moment the scamerati keep the dosh. They place them where they make the most money, and then use the money to replace and purchase new cameras, hire civilians to man talivans, pay their salaries, purchase sundry sundries - such as film, development, stationery, postage etc - and the surplus is handed over to Treasury. Given the amounts - this really rreveals just how much money is generated in fines.

Very little appears to be returned by way of extra BiBs, safety incentives, driver information adverts, pedestrian advice....

In fact, I read a short paragraph in today's "Telegraph" that council tax is to hiked up by further 10% before next election, followed by a another snippet in the same paper that police are demanding a 5.7% increase in funding from the government to cover costs of policing as we stand now. The government is only prepared to fund to limit of 3%.

The police say this short fall will lead to redundancies amongst civvy staff (actually working for Plod itself) and their work load will fall upon the bobbies. This will mena less BiBs on the front line actually policing as even more of their time will be spent on paperwork.

Yup - can really see this. My solution - get rid of scamerati. Let the police do the work and let any fines they collect go direct to Treasury to fund the shortfall -.....

... In other words .... back to the nice sensible way we were before the nonsense set in

You're putting words into my mouth (or onto my keyboard?). More trafplods, yes, but not more scameras. Unlike some round here I am would go along with a small number of 'em, along the lines of what the original idea was - proven blackspots where other solutions (such as re-engineering the road) are not practical. After all, you can't expect the plod to hang round there 24-7. (Perhaps InGear could let us southerners know if Durham's solitary fixed camera is like this.) The big problem is overcoming the distrust many drivers fell for them, but I don't believe that's insurmountable. Disbanding the pratnerships, ripping up any documentation that talks about road safety in terms of "business plans" and tearing out all the iffy Gatsos should go some way towards that. I'm not even dead against the use of Talivans, just against sticking them on honeytrap sections of road with unnecessarily low limits or just at the point limits change, which is the only ways I've ever seen them used. A complete change in policy is what's needed IMO. Give plod the tools (by which I mean gadgets and laws) and leave their use to the discretion of plod.
Yes, that means more plod and preferably even better trained plod than ever before. But I don't buy into the argument of using scameras to pay for them. Motorists already contribute something like £45bn each year, more if you include the part of your council tax that goes to the local force. How about seeing some of that coming back in the form of more trafplods? Or even raise taxes. I'd be against any rise that buys more ministerial Jags or get's pissed away on jam-prone guns for the poor buggers in Iraq, but if we were to get something tangible and worthwhile back, such as doubling the trafplods and cutting casualties, I for one could live with a rise.

_________________
Make everything as simple as possible, but not simpler - Einstein

Perhaps George may like to read article which has appeared in tonight's "Manchester Evening News". I believe it is also on "manchesteronline" web site as well.

Chief Inspector Neil Longsden is now retired in 1995 - after 35 years in the police and 20 years in Manchester's traffic division. This chap was in charge of policing on Manchester's network of motorways. Paper reports him as saying :

"When fixed cameras were first introduced I really thought they were a good idea because they were supposed to be placed only at accident blackspots. Now it is becoming horribly clear that the situation is becoming stupid. Basic principles are being ignored in pursuit of revenue.

"I am NOT in favour of speeding. I AM in favour of properly sited cameras, properly based on TRUE statistics and I AM in favour of MOBILE ( - damn - knew there was a catch! ) speed traps instead of fixed ones"

Basically then - same ideas as Durham and N Yorks CCs....

Interestingly - he has voiced something to which both IG and myself have alluded to in the past:

"The way police accident figures are calculated has changed over recent years, "skewing" decisions about where fixed cameras should be sited"

He criticises the Manchester Prats over excessive ticketing in Oldham and cites A663 which has been downgraded from 40 mph to 30 mph and which is not adequately signposted to this effect (a Lancs ploy! )

=====================================

The leader column in this paper agrees that "it is time to review the policy" because a SENIOR EX COP with a PROVEN TRACK RECORD like Paul Garvin say so. He was second - in - command of the motorway division in his hey day.

He supports proper use of the speed cam, but is worried that drivers are being prosecuted, convicted by a machine - and not by a policeman using discretion, advice and common sense. He suspects there are now more cameras than there are blackspots!

Like the newspaper - nothing wrong with a 20 mph around a residential or school, and Manchester's CC has stated that he wants speed cams in Manchester to be sited only where there is a history of accidents causing death or serious injury.

George - this is not happening is it!