|
There are a number of questions that our local scammers are finding a touch tricky to answer, such as:
How many accidents are caused by vehicles exceeding the posted speed limit? If they can't produce this "base line" figure then ask them how they can possibly predict that cameras might produce any benefit, as they clearly have no measure of the problem they are trying to address.
Were the "qualifying" accidents used to justify the placement of the cameras caused by speeding? Look carefully here, as they will typically claim that there were x KSI accidents at the site, and that y% of vehicles speed at the site. THis means nothing, in fact if there is a very high incidence of speeding it almost certainly means that speeding ISN'T the cause of accidents, and that it is probably one of the safer places to speed - ie a classic "revenue collector" site.
What casualty reduction targets are they setting? How does this compare with the recent history. Our scammers proudly announced that they were aiming for 15% casualty reduction over 3 years (which is 5.3% per year). But when you look back you see that accidents in the county were falling by around 6% per year before they started. If you can pull them up on this one you have pretty much proved how cynical the whole thing is, as they are in effect inheriting a previous trend and claiming it as their success.
Further to the last point, ask them to be specific in what measures of success they are setting, ie what SPECIFIC casualty reduction targets qualify as success. You can then lead on to ask them the counter question: What SPECIFIC measures constitute failure? If they have no "bad performance" measure written in, then obviously the "good performance" target is irrelevant, as they will continue with the scheme whether it succeeds or fails.
Hope this helps
|
Login
Register
FAQ
Search
Members
