Safe Speed Forums

The campaign for genuine road safety
It is currently Fri Nov 15, 2019 18:37

All times are UTC [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 16 posts ] 
Author Message
PostPosted: Fri Mar 18, 2005 14:17 
Offline
Member
Member

Joined: Thu Mar 11, 2004 00:24
Posts: 2400
Location: Kendal, Cumbria
In the letters page of today's Westmorland Gazette...

Kevin Tea wrote:
Cameras do make a difference

I confess to being slightly bemused by your two correspondents' views that the Cumbria Safety Camera partnership makes money from people speeding (Letters, March 11, Speeding generates money').

When I looked at the bottom line for the first year of operation I saw that we made no profit whatsoever. The four partners can only reclaim their operational investment and that is our only financial responsibility; any excess is retained by the Treasury, but that is a totally different matter from the safety camera project making a profit and this should be taken up with the Government.

As the name implies, the camera project is about safety. In 2004 there was a 71 per cent reduction in the number of people killed and seriously injured at the 47 hotspots monitored by the safety camera vans.

We are aware of problems elsewhere and we are working closely with other organisations under the Safer Roads For Cumbria umbrella to reduce the number of people killed and seriously injured on the county's roads.

No-one has ever suggested that safety cameras are the sole answer to solving the unacceptably high number of fatalities and, given the tiny percentage of the county's road networks that we monitor, it would be impossible to achieve this.

However, working with other agencies we are starting to have a positive effect on road safety in Cumbria as a whole and this should be applauded, not criticised.

Kevin Tea Communcations manager Cumbria Safety Cameras


Original Link

Well of course cameras "make a difference", but perhaps what we need to bring to the attention of the readership is the nature of that difference, particularly in terms of the fatality figures for the county since scameras were introduced...

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


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Mar 18, 2005 14:45 
Offline
Life Member
Life Member
User avatar

Joined: Sat Jul 24, 2004 13:36
Posts: 1339
He's making his salary for a start. I would call that making money.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Mar 18, 2005 14:52 
Offline
User

Joined: Thu Jun 10, 2004 18:58
Posts: 306
Location: LanCA$Hire ex Kendal
I notice Admin makes no reference to the size of the profit generated - £500k etc (:oops:) - "any excess is retained by the Treasury". Doesnt really give the impression there was a £500k surplus, does it?

71% reduction in 2004? Compared to what? The 1970's average? Who knows, he doesnt say.... :?

So taking it at face value and accepting their 71% reduction, are CSCP seriously claiming without their invaluable efforts, the county's total death toll last year would have been in the 70's or even 80's??

CSCP is running scared, no doubt about that now. If we keep the pressure on they'll be gone for good by this time next year, hopefully much sooner... :lol: :lol: :lol:


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Mar 18, 2005 15:42 
Offline
User

Joined: Thu Mar 11, 2004 09:51
Posts: 90
Quote:
71% reduction in 2004? Compared to what? The 1970's average? Who knows, he doesnt say.... Confused


I asked JJ that in another thread. To which he replied that it was the average for the previous 3 years. No manipulation of stats there then :wink:


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Mar 18, 2005 19:59 
Offline
User
User avatar

Joined: Tue Feb 15, 2005 00:15
Posts: 5232
Location: Windermere
Kevin Tea wrote:
As the name implies, the camera project is about safety. In 2004 there was a 71 per cent reduction in the number of people killed and seriously injured at the 47 hotspots monitored by the safety camera vans.

Hmm. What happened at Ings then?
3 years prior to approval for mobile site, 2 KSI's.
One year on, site becomes Fixed site, requiring 4 KSI in the previous 3 years.
Conclusion there were 2 extra KSI in 2004!

If 2 KSI in one year is a 71% reduction over 2 KSI in 3 years, then mathematics has changed since my schooldays or Kevin is telling lies.

Am I allowed to say that?

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


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Mar 18, 2005 23:32 
Offline
User

Joined: Sat Feb 05, 2005 12:54
Posts: 27
I was shocked to read a 71% reduction in todays paper that I went to the CSC site to find the figures - and now I'm total confused?

So how using CSC's website figures do you get a 71% reduction?

Deaths
2000 - 56
2001 - 49
2002 - 49
2003 - 53
2004 - 59

Serious Injuries
2000 - 437
2001 - 432
2002 - 410
2003 - 393
2004 - 340


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Mar 18, 2005 23:43 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Sat Mar 06, 2004 06:46
Posts: 16903
Location: Safe Speed
Lakeuk wrote:
I was shocked to read a 71% reduction in todays paper that I went to the CSC site to find the figures - and now I'm total confused?

So how using CSC's website figures do you get a 71% reduction?

Deaths
2000 - 56
2001 - 49
2002 - 49
2003 - 53
2004 - 59

Serious Injuries
2000 - 437
2001 - 432
2002 - 410
2003 - 393
2004 - 340


It's an imaginary claim based of crashes 'at speed camera sites'. See:

http://www.safespeed.org.uk/gambling.html
http://www.safespeed.org.uk/rttm.html
http://www.safespeed.org.uk/pr126.html
http://www.safespeed.org.uk/pr127.html

And get angry.

_________________
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: Fri Mar 18, 2005 23:44 
Offline
Member
Member

Joined: Thu Mar 11, 2004 00:24
Posts: 2400
Location: Kendal, Cumbria
Lakeuk wrote:
I was shocked to read a 71% reduction in todays paper that I went to the CSC site to find the figures - and now I'm total confused?

So how using CSC's website figures do you get a 71% reduction?

You can't!

To get the 71% reduction you have to do some very creative "selective reporting".

What you do is pick a tiny subset of the roads, counting only those which have suffered an abnormally high number of accidents. This is the "before" figure that you use, noting of course that without lifting a finger you can pretty much guarantee the following year to have lower figures. Installing the cameras is just a red herring.

For example, let's say there is an accident outside my house, and it's the first one in 20 years. Thus the odds are that it will be another 20 years before there is another. But let's say some clown comes and erects a speed camera, he can then note that when there is (predictably) no accident in the following year there has been "a 100% reduction in accidents at this camera site".

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


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Mar 19, 2005 13:38 
Offline
User
User avatar

Joined: Fri Apr 02, 2004 23:42
Posts: 3820
JT wrote:
Lakeuk wrote:
I was shocked to read a 71% reduction in todays paper that I went to the CSC site to find the figures - and now I'm total confused?

So how using CSC's website figures do you get a 71% reduction?

You can't!

To get the 71% reduction you have to do some very creative "selective reporting".

What you do is pick a tiny subset of the roads, counting only those which have suffered an abnormally high number of accidents. This is the "before" figure that you use, noting of course that without lifting a finger you can pretty much guarantee the following year to have lower figures. Installing the cameras is just a red herring.

For example, let's say there is an accident outside my house, and it's the first one in 20 years. Thus the odds are that it will be another 20 years before there is another. But let's say some clown comes and erects a speed camera, he can then note that when there is (predictably) no accident in the following year there has been "a 100% reduction in accidents at this camera site".


Cambridgeshire's site is blathering on about this same BMJ report - which looked at 14 studies of camera sites - all claiming accident reduction of 55 - 69% and death reduction between 17% and 71%. As we have all read the original article on this site - and all the medics in this family have the hard copy - the article did not conclude this: it gave a "have to do much better research" grade on all the data they researched - and thus there is still no solid basis for these claims. Our patch does make use of mobile cameras - operated 100% by trained police officers and at sites which we know are problem areas and we keep roadsafety under control by maintianing a clear presence on the roads. We are looking to improve - but can honestly say we have maintained a good record on safety without fining people in their thousands.

Why am I looking at the Cambs site? Well - it's party time down there again and we are all off on a jolly on the A14 in the next coupl;e of days - so we check for the mobile locations :lol:

Last year the Mad Lad and his wife were spitting furballs over stats - and this year is no different :roll: They have modified it to Jan 2000 to 31 Dec 2002 for their "on this day in history"

Currently on this site they claim hundreds of casualties on the roads in question for the dates 14-21 March. The relative in question hosts a party each year on on one of these dates as it's his wedding anniversary.

He's now been happily married for 25 years - and we've hit the roads in Cambs for each of these years. We have never seen any accident. We have never been held up in the clear up operations - nor has any one doctor at his party (this couple are medics too :roll: ) been recalled to attend any emergency during our stays at his home.


314 injuries on one particular day in 2000, 2001, 2002? No hold ups and no mention in the tabloids or Look East? Does not sound plausible - even on the A1307 ring road and A14/A141 roads That's over 100 people each year on this date in history...surely newsworthy enough to make it the the tabloid press and Look East?

There are a lot of people in this family collectively - some flying in from abroad to this do...none witnessed any signs of any incidents on these roads in 2000, 2001, and 2002 on these particular dates when they combine a family do with a bit of sightseeing and National Trust visits (our kids like feeding lambs at Wimpole...) :wink:


I note that they do not state by which margin the injuries have fallen either...


So - looking at all the s/cam sites - seems to me that they all work to the same pattern - and are following orders... as was the excuse at Nuremberg...

_________________
Take with a chuckle or a grain of salt
Drive without COAST and it's all your own fault!

A SMILE is a curve that sets everything straight (P Diller).

A Smiley Per post
FINES USfor our COAST!


Approach love and cooking with reckless abandon - but driving with a smile and a COAST calm mind.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Mar 19, 2005 15:18 
Offline
User

Joined: Thu Jun 10, 2004 18:58
Posts: 306
Location: LanCA$Hire ex Kendal
I think JT should write a reply to CSCP's letter - if he hasn't already, on behalf of the ABD.

Basically putting the true picture to the readers - ie the "profit" raised for the Treasury by CSCP, the death toll rising both years under CSCP misrule... :evil:

Why not throw in for good measure how the KSI total has risen 49% so far this year compared to last... :shock:

Of course we all know 2004's 45 KSI's was freakishly low; this year's 67 is much more in line with the long-term average. Personally I've no problem with using the stats in this way because as we recall last year, CSCP were very quick to claim all the credit on their forum, without any caution being shown that the figures might be a "one off". By their own standards, make them now explain the massive "increase"... :lol:


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Mar 19, 2005 15:29 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Sat Mar 06, 2004 06:46
Posts: 16903
Location: Safe Speed
kendalian wrote:
Why not throw in for good measure how the KSI total has risen 49% so far this year compared to last... :shock:

Of course we all know 2004's 45 KSI's was freakishly low; this year's 67 is much more in line with the long-term average. Personally I've no problem with using the stats in this way because as we recall last year, CSCP were very quick to claim all the credit on their forum, without any caution being shown that the figures might be a "one off". By their own standards, make them now explain the massive "increase"... :lol:


The bottom line here is that we are the ones who need to earn our credibility. The other side have the resources to buy their credibility. This war isn't fought on equal terms - because of the resource imbalance, truth is by far our strongest weapon. Propoganda costs plenty.

* If we use dodgy stats our case is damaged.

* We don't need to use dodgy stats to make our case.

_________________
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 Mar 19, 2005 15:38 
Offline
User
User avatar

Joined: Tue Feb 15, 2005 00:15
Posts: 5232
Location: Windermere
I see Kevin is now Communcations manager, and not Public Relations officer. Does that draw a salary increase?

It seems he did'nt get a new spell checker with the post, but maybe that was down to the Westmorland Gazette, after all, they are new to this communcations game are'nt they?!

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


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Mar 20, 2005 09:41 
Offline
Life Member
Life Member

Joined: Fri Mar 12, 2004 10:47
Posts: 920
Location: South Bucks
JT wrote:
For example, let's say there is an accident outside my house, and it's the first one in 20 years. Thus the odds are that it will be another 20 years before there is another.


There's a randomness about crash causation which makes regression to the mean absolutely inevitable. In your example, it could also be that the actual crash frequency is 2 in 100 years.

Do accident investigators try to work out why a crash occurred a particular spot and not (say) a mile up or down the road? I'm sure there's sometimes, perhaps often, a good reason, but other times absolutely no reason at all.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Mar 21, 2005 22:17 
Offline
User

Joined: Tue Feb 15, 2005 15:52
Posts: 461
My oh my, Kevin "Gatsoboy" Tea actually admitting that scameras "make a difference".

Of course they make a difference...they just make it in a "negative for road safety" manner, corroborated by the rising death rates since theyve been used by these jokers.

Now do us all a favour and resign and take Steve "Ive dropped a Clanger" Callaghan and Jan "The stat man" Sjorup with you.

:evil:


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Mar 21, 2005 22:34 
Offline
User

Joined: Thu Jun 10, 2004 18:58
Posts: 306
Location: LanCA$Hire ex Kendal
County Council elections (and possibly more!!!) on 5th May - time to ruffle some feathers.... :twisted:


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Apr 21, 2005 21:32 
Offline
User
User avatar

Joined: Tue Feb 15, 2005 00:15
Posts: 5232
Location: Windermere
I see from the BBC news reports, that in March, in a continuation of Operation Abolish, 65 motorists were found to be over the limit when breathalysed, out of 1042 tested.
Quote:
In 2004, 58 people died and 374 were badly injured on Cumbria roads, with alcohol often a factor, police said.

Better get the drinkers on camera then, and help bring down those figures.... Oh, they dont work on drunk drivers do they. :( So how are the cameras going to get the figures down, if the drunk drivers dont speed? But they would'nt STOP the drunk driver, even if he/she was speeding either!
So what the **ck DO they do to make the roads safer!!! :x

_________________
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  [ 16 posts ] 

All times are UTC [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 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 : 0.317s | 14 Queries | GZIP : Off ]