Safe Speed Forums

The campaign for genuine road safety
It is currently Tue May 12, 2026 17:08

All times are UTC [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 7 posts ] 
Author Message
PostPosted: Sat Apr 02, 2005 20:10 
Offline
Life Member
Life Member
User avatar

Joined: Sat Jul 24, 2004 13:36
Posts: 1339
My original letter was a slightly shortened and edited version of this page of my website. It apperared in the paper but not on their web site.

Mr Hewitt, of the Hants Camera Partnership, wrote this response.
His denial of the existence of the 15% rule is particularly odd, I thought. It's even mentioned on the Dorset scammer/council site.

Is it true about the number killed in 2004? I was unable to find this figure published anywhere.

I might write another response; any suggestions?


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Apr 02, 2005 20:27 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Sat Mar 06, 2004 06:46
Posts: 16903
Location: Safe Speed
I'd focus on this abuse of stats in Hewitt's reply:

"Last year the number of people killed or seriously injured on our camera routes fell by 62 per cent, reducing misery and pain for accident victims and bringing financial and resource benefits for the whole community."

Notice how he's avoided claiming that cameras caused the reduction? I wonder what he knows?

Here's how it's done:
http://www.safespeed.org.uk/gambling.html
The 'rttm' error is the largest:
http://www.safespeed.org.uk/rttm.html

_________________
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 Send private message  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Apr 02, 2005 20:34 
Offline
Life Member
Life Member
User avatar

Joined: Sat Jul 24, 2004 13:36
Posts: 1339
Oh, and another false claim is that they have all the camera locations on their web site. Neither the mobile camera outside the hospital nor a similarly concealed one I passed today in Rookley are listed!

Also I can't prove it but they definitely looked like they were targetting people on both sides of the road with the hidden camera.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Apr 04, 2005 13:54 
Offline
Member
Member

Joined: Thu Mar 25, 2004 19:19
Posts: 1050
So casualties increase becuase of an increase in motorcycle deaths - not our problem gov.

casualties decrease - nothing to do with a decline in motorcycle use throughout 04 (sales down, test passes down, mileage down).

this selective quotation of statistics is unacceptable. If the scamerati want the credit for casualty reduction they cannot argue seasonal trends when it suites them.

The simple facts are - we've had 10 years of cameras and fatal accidents are roughly the same now as they were then.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Apr 04, 2005 19:20 
Offline
Member
Member
User avatar

Joined: Thu Apr 15, 2004 09:16
Posts: 3655
Quote:
Although fatalities on all roads in Hampshire and the IW roads rose to 108 in 2003 - attributable to an increase in motorcycle deaths


Thats OK then....when motorcyclists die its not a road safety issue... :x

_________________
Speed camera policy Kills


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Apr 08, 2005 19:18 
Offline
Member
Member

Joined: Thu Mar 25, 2004 19:19
Posts: 1050
One thing that has happened as a result of all this bikes are dangerous spin is that many decent hardworking motorcycle training schools are going bust.

the govt. know that if they cut bike use they cut casualties and can claim success.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
PostPosted: Wed Apr 20, 2005 23:03 
Offline
Gold Member
Gold Member

Joined: Fri Apr 15, 2005 04:56
Posts: 95
Location: Hertfordshire
Zamzara wrote:

Mr Hewitt, of the Hants Camera Partnership, wrote this response.
His denial of the existence of the 15% rule is particularly odd, I thought. It's even mentioned on the Dorset scammer/council site.

Is it true about the number killed in 2004? I was unable to find this figure published anywhere.

I might write another response; any suggestions?



The published date of his letter of response might offer a clue. :lol:

_________________
'The normally careful and competent actions of a reasonable person should be considered legal, regardless of the letter of statute'

Rioman, Herts


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 7 posts ] 

All times are UTC [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 220 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 can post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group
[ Time : 0.095s | 11 Queries | GZIP : Off ]