Safe Speed Forums

It's official: Anti-speed campaign is working

A POLICE campaign to cut road deaths in North Wales was working, the region's top cop said yesterday.

Chief constable Richard Brunstrom said using speed cameras and targeting certain motorists helped to reduce numbers killed or maimed on North Wales roads.

The first six months of this year saw a 29.5% reduction in the number of fatal and serious casualties in road accidents. There were six fatalities and 50 serious injuries, compared with 10 fatalities and 62 seriously injured in the same period last year. No children were killed.

Following a crackdown on irresponsible bike riders, there were no deaths, with only four serious injuries involving motorbikes. Last year it was 25. It represented only 8% of all serious road casualties, compared with last year's 36%.

In a report to this week's North Wales Police Authority's performance review committee, Mr Brunstrom said: "The government and North Wales Police are convinced the national safety camera scheme is effective in reducing speed-related death and injury.

"North Wales Police is determined to address this problem. We are actively educating the public through Bike Safe, taking measures to make roads safer (improved signs and enhanced road safety), and engaging with our partners and enforcing the law."

The force also cracked down on anti-social behaviour, which was one of its key objectives.

Link to icNorthWales

(mega link hidden by moderator)

Strange how the 04 figures have just come out and they are already going to print on the 05 half year. I think they are hoping no one notices the 2004 figures were up...

The PR of a desperate man

He is the WORST thing to have ever happened to road safety.


Top tosser

_________________
Speed camera policy Kills

he's a disgrace !

you only have to look at the figures to know he is beyond spin. the man is a fraud.

Bike accidents in wales are down - because it's been declared a no go area. pitty anyone in the tourist industry

Hmm actually, if you look at the figures:

2004 KSI: 72, of which 26 (36%) were bikers = 46 non-biker KSI
2005 KSI: 56, of which 4 (8%) were bikers = 52 non-biker KSI

So in fact, the Bike Safe campaign has been a success in reducing biker casualties, but other KSI's have actually gone up!

Typical misuse of stats from the scamera lot.

As a bikesafe instructor I feel strongly about the value it brings. but.

It doesn't attract the right people (only those interested in being safer) not the highest risk riders on the highest risk bikes. The number of DAS instructors, RoSPA, BMF and IAM riders I've had is significant.

even if every attendee had a 90% accident reduction post bikesafe, it wouldn't affect the stats by even 1%.

There is good evidence to suggest that bike safe attendees increase their risk in compensation for the perceived addtional skills they get.

brunstrom's got the right approach treat bikers luck scum and they'll go somewhere else. Not what you'd call a road safety improvement though.

Any idea how many biker deaths there were in 2004?
Could it be that non-biker deaths are also up?

And, as DIY indicated, that's probably because bikers no longer go to Brundstromia.

Cheers
Peter

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

So, if they were up from 2003 to 2004, then down from 2004 to 2005, how does 2005 compare to 2003, i.e. is there any significant long term trend, or just random fluctuations?

DfT Figures: North Wales:
Year killed KSI
1997 58 519
1998 63 456
1999 51 468
2000 60 432
2001 48 374
2002 44 362
2003 49 353
2004 58 338

I don't believe the KSI figures have any value as a trend indicator. See http://www.safespeed.org.uk/serious.html

I also believe that Mr Brunstrom has scared a lot of traffic away.

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

yep the anti bike strategy is working, effectively North Wales is being avoided yy all motorcycle tourists.

I cancelled a business investment two years ago because it was obvious what side effects the Anti bike campaign would have

_________________
Former Military Police Officer and accident investigator

Now I get it.

Excessive speed enforcement on one road drives traffic onto other roads. Less traffic on the patrolled road means less accidents in that location and the camera is hailed as a success, justifying more cameras.

The resulting rise in accident rates on the surrounding roads is either ignored or used as additional justification for more cameras.

The scam self-perpetuates...

You've got to admit, from a business perspective, it's a work of genius.

I feel so sorry for anyone who has the misfortune to live in North Wales.

_________________
“For every complex problem, there is a solution that is simple, neat, and wrong.” - H. L. Mencken

Oh, that's just part of it. 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

RTTM is the 'biggie'.

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

Yeah! Isn't it just?

We're REALLY winning...

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

Of course. If they can exploit "blips" in accident rates to provide further justification, then they will. When they start splitting it down further into bikes vs cars vs vans vs whatever, it just gets silly. The man really is clutching at straws.

Paul, the arguments presented on the "Gambling" page are clear and comprehensive as always, but I think I can elaborate on the first one (traffic being "scared away"). The drivers "scared off" will typically be local residents/workers who travel on the road concerned regularly, since these are the people that know the cameras are there. This will result in less "mixing" of drivers who know the road well and those who don't. This itself could have a positive impact on accident figures on the road concerned. Anyone who's driven into (or worse still, got lost in) an unknown part of London and felt intimidated by taxis, buses and other local traffic can vouch for such "mixing" to be a recipe for accidents.

Of course, the reduction would only apply on the patrolled road - the displaced traffic will just be having their accidents elsewhere, and probably more of them & greater severities due to their being displaced onto smaller, more hazardous roads that they are less familiar with.

I'm sure you can explain this argument a lot more eloquently than I can. Might be worth including it.

I know that I've changed my route to work 4 times now due to no other reason than speed enforcement, and it's not just me. I've noticed that taxi drivers here in Wycombe are "rat running" through residential roads much more now. When I ask them "whay are you taking me this way?" they site draconian speed enforcement on the main roads as the reason. This stuff is really going on...

_________________
“For every complex problem, there is a solution that is simple, neat, and wrong.” - H. L. Mencken

What they're doing is producing many many different ways of measuring accidents and injuries, perhaps about 50 or even more. Then if just ONE shows an improvement, they publish that one and claim success.

As was demonstrated to perfection by you-know-who on the ill-fated CSCP forum.

We had every type of statistical measurement under the sun thrown at us, whenever each one showed some apparent benefit. But despite several requests, what they would never do was agree in advance what type of measurement they would use.

Basically they know that taken across the board their operations make things worse, so they can't afford to be "trapped on their stumps" by using a pre-defined measurement such as the annual fatality rate.

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

He's lying - again.

If you are of a nervous disposition, don;t read the rest of this post.

Some background. I am a professional driver, and drive blood for the NBTS. I'm also a First Aider, and have a full kit in my own car. I do baout 50,000 miles a year (1000 a week normally) and driver at least 25,000 of them for fun.

I was the primary First-Aider on scene for a (Smidsy) Bike accident in Braichmalyn not three months ago...

When I got to the Biker, he was already 'nil vitals' and the car driver was sobbing in his seat at the state of his car.

By the time the ambulancemen arrived, I and another first aider had been working on the biker for 15 minutes - he was fixed and dilated, no pulse, no respiratory effort, GCS of 0 and was declared by a local doctor on scene a few minutes later, after I suggested to all concerned that we should stop trying - 20 minutes after I started work and 22 minutes after the accident.

Autopsy showed his neck had been broken at C1 (Hangmans break) by his Helmet, and he had died instantly on impact and nothing I did could have helped.

I drove home that day, not even touching the limit on the motorways - doing around 55 maximum for over 200 miles. Even now I have a tear in my eye thinking about the loss of life due to the incompetence of the volvo driver, who pulled out in front of the bike.

How did Brunstom massage this death out of his figures?

Limited information, I know, but it doesn't sound like excess of the speed limit was a factor in this accident, just a lack of observation and due care on the part of the Volvo driver.

No matter how much he spins, there is no way Brunstrom could claim that his beloved speed cameras reduce accidents of this type, so he takes the only other option - denial.

Did the Volvo driver face any sort of prosecution over this accident?

_________________
“For every complex problem, there is a solution that is simple, neat, and wrong.” - H. L. Mencken

This accident was "Inappropriate speed" buit not "excess speed"

The volvo was moving, when he should have been stopped...

As to charges, of course not, the police deemed the biker to be at fault for travelling on the main road within the speed limit and not letting the volvo out! And as he was dead, no-one to contradict them.

_________________
“First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win.”

Mahatma Gandhi

here I am struck by the irony that this happened on the same day as the triumphalistic press release.

_________________
Former Military Police Officer and accident investigator

What a moving tribute that was , had me choked reading it . Wonder if Brunstrom has read it ?

Don't know how he sleeps at night if he has !