Safe Speed Forums

Ok, If we take all our 'Stakeholders' to be individual people, rather than organisations.

Since the government changed its road policy attitudes towards enforcing speed limits with cameras and away from improving safety generally, the downward trend in fatal RTAs has levelled off over the last few years. ths has effectively meant that there are x number of people who should be alive, but aren't.
These people were/are stakeholders and I would say that their level of customer satisfaction with current road safety is pretty low.

I have no aversion to either steak-holders, or stakeholders. We could call them “holdersofsteaks” and “holdersofstakes” respectively, if we want.



That might be very interesting, but I’m afraid the link didn’t work for me. I am especially interested in the “importance of the group in … aiding/impeding the developments goals”, and I would add “the influence that various groups have in initially setting the developments goals and evaluation the outcomes”, although some might say that is a semantic issue.

_________________
I stole this .sig

Apologies:

Try:

http://www.enterprise-impact.org.uk/inf ... ysis.shtml



It is a semantic issue - but you are right neverthless - involvement of the most important groups in both setting goals and evaluating outcomes is worryingly rare - people tend to let the most influential groups do that instead - ie people confused important with influential

(eg in my field, students are the most important but not the most influential sadly)

You can’t assess the satisfaction of dead people. But the quality metric does take their death into account, in a round about sort of way. Friends, relations and other drivers involved will have an increased awareness of road risk – their “dissatisfaction” is increased.

And the statistics will show them, and would lower administration “satisfaction”, which is used for policy settings, for example. So, in a way, a reduced measured level of driver quality does result from a fatal RTA.

So, we still haven’t dented the “satisfaction based” driver-quality definition. Any more tries?

_________________
I stole this .sig

Thamks Prof Beard - this material is interesting to me, and I will study some of it for a bit (I might be gone for some time!) But before that, does the material cover 'externalities', by which I mean that certain stakeholders make a decisions that cost other stakeholders dearly, even though they have no say in it? For example, one stakeholder might attempt to hide their efforts to utilise a resource that belongs jointly to another stakeholder e.g. causing air pollution or climate change etc.

I ask this because that is a common reason why people are averse to public stakeholder analysis – unpalatable truths might come out. For example, if it was found that noise, congestion, pollution and inconvenience etc. can be cut by slowing traffic, some stakeholders might prefer to focus the discussion on safety in isolation!

_________________
I stole this .sig

You have hit an important nail on th head here - stakeholder analysis is only useful if done properly. However it's scope has to be limited to make it manageable - in can expand to cover groups way of the ability of the project team to deal with. Hence, professionalism is needed to identify "important" and "influential" stakeholders, and also to recognise that just because stakeholders think something - it doesn't mean it is right! One group can easily hold a view that opposes another group's view, as a project manager, you have to focus on the goals and what can be realistically done to meet them in the best way. Goal setting in the "big" sense is more about policy than project management of course!

Precisely.

For a 'road safety' policy that is supposed to save lives, but actually costs them, the 'satisfaction' rating has got to be very low.

I know that somehow people here have got the idea that cameras cost lives, but that is far from being the mainstream view. In fact, the overwhelming consensus is that that they save hundreds of lives. You are free to choose what to believe, but let’s please refrain from bandying around received wisdom as if it is fact.

_________________
I stole this .sig

There are many examples of overwhelming consensus of opinion that later proves to be contrary to fact. Surely even you, BW, cannot argue that the effects of speed cameras have never been correctly scientifically analysed?

Until that is done then it is improper to dismiss the idea that cameras are costing lives as this opinion, although not as widely held, is equally valid and may in fact be the truth.

What studies we do have admit, although grudgingly, that speed camera benefit claims to date have been grossly exagerrated, and what potential statistical benefit there is left can be explained away by other influences.

Taking the disparity between perceived and actual 'benefit' of speed cameras into account, it would seem that the consensus you speak of is measurably misguided and evidently more a product of received wisdom than anything else that has been suggested.

The fact that a significant number of people have been deluded by groundless government propaganda doesn't change the truth.

What facts would you like to explore?

* Cameras come with a wide range of side effects, none of which have been properly investigated?

* Camera benefits have been wildly exaggerated?

* Very few crashes are caused or contributed to by otherwise responsible motorists in excess of a speed limit? Despite 60% 'speeding' on most road types in free flowing conditions?

* We've never seen the fatality rate trend collapse before?

* You don't need a speedo to drive safely?

Need I go on?

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

I'll take those things on face value for now, but it all seems a bit fishy to me. Since we're on the chat forum, any idea where online I can find these cartoons that have caused a fuss? Everybody's seen them but me!

_________________
I stole this .sig

Very worryingly, it would seem one of the few places that you can actually get it (in english) is the bnp website: http://www.bnp.org.uk/news_detail.php?newsId=760

Thanks, spankthecrumpet. Now that I've seen them at the despicable BNP website, I can see that they are very offensive indeed, and no-one else should be allowed to see them from now on. What’s worse, they are not even funny!

PS - If the newspapers (or Anne Robinson) portrayed the famous medieval Welsh prophet, Madoc, in this way, I expect there'd be an investigation by the North Wales Police.

_________________
I stole this .sig

Just because it's a 'mainstream view' or has 'overwhelming consensus' doesn't make it fact. The mainstream view of the public will almost always be in line with what they're told - something which didn't escape the likes of Goebbels.
Two other 'mainstream views' with 'overwhelming consensus' which are entirely, and demonstrably, baseless and utterly without substance are: a) a high salt intake is bad for one's health, and b) a low-cholestrol diet prevents heart disease.
And don't get me started on climate change and passive smoking.

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

If anyone ever goes on about "passive smoking" to me, I refer them to the highly authoratative (and very rapidly buried!) 1998/9 W.H.O. report on the effects of environmental tobacco smoke.

Oh, I'm a life-long non-smoker BTW, but I do like my statistics sans spin.

_________________
"Politicians are the same the world over... We build bridges where there aren't any rivers." - Nikita Kruschev

Is that the one done in the states( and not mentioned often by the anti smoking lobby) where they had a theory that lung cancer was down to a gene?

_________________
lets bring sanity back to speed limits.
Drivers are like donkeys -they respond best to a carrot, not a stick .Road safety experts are like Asses - best kept covered up ,or sat on

No, it was done in Europe. The only, even vaguely, statistically-significant result from the entire study was that exposure to ETS in childhood may slightly reduce incidences of lung cancer in later life. All the other parts of the study had very low RRs which in all cases bracketed unity - hence weren't significant in any way.

The abstract of the report can be found at:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/quer ... t=Abstract

_________________
"Politicians are the same the world over... We build bridges where there aren't any rivers." - Nikita Kruschev

Always amuses me to see all te concern about passive smoking in public, next to ,for example a bus chucking out a cloud of smoke.

_________________
lets bring sanity back to speed limits.
Drivers are like donkeys -they respond best to a carrot, not a stick .Road safety experts are like Asses - best kept covered up ,or sat on

Pete317 wrote:

_________________
Shooting is good for you and too good for some people.

I hope you are right, on climate change, but you are part of a dwindling band - even George Bush has seen the light now. I think those “more and more massive than ever” hurricanes and floods of biblical proportions in New Orleans did it, you know?

_________________
I stole this .sig