Are scam partnerships selective in their accident statistics

[chris watton]

I ask because my wife has just got back from shopping, to tell me that there has been yet another accident (fire engine, ambulance, police there) on the A48, Gloucester to Chepstow right by the speed camera, again! Now, this is the fourth serious accident by the three sets of cameras on this road in a year! If this is the 'norm' (the road isn't too bad at all, and visibility is fine all along the road), surely it would confirm that speed cameras are having an adverse effect on road safety, it cannot be coincidence, can it?

[xxplod]

Chris - I can certainly confirm that SCPs are selective in their statistics. Or in everyday language they tell lies. The "vicinity of cameras" is often quoted. This is massaged to fit the accident statistics to try and make the cameras look effective. Take the cameras on Bitterne Road West in Southampton. The "vicinity" of that camera stretches almost to the city centre and has 4 sets of traffic lights along it! And it includes the slip roads off to Bitterne centre. Nearly all accidents are low speed, at most minor injury heavy traffic shunts, all of which are attributed to excess speed to justify the camera.

They are an utter disgrace.

[SS2.]

I was told by a member of the local scamerati that the 'K' in the requisite number of KSIs for introduction of the Bitterne Road cameras was a drunk who staggered out of The Station PH and into the path of a car. No suggestion of excess or excessive speed...

And its hardly surprising that 'out of towners' assume that a wide and barriered dual-carriageway could not possibly be a 30mph limit. Keeps the cash rolling in though

[chris watton]

I am now convinced that these speed cameras are dangerous to the point of causing accidents (and worse!), not reducing them. I have come to this conclusion by not reading any biased reporting/statistics from both pro and anti groups, but simply seeing for myself what effect these things are having on the roads
It is indeed an utter disgrace

>> Edited by chris watton on Wednesday 21st December 21:53

[SS2.]

My lad was riding his 'ped a few weeks back behind a Ford Focus.

As they approached a set of traffic lights, the Focus hit the anchors and emergency stopped - with the lights on green . My nipper couldn't stop and ran into the back of it.

The Focus driver got out and was very apologetic - she admitted full liability, said she was sooo sorry, that she shouldn't have panicked, that her friend had been nabbed by the red light cameras which she remembered were there at the last minute etc etc.

Needless to say, after conversing with her partner after the event, she now denies that conversation and the fault lies entirely with my son. OK, in the eyes of the law he is in the wrong for driving in the back of her.

Her car barely had a scratch. His bike was fubarred. Luckily, he was not injured other than a few bruises and an erasing of any no claims bonus he would have acquired (oh yeah, she is claiming several hundred pounds worth of damage )

Whilst my lad is rightly miffed, it has taught him to assume that everyone on the road is a potential numpty, particularly when they are approaching 'safety enforcement devices'...

[Boosted Ls1]

In a civil court he has some arguments in his favour. She panic braked for no reason, when there was no need to slow down. It could be a 60/40 argument.

Boosted.

[SS2.]

Considered that but no independent witnesses and she had two family members in her car. Unlikely to be successful, IMHO.

He knows he should have tried to get her to sign something at the time.

[justinp1]

SS2. said:

Considered that but no independent witnesses and she had two family members in her car. Unlikely to be successful, IMHO. He knows he should have tried to get her to sign something at the time.

As long as each one of the family members are willing to perjurise themselves in a court of law that is...

I would have thought the most likely outcome of such an action would be the woman would dread having to go to court with the knowledge that she needed to lie, and probably would settle beforehand. It is very easy to sit at home and fill out a form in a 'constructive' way, but a lot more difficult to come to court, be cross examined and lie on a witness stand to a courtroom and judge.

>> Edited by justinp1 on Wednesday 21st December 23:17

[catso]

chris watton said:

ARE SCAM PARTNERSHIPS SELECTIVE IN THEIR ACCIDENT STATISTICS

Is the Pope Catholic, do Bears shit in the woods.......

I think I'm trying to say yes they are, their very existence depends upon twisted statistics and lies......

[SS2.]

justinp1 said:

As long as each one of the family members are willing to perjurise themselves in a court of law that is... I would have thought the most likely outcome of such an action would be the woman would dread having to go to court with the knowledge that she needed to lie, and probably would settle beforehand. It is very easy to sit at home and fill out a form in a 'constructive' way, but a lot more difficult to come to court, be cross examined and lie on a witness stand to a courtroom and judge.

I do not disagree. However, whilst it was agreed at the scene (and over the phone with my wife) that her car suffered a slight graze to the rear bumper which could be touched in (the car is a grot box anyway - I've inspected it), the minute she called saying new bumper, new exhaust, new this, new that, we had to put the matter with the insurance company. We sure as hell didn't need a 5k personal injury claim coming in with no insurance back up.

Anyhow, the insurance company have statements and they are taking the matter up on our behalf. They may decide 1) the fault lies with her or 2) the car is only worth buttons or 3) the extent of the damage she is claiming cannot have been caused by a fleaweight 'ped and, if they do, I hope they pursue it further.

Not holding my breath though - unlikely to be financially viable from their perspective..

Edit to add - sorry Chris for dragging this thread off topic...

>> Edited by SS2. on Wednesday 21st December 23:39

[JMGS4]

chris watton said:

ARE SCAM PARTNERSHIPS SELECTIVE IN THEIR ACCIDENT STATISTICS

Wilts Scamerapratnershits......a guy jumps off a bridge onto the motorway = speeding accident
the SI in KSI = Serious Injury just means that people were seen to at the spot by ambulance johnnies it DOES NOT mean that there was any injury at all!!! (told to me by Brizzle Scamscum)

They're a bunch of lying twunts with a nasty do-gooder labourite socio-fascist political agenda!!! who should all be eliminated!!!
for all the PC scum and "death threat" wallies; that means not killed just removed from any position or use of "speed enforcement" devices or any meddling in things that do not concern them

>> Edited by JMGS4 on Thursday 22 December 08:18

[james_j]

Of course they're selective.

They're in business and they have to keep justifying their income stream otherwise they'd lose their livelyhood.

[justinp1]

'Wilts Scamerapratnershits......a guy jumps off a bridge onto the motorway = speeding accident'

From my most basic physics, assuming that the bridge was 10 metres high, the fastest he could have been travelling was momentarily before his impact. This would be no faster than 22mph.

So by *any* stretch of the imagination or technicality he cant have been breaking the speed limit.

[smeggy]

justinp1 said:

'Wilts Scamerapratnershits......a guy jumps off a bridge onto the motorway = speeding accident' From my most basic physics, assuming that the bridge was 10 metres high, the fastest he could have been travelling was momentarily before his impact. This would be no faster than 22mph. So by *any* stretch of the imagination or technicality he cant have been breaking the speed limit.

[pedantic]

I make it 31.3mph (D=VV/2A)

[/pedantic]

I don't think the partnerships are selective when choosing the accident statistics - they don't have to be. Phenomenon like RTTM and 'bias on selection' (other improvements at camera sites which are not credited) will ensure their results appear much better than what is actually achieved!