"Motorists back speed cameras"
Discussion
In my local free rag today is a great article referring to a survey done by Warwickshire Scamera people. I've typed this so apologies for any typos:
I emailed the Partnership as follows:
To date I have no response other than an automated acknowledgement. We will see....
Article said:
Motorists back speed cameras
A new survey reveals the majority of Warwickshire drivers do not oppose the use of speed cameras on the county's roads.
The survey, carried out by Warwickshire Casualty Reduction Partnership, showed that of nearly 250 people who responded to the postal questionnaire, two thirds backed using the devices to enforce speed limits.
Only one in 5 people said they didn not want to see the devices used to detect speeding motorists while figures showed that those most against speed cameras were motorists under 30 who drove many miles for work or leisure reasons and had already been caught speeding.
The survey also revealed the introduction of speed cameras in the county was having a positive impact on driver's [sic] habits.
A total of 37% said the use of cameras on roads across Warwickshire had made them less likely to speed, but 17% of drivers still said they only slowed down when they approached a camera and then carried on speeding when out of sight.
Critics of speed cameras claim they are used as cash cows to raise money for the casualty reduction partnership and not to save lives.
But those who responded to the questionnaire disagreed with that view as 67% said they believed cameras did reduce deaths on the roads.
But a quarter of respondents did criticise the growth in cameras in recent years saying they believed there were too many of them in their area.
Estyn Williams, chair of the casualty reduction partnership and the county council's road safety unit manager, said the survey results proved the main criticism of cameras came from a tiny minority of motorists.
He said "It is very pleasing to have concrete evidence to support our view that safety cameras are an effective road safety tool that are supported by the majority of Warwickshire residents.
"Cameras are reducing the number and severity of crashes on the roads. My only disappointment is that there are drivers out there today who continue to drive too fast, putting themselves and other road users at unnecessary risk".
A new survey reveals the majority of Warwickshire drivers do not oppose the use of speed cameras on the county's roads.
The survey, carried out by Warwickshire Casualty Reduction Partnership, showed that of nearly 250 people who responded to the postal questionnaire, two thirds backed using the devices to enforce speed limits.
Only one in 5 people said they didn not want to see the devices used to detect speeding motorists while figures showed that those most against speed cameras were motorists under 30 who drove many miles for work or leisure reasons and had already been caught speeding.
The survey also revealed the introduction of speed cameras in the county was having a positive impact on driver's [sic] habits.
A total of 37% said the use of cameras on roads across Warwickshire had made them less likely to speed, but 17% of drivers still said they only slowed down when they approached a camera and then carried on speeding when out of sight.
Critics of speed cameras claim they are used as cash cows to raise money for the casualty reduction partnership and not to save lives.
But those who responded to the questionnaire disagreed with that view as 67% said they believed cameras did reduce deaths on the roads.
But a quarter of respondents did criticise the growth in cameras in recent years saying they believed there were too many of them in their area.
Estyn Williams, chair of the casualty reduction partnership and the county council's road safety unit manager, said the survey results proved the main criticism of cameras came from a tiny minority of motorists.
He said "It is very pleasing to have concrete evidence to support our view that safety cameras are an effective road safety tool that are supported by the majority of Warwickshire residents.
"Cameras are reducing the number and severity of crashes on the roads. My only disappointment is that there are drivers out there today who continue to drive too fast, putting themselves and other road users at unnecessary risk".
I emailed the Partnership as follows:
My email said:
I was very interested to read that you have surveyed people on your use of cameras. Please can you tell me how you selected the sample, and what percentage of the sample responded. 250 people out of the whole of Warwickshire does not seem to me to be sufficient to base the claims "motorists back speed cameras" and "[we have] concrete evidence to support our view that safety cameras are an effective road safety tool". in fact, that last claim is totally irrelevant to the subject of the survey and should not appear in the commentary on the survey anyway.
Speaking personally, I am all for safe driving but I detest the complete focus on speed as the sole issue relating to safety. No, I have no points so I'm not one of your "dangerous" drivers. You should be focusing on poor driving skills, not speed.
Speaking personally, I am all for safe driving but I detest the complete focus on speed as the sole issue relating to safety. No, I have no points so I'm not one of your "dangerous" drivers. You should be focusing on poor driving skills, not speed.
To date I have no response other than an automated acknowledgement. We will see....
Funnily enough my local paper (also in Warwickshire) ran a "news" story based on the same survey last week. I wish I had the presence of mind to stay calm for long enough to write to the Scamera partnership and the newspaper. If scamera vans and fixed scameras actually reduced casualties I might be able to accdept that their usage is in some way justified. Resorting to statistics claiming that members of the general public support their work is shoddy to say the least.
It makes my blood boil...
It makes my blood boil...
Peter Ward said:
The survey, carried out by Warwickshire Casualty Reduction Partnership, showed that of nearly **** 250 **** people who responded to the postal questionnaire, two thirds backed using the devices to enforce speed limits.
Estyn Williams, chair of the casualty reduction partnership and the county council's road safety unit manager, said the survey results proved the main criticism of cameras came from a tiny *** minority *** of motorists.
....
says it all really. So the results of 250 people questioned out of a whole county proves we are in the minority hmmmmm. What is it with these peolple are they brain dead??
www.safespeed.org.uk/swiftcover2006.doc
Datamonitor is a professional data collection and analysis agency.
Datamonitor is a professional data collection and analysis agency.
Gixer said:
Peter Ward said:
The survey, carried out by Warwickshire Casualty Reduction Partnership, showed that of nearly **** 250 **** people who responded to the postal questionnaire, two thirds backed using the devices to enforce speed limits.
Estyn Williams, chair of the casualty reduction partnership and the county council's road safety unit manager, said the survey results proved the main criticism of cameras came from a tiny *** minority *** of motorists.
....
says it all really. So the results of 250 people questioned out of a whole county proves we are in the minority hmmmmm. What is it with these peolple are they brain dead??
Probably not tbh, it's probably clever use of the questions. If I was to fill in one of the surveys I have seen it's likely that the outcome would show me in favour of them which I am in certain areas. If the question was "Does the current use of scams grip your shit" then it's an undoubted tick in the box.
Well done Peter, these survey results are nothing more than desperate attempts to justify their existence. I often wonder how they are allowed to get away with publishing such lies. I guess if they pay for the space the local rag is glad of their money.
Every independent survey I've seen has shown results of 70-80% of the public (not just drivers) being against speed cameras.
What about the other 46%?
A total of 46% said the use of cameras on roads across Warwickshire had made them more likely to speed
.
Every independent survey I've seen has shown results of 70-80% of the public (not just drivers) being against speed cameras.
article said:
A total of 37% said the use of cameras on roads across Warwickshire had made them less likely to speed, but 17% of drivers still said they only slowed down when they approached a camera and then carried on speeding when out of sight.
What about the other 46%?
A total of 46% said the use of cameras on roads across Warwickshire had made them more likely to speed
. jasandjules said:
All these things are set so the desired answer is achieved.
Here's a real world example. www.safespeed.org.uk/survey.html and when queried The kent and Medway "Communications Officer" had this to say
KentAndMedwayScammer said:
The Kent & Medway Safety Camera Partnership commissioned this research in order to gain an insight into public perceptions and public attitudes towards safety cameras across the county of Kent. Regular surveys are mandatory and are requested of all such Safety Camera Partnerships across the UK. The Department for Transport (DfT) requires us to include the seven statements you have questioned in each survey we conduct.
Bending the stats from the top.
Another example of SafeSpeed highlighting the truth, Please consider supporting, just the price of one tank of petrol for the year could make the difference if enough people do it.
edited to add: jasandjules the "join" thing was not specifically aimed at you, I just like your quote.
Edited by gopher on Thursday 10th August 21:15
Peter - interesting as not so long ago , Warks Smily Pratnership said that they had exceeded their target for reducing casualties, this was a press article in the CET , now they are trying to get additional public support for their cause( WHY ?????) - last time theY produced a press release the manager etc was a bloke caled Steve Rumble - HAS HE GOT THE BOOT TOO??
Everytime i see something in the press by this lot, things have changed,
Chalenged them on siting of a van - first off - " not one of ours 2 , till i gave them details, reg no , etc - "oh yes , more goblegook"Asked why it was not in another dangerous position - "no accidents recorded " --- i've seen 4 or more serious acidents there.
So do we trust Steve Rumble or whatever he cals himself these days or what Warks folk tell us??
Now on the A45 - bad spot at the Wolvey junction - major spend by WCC - involved a roundabout - to remove a major hazard, but WCC had positioned a camera- hazard gone, when will camera go ??
Answers on postcard to WCC,Road Safety partnership, county hal, warwick ( PS - don't send any to county councilors - they are too busy looking at potential sites for cameras)
Everytime i see something in the press by this lot, things have changed,
Chalenged them on siting of a van - first off - " not one of ours 2 , till i gave them details, reg no , etc - "oh yes , more goblegook"Asked why it was not in another dangerous position - "no accidents recorded " --- i've seen 4 or more serious acidents there.
So do we trust Steve Rumble or whatever he cals himself these days or what Warks folk tell us??
Now on the A45 - bad spot at the Wolvey junction - major spend by WCC - involved a roundabout - to remove a major hazard, but WCC had positioned a camera- hazard gone, when will camera go ??
Answers on postcard to WCC,Road Safety partnership, county hal, warwick ( PS - don't send any to county councilors - they are too busy looking at potential sites for cameras)
I think we read in "Manchester" paper (December 2003,) when Drivesafe came into existence, that they had a survey in which 75% of the good folk of Manchester thought the cams were a "good idea".
Manchester paper did state that those included on the survey had participated in police surveys before und even questioned the findings on that basis at the time. The paper published the location of every cam in Greater Manchester at the time.
Manchester paper did state that those included on the survey had participated in police surveys before und even questioned the findings on that basis at the time. The paper published the location of every cam in Greater Manchester at the time.
"But those who responded to the questionnaire disagreed with that view as 67% said they believed cameras did reduce deaths on the roads."
Well, it depends how the question was phrased doesn't it ?
It's likely to be something like:
Pick one of:
(A) Cameras reduce deaths on the roads significantly
(B) Cameras reduce deaths on the roads slightly
(C) Cameras have no effect on road deaths
(D) Cameras increase deaths on the roads slightly
(E) Cameras increase deaths on the roads significantly
Most people will pick option "B".
The question is badly phrased ; it implies overall, but can't be answered overall.
It only really makes sense in respect of an individual camera, as some Cameras will help, many are RTTM placements, whereas some are just simply dangerous (e.g. the A14 Cambridge->Huntingdon).
Most people pick "B" on the logic of "okay, the affects are probably minimal but it probably does reduce accidents slightly" ; "C" ought to be phrased (but probably wasn't) "minimal or no effect" as ticking this one is an absolute negative.
Mind you it might have been
(A) Cameras reduce deaths
(B) I support road based child murderers right to do what they want
(C) I am a heartless bastard speedophile who cares only about how fast I can drive
(D) I am an admitted paedophile, please send the Police to arrest me
Well, it depends how the question was phrased doesn't it ?
It's likely to be something like:
Pick one of:
(A) Cameras reduce deaths on the roads significantly
(B) Cameras reduce deaths on the roads slightly
(C) Cameras have no effect on road deaths
(D) Cameras increase deaths on the roads slightly
(E) Cameras increase deaths on the roads significantly
Most people will pick option "B".
The question is badly phrased ; it implies overall, but can't be answered overall.
It only really makes sense in respect of an individual camera, as some Cameras will help, many are RTTM placements, whereas some are just simply dangerous (e.g. the A14 Cambridge->Huntingdon).
Most people pick "B" on the logic of "okay, the affects are probably minimal but it probably does reduce accidents slightly" ; "C" ought to be phrased (but probably wasn't) "minimal or no effect" as ticking this one is an absolute negative.
Mind you it might have been
(A) Cameras reduce deaths
(B) I support road based child murderers right to do what they want
(C) I am a heartless bastard speedophile who cares only about how fast I can drive
(D) I am an admitted paedophile, please send the Police to arrest me
gopher said:
KentAndMedwayScammer said:
The Kent & Medway Safety Camera Partnership commissioned this research in order to gain an insight into public perceptions and public attitudes towards safety cameras across the county of Kent. Regular surveys are mandatory and are requested of all such Safety Camera Partnerships across the UK. The Department for Transport (DfT) requires us to include the seven statements you have questioned in each survey we conduct.
Bending the stats from the top.
Of course, it doesn't require them to limit it to those seven statements ..... or to report the results of those statements.
Don't I recall that Kent and Medway had a survey which claimed something like 75% supported the Scamerati ..... but that 60% wouldn't report someone seen vandalising a camera ?
Shome mishtake shurely ?
Ok,
Well, to the Road.Safety address I have sent this:
To whom it concerns,
I grow more worried each day when I see that there is to be a radical increase in speed cameras, a reduction in speed limits, and a reduction in the use of Traffic Police officers.
More and more motorists appear to be driving at the limit, which, thanks to your "Speed Kills" campaign means they believe they are safe. As a result, they appear to ignore rights of way (I have had several emergency stops recently when it was my right of way, as the other party blindly drove through) and indeed pay scant attention to the road or their surroundings at all, thus totally reducing their hazard perception. I have also noted a worrying increase in drivers driving at the speed limit in hazardous road conditions, such as torrential rain or fog. They too appear to have been brainwashed into believing that a rigid adherence to the speed limit will see them safely to their destination.
This style of driving is little use to a child running into the road if the driver at 30mph does not see them nor engage in braking prior to impact. Far better to educate the public to be aware of hazards, the speed limit is just one part of driving. Surely the COAST principles need to be endorsed by anyone who is truely interested in road safety?
Indeed, it appears that with accidents and KSIs remaining steady and in some places increasing, the Government Speed Kills campaign appears to have deluded drivers into believing they are safe when they are clearly not, and thus the resultant accidents and subsequent deaths will continue.
I do hope that at some stage you take on board the simple fact that speeding is a minor element in the majority of accidents whereas poor hazard awareness and road craft is a fundamental aspect, and take the appropriate action. Until you do, I fear for the safety of myself and other road users who frequently are forced to emergency stop and take avoiding action to dodge those who drive around oblivious to their surroundings, but believe they are safe because they are driving to the speed limit.
Yours,
Well, to the Road.Safety address I have sent this:
To whom it concerns,
I grow more worried each day when I see that there is to be a radical increase in speed cameras, a reduction in speed limits, and a reduction in the use of Traffic Police officers.
More and more motorists appear to be driving at the limit, which, thanks to your "Speed Kills" campaign means they believe they are safe. As a result, they appear to ignore rights of way (I have had several emergency stops recently when it was my right of way, as the other party blindly drove through) and indeed pay scant attention to the road or their surroundings at all, thus totally reducing their hazard perception. I have also noted a worrying increase in drivers driving at the speed limit in hazardous road conditions, such as torrential rain or fog. They too appear to have been brainwashed into believing that a rigid adherence to the speed limit will see them safely to their destination.
This style of driving is little use to a child running into the road if the driver at 30mph does not see them nor engage in braking prior to impact. Far better to educate the public to be aware of hazards, the speed limit is just one part of driving. Surely the COAST principles need to be endorsed by anyone who is truely interested in road safety?
Indeed, it appears that with accidents and KSIs remaining steady and in some places increasing, the Government Speed Kills campaign appears to have deluded drivers into believing they are safe when they are clearly not, and thus the resultant accidents and subsequent deaths will continue.
I do hope that at some stage you take on board the simple fact that speeding is a minor element in the majority of accidents whereas poor hazard awareness and road craft is a fundamental aspect, and take the appropriate action. Until you do, I fear for the safety of myself and other road users who frequently are forced to emergency stop and take avoiding action to dodge those who drive around oblivious to their surroundings, but believe they are safe because they are driving to the speed limit.
Yours,
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff