RE: Biggest Road Death Reductions In Camera Free Zones

[big_rob_sydney]

cuneus said:

mmltonge said:

Thanks to the person who linked to the Durham overall statistics, it proves what I was questioning in my mind. "Is this a one off or a sustained trend?" - those full stats show this is indeed a sustained trend, if you graphed the set of stats for both accidents and casualties you would get a graph with a general downward trend year on year (a couple of blips '02 and '03) which shows the policing is working in that county.

Not sure why you thought those stats showed something completely the opposite mind you...

Indeed you have made the point that should have been made about the overall trend. It would be easy to pick another 2 years and say xx% increase in deaths.

The std dev for the data is over 7

Six Sigma (6 standard deviations), generally relates to 99.9999%. Could you please explain your comment in a little more detail?

[havoc]

cuneus said:

mmltonge said:

Thanks to the person who linked to the Durham overall statistics, it proves what I was questioning in my mind. "Is this a one off or a sustained trend?" - those full stats show this is indeed a sustained trend, if you graphed the set of stats for both accidents and casualties you would get a graph with a general downward trend year on year (a couple of blips '02 and '03) which shows the policing is working in that county.

Not sure why you thought those stats showed something completely the opposite mind you...

Indeed you have made the point that should have been made about the overall trend. It would be easy to pick another 2 years and say xx% increase in deaths.

The std dev for the data is over 7

You're right, it is. But the overall trend is still substantially downwards over the last 10 years.

Which is at odds with the country-wide profile, and suggests something working in Durham which isn't nationally...


I take your point about SS and cherry-picking, but lets be perfectly honest - SS do it far less often and far less disingenously than the Government and SCPs.

[Tony*T3]

mmltonge said:

Tony*T3 said:

It always irritated me that PH was a mouthpiece for SafeSpeed. When SafeSpeed gets its articles published first by properly recognised motoring organistion websites rather then I might conceed that they deserve an article on PH.

Just to let you know Tony this was first published in national newspapers (however tabloid they may be) The Sun and Daily Express. If you'd like a list of the many many other places which publish some SS Press Releases or ask SS for comment on Motoring items then head over to

http://www.safespeed.org.uk/forum/viewforum.php?f=... - you'll see it goes a fair bit beyond PH

Edited by mmltonge on Monday 11th August 12:27

Minor articles in mostly local tabloid rags and local radio statio sound bites.

Oh, and Autoexpress....

No, really, thats my point.

[Apache]

Graemsay said:

Northumbria Police has an annual budget of £320 million.

£3 million from fines is 1% of this, so the argument that speed cameras and traps are a stealth tax on motorists is (IMO) misleading.

Northumbria Police wouldn't see even this amount, now that hypothocation has ended all fines are directed to the treasury.....so yes, it is like a tax

[Mar10]

Skinner.Daddy said:

cuneus said:

This is cherry picking at it's worst

http://www.durham.gov.uk/durhamcc/usp.nsf/pws/Your...

for the full picture

Edited by cuneus on Monday 11th August 11:56

In what way? All the figures in the table clearly show that the number of accidents are down and generally (other than an inevitable fluctuation) decreasing over the years.

I agree. If you look at the total accidents and total casualties they have all dropped in the last 10 years, and not a one off blip, a steady decline. In the case of accidents; in 1995 there were 1675 accidents in 2006 there were 1309 with a general downward trend (Yes there were blips in some years). Likewise in 1995 there were 2456 casualties on the roads of Durham in 2006 there were 1947 again with a general downward trend (with the odd blip here and there).

I'm waiting for the "Ah but lifesaving techniques have improved" argument, yes, but not that much.

Full picture seen. SS were right.

[mmltonge]

Tony*T3 said:

mmltonge said:

Tony*T3 said:

It always irritated me that PH was a mouthpiece for SafeSpeed. When SafeSpeed gets its articles published first by properly recognised motoring organistion websites rather then I might conceed that they deserve an article on PH.

Just to let you know Tony this was first published in national newspapers (however tabloid they may be) The Sun and Daily Express. If you'd like a list of the many many other places which publish some SS Press Releases or ask SS for comment on Motoring items then head over to

http://www.safespeed.org.uk/forum/viewforum.php?f=... - you'll see it goes a fair bit beyond PH

Edited by mmltonge on Monday 11th August 12:27

Minor articles in mostly local tabloid rags and local radio statio sound bites.

Oh, and Autoexpress....

No, really, thats my point.

Tsk tsk Tony are you Cherry picking and choosing to ignore the Guardian, Telegraph, BBC News 24/BBC News items etc? There's 26 pages of press listings there. Even if it was 100% local "rags" it's still an awful lot more than simply having PH as it's outlet which is what you first accused. So other than getting press in national tabloids, national broadsheets, national radio stations, local radio stations, local tabloids, news websites, motoring websites and lots of talk on forums - where is it SS needs to be seen to satisfy your requirements?

[herewego]

havoc said:

cuneus said:

mmltonge said:

Thanks to the person who linked to the Durham overall statistics, it proves what I was questioning in my mind. "Is this a one off or a sustained trend?" - those full stats show this is indeed a sustained trend, if you graphed the set of stats for both accidents and casualties you would get a graph with a general downward trend year on year (a couple of blips '02 and '03) which shows the policing is working in that county.

Not sure why you thought those stats showed something completely the opposite mind you...

Indeed you have made the point that should have been made about the overall trend. It would be easy to pick another 2 years and say xx% increase in deaths.

The std dev for the data is over 7

You're right, it is. But the overall trend is still substantially downwards over the last 10 years.

Which is at odds with the country-wide profile, and suggests something working in Durham which isn't nationally...

Not really. If you ignore the cherry picking it's about the same as the national average. I think a 16 or 17% drop over ten years is about right.

[CTE]

The most important thing is the rate of accidents and deaths are on a downward trend, but its difficult to really know why that is....does Durham have more patrol cars??
Surely the best way to significantly reduce accidents, and the cost of lots of patrol cars, is to make drivers truly responsible for their actions, and treat road deaths as either manslaughter, or if you were driving like a tt, even murder.
Speed limits should be advisory, but driving responsibly and safely compulsary.

[mmltonge]

herewego said:

havoc said:

cuneus said:

mmltonge said:

Thanks to the person who linked to the Durham overall statistics, it proves what I was questioning in my mind. "Is this a one off or a sustained trend?" - those full stats show this is indeed a sustained trend, if you graphed the set of stats for both accidents and casualties you would get a graph with a general downward trend year on year (a couple of blips '02 and '03) which shows the policing is working in that county.

Not sure why you thought those stats showed something completely the opposite mind you...

Indeed you have made the point that should have been made about the overall trend. It would be easy to pick another 2 years and say xx% increase in deaths.

The std dev for the data is over 7

You're right, it is. But the overall trend is still substantially downwards over the last 10 years.

Which is at odds with the country-wide profile, and suggests something working in Durham which isn't nationally...

Not really. If you ignore the cherry picking it's about the same as the national average. I think a 16 or 17% drop over ten years is about right.

Firstly, there isn't any cherry picking taking place... visit the link and look at the total columns. You'll see for yourself no cherry picking.

Secondly the national average over the last decade is actually 7%, not 16/17%. I quote from the full article "the death toll nationally has dropped from 3,421 in 1998 to 3,172 in 2006 – a reduction of seven per cent".

Even if the drop in Durham was only that of the national average then you should be asking why is it they are able to drop the toll without resorting to fining us additional millions and why aren't other counties doing it that way too?

And CTE yes Durham focuses almost all it's efforts on patrol cars and education instead of cameras, as stated in the article. Completely agree on the manslaughter/murder issue too, those who do genuinely drive dangerously get off too easy - a brief ban (which they'll flaunt anyway) or other ineffective punishment...

Edited by mmltonge on Monday 11th August 13:09

[mondeoman]

Graemsay said:

Northumbria Police has an annual budget of £320 million.

£3 million from fines is 1% of this, so the argument that speed cameras and traps are a stealth tax on motorists is (IMO) misleading.

Tell you what then, take a 1% pay cut this year, hell its only 1%, you don't need it do you...


fool.

[cowellsj]

Skinner.Daddy said:

SOMEBODY IN POWER LISTEN!!!

Get more plod on the roads and get rid of pointless cameras. Just leave the ones in places like outside schools.

Get rid of undercover cars too, Police presence will reduce deaths and get dangerous drivers off the roads.

We all know speed cameras don't catch drink/drug drivers

Undercover cars? Not sure.
I was stuck in slow moving traffic yesterday and some c*** was cutting through the traffic by undertaking people and carving them up.

2 miles down the road he was on the hard shoulder explaining himself to two plod in an unmarked vectra, while the rest of us were up to 70mph again. What's more he know the 30 or 40 people he cut up will be laughing their tits off at him.Haha!

Quite nice to see people acting like copmplete knobheads getting caught out once in a while.

[HeavyBear]

Back to basics... this is no surprise at the DfT. See this report, May 2008:
http://www.dsa.gov.uk/Documents/Consultation/ltd/R...

Fig 5.5 on page 56 shows crash factors for 2006 data:
'Exceeding speed limit' = 2% for age 26+, 7% for 17-19's.
'Travelling too fast for conditions' = 4% for age 26+, 13% for 17-19's.

Not much scope for speed limit enforcement to make an impression.

HB

[Prof Beard]

HeavyBear said:

Back to basics... this is no surprise at the DfT. See this report, May 2008:
http://www.dsa.gov.uk/Documents/Consultation/ltd/R...

Fig 5.5 on page 56 shows crash factors for 2006 data:
'Exceeding speed limit' = 2% for age 26+, 7% for 17-19's.
'Travelling too fast for conditions' = 4% for age 26+, 13% for 17-19's.

Not much scope for speed limit enforcement to make an impression.

HB

And remember "too fast for the conditions" EXCLUDES those exceeding the speed limt

[herewego]

mmltonge said:

herewego said:

havoc said:

cuneus said:

mmltonge said:

Thanks to the person who linked to the Durham overall statistics, it proves what I was questioning in my mind. "Is this a one off or a sustained trend?" - those full stats show this is indeed a sustained trend, if you graphed the set of stats for both accidents and casualties you would get a graph with a general downward trend year on year (a couple of blips '02 and '03) which shows the policing is working in that county.

Not sure why you thought those stats showed something completely the opposite mind you...

Indeed you have made the point that should have been made about the overall trend. It would be easy to pick another 2 years and say xx% increase in deaths.

The std dev for the data is over 7

You're right, it is. But the overall trend is still substantially downwards over the last 10 years.

Which is at odds with the country-wide profile, and suggests something working in Durham which isn't nationally...

Not really. If you ignore the cherry picking it's about the same as the national average. I think a 16 or 17% drop over ten years is about right.

Firstly, there isn't any cherry picking taking place... visit the link and look at the total columns. You'll see for yourself no cherry picking.

Secondly the national average over the last decade is actually 7%, not 16/17%. I quote from the full article "the death toll nationally has dropped from 3,421 in 1998 to 3,172 in 2006 – a reduction of seven per cent".

Even if the drop in Durham was only that of the national average then you should be asking why is it they are able to drop the toll without resorting to fining us additional millions and why aren't other counties doing it that way too?

And CTE yes Durham focuses almost all it's efforts on patrol cars and education instead of cameras, as stated in the article. Completely agree on the manslaughter/murder issue too, those who do genuinely drive dangerously get off too easy - a brief ban (which they'll flaunt anyway) or other ineffective punishment...

Edited by mmltonge on Monday 11th August 13:09

According to the latest 2007 figures, nationally there has been a 7% drop since 2006. See: http://www.dft.gov.uk/pgr/statistics/datatablespub...

This is not over ten years, this is just one year.

According to the Durham reference from Cuneus there were 22 killed in 2006 and SS says there were 26 killed last year so that’s an 18% increase.

[HeavyBear]

Prof Beard said:

HeavyBear said:

Back to basics... this is no surprise at the DfT. See this report, May 2008:
http://www.dsa.gov.uk/Documents/Consultation/ltd/R...

Fig 5.5 on page 56 shows crash factors for 2006 data:
'Exceeding speed limit' = 2% for age 26+, 7% for 17-19's.
'Travelling too fast for conditions' = 4% for age 26+, 13% for 17-19's.

Not much scope for speed limit enforcement to make an impression.

HB

And remember "too fast for the conditions" EXCLUDES those exceeding the speed limt

Indeed. Doesn't seem to 'inform' policy though... and not picked up by press / campaigners either...?

HB

[mmltonge]

• sigh* herewego, not matter how hard you try it's not working out for you.

7% in one year is good news, but apparently more can be done. We've already covered why you shouldn't take one year to the next but a longer period.

So from 1998-2006 it was from 44-22
Or from 1998-2007 from 44-26

Either way you look at it it's a significant fall. As has already been said go look at the totals, it's very much downward trend by a significant amount over the longer term.

Nationally 7% over 10 years and then 7% in the last year - all this does is show that the fall in the last year is against the trend and is possibly simply going to be a very positive blip... lets hope it's not.

The question must still be asked as to why 2 forces can achieve more or similar falls over long periods (15% for yorkshire) to other forces without resorting to raising hundres of millions of pounds off of us in the process... why aren't all forces instead applying the same techniques to achieve positive results without causing 1) public/police relations to plummit, 2) people to resent the law and 3) generally good drivers to be fined and sometimes lose livelihoods... If it can be achieved without all these negative side effects, why not do it in such a way?

Edited by mmltonge on Monday 11th August 14:11

[herewego]

mmltonge said:

*sigh* herewego, not matter how hard you try it's not working out for you.

7% in one year is good news, but apparently more can be done. We've already covered why you shouldn't take one year to the next but a longer period.

So from 1998-2006 it was from 44-22
Or from 1998-2007 from 44-26

Either way you look at it it's a significant fall. As has already been said go look at the totals, it's very much downward trend by a significant amount over the longer term.

Nationally 7% over 10 years and then 7% in the last year - all this does is show that the fall in the last year is against the trend and is possibly simply going to be a very positive blip... lets hope it's not.

The question must still be asked as to why 2 forces can achieve more or similar falls over long periods (15% for yorkshire) to other forces without resorting to raising hundres of millions of pounds off of us in the process... why aren't all forces instead applying the same techniques to achieve positive results without causing 1) public/police relations to plummit, 2) people to resent the law and 3) generally good drivers to be fined and sometimes lose livelihoods... If it can be achieved without all these negative side effects, what not do it in such a way?

No, nationally it a 17% fall over 10 years 1997 to 2007, and last year for Durham was an 18% rise. We should be concerned about the 18% rise in Durham against the national 7% fall.

[Bing o]

Why no mention of regression to the mean?

Or is that only used when the statistics are in your favour?

[skimmo]

Get more plod on the roads and get rid of pointless cameras.

Just leave the ones in places like outside schools.


Could'nt agree more on the first point, couldnt agree less on your second!!
Scameras are useless no matter where they are. Instead of a speed camera outside schools why not just stick in a few speed humps or witdh restrictions in. I dont know about you lot but with a scamera I slow down to what the speed limit is (outside a school I guess this would be 30mph) however put a speed hump in front of me and the speed has to come down even further than that to maybe 20mph. Scameras dont slow people down they are just money making machines. What makes them an even harder pill to swallow for me is that we all pay for them out of our hard earned cash!! Death to the scameras!!!!

[mmltonge]

herewego said:

No, nationally it a 17% fall over 10 years 1997 to 2007, and last year for Durham was an 18% rise. We should be concerned about the 18% rise in Durham against the national 7% fall.

Haha amazing. Nationally it's a 7% fall from 96-06 and a 7% fall from 06-07. So I guess 14% from 96-07 (or indeed a 17% from 97-07 as you point out). However, given that half the fall occured within 1 year the chances are it's a one off large fall and it may even go up back into line with the general trend... this is of course assuming you accept, the same thing applied when Durham saw a fall from 29-22... it's a large fall for one year and the subsequent year seems to have risen to take the figures back into line. Of course, you can continue on your course if you wish and focus on one year instead. Or indeed as you have done in your most recent post focus on different periods for different areas (97-2007 national and then only 06-7 for durham... )

Anyway, seeing as how you'll go to great lengths to twist the statistics I'm out as I've said what needs to be said and been very transparent and even explained in detail how it's not cherry picking (given that the original articles 40% drop is referring to the drop to 26, not 22 - they could have used 06's 22 for even greater headlines) but looking at a longer term trend.

Edited by mmltonge on Monday 11th August 14:57