Monday 24th May 2004

End the Spin say ABD

Unambiguous figures hoped for from Govt review of speed cameras

---

Transport Minister Alastair Darling announced last week that all camera partnerships will have to publish details of accidents occurring at speed camera sites before and after installation.

The Association of British Drivers has welcomed the move. It's been calling for detailed analysis of camera sites for several years. Their own efforts at establishing the figures have been repeatedly obstructed by camera partnerships.

Recently opposition parties have jumped on the bandwagon and more significantly the Police Federation has called for greater clarity, concerned that the police force is being undermined by ill informed use of cameras.

The ABD still has concerns about how the information will be presented though. The Government and camera partnerships have a long history of presenting road accident statistics in a variety of manners designed to extract the only the good news from figures. 

The ABD is now calling for the following statistics to be made available in full for each and every speed camera site, fixed and mobile:

• Figures for at least three years prior to camera installation (five is preferable) and for every year following installation.
• Separated figures for deaths and serious injuries. The practice of using the easily manipulated and misleading 'KSI' (killed or seriously injured) is not acceptable because it can mask increases in deaths where relatively minor injuries have reduced.
• Details of the causes of each accident, in particular the speed of travel of vehicles involved and whether the driver was sober, drug free, licenced, in a legally registered, non stolen vehicle.
• Details of any engineering work carried out at each camera site which may have affected accident rates during the period measured.
• Distance from the camera site that accidents occurred.
• Traffic Volume Data
• Speed survey data including the 85th percentile speed.

ABD chairman Brian Gregory commented: "This should be an opportunity for the public at last to be allowed to see for themselves whether cameras really are having any effect on road safety and to evaluate whether prosecuting 3 million drivers a year has had any worthwhile effect on casualty reduction. There is only one way to evaluate the success of a speed camera. Firstly one has to rule out the effects of other road changes - then one has to look at the death rate before and after for a statistically significant period of at least three years. There is also the issue of 'regression to mean' to take into account - i.e. Cameras are installed where an unusually high number of accidents have occurred. One would usually expect accident rates to naturally return to the average for the site in following years without intervention.

ABD spokesman Nigel Humphries said: "It's a pity it has taken so long for the government to listen. One hopes this is not simply an electioneering ploy and that we will see the true and full figures not just a fudge of meaningless combined KSI figures. The use of this term shows great disrespect to those killed or seriously maimed in road accidents by lumping them together with relatively minor injuries such as fractured fingers or toes. Camera partnerships and the government have for far too long been allowed to get away with using such terms and picking and choosing which cameras and which years they use to claim 'success' -most famous being the 'two year pilot study' repeatedly parroted by politicians and pro camera groups despite even its title showing it to be statistically invalid ".

Link : www.abd.org.uk

[sgt^roc]

Its game set and match to them to be honest, the real intentions are beginning to slip out already. For those who think the likes of Darling or Brunstrom have softened up are kidding themselves they have been picked for their psychopathic dislike of motoring thats why they seem unaffected by the abuse. Today a new camera hit their arsenal that can see miles and that tallies up them chasing drivers with blacked windows because they need to see, Next after the general election will come the conversion of this new national traffic monitoring system, after all what government is going to give up all this revenue while we just sit back and whine about it?

[streaky]

It's about CONTROL as much as it is about MONEY - Streaky

[puggit]

They still can't stop us driving with baseball caps on or masks! (yet )

[JohnL]

[quote=sgt^roc] ... after all what government is going to give up all this revenue while we just sit back and whine about it?[/quote]

A government that believes it will lose significant numbers of votes by not doing so.

How do we make them think this?

I don't have an easy answer, but I do think that's the question.

Streaky - right on the button.

Edit: sgt^roc, just realised that this was the drift of your "we just sit and whine" comment.

>> Edited by JohnL on Thursday 27th May 14:56

[Tafia]

streaky said:

It's about CONTROL as much as it is about MONEY - Streaky

Absolutely.

I have also seen a report in the ABD magazine about a 24 year old leftie - obviously brainwashed by sandalista university lecturers - who was studying transport and exclusion and declared,

"The car is a major cause of social exclusion and it's use must be discouraged by all means possible"

Are they fg mad?

Yes, I fear they are.............

[JohnL]

Tafia said:

I have also seen a report in the ABD magazine about a 24 year old leftie - obviously brainwashed by sandalista university lecturers - who was studying transport and exclusion and declared, "The car is a major cause of social exclusion and it's use must be discouraged by all means possible"

But ... but ... gibber ...

if it's a cause of social exclusion then don't ban it, work out how to extend it to those who are excluded from it. Bollox anyway, not many people who really want a car don't have one. (20 odd million cars on the road, 22 odd million driving licences). And it'd more likely to be a symptom than a cause of social exclusion ...

Why am I bothering to comment? As you say, they're f mad

[JohnL]

Right here's a slightly calmer comment on the above.

A couple of years ago I was involved in a tie up between my employer and a social inclusion charity. Basically, new products and services we were planning to offer would have been of more interest to, and would have saved money for, people who are already "included" - thus widening social gaps

So, if the fwit above had anything to do with it, the logical approach would have been, OK we won't do it as it'd be unfair.

What we actually did was say, OK, if we take our services A & B, combine them with Our Partner Ltd's product C, and market it in combination with the Charity, we have a package which will be accessible to "socially excluded" people, will save them significant amounts of money, and have lots of other benefits for them too that wouldn't be significant for better off people. And we could increase sales too.

That's what's called "win-win".
But then, I'll come back to Tafia's previous comment: they're fg mad.
For these nutcases, "fairness" means lose:lose. Mmm, communism anyone?

>> Edited by JohnL on Thursday 27th May 15:37