Safe Speed on Radio 4
Discussion
I heard Paul Smith (a.k.a. Safe Speed) on Radio 4 this morning, ripping into the flawed statistics which the government tried to pass off as proof that speed cameras are saving lives at a dramatic rate.
What I immediately found interesting was that Paul’s opponent (a government representative, can’t remember his name) stated from the start that he was not interested in the statistics, so he was not even going to try to defend them! That instantly reinforced my belief that the statistics are totally groundless. Then the judge (can’t remember his name) agreed that Paul’s case against the statistics was correct (well done Paul).
However, the judge then went on to say that Paul ‘can’t see the woods for the trees’ and that he would like to see the cameras hidden, and many more of them.
Can’t the judge see that:
*The death and accident rate has not decreased, but has in fact increased, since the proliferation of speed cameras.
*Speed cameras are not located where it is dangerous to break the speed limit, but they are where it is safe to do so.
*Speed cameras are in fact ruining many peoples lives with unjustified disqualifications, and are now forcing many motorists (currently 1 in 10) underground to evade capture.
*The real cause of accidents will not be stopped with the current policy regarding the use of speed cameras.
I would like to know that background of the judge: how many miles does he drive per day, or is he chauffeured, just like everyone else who produces traffic laws?
I can’t see the woods for all the camera poles.
What I immediately found interesting was that Paul’s opponent (a government representative, can’t remember his name) stated from the start that he was not interested in the statistics, so he was not even going to try to defend them! That instantly reinforced my belief that the statistics are totally groundless. Then the judge (can’t remember his name) agreed that Paul’s case against the statistics was correct (well done Paul).
However, the judge then went on to say that Paul ‘can’t see the woods for the trees’ and that he would like to see the cameras hidden, and many more of them.
Can’t the judge see that:
*The death and accident rate has not decreased, but has in fact increased, since the proliferation of speed cameras.
*Speed cameras are not located where it is dangerous to break the speed limit, but they are where it is safe to do so.
*Speed cameras are in fact ruining many peoples lives with unjustified disqualifications, and are now forcing many motorists (currently 1 in 10) underground to evade capture.
*The real cause of accidents will not be stopped with the current policy regarding the use of speed cameras.
I would like to know that background of the judge: how many miles does he drive per day, or is he chauffeured, just like everyone else who produces traffic laws?
I can’t see the woods for all the camera poles.
This was the concluding part of a Radio 4 review of anti-speed measures. The "Judge" was in fact an emiritus professor of statistics from London University whose brief was purely to look at the validity of the statistics issued by the government and the validity of the "flaws" highlighted by Mr Smith in those statistics.
In my opinion, he went way beyond his brief and started inserting his own moral viewpoint on speeding. The other day he even went so far as to say that speed humps were good because they tended to favour the saving of young lives even if they resulted in older people dying (because of slow respnse times by ambulances etc). What had that comment got to do with statistcs?
So an interesting discussion but, like nearly all these debates, unfortunately not impartial or dispassionate.
In my opinion, he went way beyond his brief and started inserting his own moral viewpoint on speeding. The other day he even went so far as to say that speed humps were good because they tended to favour the saving of young lives even if they resulted in older people dying (because of slow respnse times by ambulances etc). What had that comment got to do with statistcs?
So an interesting discussion but, like nearly all these debates, unfortunately not impartial or dispassionate.
Eric Mc said:
This was the concluding part of a Radio 4 review of anti-speed measures. The "Judge" was in fact an emiritus professor of statistics from London University whose brief was purely to look at the validity of the statistics issued by the government and the validity of the "flaws" highlighted by Mr Smith in those statistics.
In my opinion, he went way beyond his brief and started inserting his own moral viewpoint on speeding. The other day he even went so far as to say that speed humps were good because they tended to favour the saving of young lives even if they resulted in older people dying (because of slow respnse times by ambulances etc). What had that comment got to do with statistcs?
So an interesting discussion but, like nearly all these debates, unfortunately not impartial or dispassionate.
Is Prof. Stone the same guy who "validated" the Govt's cooking of the books , subject Ted's well written rant t'other day??
Just wondered, and if so, then why did the Beeb choose him? Is there no other person in the world qualified to make this judgement.
Hi Guys,
There's little or nothing wrong with Professor Mervyn Stone or his written judgements. The Beeb seem to be having a very hard time actually publishing the real results of the excercise. The headline comments the beeb made are not very accurate!
Even I didn't get the documents until about 4pm this afternoon, but there's plenty of important stuff there. Here's a taster:
"Turning now to the written statement of Mr Smith, the reader should know that I have downloaded most of the files, acquired most of the papers to which he referred, and gone through them with as much care and attention as I could summon. In itself, an achievement of sorts, but paling into insignificance compared with that of Mr Smith himself. He has single-handedly taken on the road safety establishment. He has brought to the fore hitherto neglected questions with admirable forensic skill and logic. He is a gad fly par excellence whose bite must have already irritated many in the road safety world who prefer a quieter way of dealing with issues.
His piece is a powerful polemic attacking the interpretation that others have placed on the body of evidence about the relationship between speed cameras and accidents."
and
"The "roll out" of safety cameras by separate Safety Partnerships was initiated by DoT. Its management was placed in the hands of the private sector company PA Consulting Group. This "cost recovery" program has failed except for the HMT requirement that it should be self-financing. There has been a failure to design the program so that it would provide the information needed to evaluate alternative ways of getting the benefits of speed camera enforcement. The emphasis on political acceptability has led the program down a cul de sac in which essential public trust has been lost. The mistakes already made should be openly recognised, and the program should be subjected to a root and branch rethink."
There are some real audio links on:
www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/today/reports/politics/speedcameras2_20040624.shtml
You can download my speed camera document from:
www.safespeed.org.uk/againstcameras.doc
I hope the Beeb will catch up with the publishing soon.
There's little or nothing wrong with Professor Mervyn Stone or his written judgements. The Beeb seem to be having a very hard time actually publishing the real results of the excercise. The headline comments the beeb made are not very accurate!
Even I didn't get the documents until about 4pm this afternoon, but there's plenty of important stuff there. Here's a taster:
"Turning now to the written statement of Mr Smith, the reader should know that I have downloaded most of the files, acquired most of the papers to which he referred, and gone through them with as much care and attention as I could summon. In itself, an achievement of sorts, but paling into insignificance compared with that of Mr Smith himself. He has single-handedly taken on the road safety establishment. He has brought to the fore hitherto neglected questions with admirable forensic skill and logic. He is a gad fly par excellence whose bite must have already irritated many in the road safety world who prefer a quieter way of dealing with issues.
His piece is a powerful polemic attacking the interpretation that others have placed on the body of evidence about the relationship between speed cameras and accidents."
and
"The "roll out" of safety cameras by separate Safety Partnerships was initiated by DoT. Its management was placed in the hands of the private sector company PA Consulting Group. This "cost recovery" program has failed except for the HMT requirement that it should be self-financing. There has been a failure to design the program so that it would provide the information needed to evaluate alternative ways of getting the benefits of speed camera enforcement. The emphasis on political acceptability has led the program down a cul de sac in which essential public trust has been lost. The mistakes already made should be openly recognised, and the program should be subjected to a root and branch rethink."
There are some real audio links on:
www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/today/reports/politics/speedcameras2_20040624.shtml
You can download my speed camera document from:
www.safespeed.org.uk/againstcameras.doc
I hope the Beeb will catch up with the publishing soon.
safespeed said:
"The "roll out" of safety cameras by separate Safety Partnerships was initiated by DoT. Its management was placed in the hands of the private sector company PA Consulting Group. This "cost recovery" program has failed except for the HMT requirement that it should be self-financing. There has been a failure to design the program so that it would provide the information needed to evaluate alternative ways of getting the benefits of speed camera enforcement. The emphasis on political acceptability has led the program down a cul de sac in which essential public trust has been lost. The mistakes already made should be openly recognised, and the program should be subjected to a root and branch rethink."
That's a mighty powerful statement! But I guess that nobody in government will listen to him any more than they listen to anyone else who states the truth.
I didn't realise that PA Consulting was responsible for rolling out the Partnership scheme. It was PA Consulting that created last week's report. Hardly a surprise then that the report supported the Partnerships. Unbiased auditing, that's what we like. If companies were audited with the same quality as the government we'd have an Enron every week.
Safespeed said:
The "roll out" of safety cameras by separate Safety Partnerships was initiated by DoT. Its management was placed in the hands of the private sector company PA Consulting Group
Peter Ward said:
I didn't realise that PA Consulting was responsible for rolling out the Partnership scheme.
You and me both, and everyone else!
wow, I was actually going to jokingly add the comment 'I wonder when the cameras will be privatised' but I removed it from the draft before submitting the topic as I thought it was too stupid. It would now seem that the rollout was privatised from day 1. Now everything makes sense.
Paul, thanks you
What will you do for an encore?Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff