More Scamera Propaganda
Discussion
www.suffolksafecam.co.uk/
Funnily enough, they don't mention the overall casualties on the roads, I can only assume they mean 10 yards either side of a scamera, excellent reduction there
>>> Edited by Muncher on Thursday 20th January 16:50
scamera site said:
Vehicle speed is one of the main causes of serious road casualties.
Consider this:
40mph sign
At 40mph a child hit by a vehicle has
10% chance of surviving.
20mph sign
At 20mph a child hit by a vehicle has
90% chance of surviving.
scameras said:
Cameras up, Collisions and Casualties Down
Suffolk SafeCam has now completed its first full calendar year of operation and new figures show excellent casualty savings at camera sites across Suffolk.
Latest figures show that the annual rate of casualties killed or seriously injured at sites where safety cameras have been introduced has fallen from 129 in 2003 to 25 in 2004. The annual rate of collisions at sites where cameras now operate has also dropped from 173 in 2003, to 104 in 2004. In addition to the significant reduction in casualties, there is also a reduction in the severity of injuries incurred, it’s a fact that the slower the vehicle on impact, the lesser the injury.
Michelle Finnerty, Communications Manager for Suffolk SafeCam said, “These figures are extremely encouraging and are as a direct result of drivers slowing down and sticking to the speed limits. We have undertaken extensive educational campaigns to ensure that drivers are fully aware of the dangers of excess and inappropriate speed, including targeting all new drivers through local Driving Standards Agency test centres and working with local U.S air bases. Perhaps one of the most important messages that we want to get across is that drivers should stick to speed limits at all times, not just when they think there might be a camera around.”
Peter Monk, Suffolk County Council Portfolio Holder for Public Protection added, “These casualty savings are very good news and reflect the excellent work of Suffolk SafeCam and the real value of partnership working. Alongside the activities of Suffolk Constabulary and Suffolk County Council’s ‘For My Girlfriend’ campaign aimed at younger drivers, we aim to continue educating and informing the motoring public in order to make Suffolk’s roads safer.”
Chief Inspector Alan Pawsey from Suffolk Constabulary said “Offences at camera sites are dropping as motorists become more aware that they will be caught if they break the law but despite this, over 48,000 people were prosecuted last year for excess speed. The camera sites are widely publicised so there’s absolutely no need for this number of people to be caught. Not only are they increasing their chances of being involved in a collision, they are also endangering other road users. Every single motorist can help to make a difference to the safety of our local community just by sticking to the speed limit.”
Suffolk SafeCam’s website, www.suffolksafecam.co.uk, shows the location of all camera sites and is updated weekly with mobile enforcement locations. Additional information can also be found on local and national campaigns.
Funnily enough, they don't mention the overall casualties on the roads, I can only assume they mean 10 yards either side of a scamera, excellent reduction there
>>> Edited by Muncher on Thursday 20th January 16:50
I like this quote they always come up with:
"At 20mph a child hit by a vehicle has
90% chance of surviving."
Somebody from Lothian and Borders Scamera Pratnership also came out with something like this last year
"Hitting someone at 30, you'll probably kill them, but at 20mph they'll only be slightly injured"
I rest easy in the knowledge that mowing someone down at 20mph will merely result in a wee bruise or two.
"At 20mph a child hit by a vehicle has
90% chance of surviving."
Somebody from Lothian and Borders Scamera Pratnership also came out with something like this last year
"Hitting someone at 30, you'll probably kill them, but at 20mph they'll only be slightly injured"
I rest easy in the knowledge that mowing someone down at 20mph will merely result in a wee bruise or two.
Cut through all the self-congratulation and propaganda and what do we see? The figures indicate a significant reduction in KSIs and accidents at camera sites. But is this true?
No trends are mentioned, so we don't know whether 2003 was really bad and 2004 is back to normal, or whether this is a statistically significant fall in the wider scheme of things -- this is just their "first year of operation", after all, and one set of results would not normally be used in this way (except by Partnerships of course). We need to understand that. Can anyone find out?
Is the volume of traffic passing the cameras the same in 2003 and 2004? Were the 2003 figures skewed by a small number of serious accidents, or 2004 figures spuriously improved by any known factors?
Also, there is no mention of overall KSIs in Suffolk? Are they moving to non-camera roads? If so, are these close to camera sites and simply indicate people are avoiding the camera'd roads?
Are there any camera sites where KSIs went up? Do they know why? What will they be doing to address this? Or are they treating this as a one-off -- therefore casting doubt on all their other figures which, as they admit, are just 1 set of data.
I would really like to know whether the Partnership has done this type of analysis and therefore decided it's safe to congratulate itself, or if it has ignored anything other than the headline figures. After all, who would do such an analysis afterwards? And even if they did, by then the positive spin is out there.
No trends are mentioned, so we don't know whether 2003 was really bad and 2004 is back to normal, or whether this is a statistically significant fall in the wider scheme of things -- this is just their "first year of operation", after all, and one set of results would not normally be used in this way (except by Partnerships of course). We need to understand that. Can anyone find out?
Is the volume of traffic passing the cameras the same in 2003 and 2004? Were the 2003 figures skewed by a small number of serious accidents, or 2004 figures spuriously improved by any known factors?
Also, there is no mention of overall KSIs in Suffolk? Are they moving to non-camera roads? If so, are these close to camera sites and simply indicate people are avoiding the camera'd roads?
Are there any camera sites where KSIs went up? Do they know why? What will they be doing to address this? Or are they treating this as a one-off -- therefore casting doubt on all their other figures which, as they admit, are just 1 set of data.
I would really like to know whether the Partnership has done this type of analysis and therefore decided it's safe to congratulate itself, or if it has ignored anything other than the headline figures. After all, who would do such an analysis afterwards? And even if they did, by then the positive spin is out there.
I've just had a quick look at the website. Sadly it doesn't give the raw camera figures for 2003 or 2004 and you can only view overall figures for 1999-2003.
However, based on those, accidents rose from 1999 to 2003, and "KSIs + slight injuries" also rose.
Looking at specific camera sites between 1999 and 2002 (nothing since then!), both accidents and casualties increased at several sites -- thought I'm not sure whether the "baseline" figures indicate times when no cameras were there or whether those are the first 3 years of cameras being there. Either way, not all the numbers are heading down during the period. Ropes Drive, Kesgrave, is a great example -- accidents/casualties up from 0 in 99 to 2 in 02. Another is A1092, Cavendish -- 1 in 99 and 3 in 02.
I wonder when we'll see the raw figures for 2004 added, when even 2003 is not even there?
However, based on those, accidents rose from 1999 to 2003, and "KSIs + slight injuries" also rose.
Looking at specific camera sites between 1999 and 2002 (nothing since then!), both accidents and casualties increased at several sites -- thought I'm not sure whether the "baseline" figures indicate times when no cameras were there or whether those are the first 3 years of cameras being there. Either way, not all the numbers are heading down during the period. Ropes Drive, Kesgrave, is a great example -- accidents/casualties up from 0 in 99 to 2 in 02. Another is A1092, Cavendish -- 1 in 99 and 3 in 02.
I wonder when we'll see the raw figures for 2004 added, when even 2003 is not even there?
Muncher said:
Consider this:
40mph sign
At 40mph a child hit by a vehicle has
10% chance of surviving.
Have you also heard those annoying radio adverts with a child telling us that " at 40mph you will kill me " ?
Well die then you little brat, as you should not be in the road. 
There is never any mention of educating children to not run into the road. I always switch off this type of advertising, as I refuse to be brainwashed by this government.
They just had a bit on Anglia news about how great "safety cameras" are.
They interviewed 4 people who all absolutely loved them, one guy said they should be on every side bridge because people drive like lunatics also another woman, holding a small child who said there should be more, then glanced at her child!
Get off the
road!!!!
The scamera operators were all smug s who clearly loved doing it, an ex colleague of mine was then shown working processing the images, TW@T!
They interviewed 4 people who all absolutely loved them, one guy said they should be on every side bridge because people drive like lunatics also another woman, holding a small child who said there should be more, then glanced at her child!
Get off the
road!!!! The scamera operators were all smug
s who clearly loved doing it, an ex colleague of mine was then shown working processing the images, TW@T!ledfoot said:
They just had a bit on Anglia news about how great "safety cameras" are.
Hi Muncher...
I just saw that myself...
Typical BBC propaganda with everyone saying how great scameras are.
The people they chose to interview all looked like scum, and probably do not even drive.
Isn't Anglia ITV?
Muncher said:
Muncher said:
They just had a bit on Anglia news about how great "safety cameras" are.
Hi Muncher...
I just saw that myself...
Typical BBC propaganda with everyone saying how great scameras are.
The people they chose to interview all looked like scum, and probably do not even drive.
Isn't Anglia ITV?
Yes,
I was watching Look East on BBC1.
They showed exactly what you mentioned.
I'm quite worried about whatever it is that stops the news from presenting a balanced argument - why can't they find equal arguments for and against things rather than effectively promoting it.
I see the next edition of Watchdog has an article on 'the continuing battle to get gas-guzzling 4-wheel Drives off the roads'.
AAAAAARGH!!!
I see the next edition of Watchdog has an article on 'the continuing battle to get gas-guzzling 4-wheel Drives off the roads'.
AAAAAARGH!!!
Peter Ward said:
Cut through all the self-congratulation and propaganda and what do we see? The figures indicate a significant reduction in KSIs and accidents at camera sites. But is this true?
I haven't trawled various websites, nor indeed PH, for previous posts on this but I was chatting to a colleague about this very subject today.
He recited an article he had read in a motoring publication which suggested that the figures may have been 'massaged' somewhat. Previous KSI stats had shown that of all recorded accidents, 6% of these had been 'attributable' to excess speed and 30% were classified as unknown. Unsure what the other 64% were down to but will try and find out.
The powers that be then decreed, in their infinite wisdom, that the 30% of accidents of 'unclassifiable' nature should be bundled with the 6% speed related. Hey presto, 36% of all accidents are down to excess speed.
Kinda makes you dubious of any figures the scamera pratnerships or govt. bodies may have you believe.
>> Edited by SotonS2 on Thursday 20th January 19:19
Look East did however report that the numbers of people caught speeding had GONE UP but accidents were down in Suffolk allegedly due to lower speed limits. (I recorded this)
Speeding Fines Issued Last year
Northants 80,400
Essex 79,200
Suffolk 48,700
Cambs 24,100
The Look East reporter said that cameras have to be easily noticeable whilehe was driving along, they were showing a scamera van in the distance parked on a grass verge which was not signed or easily recognised as being a camera van (only chevrons on the rear tailgate gave a hint to what it was).
I have written to complain about this biased view on the Look East website. Below is what i sent them...
" I could not believe how biased your program was this evening on speed cameras. You showed interviews of three members of the public in a supermarket car park, whom all said speeding cameras were wonderful.
There was no evidence that those people actually drive a car.
Everybody I know thinks that speeding cameras should be removed, and are just there to make money. I have never met anyone that wants speed cameras.
Your responsibility as a Government run broadcaster should have shown both sides of the agument, and not such a pro biased view. "
>> Edited by ledfoot on Thursday 20th January 19:45
(I recorded this) Speeding Fines Issued Last year
Northants 80,400
Essex 79,200
Suffolk 48,700
Cambs 24,100
The Look East reporter said that cameras have to be easily noticeable whilehe was driving along, they were showing a scamera van in the distance parked on a grass verge which was not signed or easily recognised as being a camera van (only chevrons on the rear tailgate gave a hint to what it was).
I have written to complain about this biased view on the Look East website. Below is what i sent them...
" I could not believe how biased your program was this evening on speed cameras. You showed interviews of three members of the public in a supermarket car park, whom all said speeding cameras were wonderful.
There was no evidence that those people actually drive a car.
Everybody I know thinks that speeding cameras should be removed, and are just there to make money. I have never met anyone that wants speed cameras.
Your responsibility as a Government run broadcaster should have shown both sides of the agument, and not such a pro biased view. "
>> Edited by ledfoot on Thursday 20th January 19:45
v8thunder said:
I'm quite worried about whatever it is that stops the news from presenting a balanced argument - why can't they find equal arguments for and against things rather than effectively promoting it.
I see the next edition of Watchdog has an article on 'the continuing battle to get gas-guzzling 4-wheel Drives off the roads'.
AAAAAARGH!!!
The BBC is led by people who don't even realise that they're left-leaning Guardian-readers. They're passionate about free speech except that some things can't be mentioned -- support for Israel, positive views on cars, support for Tories, etc. These are clearly so totally wrong that nobody in their right mind would voice such opinions, and the BBC wouldn't want to broadcast anyone who isn't in their right mind.
Hence the news is always filtered through that pink haze. 4x4s are clearly unjustified in the view of any right-minded person so they don't need to find a madman to justify them.
ledfoot said:
The people they chose to interview all looked like scum, and probably do not even drive.
Similar people are campaigning for a road near where I drive regularly (an NSL) with a footpath tunnel underneath to have a pedestrian crossing.
They're too bl00dy lazy or stupid to use the tunnel that goes under the road from one council estate to another so they cross the road and one or two of them get killed.
Their argument is that "...people will cross the road, so put in some means of holding up the moving vehicles..."
The local (yokel) paper seems to be on their side.
JEEEZ, the pandering to morons in this country now, it just makes you want to sod off to somewhere better.
JoolzB said:
The BBC is led by people who don't even realise that they're left-leaning Guardian-readers.
It's amazing Clarkson still has a job.
Did you know the BBC are moving the Top Gear program near to Clarksons home and building a TV studio especially for the Top Gear program at Enstone airfield.
Peter Ward said:
I'm quite worried about whatever it is that stops the news from presenting a balanced argument - why can't they find equal arguments for and against things rather than effectively promoting it.
I see the next edition of Watchdog has an article on 'the continuing battle to get gas-guzzling 4-wheel Drives off the roads'.
AAAAAARGH!!!
The BBC is led by people who don't even realise that they're left-leaning Guardian-readers. They're passionate about free speech except that some things can't be mentioned -- support for Israel, positive views on cars, support for Tories, etc. These are clearly so totally wrong that nobody in their right mind would voice such opinions, and the BBC wouldn't want to broadcast anyone who isn't in their right mind.
Hence the news is always filtered through that pink haze. 4x4s are clearly unjustified in the view of any right-minded person so they don't need to find a madman to justify them.
I remember finding a range of T-shirts on a website I saw today that I sorely wanted but didn't have the money. On the front of the T-Shirt was a dictionary definition:
Bigot n, A conservative who wins an argument with a liberal
Ordinarily I don't warm to stuff found on Republican propaganda websites, but this touched a nerve - I think the perceived sensibilities of the world are becoming more and more left-wing. What annoys me the most is that people just don't realise that pushing to the left is just as bad as pushing to the right, sometimes things don't need changing, and the best way to move forward is to take into account everyone's views and go down the straight and narrow. It may be boring, but so are old Volvos, and they don't break down.
I've just been listening to a radio interview with Matt Lucas and David Walliams about Little Britain. They said they called their show Little Britain and coupled it with David Arnold's pompous music because it summed up the state of the place - a small, insignificant, mediochre country with massive delusions of importance and grandeur. The sooner we realise that, actually, we don't have any genuine 'problems' compared to the rest of the world, and, by accepting this realise that constantly 'improving' things (ie change for change's sake) is actually crating problems for some people by actually pushing everything in the wrong direction.
The truth, is that pedestrians CAN'T cross the road via underpass or bridge because of the fear of getting MUGGED whilst doing so. It's actually SAFER to risk getting run over by a: "speeding" motorist. And if it hits you, he has insurance for you to claim off. 
Welcome to Britain in the 21 st century!
>> Edited by 8Pack on Friday 21st January 05:23
Welcome to Britain in the 21 st century! >> Edited by 8Pack on Friday 21st January 05:23
Suffolk Scamera Partnership said:
Dear Mr Munnings,
The Department for Transport's most recent analysis of casualty statistics in Great Britain has shown excessive speed to be a contributory factor in 12% of all injury collisions, 18% where there is a serious injury and 28% of all collisions which result in a fatality.
Further information can be found on the Department for Transport web site.
Regards
Michelle Finnerty
Communications Manager
Suffolk SafeCam
Is that correct? Paul Smith care to comment?
There's a big different between being a contributing factor and actually causing the collision.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff