"Lowest figures since records began"
Discussion
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4636913.stm
What twaddle. This kind of reporting makes me seethe.
Isn't it right that in 2003 figures finally rose for the first time "since records began", having been slowed down from constant year on year improvements "since records began" by this Speed Kills nonsense?
So every year "since records began" the figures were the lowest "since records began", as they were this year.
But the real story here is that the year on year improvements have been arrested because of rubbish police priorities.
The BBC are clearly in the pockets of the speed nazis.
SM
What twaddle. This kind of reporting makes me seethe.
Isn't it right that in 2003 figures finally rose for the first time "since records began", having been slowed down from constant year on year improvements "since records began" by this Speed Kills nonsense?
So every year "since records began" the figures were the lowest "since records began", as they were this year.
But the real story here is that the year on year improvements have been arrested because of rubbish police priorities.
The BBC are clearly in the pockets of the speed nazis.
SM
Yep, they are worthy of closer inspection
275kb DfT pdf
Fatalities and KSIs down 8%
Interestingly North Wales has suffered an 18% rise in fatalities this year while Durham has seen a drop of 24%
, and N Yorks (the only other non camera partnership force) has seen a drop above the national average.
Lancs has also curtailed their draconian camera strategy somewhat in the last year or so. They are now celebrating a 34% fall in fatalities.
Biker fatalities are down significantly, largely due to last years crap summer.
But fatality drops in vulnerable user groups, ie pedestrians, particularly children, has only dropped by 2 percent. This user group is the main thrust of camera fatality reduction propaganda, yet the reduction is lagging 6% behind the average.
Makes for some interesting reading.
275kb DfT pdf
Fatalities and KSIs down 8%
Interestingly North Wales has suffered an 18% rise in fatalities this year while Durham has seen a drop of 24%
, and N Yorks (the only other non camera partnership force) has seen a drop above the national average. Lancs has also curtailed their draconian camera strategy somewhat in the last year or so. They are now celebrating a 34% fall in fatalities.
Biker fatalities are down significantly, largely due to last years crap summer.
But fatality drops in vulnerable user groups, ie pedestrians, particularly children, has only dropped by 2 percent. This user group is the main thrust of camera fatality reduction propaganda, yet the reduction is lagging 6% behind the average.
Makes for some interesting reading.
nonegreen said:
It looks as though the evidence is in the disclaimer. They have taken some deaths out of the equation by removing those deaths that occur more than 30 days after the accident happened. The depths to which the anti car slime will stoop seems to know no limits
Probably because they come within the statistics for crap Health Service management and it was MRSA/Other horrible hospital derived nasties that killed them!
Including one death in both groups of statistics cannot be good for Govt propaganda!
Or am I just being cynical again?
>> Edited by gone on Thursday 30th June 12:12
nonegreen said:
It looks as though the evidence is in the disclaimer. They have taken some deaths out of the equation by removing those deaths that occur more than 30 days after the accident happened. The depths to which the anti car slime will stoop seems to know no limits
It's possible that there's a definition change in there somewhere, but that isn't it. It's been '30 days' for a very long time.
Noticed a couple of interesting stats in there, namely;
Table 5; 0% change in total accidents on roads with limit >40. The changes were more severity-related, ergo better car safety, medical attention etc. Therefore scameras on A, A(M), and M roads not reducing accidents.
Table 3; Total fatalities has remained fairly constant from 94-2003, then there's a drop of 300 into 2004. Random stat activity methinks, wait for some upward regression to mean in the next couple of years. Also, the figures for 2003 (3,508) were the highest since '97, therefore the % drop to 2004 is as big as it could possibly have been, eg only a 5% drop from 2000, but an 8% drop from 2003.
As pointed out by nonegreen, the "Note" suggests that non-fatal injuries may actually be 2.76 times the amount recorded in this report, yet this extremely important and obvious doubt-inducer has been left out of the summary
Table 5; 0% change in total accidents on roads with limit >40. The changes were more severity-related, ergo better car safety, medical attention etc. Therefore scameras on A, A(M), and M roads not reducing accidents.
Table 3; Total fatalities has remained fairly constant from 94-2003, then there's a drop of 300 into 2004. Random stat activity methinks, wait for some upward regression to mean in the next couple of years. Also, the figures for 2003 (3,508) were the highest since '97, therefore the % drop to 2004 is as big as it could possibly have been, eg only a 5% drop from 2000, but an 8% drop from 2003.
As pointed out by nonegreen, the "Note" suggests that non-fatal injuries may actually be 2.76 times the amount recorded in this report, yet this extremely important and obvious doubt-inducer has been left out of the summary
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff