Govt does NOT block new Gatsos
Discussion
Further to the discussion here > http://www.pistonheads.com/gassing/topic.asp?f=10&h=&t=193584
DfT just announced that it rejects reports that it has blocked installation of 500 new cameras.
It claims that these are under evaluation by University College London and expects completion be end August.
FiF
DfT just announced that it rejects reports that it has blocked installation of 500 new cameras.
It claims that these are under evaluation by University College London and expects completion be end August.
FiF
safespeed said:
Where did you get that from FiF?
Article in yesterdays Fleet week.
Will scan it and email direct if you like, no time to put full text up here.
The most important stuff already posted, the rest is the usual b-s. Quotes from unnamed DfT spokesman and Rob Gifford PACS director.
>> Edited by Flat in Fifth on Thursday 21st July 11:06
ist perhaps a PR/spin ploy again. 
Ist perhaps Darling und Bliar pulling rank on the Laddyman.
Report over the 500 rejected scams was allegedly based on letter sent top all pratnerships - which was also reported by BBC news first und appeared in "Times" etc later on in day. Letter allegedly per all news reports of it (including BBC und ITV - und quality press (und all reported the same take - which seems tio indicate substance
) mentioned the review of existing rules as it ist worried that all prats have not followed und interpreted guideline too loosely
Earliest "research" und "data" indicated drop in death at these sites inititially - but accident rate has not fallen overall as accident does happen randomly und anywhere. Und experts in Math mentioned that law of averages (which ist centuries old establish Math law und fact) say that unlikey accident would continue at same rate at all these crash sites (ist really regression to mean)
They are bit hot under collar - I think - because Mervyn Stone who ist a mere Profesor Emeritus of Statistic at the University College ist allegedly sceptical of the data und means of collating this data. He says the best method ist to choose roads mit an equal notoriety und place scam on one und nto the other und record the data - but ist one problem damit: those injured on the dangerous road - whichever prove he most dangersous could sue
Ist litigation age....ist compo age....
Ist perhaps Darling und Bliar pulling rank on the Laddyman.
Report over the 500 rejected scams was allegedly based on letter sent top all pratnerships - which was also reported by BBC news first und appeared in "Times" etc later on in day. Letter allegedly per all news reports of it (including BBC und ITV - und quality press (und all reported the same take - which seems tio indicate substance
) mentioned the review of existing rules as it ist worried that all prats have not followed und interpreted guideline too loosely Earliest "research" und "data" indicated drop in death at these sites inititially - but accident rate has not fallen overall as accident does happen randomly und anywhere. Und experts in Math mentioned that law of averages (which ist centuries old establish Math law und fact) say that unlikey accident would continue at same rate at all these crash sites (ist really regression to mean
) They are bit hot under collar - I think - because Mervyn Stone who ist a mere Profesor Emeritus of Statistic at the University College ist allegedly sceptical of the data und means of collating this data. He says the best method ist to choose roads mit an equal notoriety und place scam on one und nto the other und record the data - but ist one problem damit: those injured on the dangerous road - whichever prove he most dangersous could sue
Ist litigation age....ist compo age.... That sounds just the same as has previously been reported - UCL review, report due June but delayed until August.
It's just words and how they are interpreted.
My guess is the scamera people are concerned about cash flow (maybe they won't be able to spend enough in time to keep more cash from going to The Chancer?) and they now seek to exert pressure.
Of course the report is due next month, so a month of 'pressure' now could be useful to all the 'groups' if the govt., as is very likely really, come up with a statement that tends towards camera use 'despite some doubts' about the statistics. "Will need five years so another review in 2007" for example?
At that point the PG's will claim victory is solely due to their efforts and that anyone anti speed cameras is clearly and anti-christ, etc., etc.
I wonder if any of the bookmakers are running a book on this one?
It's just words and how they are interpreted.
My guess is the scamera people are concerned about cash flow (maybe they won't be able to spend enough in time to keep more cash from going to The Chancer?) and they now seek to exert pressure.
Of course the report is due next month, so a month of 'pressure' now could be useful to all the 'groups' if the govt., as is very likely really, come up with a statement that tends towards camera use 'despite some doubts' about the statistics. "Will need five years so another review in 2007" for example?
At that point the PG's will claim victory is solely due to their efforts and that anyone anti speed cameras is clearly and anti-christ, etc., etc.
I wonder if any of the bookmakers are running a book on this one?
WildCat said:
meiner trollies in twisten und wedgie ist
The text is here without FiF comment apart from the "held up by general election.
sigh! Fleet Week 20 July 2005 said:
500 Cameras Planned by Simon McBride
The Government has rejected reports that it has blocked the installation of 500 new speed camera sites due to doubts regarding the effectiveness of the devices. The Department for Transport (DfT) claims that these sites are in fact under evaluation (the fourth of its kind) and that the evaluation has been held up by the recent general election.
A DfT spokesman said: “The 500 new sites are under evaluation and have not been rejected as has been reported in some sectors of the media. The fourth annual evaluation is being carried out by experts from University College London.”
Insiders expect the evaluation to be completed by late August. The 38 camera partnerships, including police forces and local authorities, will then find out if they are to receive the green light to use the sites.
The parliamentary Advisory Council for Transport Safety (PACS), which broadly supports the use of speed cameras, has welcomed the evaluation as it claims that all alternative “avenues of road safety must be looked at before speed cameras can be implemented.”
Rob Gifford, PACS director, said: “It is perfectly fair to make sure that the sites are right and that the cameras are the right solution. Re-engineering of the road, the installation of electronic speed signs all need to be looked at before a speed camera can be set up.”
Gifford continued: “Research from the Transport Research laboratory claims that in urban areas speed humps keep speeds lower than speed cameras.”
PACS also believes that the money generated from cameras should be ring-fenced and spent on road safety rather than going into the Chancellor’s coffers to be used elsewhere.
© Fleet Week July 20 2005
>> Edited by Flat in Fifth on Thursday 21st July 12:05
Flat in Fifth said:
WildCat said:
meiner trollies in twisten und wedgie ist
The text is here without FiF comment apart from the "held up by general election.
Fleet Week 20 July 2005 said:
500 Cameras Planned by Simon McBride
The Government has rejected reports that it has blocked the installation of 500 new speed camera sites due to doubts regarding the effectiveness of the devices. The Department for Transport (DfT) claims that these sites are in fact under evaluation (the fourth of its kind) and that the evaluation has been held up by the recent general election.
Und in the first report it talked of evaluation of existing sites und the new ones would not be approved until report was received. Ist now the new sites which are being evaluated instead?
Flat in Fifth said:
A DfT spokesman said: “The 500 new sites are under evaluation and have not been rejected as has been reported in some sectors of the media. The fourth annual evaluation is being carried out by experts from University College London.”
The FOURTH ONE - but there was a lot of hype over the first audited und reported one which seemed to suggest the existing ones were correct - nicht?. So either they evaluate the old ones or they just evaluate the new ones und then pass them regardless then.But we are faced mit a lot of dodgy stats from each government department anyway - ist all spinning b
s
Flat in Fifth said:
Insiders expect the evaluation to be completed by late August. The 38 camera partnerships, including police forces and local authorities, will then find out if they are to receive the green light to use the sites.
Mervyn Stone ist supposed to evaluating existing sites per most newspaper reports. Ist difficult to believe each paper misinterpreted same information source though. But it happens - you should have read what they did to one of my "cure-alls")
[quote=Flat in Fifth]
The parliamentary Advisory Council for Transport Safety (PACS), which broadly supports the use of speed cameras, has welcomed the evaluation as it claims that all alternative “avenues of road safety must be looked at before speed cameras can be implemented.”
Rob Gifford, PACS director, said: “It is perfectly fair to make sure that the sites are right and that the cameras are the right solution. Re-engineering of the road, the installation of electronic speed signs all need to be looked at before a speed camera can be set up.”
Gifford continued: “Research from the Transport Research laboratory claims that in urban areas speed humps keep speeds lower than speed cameras.”
PACS also believes that the money generated from cameras should be ring-fenced and spent on road safety rather than going into the Chancellor’s coffers to be used elsewhere.
© Fleet Week July 20 2005
But in essence there are some similarities - it boils down to existing site being evaluated or both new und old being evaluated - und green light hopefully ist dependent on consideration und success of alternative measure... which ist only as it should be all the time - und perhaps we should tell this to those who postition speed trap near the speed limit changes
>> Edited by WildCat on Thursday 21st July 14:34
liebchen Wildy
Agreed, many many similarities.
Looks just like that episode of the recent comedy "The thick of it"
Govt dept sends out info. Press interprets it as they see fit.*
Govt spin doctor thinks, DOH! Sends Darling and Ladyman into a spin of their own hence new briefing to different press sources.
*I do take your point totally when confronted with press and media, especially TV, concerning issues that one does know from top to bottom, back to front and even side to side. The lack of any relationship with the true position makes me utterly sceptical on issues where I do not have the detailed knowledge.
Es tut mir leid, der tvisted trollies crack!
Agreed, many many similarities.
Looks just like that episode of the recent comedy "The thick of it"
Govt dept sends out info. Press interprets it as they see fit.*
Govt spin doctor thinks, DOH! Sends Darling and Ladyman into a spin of their own hence new briefing to different press sources.
*I do take your point totally when confronted with press and media, especially TV, concerning issues that one does know from top to bottom, back to front and even side to side. The lack of any relationship with the true position makes me utterly sceptical on issues where I do not have the detailed knowledge.
Es tut mir leid, der tvisted trollies crack!
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff