Deaths up in Essex
Discussion
A MOTORISTS' pressure group has claimed annual figures show that speed cameras have had no effect in reducing the number of deaths on the roads of Essex.
But yesterday a spokeswoman for the organisation that operates the county's speed cameras said they were only one of a number of measures used to try and improve road safety.
The first speed cameras in Essex were deployed in 2000 after 1999 saw a total of 108 fatalities on the county's roads.
In 2000 they were hailed a success when the number of road deaths dropped to 86.
But just a year later, the figure rose to 123 and in 2006 the number was 100, up 11% from the previous year where 90 road deaths were recorded.
Yesterday Nigel Humphries, spokesman for the Association of British Drivers (ABD), said the figures revealed that speed cameras were not driving down fatality figures as had been initially claimed.
“The figures show that the cameras have not made any difference,” Mr Humphries said.
“The cameras were introduced in Essex in 2000, after 1999 had been a particularly bad year. They trumpeted them as a great success, but since then the figures have gone up.
“At best, these cameras have made no difference to the number of deaths on the roads of Essex.
“The county would be better off with more flesh-and-blood policeman tackling the problem of dangerous and careless driving.
“There also needs to be another hurdle for young drivers to jump over before they can drive high-powered vehicles, such as the 'pass plus' scheme that exists now - it should be compulsory.
“We would also like to see compulsory training for high powered cars, especially for younger drivers - at the moment the only thing stopping them driving them is the insurance cost, rather than the law.”
However, a spokeswoman for the Essex Safety Camera Partnership - made up of Essex County Council and Essex Police - said the 99 cameras used on Essex roads were having an effect in their localised areas.
“Safety cameras can only have an effect in places where they are. In Essex they are only on 3 per cent of the road network,” she said.
“We are trying to encourage people to stick to the speed limits all across Essex. Safety cameras are only one part of the toolkit.”
She added that other measures to cut down on accidents included traffic calming measures, roundabouts and road-widening schemes.
But yesterday a spokeswoman for the organisation that operates the county's speed cameras said they were only one of a number of measures used to try and improve road safety.
The first speed cameras in Essex were deployed in 2000 after 1999 saw a total of 108 fatalities on the county's roads.
In 2000 they were hailed a success when the number of road deaths dropped to 86.
But just a year later, the figure rose to 123 and in 2006 the number was 100, up 11% from the previous year where 90 road deaths were recorded.
Yesterday Nigel Humphries, spokesman for the Association of British Drivers (ABD), said the figures revealed that speed cameras were not driving down fatality figures as had been initially claimed.
“The figures show that the cameras have not made any difference,” Mr Humphries said.
“The cameras were introduced in Essex in 2000, after 1999 had been a particularly bad year. They trumpeted them as a great success, but since then the figures have gone up.
“At best, these cameras have made no difference to the number of deaths on the roads of Essex.
“The county would be better off with more flesh-and-blood policeman tackling the problem of dangerous and careless driving.
“There also needs to be another hurdle for young drivers to jump over before they can drive high-powered vehicles, such as the 'pass plus' scheme that exists now - it should be compulsory.
“We would also like to see compulsory training for high powered cars, especially for younger drivers - at the moment the only thing stopping them driving them is the insurance cost, rather than the law.”
However, a spokeswoman for the Essex Safety Camera Partnership - made up of Essex County Council and Essex Police - said the 99 cameras used on Essex roads were having an effect in their localised areas.
“Safety cameras can only have an effect in places where they are. In Essex they are only on 3 per cent of the road network,” she said.
“We are trying to encourage people to stick to the speed limits all across Essex. Safety cameras are only one part of the toolkit.”
She added that other measures to cut down on accidents included traffic calming measures, roundabouts and road-widening schemes.
smeggy said:
There's so much wrong with the claims within the article. This bit is interesting:
So make sure you are doing 30.0mph in built up areas, come hell or high water
spokeswoman for the Essex SCP said:
“We are trying to encourage people to stick to the speed limits all across Essex.”
So make sure you are doing 30.0mph in built up areas, come hell or high water
If that 'spokeswoman' is Vicky Cann, you'll have a far more rewarding experience talking to a traffic cone I'm afraid.
Essex accident data said "speed cameras are useless, deaths rise and fall as ever"
Essex pratnership said "They are just one measure" (translated - and we know they're failing)
ABD said "Gotcha"
Now let's sack incompetent liars everywhere in the road safety 'industry' and get back on track.
Essex pratnership said "They are just one measure" (translated - and we know they're failing)
ABD said "Gotcha"
Now let's sack incompetent liars everywhere in the road safety 'industry' and get back on track.
Take a look at the Essex mess here
The Essex scamera pratnership have been caught out fibbing before, speed cameras on the A12 were claimed to be justified by the accident profile there. Local journalists then obtained information that proved none of the accidents cited as justification for the cameras involved excessive speed.
CC Garvin exploded the myth of 'localised' speed camera 'successes':
The pro-camera lobby, and a lot of the safety partnerships, deliberately misquote the statistics to try and mislead people to try and justify their position. I think it is disingenuous if we are really intent on reducing casualties on the road - as opposed to enforcing speed limits and dishing out lots of tickets. More accidents are caused by inattention, drink driving, or nowadays, more by driving under the influence of drugs. And these statistics adopted by certain forces show a woolly area regarding the proximity of speed cameras. Some statistics are taken from an area 20 metres from a camera and others from a two-kilometre radius. The speed cameras issue is not a point of principle, it is a fact that they are pointless
Essex's scammers, among the most prolific in the country at dishing out fines, had this budget breakdown for 2002/3
£2.44m to Essex Police for administration, overtime and expenses.
£2.24m to Essex county council including £16,730 on advertising & publicity and £70,392 for salaries
£237,126 to Atkins in consultancy fees (Atkins H&T runs the show)
£222,000 for the Magistrates Service to send out letters and summonses
£18,693 on film processing
£50,198 on stationery
£24,150 on photocopy paper
£43,988 in travel expenses
£38,888 in subsistence — including snacks and meals out
£8,279 for mobile phones and pagers
£4,667 for interior decoration
£64 for a pair of spectacles
After all this there was over a million pounds left over. It was simply 'carried over' to the next year.
Deaths were up 11% in 2006 to 100. Reminiscent of that Lancs scammers website headline 'speed cameras effective despite increase in road deaths'. Not a rofl matter.
The Essex scamera pratnership have been caught out fibbing before, speed cameras on the A12 were claimed to be justified by the accident profile there. Local journalists then obtained information that proved none of the accidents cited as justification for the cameras involved excessive speed.
CC Garvin exploded the myth of 'localised' speed camera 'successes':
Paul Garvin when Chief Constable of Durham said:
The pro-camera lobby, and a lot of the safety partnerships, deliberately misquote the statistics to try and mislead people to try and justify their position. I think it is disingenuous if we are really intent on reducing casualties on the road - as opposed to enforcing speed limits and dishing out lots of tickets. More accidents are caused by inattention, drink driving, or nowadays, more by driving under the influence of drugs. And these statistics adopted by certain forces show a woolly area regarding the proximity of speed cameras. Some statistics are taken from an area 20 metres from a camera and others from a two-kilometre radius. The speed cameras issue is not a point of principle, it is a fact that they are pointless
Essex's scammers, among the most prolific in the country at dishing out fines, had this budget breakdown for 2002/3
£2.44m to Essex Police for administration, overtime and expenses.
£2.24m to Essex county council including £16,730 on advertising & publicity and £70,392 for salaries
£237,126 to Atkins in consultancy fees (Atkins H&T runs the show)
£222,000 for the Magistrates Service to send out letters and summonses
£18,693 on film processing
£50,198 on stationery
£24,150 on photocopy paper
£43,988 in travel expenses
£38,888 in subsistence — including snacks and meals out
£8,279 for mobile phones and pagers
£4,667 for interior decoration
£64 for a pair of spectacles
After all this there was over a million pounds left over. It was simply 'carried over' to the next year.
Deaths were up 11% in 2006 to 100. Reminiscent of that Lancs scammers website headline 'speed cameras effective despite increase in road deaths'. Not a rofl matter.
Edited by turbobloke on Monday 8th January 09:54
apache said:
It would be nice if that spare cash went towards removing the odd blackspot but that would be killing the goose that lays the golden egg wouldn't it.
I think you may find that in the near future it will. Well, not the 'spare' cash but any they can make from the business.
In fact it would not surprise me if the ONLY money spent on "road safety" is whatever can be extracted through the Scamerati with this change occurring very soon.
LongQ said:
apache said:
It would be nice if that spare cash went towards removing the odd blackspot but that would be killing the goose that lays the golden egg wouldn't it.
I think you may find that in the near future it will. Well, not the 'spare' cash but any they can make from the business.
In fact it would not surprise me if the ONLY money spent on "road safety" is whatever can be extracted through the Scamerati with this change occurring very soon.
I'm not so sure, one of the blokes who is responsible for making improvements in my area lives a few hundrerd yards from my house, he now has traffic calming islands literally either side of his house, which is nice. It's a measure to stop potential accidents since none have ever happened there and probably makes him popular and seem important to his neighbours, which of course he is, bless him.
I was told by somebody that it's all paid for by a local company who sponsor the council to make improvements, I doubt that's true but could be.
turbobloke said:
Now let's sack incompetent liars everywhere in the road safety 'industry' and get back on track.
Yep. It's about time people in failing partnerships where deaths are still occurring should be on a bonus scheme for reducing them and those that fail to reduce the figures should be fired. Then they might actually use measures that are the most appropriate rather than spout the government fed b******t like the perfect robots they are.
Having said that, there would suddenly be zero official deaths on the road every year if they were on bonuses!
nobleguy said:
turbobloke said:
Now let's sack incompetent liars everywhere in the road safety 'industry' and get back on track.
Yep. It's about time people in failing partnerships where deaths are still occurring should be on a bonus scheme for reducing them and those that fail to reduce the figures should be fired. Then they might actually use measures that are the most appropriate rather than spout the government fed b******t like the perfect robots they are.
Having said that, there would suddenly be zero official deaths on the road every year if they were on bonuses!
Deaths are a bit tricky to conceal, but serious injuries can be misrecorded and miscounted, that's why officialdom just loves that fantastic elastic statistic called KSI.
Trouble is, medics in our hospitals caught them 'at it' and published the true figures in the British Medical HJournal. Caught out fibbing, again. Hospital admissions for serious injuries from road traffic accidents hav NOT fallen as per the government-police-scammers spin.
turbobloke said:
... Trouble is, medics in our hospitals caught them 'at it' and published the true figures in the British Medical HJournal. Caught out fibbing, again. Hospital admissions for serious injuries from road traffic accidents hav NOT fallen as per the government-police-scammers spin...
Indeed. There's nothing quite like the truth. The lying, can't get a proper job twisters have been caught out.
james_j said:
turbobloke said:
... Trouble is, medics in our hospitals caught them 'at it' and published the true figures in the British Medical HJournal. Caught out fibbing, again. Hospital admissions for serious injuries from road traffic accidents hav NOT fallen as per the government-police-scammers spin...
Indeed. There's nothing quite like the truth. The lying, can't get a proper job twisters have been caught out.
Unfortunately not enough people hear it (or care), otherwise these people would be out of a job.
They get away with it is the thing that really gets to me.
james_j said:
turbobloke said:
... Trouble is, medics in our hospitals caught them 'at it' and published the true figures in the British Medical HJournal. Caught out fibbing, again. Hospital admissions for serious injuries from road traffic accidents hav NOT fallen as per the government-police-scammers spin...
Indeed. There's nothing quite like the truth. The lying, can't get a proper job twisters have been caught out.
The sad thing is that these true figures receive very little press or public mindshare. On this very forum we've had many demonstrations that subconciously most of us have come to believe that speed kills to one degree or another.
spokey said:
james_j said:
turbobloke said:
... Trouble is, medics in our hospitals caught them 'at it' and published the true figures in the British Medical HJournal. Caught out fibbing, again. Hospital admissions for serious injuries from road traffic accidents hav NOT fallen as per the government-police-scammers spin...
Indeed. There's nothing quite like the truth. The lying, can't get a proper job twisters have been caught out.
The sad thing is that these true figures receive very little press or public mindshare. On this very forum we've had many demonstrations that subconciously most of us have come to believe that speed kills to one degree or another.
I have always thought that speed will exascerbate the effects of an accident and obviously the higher the speed the more likely it is that you could lose it or cause a failure - I suppose therefore I am one of those people. I think most people are just realistic that yes, they speed, and yes if I have a crash it might be worse because of that.
Unfortunately the idiots in the government are trying to take away our freedom to make any kind of human decision and they don't subscribe to the idea that doing 25 in a 30 and not paying any attention is just as bad, if not worse.
turbobloke said:
Interesting that the only thing with a positive downward trend is minor injuries. Now, before my flaming begins may I state that I'm playing devil's advocate here.
[quote=Scamera Fan]
The number of minor injuries is dropping as a result of safety cameras as people who are near the speed limit when they crash are likely only to be slightly injured, these are more likely to occur near camera sites. The reason serious injuries and fatalities are not affected is that these are more likely to be caused by people going dramatically over the posted limit, either away from cameras or with total disregard for them.[quote]
As I say, that's not my view on cameras but if I was in favour of them that's what i would argue.
nobleguy said:
turbobloke said:
Now let's sack incompetent liars everywhere in the road safety 'industry' and get back on track.
Yep. It's about time people in failing partnerships where deaths are still occurring should be on a bonus scheme for reducing them and those that fail to reduce the figures should be fired. Then they might actually use measures that are the most appropriate rather than spout the government fed b******t like the perfect robots they are.
Having said that, there would suddenly be zero official deaths on the road every year if they were on bonuses!
Put the tw@ts on bonus schemes for reducing the numbers of deaths and they'd just have the NSL at 20mph and people with red flags walking in front of cars on urban roads.
mondeohdear said:
nobleguy said:
turbobloke said:
Now let's sack incompetent liars everywhere in the road safety 'industry' and get back on track.
Yep. It's about time people in failing partnerships where deaths are still occurring should be on a bonus scheme for reducing them and those that fail to reduce the figures should be fired. Then they might actually use measures that are the most appropriate rather than spout the government fed b******t like the perfect robots they are.
Having said that, there would suddenly be zero official deaths on the road every year if they were on bonuses!
Put the tw@ts on bonus schemes for reducing the numbers of deaths and they'd just have the NSL at 20mph and people with red flags walking in front of cars on urban roads.
www.roadpeace.org/articles/worldfir.html
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff