Charles Skinner, DfT writes ...
Discussion
in the Letters column of the Daily Telegraph, 2 December 2003
"
SIR - Philip Johnston (report, Nov 28) repeats the myth that the purpose of cameras is to raise revenue. This is nonsense. Cameras have one purpose and one purpose only: to reduce road casualties.
It is a myth that the money raised by cameras goes to the police. Only the cost of maintaining and administering the cameras is retained. The surplus goes straight to the Exchequer.
Independent research shows that, where cameras have been introduced, casualties have falled by 35 per cent and the number of vehicels speeding has fallen by 67 per cent. That said, the best camera would be the one that didn't issue a single ticket. We don't want your money: we want to keep you alive.
Charles Skinner
Department for Transport,
London SW1
"
Which planet is this guy on?
Let the flames begin!
Streaky
"
SIR - Philip Johnston (report, Nov 28) repeats the myth that the purpose of cameras is to raise revenue. This is nonsense. Cameras have one purpose and one purpose only: to reduce road casualties.
It is a myth that the money raised by cameras goes to the police. Only the cost of maintaining and administering the cameras is retained. The surplus goes straight to the Exchequer.
Independent research shows that, where cameras have been introduced, casualties have falled by 35 per cent and the number of vehicels speeding has fallen by 67 per cent. That said, the best camera would be the one that didn't issue a single ticket. We don't want your money: we want to keep you alive.
Charles Skinner
Department for Transport,
London SW1
"
Which planet is this guy on?
Let the flames begin!
Streaky
Letter sent:
Perhaps Charles Skinner would like to take into account regression to the mean before quoting meaningless soundbites. Speed cameras have caused the trend of reducing road fatalities, sustained from the 1970s to the early 1990s, to stall completely, and we are now at the stage where they may actually be indirectly causing road fatalities: a far cry from their "intended" purpose indeed.
Perhaps Charles Skinner would like to take into account regression to the mean before quoting meaningless soundbites. Speed cameras have caused the trend of reducing road fatalities, sustained from the 1970s to the early 1990s, to stall completely, and we are now at the stage where they may actually be indirectly causing road fatalities: a far cry from their "intended" purpose indeed.
Charles Skinner said:
We don't want your money: we want to keep you alive.
But you're killing us you bastard, at the rate of 4 a day.
Furthermore, if the figures showed what you claimed thst they showed, why are you trying to suppress them?
(Sorry, Ted, but I think the odd swear word is appropriate when referring to an apologist for State murder).
>> Edited by jeffreyarcher on Tuesday 2nd December 21:38
streaky said:
in the Letters column of the Daily Telegraph, 2 December 2003
"
It is a myth that the money raised by cameras goes to the police. Only the cost of maintaining and administering the cameras is retained. The surplus goes straight to the Exchequer.
Charles Skinner
Department for Transport,
London SW1
"
Streaky
Is this the reason that it costs "£100,000" to run a camera?
Richard C said:
Who or what funtion in DfT does Skinner represent ?
or is he the paid spinner ?
A paid spinner, "Director of Communication"; see: www.dft.gov.uk/stellent/groups/dft_about/documents/page/dft_about_025958.hcsp
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff