Camera Partnership in 'Lying Gits' Shocker!

[FastShow]

Kent-Medway's results from a survey carried out in November 2002:

www.kentandmedwaysafetycameras.org.uk/views_2002.html

Kent-Medway's results from a survey carried out in August/September 2003:

www.kentandmedwaysafetycameras.org.uk/views.html

Spot the difference.

[squirrelz]

Exactly the same apart from different colours?

[chief-0369]

1 they have rounded the figures to the nearest whole number.

2 they have changed the colours round on the graphs

4 the jpegs are slightly different sizes

hmmm quite a few then

[FastShow]

OK, the 'spot the difference' was somewhat rhetorical, but is it not slightly dishonest to use the same survey results whilst claiming to have carried out independent surveys of independent people in independent years?

Maybe I'm just too moralistic in my old age.

>> Edited by FastShow on Tuesday 23 December 14:44

[Munta]

FastShow said:

but is it not slightly dishonest

It is infact totaly dishonest. The probability of getting exactly (allowing rounding)the same answers from 1000 different people is around well above 1,000,000 to 1. Yet they say that these people were interviewed and two different years. That means that they are lying through their teeth.

[lucozade]

Did we expect to see something other than lies?

[james_j]

I think it's now safe to suspect that the figures in the survey may not be too accurate.

Additionally, the questions are very general and ask people how they "feel" about cameras with no requirement for a deeper consideration of the subject or for any analysis of actual facts.

[Munta]

lucozade said:

Did we expect to see something other than lies?

But this is lie that any 5 year old could pick up. No dificult arguements required or statistical slight of hands to prove.

[Spacey]

IMO they are lying thru their teeth! Surely there is some way to complain about this?

I started writing an email to them, but then realised it would be just filed under B (and i didn't really want to use my work email address).

Maybe forward the info to safespeed?

[lucozade]

ok sent this to Rachel Moon, you will see her link on the right of any of the pages:

Dear Rachel,

I was shocked to have read the contents of :

www.kentandmedwaysafetycameras.org.uk/views_2002.html

And compare them with:

www.kentandmedwaysafetycameras.org.uk/views.html

I have noticed that the figures would appear to be exactly the same between years, give or take a round up or round down. The graphs are the same give or take the colour scheme and size of image.

I would like to question whether or not this is actually a true representation of the feelings amongst the public or have you actually mirepresented the public by using the previous years figures.

I would also like to know if you have used tax payers money in order to carry out these surveys of which you have actually only carried out one.

I feel so strongly about this that I will be alerting the press to these apparently "misleading" facts.

This does not help the public perception of your money making scheme.

Best regards,

[FastShow]

Paul from SafeSpeed already knows about this, or will when he checks his mail.

I've written requesting information on how this has happened (there's obviously been a deliberate effort to reformat the data for this year, so it can't possibly be a simply oversight), and have CC'd in appropriate contacts at Kent Constabulary and the local media.

Let's see what they have to say for themselves...

[Cooperman]

They won't answer, that's what will happen.
However, if a reporter from the Mail or the Sun asked, plus the local MP's, now that would be different.

[FastShow]

Cooperman said:

They won't answer, that's what will happen. However, if a reporter from the Mail or the Sun asked, plus the local MP's, now that would be different.

That's exactly why I cc'd the police and the local media in on the mail as a little incentive.

[puggit]

Most amusingly the 2003 page has a direct link at the bottom to the 2002 page

Busted!

Disclaimer: I am in no way advertising a teenage air-guitar band

[tonyhetherington]

kent safety cameraship FAQ section thingy said:

Are my Human Rights infringed if I respond to this notice? No, the Human Rights Act is not infringed under this process. You are still obliged to provide the information requested. Failure to do so will result in prosecution.

Note they use the word "OBLIGED".

Am I right in saying that what they say above isn't STRICTLY true !?!?!

>edited cos i is fick

>> Edited by tonyhetherington on Tuesday 23 December 16:17

[nonegreen]

tonyhetherington said:

kent safety cameraship FAQ section thingy said: Are my Human Rights infringed if I respond to this notice? No, the Human Rights Act is not infringed under this process. You are still obliged to provide the information requested. Failure to do so will result in prosecution. No you is not fick you is quite right, this issue is not resolved as I understand it. Note they use the word "OBLIGED". Am I right in saying that what they say above isn't STRICTLY true !?!?! >edited cos i is fick >> Edited by tonyhetherington on Tuesday 23 December 16:17

[icamm]

tonyhetherington said:

kent safety cameraship FAQ section thingy said: Are my Human Rights infringed if I respond to this notice? No, the Human Rights Act is not infringed under this process. You are still obliged to provide the information requested. Failure to do so will result in prosecution. Note they use the word "OBLIGED". Am I right in saying that what they say above isn't STRICTLY true !?!?! >edited cos i is fick >> Edited by tonyhetherington on Tuesday 23 December 16:17

Yes you are obliged to provide the information in UK law. You can be prosecuted for failing to provide it. However, you are not yet obliged to SIGN that the information is correct. Unsigned the information is inadmissable in a court of law at present.

>> Edited by icamm on Tuesday 23 December 17:28

[nonegreen]

icamm said:

tonyhetherington said: kent safety cameraship FAQ section thingy said: Are my Human Rights infringed if I respond to this notice? No, the Human Rights Act is not infringed under this process. You are still obliged to provide the information requested. Failure to do so will result in prosecution. Note they use the word "OBLIGED". Am I right in saying that what they say above isn't STRICTLY true !?!?! >edited cos i is fick >> Edited by tonyhetherington on Tuesday 23 December 16:17 Yes you are obliged to provide the information in UK law. You can be prosecuted for failing to provide it. However, you are not yet obliged to SIGN that the information is correct. Unsigned the information is inadmissable in a court of law at present. >> Edited by icamm on Tuesday 23 December 17:28

But this is in line with the Privvy council ruling and the case has not yet been to ECHR. Privvy council ruling overode the judiciary previous ruling that said you need not provide the information as you cannot be forced to incriminate yourself. ( I fink )

[FastShow]

Well I've just had a reply from a Mr Alan Smith with regard to my mail about these obviously erroneous results.

Amusingly, Mr Smith doesn't work for Kent-Medway, but for The Kent Messenger - a local paper!

I shall be calling him later, though if any more media savvy person would like to take my place, I'll be only too pleased to pass the details on.

[Pies]

I've had a reply from them

Kent & Medway Safety Camera Partnership said:

Thank you for your email. I am currently working on these figures and this page off site (my apologies the page should say 'being updated') so these are not correct at present. Please see attached below the pie charts which show the new figures from the latest survey - I'm sure you will see the difference. The seven questions are set nationally by the Government but we have also carried out many more - the whole survey is very bulky to send in the post but you are most welcome to come into the office and have a read through. Here is also some background information about us: The Partnership comprises: Kent County Council, Kent Police, Medway Council,Highways Agency and Kent Magistrates Courts Service. Our message to speeding motorists is: "We don't want to catch you speeding we want YOU to slow down" The word 'safety' is a generic term which covers all of our speed cameras - yellow fixed cameras, mobile cameras and traffic signal cameras (cameras which are activated if motorists drive through a red stop light). Cameras are placed where they will reduce casualties and help save lives by changing driving behaviour, not where they might generate revenue. All of our cameras are installed at absolutely no expense to the law-abiding taxpayer. Our Partnership is part of a national Government initiative that enables us to keep some of the money from speeding fines to pay for speed camera enforcement only at sites where excessive speed has significantly contributed to the number of people killed or injured. It also goes towards road safety education and publicity about the issues surrounding excessive or inappropriate speed. The money can only be used for these purposes, it cannot be used to pay for any other police or local authority activity and the Partnership makes no profit. Speed cameras are not just another stealth tax for motorists. It is impossible to opt out of paying tax, whereas careful and responsible drivers who adhere to the speed limit do not fund this initiative, only drivers breaking the law by speeding will pay, and for them the solution is easy - stick to the speed limit. All possible alternatives to improve road safety along a stretch of road are explored before resorting to the use of a speed camera. Even then our cameras are only sited on roads which have a significant problem with speed-related crashes. Costs: As I've said above monies from cameras now come from Department of Transport grants rather than from the general public purse. We have only to collect enough fines to 'pay back' the grant - anything more still goes to the Government but is not available to us. For example in the last financial year the Partnership spent £1.3 million which was reimbursed by the Government. The Partnership collected £1.8 million in fines which was sent to the Government and any surplus was held by them. The cameras: Fixed cameras - We have 64 fixed cameras. These are permanent cameras located where four or more people have been killed or seriously injured over the last three years, and where speeding has been a long-standing problem. Sensors detect the speed of a vehicle, which then activates the camera and lash unit if the vehicle is exceeding the legal speed limit. Some cameras use radar instead of a sensor to detect the speed of vehicles. Mobile cameras - We have 61 mobile sites. The Partnership has nine mobile safety camera vans from which enforcement is carried out at locations chosen to supplement the fixed camera sites - where two or more people have been killed or seriously injured over the last three years and speeding has been a long-term problem. They can also be used at places where a genuine speeding problem exits and where there is also a potential for crashes to occur, such as roadworks. The traffic support officers (civilians) use portable laser guns directed out the back or side of the vans to detect offending motorists. The vans are clearly marked with the words 'Kent & Medway Safety camera partnership' and the safety camera symbol. The officers park where they can be seen in order to carry out their work. Speeding motorists can be photographed approaching or going away from the camera. Red light cameras - We have one red light (A2 Chatham Hill) These are linked to the operation of traffic signals and are located at junctions where two or more people have been killed or seriously injured over the last three years and where red-light running has been a causation factor in some or all of the collisions. These rear-facing cameras are activated when a vehicle travels through the signals while they are on red. Facts and statistics: There has been a 35% reduction in the number of people killed or seriously injured at camera sites There has also been a 67% reduction in the number of vehicles speeding at camera sites Over three years prior to the installation of cameras (and thus each fixed site camera has a different 'before' period) there were 119 killed or seriously injured for fixed site cameras and another 70killed or seriously injured for the mobiles (all mobiles are deemed to have started on July 2002 and thus the 'before' period is three years ending July 2002). Before the Partnership then, there was a total of 189 killed or seriously injured in 36 months. (This equates to 47 in 9 months) Post July 2002, for 9 months only there were 28 killed or seriously injured . Thus for the first NINE months of operation there were (47 - 28 = 19) 19 LESS killed or seriously injured (than before.) One example is the Seabrook Road Hythe camera - in the THREE YEARS before we existed there were 14slight+2Serious+1 FATAL (total 17 crashes, which is one every two months), in FIFTEEN months after (July 2002 to September 2003) there was 1 slight only! (This camera was installed in August 2000) Please do not hesitate to contact me if you have any further questions.

edited to make reading easier


>> Edited by Pies on Monday 29th December 13:05