Camera numbers up, deaths up.
Discussion
A report in the Mail on Sunday today (Page 15) tells us that in eleven areas checked, the number of speed cameras has increased from 404 to 626 between 2001 and 2003.
In the same period, deaths in those areas, far from reducing, have increased from 856 to 882.
Susan Beck of the "Safety" Camera Partnership said
"We have not been targeted to reduce deaths, we have been targeted to reduce the number of people killed and seriously injured.
Isn't it odd how they keep changing their reason for being. First it was " Speed cameras save lives" and now it has become crystal clear that they don't, the aims are changed to, "Speed cameras save broken fingers and reduce the number of burns (non-friction).
North Wales police were asked four times for their casualty figures for the last three years. The force failed to provide them. Draw your own conclusions.
In the same period, deaths in those areas, far from reducing, have increased from 856 to 882.
Susan Beck of the "Safety" Camera Partnership said
"We have not been targeted to reduce deaths, we have been targeted to reduce the number of people killed and seriously injured.
Isn't it odd how they keep changing their reason for being. First it was " Speed cameras save lives" and now it has become crystal clear that they don't, the aims are changed to, "Speed cameras save broken fingers and reduce the number of burns (non-friction).
North Wales police were asked four times for their casualty figures for the last three years. The force failed to provide them. Draw your own conclusions.
gh0st said:
We have not been targeted to reduce deaths, we have been targeted to reduce the number of people killed and seriously injured.
Erm.... doesnt being killed lead to death at some point or am I missing something....
What a silly bint!
That's not silly, it's downright disturbing. Goes to show just how entrenched in dogma and immune from debate these people are.
Sent this to her Boss,
"Dear Mr Wilkie,
In the Mail on Sunday Susan Beck of the "Safety" Camera Partnership said “We have not been targeted to reduce deaths, we have been targeted to reduce the number of people killed and seriously injured”.
Could you please enlighten me, surely Speed Cameras are to save lives and isn’t reducing the number of people killed the same as reducing deaths? A pretty poor show from a Communications Director".
I wonder how much these people get paid to lie to us
"Dear Mr Wilkie,
In the Mail on Sunday Susan Beck of the "Safety" Camera Partnership said “We have not been targeted to reduce deaths, we have been targeted to reduce the number of people killed and seriously injured”.
Could you please enlighten me, surely Speed Cameras are to save lives and isn’t reducing the number of people killed the same as reducing deaths? A pretty poor show from a Communications Director".
I wonder how much these people get paid to lie to us
We have not been targeted to reduce deaths, we have been targeted to reduce the number of people killed and seriously injured
WON'T SOMEBODY PLEASE THINK OF THE CHILDREN!!!!
Surely if the cameras aren't there to save lives, by the admission of the camera partnerships then the emotive argument is right out the window for them? At least theres a real counter for it anyway.
WON'T SOMEBODY PLEASE THINK OF THE CHILDREN!!!! Surely if the cameras aren't there to save lives, by the admission of the camera partnerships then the emotive argument is right out the window for them? At least theres a real counter for it anyway.
I read the M.O.S. article. Most interesting. A spokesman for Hampshire Police camera partnership said, quote:
"Where we've put the cameras, we've had a reduction in casulaties. Deaths might have gone up on other parts of the road. I don't know what happens away from our cameras."
Now, I've no idea who said this. (I will try and find out). But this just illustrates perfectly the fact that they do not work. People slow down where they know there's a camera, then speed up on less suitable roads to make the bloody time up!
The proliferation of cameras needs to stop. We Police by consent in this country. We all read the PH discussions on the various devious means to avoid getting an NIP, dodgy plates, other scams, and I appreciate I've aired a few ideas myself. We are in danger turning a significant proportion law abiding motorists against the Police, and pushing people away from civic obligations, because at the back of their mind is the scam they pulled to get out of their last GATSO.
As the number of FPNs/points doled out spirals ever higher, we will only increase the scourge of the uninsured motorist, and other offences, as people either don't insure theor car or tell fibs to the insurer.
"Where we've put the cameras, we've had a reduction in casulaties. Deaths might have gone up on other parts of the road. I don't know what happens away from our cameras."
Now, I've no idea who said this. (I will try and find out). But this just illustrates perfectly the fact that they do not work. People slow down where they know there's a camera, then speed up on less suitable roads to make the bloody time up!
The proliferation of cameras needs to stop. We Police by consent in this country. We all read the PH discussions on the various devious means to avoid getting an NIP, dodgy plates, other scams, and I appreciate I've aired a few ideas myself. We are in danger turning a significant proportion law abiding motorists against the Police, and pushing people away from civic obligations, because at the back of their mind is the scam they pulled to get out of their last GATSO.
As the number of FPNs/points doled out spirals ever higher, we will only increase the scourge of the uninsured motorist, and other offences, as people either don't insure theor car or tell fibs to the insurer.
It's interesting as only last week I was engaged in some strong emails with Hampshire & IOW Silly (sorry 'Safety') Camera Partnership and the response I got was that their cameras are definately saving lives. Their line was quite assertive and I was virtually accused of being callous about deaths on the road, even when i pointed out that by the great 'one-third' lie, 67% of all KSI accidents are caused by factors other than speeding.
Now, today, I see that the deaths for that area have gone up alarmingly. I shall email again tomorrow.
Anyone else like to go to their web site where it invites a contact and have a really good go, as it seems that they have certainly lied to me. They are on shaky ground at the moment with those sort of figures.
Not quoted in the MoS were the Cumbria figures, which are alos worse this year.
Now, today, I see that the deaths for that area have gone up alarmingly. I shall email again tomorrow.
Anyone else like to go to their web site where it invites a contact and have a really good go, as it seems that they have certainly lied to me. They are on shaky ground at the moment with those sort of figures.
Not quoted in the MoS were the Cumbria figures, which are alos worse this year.
xxplod said:Following this argument through, clearly there is a need to put cameras everywhere so as to elicit the same slowing-down response from motorists.
[ ... ] A spokesman for Hampshire Police camera partnership said, quote: "Where we've put the cameras, we've had a reduction in casulaties. Deaths might have gone up on other parts of the road. I don't know what happens away from our cameras."
[ ... ] this just illustrates perfectly the fact that they do not work. People slow down where they know there's a camera, then speed up on less suitable roads to make the bloody time up! ...
That WAS a joke!
But the Scamera Partnerships won't think so!
Streaky
Despite a proliferation of speed cameras, the round the clock work of doctors and nurses and even advancements in pharamcuetical preparations the UK death rate maintains steady at 100%...
Blair and his cronies even when you put all the other reasons to hate him aside has done something far more worrying to this nation, he has buggered the statistical reporting. I absolutely guarantee that these figures by the end of the week will be politically interpreted into a win for the safety scamera partnerships.
Blair and his cronies even when you put all the other reasons to hate him aside has done something far more worrying to this nation, he has buggered the statistical reporting. I absolutely guarantee that these figures by the end of the week will be politically interpreted into a win for the safety scamera partnerships.
There was an article in our local rag on the weekend saying how wonderful the South Wales Partnership was and how accidents have decreased at camera sites. I also saw the above article, so have rattled this letter off to the local rag-
>> Edited by wanty1974 on Monday 19th January 13:18
wanty1974 said:
I feel I must take issue with your article in last week’s Campaign regarding the ‘success’ of the local Safety Camera Partnership and their targeting of drivers via static and mobile speed cameras.
The article states that accidents have decreased at each camera location and that the aim of the Safety Camera Partnership is to decrease fatal or serious accidents through use of traffic cameras. This does not actually tell us the whole story.
Between 2001 and 2003, in 11 Partnership areas where figures are available, the number of speed cameras (I refuse to believe they are ‘safety’ cameras) in the UK increased from 404 to 626, yet the number of road deaths also rose from 856 to 882. The majority of cameras do not save lives. Before the proliforation of cameras, there had been a steady decline in the annual number of road deaths over a very long time. Since the explosion of camera numbers, this trend has reversed and we are now seeing increasing road deaths.
Why is this? An increasing number of cameras has lead directly to a decreasing number of traffic police on our roads. This means we have seen a massive increase in the number of drunk or drugged drivers, dangerous drivers and those who feel insurance isn’t necessary on a car. It is this section of road users that cause the vast majority of serious or fatal accidents and there is no one out there to catch them.
If I may give one example of the policy of the South Wales Camera Partnership to show how mis-guided it is, I can tell you that one of their biggest revenue earners is on the A4042 Heidenheim Drive in Newport (the Cwmbran dual carriageway). A camera is located southbound, hidden on the inside of a bend, behind a railway bridge pillar, just inside a change from a 50 limit to a 30. This camera is on a stretch of carriageway that has only seen one minor accident (with slight injury) since the end of 1998. Even the northbound carriageway has only seen three such accidents in the same period. How is this a ‘safety’ camera which is being used to ‘reduce fatal or serious injury accidents’?
Now, before I make myself unpopular, when driving I keep my speed at a correct level for the conditions of the road (which isn’t always the limit). If I happen to travel above the limit and get caught, I will hold my hands up and take the fine as I was breaking the law. Surely, however, cameras such as the one noted above would be better used in actual dangerous stretches of road, campaigns for which we see regularly in this newspaper, rather than being used as revenue earners for the local police on roads which do not actually have a problem with serious accidents.
Cameras have a place in our lives, in the right locations, but only as a complement to the right level of human traffic policing.
>> Edited by wanty1974 on Monday 19th January 13:18
xxplod said:
"Where we've put the cameras, we've had a reduction in casulaties. Deaths might have gone up on other parts of the road. I don't know what happens away from our cameras."
So by their own admission they don't police the road, except at camera locations!
What a crock of sh1t
xxplod said:
"Where we've put the cameras, we've had a reduction in casulaties. Deaths might have gone up on other parts of the road. I don't know what happens away from our cameras."
Madness. Who cares that more people are being killed away from camera sites just as long as the sites themselves are working. What sort of
ed up logic is that? What's the point in (allegedly) reducing casualties at a blackspot if in the process you generate another blackspot elsewhere? God these people are IDIOTS.Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff