A bit of banter I am having with "Safe Speed"
Discussion
Chaps,
I have managed to get into a dialogue of sorts with the "Safe Speed for Life" folks up here in the North East.
I sent them this message, and I thought you might be intersted to see how our sensible adult conversation evolves:
I wrote:
I am a GP working in Tyne and Wear. I have noticed that the so-called "Safety Camera Vans" have been posted to the Coast Road and the Cradlewell by-pass. Can I ask why on Earth the things aren't posted outside schools and shops? Heaton Manor School is VERY near by, and yet the "Partnership" decides to place its cameras on safe dual carriageways. I suspect this is to do with generating revenue. On the question of revenue, you state that the cameras are not there to make money, but then you say that "any funds left over are given to the Treasury". This is revenue generating in my book. I save lives, can I suggest you do the same? (And no you don't have evidence to say you do too).
John Warrington
And, to my surprise, I recieved this detailed response:
wrote: >
Dear John,
The reason that cameras aren't placed outside all
schools and shops is because if there haven't been
any accidents there and there is no speeding
problem, a camera would be of no use. Heaton Upper
is in fact a camera site, due to 14 collisions there
in the last three years.
The "safe" section of the Cradlewell bypass you
refer to has seen 3 serious injuries and 8 minor
injuries in the last three years and the Coast Rd
close to the school you refer to) has seen 3
serious injuries and 13 minor injuries in the same
period.
Cameras are placed at collision hotspots such as
these, which are highlighted on the website along
with the collision data.
I am working to save lives, just as you are. We
should be working together, rather than against, as
our aims are the same. Yes we do recoup running
costs and money spend on driving education and
publicity, which I believe is not a issue of revenue
generation. Would you prefer we took money from
general taxes to run cameras, as was the case
before, rather than just from those who speed as is
the case now?
Nationally, cameras have been proven to reduce
accidents at sites by 35% over three years. Our
partnership has only been in operation for one year
and so comparable data is not yet available,
however I will be putting together an annual report
in the summer showing our progress so far, which I
hope will go some way towards explaining to you why
we use cameras, as unfortunately you seem to not be
convinced by the information on the website.
I will continue to do what I believe in despite
negative and unsupportive comments from people such
as yourself, who haven't taken time to look at the
facts and would prefer to get their information from
certain national newspapers.
Many thanks for your interest.
Safe Speed for Life Admin
So today, I sent them back this message:
Thank you for your reply, Mystery Person With No Name,
I suppose it depends on which figures you believe.
Are you so convinced you are saving lives? When one drives past the detector van on the Cradlewell bypass or on the Coast Road, it is complete chaos. Everyone slows down to well below the speed limit. They are all terrified that their licenses will be endorced and that their insurance premiums will go up. As a result, cars bunch up and everyone is looking at their speedometer and not at the driver only 2 feet in front of them. This is not safe.
As far as your patronising comments go about us both saving lives, I will have to disagree with you.
You mention that revenue generated from your dreadful detector vans goes towards driver training. However, I know of several people who have picked up an NIP as a result of a minor speeding infringement on the roads I mentioned and yet none of them have been invited for this driver training. Oh no, instead they will have to pay a fine and they will get 3 points on their license.
Have you ever exceeded the speed limit yourself? I do hope you are caught out one day by the awful machines you promote.
Thank you,
John Warrington
I'll post their reply if they send one.
I have managed to get into a dialogue of sorts with the "Safe Speed for Life" folks up here in the North East.
I sent them this message, and I thought you might be intersted to see how our sensible adult conversation evolves:
I wrote:
I am a GP working in Tyne and Wear. I have noticed that the so-called "Safety Camera Vans" have been posted to the Coast Road and the Cradlewell by-pass. Can I ask why on Earth the things aren't posted outside schools and shops? Heaton Manor School is VERY near by, and yet the "Partnership" decides to place its cameras on safe dual carriageways. I suspect this is to do with generating revenue. On the question of revenue, you state that the cameras are not there to make money, but then you say that "any funds left over are given to the Treasury". This is revenue generating in my book. I save lives, can I suggest you do the same? (And no you don't have evidence to say you do too).
John Warrington
And, to my surprise, I recieved this detailed response:
Dear John,
The reason that cameras aren't placed outside all
schools and shops is because if there haven't been
any accidents there and there is no speeding
problem, a camera would be of no use. Heaton Upper
is in fact a camera site, due to 14 collisions there
in the last three years.
The "safe" section of the Cradlewell bypass you
refer to has seen 3 serious injuries and 8 minor
injuries in the last three years and the Coast Rd
close to the school you refer to) has seen 3
serious injuries and 13 minor injuries in the same
period.
Cameras are placed at collision hotspots such as
these, which are highlighted on the website along
with the collision data.
I am working to save lives, just as you are. We
should be working together, rather than against, as
our aims are the same. Yes we do recoup running
costs and money spend on driving education and
publicity, which I believe is not a issue of revenue
generation. Would you prefer we took money from
general taxes to run cameras, as was the case
before, rather than just from those who speed as is
the case now?
Nationally, cameras have been proven to reduce
accidents at sites by 35% over three years. Our
partnership has only been in operation for one year
and so comparable data is not yet available,
however I will be putting together an annual report
in the summer showing our progress so far, which I
hope will go some way towards explaining to you why
we use cameras, as unfortunately you seem to not be
convinced by the information on the website.
I will continue to do what I believe in despite
negative and unsupportive comments from people such
as yourself, who haven't taken time to look at the
facts and would prefer to get their information from
certain national newspapers.
Many thanks for your interest.
Safe Speed for Life Admin
So today, I sent them back this message:
Thank you for your reply, Mystery Person With No Name,
I suppose it depends on which figures you believe.
Are you so convinced you are saving lives? When one drives past the detector van on the Cradlewell bypass or on the Coast Road, it is complete chaos. Everyone slows down to well below the speed limit. They are all terrified that their licenses will be endorced and that their insurance premiums will go up. As a result, cars bunch up and everyone is looking at their speedometer and not at the driver only 2 feet in front of them. This is not safe.
As far as your patronising comments go about us both saving lives, I will have to disagree with you.
You mention that revenue generated from your dreadful detector vans goes towards driver training. However, I know of several people who have picked up an NIP as a result of a minor speeding infringement on the roads I mentioned and yet none of them have been invited for this driver training. Oh no, instead they will have to pay a fine and they will get 3 points on their license.
Have you ever exceeded the speed limit yourself? I do hope you are caught out one day by the awful machines you promote.
Thank you,
John Warrington
I'll post their reply if they send one.
DustyC said:
I do like your reply and would have written somethign along the same lines.
Would liek to see their response on why cameras are hidden and vans are disguised if their sole purpose is to slow vehicles down
Same here. If these vans were truely about slowing people down over a stretch of road they would put out warning signs before the van (and by before I mean one or more miles down the road) to warn people that they need to slow down for the van ahead. But they'd never do that as they'd never catch anyone
I've noticed before that most reasonable people would accept that cameras have a benefit when they are protecting school etc. (This is probably the example given to people in surveys by the Police. This would explain their '75% of people support the use of cameras' propaganda.)
I just can't think of a single school in Beds or Herts which has a speed camera outside. They are just placed on 30 limits on inviting dual carriageways.
I just can't think of a single school in Beds or Herts which has a speed camera outside. They are just placed on 30 limits on inviting dual carriageways.
What's this about cameras reducing accidents by 35% nationally? That sounds similar to the figure of 'up to 35%' that was claimed a while ago, meaning that this was probably the biggest improvement at any site rather than an average. I seem to remember somebody (SafeSpeed?) suggesting that "returning to the mean" would lead to significant improvements at some sites even if the cameras had no actual benefit. There have been various 'success stories' reported by scamera partnerships over the last year or all of which have turned out to be grossly misleading on closer examination.
plank from so-called safety pratnership said:
Chaps,
I am working to save lives, just as you are. We
should be working together, rather than against, as
our aims are the same. Yes we do recoup running
costs and money spend on driving education and
publicity, which I believe is not a issue of revenue
generation. Would you prefer we took money from
general taxes to run cameras, as was the case
before, rather than just from those who speed as is
the case now?
Nationally, cameras have been proven to reduce
accidents at sites by 35% over three years. Our
partnership has only been in operation for one year
and so comparable data is not yet available,
however I will be putting together an annual report
in the summer showing our progress so far, which I
hope will go some way towards explaining to you why
we use cameras, as unfortunately you seem to not be
convinced by the information on the website.
I will continue to do what I believe in despite
negative and unsupportive comments from people such
as yourself, who haven't taken time to look at the
facts and would prefer to get their information from
certain national newspapers.
Many thanks for your interest.
Safe Speed for Life Admin
Good post and good reply, John Liebchen! - We do this as well! But like you - we get standard patronising reply. We then apply more acid in the next one! ; They never like our pointing out to them that the newspapers get their information from their own sites and from same set of figures, and they hate us pointing out that they seize on the Grauniad as gospel (like Pol can do no wrong
) - in other words we play word wars! Course we always chuck back our ex-Brake membership etc. Publicity spend? - that is paying this bloke far too much of that fine money to spout the party line and the same tired dogma without doing anything else remotely constructive - like decent prime time ALL road user information adverts which does not include out of tune hedgehogs! Oh -0 and then there are the self praise adverts with a very complacent PC Gatso boasting that he saves thousands of lives when you and me both know that WE (in medical and related professions) DO! Talk about waste money!
Driver Education? Errrr! Where? "THINK!" adverts on prime time telly (like we used to see before the prats took over?) (And the hedgehog thing comes across as very low budget as well as being inadequate! (Speak as Mama of 6 year old - and one who asks other Mamas if their kids get message - which they do not!)
Ach! I forgot --- by driver education "spends" - they mean make you pay to go on course at £85 to Dick's proposed £200 for his! And they target the wrong drivers - the just over blips to cut off at 35-36 dependent upon Pratnership! In other words - means of raking in even more money - when total money generated,( if road safety is their real intention,) should go towards improving L-test to German standard at least, 5 year assessments including eyes/medicals (subjective bias!
)and prime time advert campaign with COAST,MSM, PSL, GREEN CROSS ( done properly , and CYCLING courses! All they prove is that they live in cloud cuckoo land!
scammer said:
Yes we do recoup running costs <...>, which I believe is not a issue of revenue generation.
What they don't say, and they never do, is that in the Alice in Wonderland world of partnership financing, 'running costs' includes 100% of the purchase of capital equipment, not merely the depreciation element; i.e. straight off the top line.
In any other business that (the non depreciation element) is profit, straight profit.
At least this guy didn't quite say, although he came very close, "We do not make a profit," but several do.
Another thing that might make them think is to answer in the affirmative when they ask whether you'd rather their activities were funded from general taxation.
The reason is that it would remove a clear conflict of interest that currently exists. Firstly, as it stands they HAVE to prosecute large numbers of drivers in order to ensure their own existence, which conflicts with any possible intent to deter speeding. Secondly, it obliges them to concentrate their enforcement onto those areas where revenue can be raised, for the same reason.
As a parallel, imagine if the Police in general were similarly funded, so they would only investigate crimes where they were likely to receive fines. I'm sure as a doc you'll be able to come up with a better analogy from your own profession!
The reason is that it would remove a clear conflict of interest that currently exists. Firstly, as it stands they HAVE to prosecute large numbers of drivers in order to ensure their own existence, which conflicts with any possible intent to deter speeding. Secondly, it obliges them to concentrate their enforcement onto those areas where revenue can be raised, for the same reason.
As a parallel, imagine if the Police in general were similarly funded, so they would only investigate crimes where they were likely to receive fines. I'm sure as a doc you'll be able to come up with a better analogy from your own profession!
BlackStuff said:
Another thing that might make them think is to answer in the affirmative when they ask whether you'd rather their activities were funded from general taxation.
The reason is that it would remove a clear conflict of interest that currently exists. Firstly, as it stands they HAVE to prosecute large numbers of drivers in order to ensure their own existence, which conflicts with any possible intent to deter speeding. Secondly, it obliges them to concentrate their enforcement onto those areas where revenue can be raised, for the same reason.
As a parallel, imagine if the Police in general were similarly funded, so they would only investigate crimes where they were likely to receive fines. I'm sure as a doc you'll be able to come up with a better analogy from your own profession!
That's a good point. I will send it to them.
Dear Thick Scammer,
As a doctor (not trying to put words into your mouth, Johnny), let me give you a medical analogy to illustrate the nonsense of that claim.
There is a disease which is killing ~2,400 people per year annually[1]. We invent a new medicine. It appears to work in many cases[2].
However, overall there are now ~3,600 people dying of the disease[3].
Countries who have not introduced the new 'wonder medicine' have not seen such an upswing in deaths.
Do we allow the drug company to keep selling its medicine on the basis of the few people who are being saved, despite the upswing in total deaths from the disease?
Of course we don't, we ban the damn stuff.
[1] The total who would have died if the pre-camera long term (~100 years, except during WWII) benign trend had continued to this day.
[2] The apparent reduction at camera sites.
[3] The total who are actually dying today.
Get it?
>> Edited by jeffreyarcher on Friday 14th May 00:52
Thick Scammer said:
cameras have been proven to reduce accidents at sites by 35% over three years
As a doctor (not trying to put words into your mouth, Johnny
), let me give you a medical analogy to illustrate the nonsense of that claim. There is a disease which is killing ~2,400 people per year annually[1]. We invent a new medicine. It appears to work in many cases[2].
However, overall there are now ~3,600 people dying of the disease[3].
Countries who have not introduced the new 'wonder medicine' have not seen such an upswing in deaths.
Do we allow the drug company to keep selling its medicine on the basis of the few people who are being saved, despite the upswing in total deaths from the disease?
Of course we don't, we ban the damn stuff.
[1] The total who would have died if the pre-camera long term (~100 years, except during WWII) benign trend had continued to this day.
[2] The apparent reduction at camera sites.
[3] The total who are actually dying today.
Get it?
>> Edited by jeffreyarcher on Friday 14th May 00:52
Perhaps we have all missed the point here.
I am going to make sure my drive in the morning passes as many schools as possible - because they are very safe pieces of road. Oh and since there's no speed cameras at them it's ok to speed there without getting caught.
(this is not meant as an irresponsible reply)
I am going to make sure my drive in the morning passes as many schools as possible - because they are very safe pieces of road. Oh and since there's no speed cameras at them it's ok to speed there without getting caught.
(this is not meant as an irresponsible reply)
jeffreyarcher said:
Dear Thick Scammer,
Thick Scammer said:
cameras have been proven to reduce accidents at sites by 35% over three years
As a doctor (not trying to put words into your mouth, Johnny
There is a disease which is killing ~2,400 people per year annually[1]. We invent a new medicine. It appears to work in many cases[2].
However, overall there are now ~3,600 people dying of the disease[3].
Countries who have not introduced the new 'wonder medicine' have not seen such an upswing in deaths.
Do we allow the drug company to keep selling its medicine on the basis of the few people who are being saved, despite the upswing in total deaths from the disease?
Of course we don't, we ban the damn stuff.
[1] The total who would have died if the pre-camera long term (~100 years, except during WWII) benign trend had continued to this day.
[2] The apparent reduction at camera sites.
[3] The total who are actually dying today.
Get it?
>> Edited by jeffreyarcher on Friday 14th May 00:52
Nah mate! I get " big-time bollocking!"
Then if I am still employed - I go back and fiddle about again and see if we can resolve the problem! W
Which is what the scam prats should be doing!
Revenue For Life said:
The "safe" section of the Cradlewell bypass you
refer to has seen 3 serious injuries and 8 minor
injuries in the last three years and the Coast Rd
close to the school you refer to) has seen 3
serious injuries and 13 minor injuries in the same
period.
You really need to reply and ask them if every one of these accidents was down to excessive speed, or even if any of them were.
Mr2Mike said:
The "safe" section of the Cradlewell bypass you
refer to has seen 3 serious injuries and 8 minor
injuries in the last three years and the Coast Rd
close to the school you refer to) has seen 3
serious injuries and 13 minor injuries in the same
period.
You really need to reply and ask them if every one of these accidents was down to excessive speed, or even if any of them were.
I will put to them all the points you fellas have made. They still haven't replied yet, unsurprisingly.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff