London Road Safety Unit cuts child casualties by 1/3rd?

[jasandjules]

That is what is reported in the Metro....

"Safety cameras have proven very effective at reducing collisions at sites where cameras have been installed. We are confident that digital cameras will reduce casualty figures even further".

[Peter Ward]

So casualties overall across London will be down, then? Well only if they haven't moved to where the cameras aren't, of course. But as the partnerships are only measured on what happens at camera sites that's not their problem.

BTW, what is a casualty? K, SI, I, or a combination of all 3? I hope it doesn't depend on what they're trying to prove.

[james_j]

The camera businesses have lied for years about their "success".

I doubt they have suddenly stopped lying.

[Nick_F]

'Casualty' is generally a summation of K and SI where precis of official stats are concerned.

The most efficient way to reduce the number of 'casualties' is to adjust the criteria as to what constitutes SI.

Hence the mild controversy over the difference between Police/SCP 'casualty' figures and those for hospital admissions.

QED

BOHICA

[splatspeed]

Nick_F said:

'Casualty' is generally a summation of K and SI where precis of official stats are concerned.

The most efficient way to reduce the number of 'casualties' is to adjust the criteria as to what constitutes SI.

Hence the mild controversy over the difference between Police/SCP 'casualty' figures and those for hospital admissions.

QED

BOHICA

you sound like a lawyer???

[Nick_F]

splatspeed said:

Nick_F said:

'Casualty' is generally a summation of K and SI where precis of official stats are concerned.

The most efficient way to reduce the number of 'casualties' is to adjust the criteria as to what constitutes SI.

Hence the mild controversy over the difference between Police/SCP 'casualty' figures and those for hospital admissions.

QED

BOHICA

you sound like a lawyer???

I've never been so offended in all my life...

[mmm-five]

The figures claimed 95 less injuries in 2004 (487) than in 2002 (582) - which is about a sixth.

Then they go on to claim a third less injuries than in 2000, but they cleverly omit the actual figures for 2000 so you can't see if it's true - and they don't give 2005 figures which would show very little change.

[rodney59]

.....and old Ken is very pleased. The figures are better than the Government setout for Children KSI.

[jasandjules]

Indeed.

The problem I have is the figures, where have they come from? How are they derived?

Oh, and as mentioned above, sadly the figures don't tally up to what has been said.

[autismuk]

mmm-five said:

The figures claimed 95 less injuries in 2004 (487) than in 2002 (582) - which is about a sixth.

Then they go on to claim a third less injuries than in 2000, but they cleverly omit the actual figures for 2000 so you can't see if it's true - and they don't give 2005 figures which would show very little change.

.... why are they comparing 2004 to 2002 then. RTTM. Crap.