'Camera numbers will fall' - Roads Minister
Discussion
Here is a link from Motorcycle News with audio of an interview with Stephen Ladyman.
www.motorcyclenews.com/MCN/News/newsresults/mcn/2007/March/week-09-Mar01-Mar06/mar0207cameranumberswillfall/?&R=EPI-89466
A couple of interesting things come out of this interview.
Ladyman has an insistance that we "look at the long term trends" rather than specific quarters of years, but then goes on to try to explain the issue of the trend of casualty reductions getting 'flatter'
He goes on to say that this is probably because "We've gone for all the easy targets", and then cites drink driving and speeding as examples.
Hmmm, so Ladyman admits that speeding motorists are 'easy targets'?
He seems also to do a lot of squirming around the question of "How much of the fall is due to Regression to the Mean", especially when confronted with the fact that the report did not come up with a definite figure of how much of the reduction was due to RTTM, but that it was "significant, even after regression to the mean was applied" - although they cant say how much it was, so how is this possible.....?
He also goes on to discuss Road Pricing, and mentions that this would "replace some of the current taxes"
Towards the end, the question of the new funding mechanism for Road Safety is mentioned, where he says that cameras should only be used when other forms of road safety (signs, traffic calming, etc) may not work.
He then gets asked "Is this a change of emphasis?", to which he replies "Yes".....
He later gets asked "Why wouldn't you speak to Paul Smith about this?
His reply?
"Paul Smith is Barking"
"He has a particular view of driving that does not marry with real life out there on the road"
"Paul Smith does not represent anybody but Paul Smith"
Worth a listen if you have the time, but it's about half an hour long......
www.motorcyclenews.com/MCN/News/newsresults/mcn/2007/March/week-09-Mar01-Mar06/mar0207cameranumberswillfall/?&R=EPI-89466
A couple of interesting things come out of this interview.
Ladyman has an insistance that we "look at the long term trends" rather than specific quarters of years, but then goes on to try to explain the issue of the trend of casualty reductions getting 'flatter'
He goes on to say that this is probably because "We've gone for all the easy targets", and then cites drink driving and speeding as examples.
Hmmm, so Ladyman admits that speeding motorists are 'easy targets'?
He seems also to do a lot of squirming around the question of "How much of the fall is due to Regression to the Mean", especially when confronted with the fact that the report did not come up with a definite figure of how much of the reduction was due to RTTM, but that it was "significant, even after regression to the mean was applied" - although they cant say how much it was, so how is this possible.....?
He also goes on to discuss Road Pricing, and mentions that this would "replace some of the current taxes"
Towards the end, the question of the new funding mechanism for Road Safety is mentioned, where he says that cameras should only be used when other forms of road safety (signs, traffic calming, etc) may not work.
He then gets asked "Is this a change of emphasis?", to which he replies "Yes".....
He later gets asked "Why wouldn't you speak to Paul Smith about this?
His reply?
"Paul Smith is Barking"
"He has a particular view of driving that does not marry with real life out there on the road"
"Paul Smith does not represent anybody but Paul Smith"
Worth a listen if you have the time, but it's about half an hour long......
Alice Cupra said:
He later gets asked "Why wouldn't you speak to Paul Smith about this?
His reply?
"Paul Smith is Barking"
"He has a particular view of driving that does not marry with real life out there on the road"
"Paul Smith does not represent anybody but Paul Smith"
Email winging its way to Ladyman in the morn...
Factually wrong, Ladyman...Paul Smith represents me.
Strange statement when the Commons Transport Select Committee regularly takes evidence from the likes of BRAKE...who have zero expertise in road safety, offering instead buckets of emotion.
Alice Cupra said:
....He later gets asked "Why wouldn't you speak to Paul Smith about this?
His reply?
"Paul Smith is Barking"
"He has a particular view of driving that does not marry with real life out there on the road"
"Paul Smith does not represent anybody but Paul Smith"
His reply?
"Paul Smith is Barking"
"He has a particular view of driving that does not marry with real life out there on the road"
"Paul Smith does not represent anybody but Paul Smith"
I have driven between 30000 and 80000 miles a year for the last 21 years, and I can assure everybody here that Paul Smith's viewpoint is a damn site closer to real life out there on the road than the government's!!
I may just write to Mr. Ladyman citing my points-free licence as well!!
Mind you, I have yet to find a senior politician that represents anyone other than themselves - just look at Bliar and Fatty 2 Jags!
Edited by alphadog on Monday 5th March 06:11
I wrote to my local SCP asking them how many fixed camera and mobile sites had become redundant due to their enforcement being successful in changing driver habits and therefore now being unneccessary. {When the partnership were being formed they said they said this was what would happen}. The response was none - it was no their policy to decommisssion sites.
I asked them about a particular mobile site that has been in their list since they formed. I asked them if their enforcement had been successful and if so why was it still neccessary to use it. The response was that there had been one death and several serious injuries in the area prior to the site being used. since enforcement there had been no deaths but there were still minor injuries. They therefore concluded that their enforcement at the site had been successful in working towards the government set target for casualty reduction.
If you believe Ladyman you will believe anything.
I asked them about a particular mobile site that has been in their list since they formed. I asked them if their enforcement had been successful and if so why was it still neccessary to use it. The response was that there had been one death and several serious injuries in the area prior to the site being used. since enforcement there had been no deaths but there were still minor injuries. They therefore concluded that their enforcement at the site had been successful in working towards the government set target for casualty reduction.
If you believe Ladyman you will believe anything.
This guy says, "I suspect they (the number of cameras) will fall."
What would he mean by that?
Will there be fewer fixed cameras? The only way to achieve that would be to dismantle existing cameras, which exercise would seem like a great waste of money when alternatively they could be switched off. But if they were only switched off, one wouldn't say that "their numbers will fall".
He could mean that there will be fewer mobile units, which are a far greater blight than the fixed units anyhow.
Does anyone know whether the SCP income from mobile units will be clawed back to the Treasury too?
Or he could be speaking Political Spinish for, "We will reduce the projected increase in the number of cameras."
What would he mean by that?
Will there be fewer fixed cameras? The only way to achieve that would be to dismantle existing cameras, which exercise would seem like a great waste of money when alternatively they could be switched off. But if they were only switched off, one wouldn't say that "their numbers will fall".
He could mean that there will be fewer mobile units, which are a far greater blight than the fixed units anyhow.
Does anyone know whether the SCP income from mobile units will be clawed back to the Treasury too?
Or he could be speaking Political Spinish for, "We will reduce the projected increase in the number of cameras."
flemke said:
This guy says, "I suspect they (the number of cameras) will fall."
What would he mean by that?
Will there be fewer fixed cameras? The only way to achieve that would be to dismantle existing cameras, which exercise would seem like a great waste of money when alternatively they could be switched off. But if they were only switched off, one wouldn't say that "their numbers will fall".
He could mean that there will be fewer mobile units, which are a far greater blight than the fixed units anyhow.
Does anyone know whether the SCP income from mobile units will be clawed back to the Treasury too?
Or he could be speaking Political Spinish for, "We will reduce the projected increase in the number of cameras."
What would he mean by that?
Will there be fewer fixed cameras? The only way to achieve that would be to dismantle existing cameras, which exercise would seem like a great waste of money when alternatively they could be switched off. But if they were only switched off, one wouldn't say that "their numbers will fall".
He could mean that there will be fewer mobile units, which are a far greater blight than the fixed units anyhow.
Does anyone know whether the SCP income from mobile units will be clawed back to the Treasury too?
Or he could be speaking Political Spinish for, "We will reduce the projected increase in the number of cameras."
I think it's more likely that by "fall", he means "rise." After all, it's only a suspicion, he's likely to be wrong.
safespeed said:
Oh MY. What fun! We've won folks. They have run out of arguments.
And this from a minister who is ready to swear that black is white.
And this from a minister who is ready to swear that black is white.
'Tis what happens when they increase the enforcement of a minor factor in fatal accidents at the expense of everything else.
Anyone here witnessed an accident caused by a driver exceeding the speed limit? I sure haven't, but I'm sure they must occasionally happen!
Edited by alphadog on Tuesday 6th March 06:40
safespeed said:
Oh MY. What fun! We've won folks. They have run out of arguments.
And this from a minister who is ready to swear that black is white.
And this from a minister who is ready to swear that black is white.
Paul,
Do you know whether the revenue from mobile cameras will be clawed back to central gov't the way that revenue from fixed cameras will be?
Cheers.
ATHEY997S said:
CJ
yr 'assuming' that all the points you quote are for speeding?
yr 'assuming' that all the points you quote are for speeding?
CommanderJameson said:
I'm leery about taking advice about speeding from someone with nine points on their licence.
Three points is unlucky. Six points - well, some people are cursed.
Nine points is just
ing stupid.
Three points is unlucky. Six points - well, some people are cursed.
Nine points is just
ing stupid.In his case, they are.
Roger
then i agree with yr comment wholeheartedly
In his case, they are.
then i agree with yr comment wholeheartedly
CommanderJameson said:
ATHEY997S said:
CJ
yr 'assuming' that all the points you quote are for speeding?
yr 'assuming' that all the points you quote are for speeding?
CommanderJameson said:
I'm leery about taking advice about speeding from someone with nine points on their licence.
Three points is unlucky. Six points - well, some people are cursed.
Nine points is justing stupid.
Three points is unlucky. Six points - well, some people are cursed.
Nine points is just
ing stupid.In his case, they are.
flemke said:
safespeed said:
Oh MY. What fun! We've won folks. They have run out of arguments.
And this from a minister who is ready to swear that black is white.
And this from a minister who is ready to swear that black is white.
Paul,
Do you know whether the revenue from mobile cameras will be clawed back to central gov't the way that revenue from fixed cameras will be?
Cheers.
All camera revenue has always gone to the treasury. Up until the end of March this year camera partnerships can recover their operating costs up to the limit of the fines money accumulated in the treasury.
From 1st April cameras will be funded by local authorities supported by a so called 'road safety grant'. But cameras are expensive - local authorities cannot afford to buy them or operate them and the road safety grant isn't ring fenced. Camera money is going to be in extremely short supply. Expect P45s a-plenty and a rapid scaling down of camera operations.
And if you want to thank me, donations are thataway: www.safespeed.org.uk/join.html
safespeed said:
And if you want to thank me, donations are thataway: www.safespeed.org.uk/join.html
And if you want to save your local speed cameras, then donations thisaway....
www.saveascammer.gov.uk/gordonbrow
Oh.
ok.
Still great news - I guess the party line is that they have been a great success, but due to budgetary constraints they can't support local scamera partnerships?
Forums | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff