Typical Government stance on Speed Camera's
Discussion
Total waste of time signing up for that petition (Last one I do) - Dicks.
Scrapcam - epetition reply28 June 2007
We received a petition asking:
"We the undersigned petition the Prime Minister to scrap speed cameras."
Details of Petition:
"After 15 years of speed cameras on British roads, neither road deaths nor hospitalisations have fallen as expected. Drivers know as if by instinct that speed cameras are the wrong road safety policy. The extensive research and analysis conducted by the Safe Speed road safety campaign confirms that drivers have been right all along. Far from making our roads safer, speed cameras have replaced genuine life saving policies and distracted everyone from more important safety factors. Instead... - We must have road safety policies based on skills, attitudes and responsibilities - We must have effective roads policing especially to deal with 'rogue drivers' - We must avoid needlessly prosecuting skilled and responsible drivers driving safely - We must measure what is important, not make important that which is easily measured - and you can't measure safe driving in miles per hour."
Read the petition
Petitions home page
Read the Government's responseThank you for taking the time to register your views about safety cameras on the Number 10 website.
Speeding kills. It is a contributory factor in 26% of all fatal accidents in Great Britain.
The facts are stark. If a child pedestrian is hit at 30mph they stand an 80% chance of surviving. But if they are hit at 40mph they stand an 80% chance of dying. That is why the Government is committed to achieving appropriate vehicle speeds on the roads as part of its integrated road safety strategy.
We are succeeding in changing attitudes, and in making drivers realise that one of their responsibilities is to comply with speed limits. The proportion of car drivers who comply with the 30mph limit has greatly increased over the last few years.
Safety cameras provide a valuable and cost-effective method of preventing, detecting and enforcing speed and traffic light offences. Their use is based on solid evidence. All reliable research from around the world clearly demonstrates that cameras reduce speeds and save lives.
Independent research (new window), published in December 2005, shows that safety cameras had saved around 1,745 people from being killed or seriously injured, and had prevented around 4,230 personal injury collisions on Britain's roads each year.
And while they are saving lives, safety cameras will remain a key part of our road safety strategy.
Further InformationSign up to our new newsletter service
Scrapcam - epetition reply28 June 2007
We received a petition asking:
"We the undersigned petition the Prime Minister to scrap speed cameras."
Details of Petition:
"After 15 years of speed cameras on British roads, neither road deaths nor hospitalisations have fallen as expected. Drivers know as if by instinct that speed cameras are the wrong road safety policy. The extensive research and analysis conducted by the Safe Speed road safety campaign confirms that drivers have been right all along. Far from making our roads safer, speed cameras have replaced genuine life saving policies and distracted everyone from more important safety factors. Instead... - We must have road safety policies based on skills, attitudes and responsibilities - We must have effective roads policing especially to deal with 'rogue drivers' - We must avoid needlessly prosecuting skilled and responsible drivers driving safely - We must measure what is important, not make important that which is easily measured - and you can't measure safe driving in miles per hour."
Read the petition
Petitions home page
Read the Government's responseThank you for taking the time to register your views about safety cameras on the Number 10 website.
Speeding kills. It is a contributory factor in 26% of all fatal accidents in Great Britain.
The facts are stark. If a child pedestrian is hit at 30mph they stand an 80% chance of surviving. But if they are hit at 40mph they stand an 80% chance of dying. That is why the Government is committed to achieving appropriate vehicle speeds on the roads as part of its integrated road safety strategy.
We are succeeding in changing attitudes, and in making drivers realise that one of their responsibilities is to comply with speed limits. The proportion of car drivers who comply with the 30mph limit has greatly increased over the last few years.
Safety cameras provide a valuable and cost-effective method of preventing, detecting and enforcing speed and traffic light offences. Their use is based on solid evidence. All reliable research from around the world clearly demonstrates that cameras reduce speeds and save lives.
Independent research (new window), published in December 2005, shows that safety cameras had saved around 1,745 people from being killed or seriously injured, and had prevented around 4,230 personal injury collisions on Britain's roads each year.
And while they are saving lives, safety cameras will remain a key part of our road safety strategy.
Further InformationSign up to our new newsletter service
Here you go:-
The national safety camera programme: Four-year evaluation report
Print
In 2000, a system was introduced that allowed eight pilot areas to recover the costs of operating speed and red-light cameras (safety cameras) from fines resulting from enforcement. In 2001, legislation was introduced that allowed the system to be extended to other areas. A national programme was then gradually introduced.
In June 2004, the Department for Transport (DfT) published a research report 1 that analysed the effectiveness of the system in 24 areas over the first three years. This report updates the analysis to the 38 areas that were operating within the programme over the four year period from April 2000 to March 2004. Only areas operating within the programme for at least a year were included in the analysis. High level results are as follows:
Vehicle speeds were down - surveys showed that vehicle speeds at speed camera sites had dropped by around 6% following the introduction of cameras. At new sites, there was a 31% reduction in vehicles breaking the speed limit. At fixed sites, there was a 70% reduction and at mobile sites there was a 18% reduction. Overall, the proportion of vehicles speeding excessively (i.e. 15mph more than the speed limit) fell by 91% at fixed camera sites, and 36% at mobile camera sites.
Both casualties and deaths were down - after allowing for the long-term trend, but without allowing for selection effects (such as regression-to-mean) there was a 22% reduction in personal injury collisions (PICs) at sites after cameras were introduced. Overall 42% fewer people were killed or seriously injured. At camera sites, there was also a reduction of over 100 fatalities per annum (32% fewer). There were 1,745 fewer people killed or seriously injured and 4,230 fewer personal injury collisions per annum in 2004. There was an association between reductions in speed and reductions in PICs.
There was a positive cost-benefit of around 2.7:1. In the fourth year, the benefits to society from the avoided injuries were in excess of £258million compared to enforcement costs of around £96million.
The public supported the use of safety cameras for targeted enforcement. This was evidenced by public attitude surveys, both locally and at a national level.
Overall, this report concludes that safety cameras have continued to reduce collisions, casualties and deaths
DRIVEL............
I'd love to take some of the muppets for a spin in my car and show them what FAST IS!!
The national safety camera programme: Four-year evaluation report
In 2000, a system was introduced that allowed eight pilot areas to recover the costs of operating speed and red-light cameras (safety cameras) from fines resulting from enforcement. In 2001, legislation was introduced that allowed the system to be extended to other areas. A national programme was then gradually introduced.
In June 2004, the Department for Transport (DfT) published a research report 1 that analysed the effectiveness of the system in 24 areas over the first three years. This report updates the analysis to the 38 areas that were operating within the programme over the four year period from April 2000 to March 2004. Only areas operating within the programme for at least a year were included in the analysis. High level results are as follows:
Vehicle speeds were down - surveys showed that vehicle speeds at speed camera sites had dropped by around 6% following the introduction of cameras. At new sites, there was a 31% reduction in vehicles breaking the speed limit. At fixed sites, there was a 70% reduction and at mobile sites there was a 18% reduction. Overall, the proportion of vehicles speeding excessively (i.e. 15mph more than the speed limit) fell by 91% at fixed camera sites, and 36% at mobile camera sites.
Both casualties and deaths were down - after allowing for the long-term trend, but without allowing for selection effects (such as regression-to-mean) there was a 22% reduction in personal injury collisions (PICs) at sites after cameras were introduced. Overall 42% fewer people were killed or seriously injured. At camera sites, there was also a reduction of over 100 fatalities per annum (32% fewer). There were 1,745 fewer people killed or seriously injured and 4,230 fewer personal injury collisions per annum in 2004. There was an association between reductions in speed and reductions in PICs.
There was a positive cost-benefit of around 2.7:1. In the fourth year, the benefits to society from the avoided injuries were in excess of £258million compared to enforcement costs of around £96million.
The public supported the use of safety cameras for targeted enforcement. This was evidenced by public attitude surveys, both locally and at a national level.
Overall, this report concludes that safety cameras have continued to reduce collisions, casualties and deaths
DRIVEL............
I'd love to take some of the muppets for a spin in my car and show them what FAST IS!!
You can almost imagine the results of the next General Election...
Although your majority vote was for Conservative, you obviously dont know what your doing, or realise that for 68% of you, your lives are 87% better, therefore although you wanted a new goverment you cant have one because your not capable of making that decsion...
another 4 years, yay!
Although your majority vote was for Conservative, you obviously dont know what your doing, or realise that for 68% of you, your lives are 87% better, therefore although you wanted a new goverment you cant have one because your not capable of making that decsion...
another 4 years, yay!
Edited by Fidgits on Thursday 28th June 11:56
Fidgits said:
You can almost imagine the results of the next General Election...
Although your majority vote was for Conservative, you obviously dont know what your doing, or realise that for 68% of you, your lives are 87% better, therefore although you wanted a new goverment you cant have one because your capable of making that decsion...
another 4 years, yay!
Although your majority vote was for Conservative, you obviously dont know what your doing, or realise that for 68% of you, your lives are 87% better, therefore although you wanted a new goverment you cant have one because your capable of making that decsion...
another 4 years, yay!
Completely unsurprised. Petitions like this are nothing more than a means of attracting attention to important policies, and a chance for the government to reinforce it's stance on those policies.
http://www.pm.gov.uk/output/Page12127.asp
The lack of a right to reply (by the petition author) is nothing more than a chance to say "We're right, you're wrong".
http://www.pm.gov.uk/output/Page12127.asp
The lack of a right to reply (by the petition author) is nothing more than a chance to say "We're right, you're wrong".
Edited by Parrot of Doom on Thursday 28th June 12:01
Oh and in case you don't quite believe what a load of shite these petitions are, read this rejected petition:
http://petitions.pm.gov.uk/rightofreply/
http://petitions.pm.gov.uk/rightofreply/
Parrot of Doom said:
Oh and in case you don't quite believe what a load of shite these petitions are, read this rejected petition:
http://petitions.pm.gov.uk/rightofreply/
Don't you just love living in a democracy? http://petitions.pm.gov.uk/rightofreply/
This is better than you think, folks. They have set themselves up for a fall by quoting fraudlent, misleading and dodgy statistics. In fact I couldn't have hoped for better. I'm positive I can kick off a major row from this.
Safe Speed issued the following PR at 11:59:
PR518: Dodgy and discredited statistics in response to 'scrapcam' petition
news: for immediate release
Downing Street has trotted out some dodgy and discredited statistics in
response to the 28,000 signatories of the famous 'scrap speed cameras' petition
which closed on Tuesday.
The response from the Prime Minister's office in full with Safe Speed comments
inserted and marked with a '*'.
[i]Thank you for taking the time to register your views about safety cameras on
the Number 10 web site.
Speeding kills. It is a contributory factor in 26% of all fatal accidents in
Great Britain.[/i]
those are caused by reckless and 'abnormal' driver behaviour.
[i]The facts are stark. If a child pedestrian is hit at 30mph they stand an 80%
chance of surviving. But if they are hit at 40mph they stand an 80% chance of
dying. That is why the Government is committed to achieving appropriate vehicle
speeds on the roads as part of its integrated road safety strategy.[/i]
killed. 0.42% were killed. So clearly we're not running into them at 'speed
limit' speeds because at 30mph we would have killed 2,200. The claim is grossly
misleading. [2]
[i]We are succeeding in changing attitudes, and in making drivers realise that one
of their responsibilities is to comply with speed limits. The proportion of car
drivers who comply with the 30mph limit has greatly increased over the last few
years.[/i]
deaths aren't falling significantly. We don't need more compliance - it's a
false objective. We need safer roads. And we aren't getting them.
[i]Safety cameras provide a valuable and cost-effective method of preventing,
detecting and enforcing speed and traffic light offences. Their use is based on
solid evidence. All reliable research from around the world clearly
demonstrates that cameras reduce speeds and save lives.[/i]
[i]Independent research (new window), published in December 2005, shows that
safety cameras had saved around 1,745 people from being killed or seriously
injured, and had prevented around 4,230 personal injury collisions on Britain's
roads each year.[/i]
the claim while ignoring the know error is nothing less than a FRAUD.
[i]And while they are saving lives, safety cameras will remain a key part of our
road safety strategy.[/i]
Paul Smith, founder of SafeSpeed.org.uk, said: "I am ABSOLUTELY LIVID that 10
Downing Street has sent out inaccurate and grossly misleading to the 28,000
signatories of the 'Scrap Speed Cameras petition'. How dare they! Lives are at
stake. This is a matter of public safety and misleading statistics cause
resources to be miss-allocated and that means that the opportunity to save
lives is missed."
"Dodgy statistics won't save lives. The Prime Minister's office needs to do far
far better than this."
"I demand the right to communicate with the 28,000 signatories by email. Every
one agreed to receive up to two emails when they signed."
"I challenge 10 Downing Street to put up ANY of their experts for public debate
on the issue. We'll soon so just how dodgy their claims and statistics are."
<ends>
Notes for editors
Official response: http://www.pm.gov.uk/output/Page12127.asp
[1]
http://www.dft.gov.uk/162259/162469/221412/221549/...
See table 6.
[2] http://groups.yahoo.com/group/SafeSpeedPR/message/...
Many thanks to all for your signatures and support.
edit: can anyone tell my why italic isn't working in this post?
Safe Speed issued the following PR at 11:59:
PR518: Dodgy and discredited statistics in response to 'scrapcam' petition
news: for immediate release
Downing Street has trotted out some dodgy and discredited statistics in
response to the 28,000 signatories of the famous 'scrap speed cameras' petition
which closed on Tuesday.
The response from the Prime Minister's office in full with Safe Speed comments
inserted and marked with a '*'.
==============================================
[i]Thank you for taking the time to register your views about safety cameras on
the Number 10 web site.
Speeding kills. It is a contributory factor in 26% of all fatal accidents in
Great Britain.[/i]
- No it isn't. According to Department for Transport figures exceeding a speed
those are caused by reckless and 'abnormal' driver behaviour.
[i]The facts are stark. If a child pedestrian is hit at 30mph they stand an 80%
chance of surviving. But if they are hit at 40mph they stand an 80% chance of
dying. That is why the Government is committed to achieving appropriate vehicle
speeds on the roads as part of its integrated road safety strategy.[/i]
- The true facts are more encouraging. In 2005 in built up areas (20, 30 and 40
killed. 0.42% were killed. So clearly we're not running into them at 'speed
limit' speeds because at 30mph we would have killed 2,200. The claim is grossly
misleading. [2]
[i]We are succeeding in changing attitudes, and in making drivers realise that one
of their responsibilities is to comply with speed limits. The proportion of car
drivers who comply with the 30mph limit has greatly increased over the last few
years.[/i]
- Hardly greatly - and the means of gathering the information changed in the
deaths aren't falling significantly. We don't need more compliance - it's a
false objective. We need safer roads. And we aren't getting them.
[i]Safety cameras provide a valuable and cost-effective method of preventing,
detecting and enforcing speed and traffic light offences. Their use is based on
solid evidence. All reliable research from around the world clearly
demonstrates that cameras reduce speeds and save lives.[/i]
- Solid evidence? I'm afraid not. The 'evidence' is dominated by statistical
[i]Independent research (new window), published in December 2005, shows that
safety cameras had saved around 1,745 people from being killed or seriously
injured, and had prevented around 4,230 personal injury collisions on Britain's
roads each year.[/i]
- That very same report reveals - buried in appendix h - that 'regression to
the claim while ignoring the know error is nothing less than a FRAUD.
[i]And while they are saving lives, safety cameras will remain a key part of our
road safety strategy.[/i]
- They aren't saving lives. That's why they must go. That's why 28,000 signed.
===========================================
Paul Smith, founder of SafeSpeed.org.uk, said: "I am ABSOLUTELY LIVID that 10
Downing Street has sent out inaccurate and grossly misleading to the 28,000
signatories of the 'Scrap Speed Cameras petition'. How dare they! Lives are at
stake. This is a matter of public safety and misleading statistics cause
resources to be miss-allocated and that means that the opportunity to save
lives is missed."
"Dodgy statistics won't save lives. The Prime Minister's office needs to do far
far better than this."
"I demand the right to communicate with the 28,000 signatories by email. Every
one agreed to receive up to two emails when they signed."
"I challenge 10 Downing Street to put up ANY of their experts for public debate
on the issue. We'll soon so just how dodgy their claims and statistics are."
<ends>
Notes for editors
===========
Official response: http://www.pm.gov.uk/output/Page12127.asp
[1]
http://www.dft.gov.uk/162259/162469/221412/221549/...
See table 6.
[2] http://groups.yahoo.com/group/SafeSpeedPR/message/...
======
Many thanks to all for your signatures and support.
edit: can anyone tell my why italic isn't working in this post?
Edited by safespeed on Thursday 28th June 13:14
Keep up the good work and guys keep signing the petitions. If we stop complaining we really will get the country and government we truly deserve. A NANNY STATE 
Before I get flamed I am not advocating inappropriate speed just appropriate methods of detection and training. I spent nearly 30 years in the Fire Service cutting people from cars etc so believe me I've seen first hand the effects of bad driving but this is not all down to speed.
Peter
Before I get flamed I am not advocating inappropriate speed just appropriate methods of detection and training. I spent nearly 30 years in the Fire Service cutting people from cars etc so believe me I've seen first hand the effects of bad driving but this is not all down to speed.
Peter
Forums | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff