Latest Suffolk speed camera 'stats'

[simpo two]

From TV news tonight:

'At the 8 fixed camera sites there was a 91% reduction in accidents.
At the mobile camera sites there was a 50% reduction in accidents.'

I smell cremated books...

This will of course be used as a justification for more cameras. Interestingly, if the figures had been exactly the reverse, that would equally be a justification for more cameras. Honestly, it's all such a load of w*nk...

>>> Edited by simpo two on Wednesday 26th May 23:09

[streaky]

simpo two said:

From TV news tonight: 'At the 8 fixed camera sites there was a 91% reduction in accidents. At the mobile camera sites there was a 50% reduction in accidents.'

1) "Reduction" from WHAT?

2) What is an "ACCIDENT" used to justify this?

3) And I bet the length of road used to calculate such figures is NOT the length of road that was used to justify the scamera in the first place.

A redefinition of an old saying: "Lies, damned lies, statistics and scamera figures" (oh, and anything this government says).

Streaky

[count duckula]

Load of bocks, I did a survey and my job is justified and I need to be paid more.

Malc

[james_j]

At a main road near me, there was a fatal accident a few months ago.

Ever since, I have crossed my fingers when passing the spot.

I have noticed that there has been a 100% reduction in accidents since I started crossing my fingers.

[simpo two]

I suddenly realised why they used the word 'accidents'. It's because there was obviously no reduction in *fatalities*.

Had any lives, you can be sure they'd be crowing from the rooftops. Suddenly, the claim looks a bit feeble. Unfortunately, the great unthinking won't figure that out.