More Cameras not doing their job.

[motco]

See here:
[url]www.bucksfreepress.co.uk/news/localnews/display.var.522448.0.speed_cameras_fail_to_cut_accident_rate.php[/url]

Why was the West Wycombe Road camera ever installed if there was no KSI history?

[Peter Ward]

article said:

Figures from Thames Valley Safer Roads Partnership show, at eight out of 18 camera sites in the area, the number of people killed or seriously injured rose despite cameras being installed. At another five sites the number killed or seriously injured showed no change. Only at five sites did the numbers of accidents fall.

I'm not an expert statistician, but my reading of those figures is that the numbers are essentially random. The cameras are having no material effect on what's happening.

However, I suppose it's possible that there are some that are having a positive effect and others that are having a negative one. This would imply that some locations are more "treatable" with cameras than others, and it will then be important to do some research to find out which and why. Will that happen, then? No. That would open up the whole debate as to whether they work at all, which is not what the government wants. Remember that they "couldn't wait to start saving lives" 1 year into their 3-year "pilot study" and decided they were totally beneficial without decent figures to support them. Now they have to focus on the beneficial ones and hope we don't notice the rest.

>> Edited by Peter Ward on Friday 27th August 17:58

[autismuk]

Peter Ward said:

article said: Figures from Thames Valley Safer Roads Partnership show, at eight out of 18 camera sites in the area, the number of people killed or seriously injured rose despite cameras being installed. At another five sites the number killed or seriously injured showed no change. Only at five sites did the numbers of accidents fall. I'm not an expert statistician, but my reading of those figures is that the numbers are essentially random. The cameras are having no material effect on what's happening. However, I suppose it's possible that there are some that are having a positive effect and others that are having a negative one. This would imply that some locations are more "treatable" with cameras than others, and it will then be important to do some research to find out which and why. Will that happen, then? No. That would open up the whole debate as to whether they work at all, which is not what the government wants. Remember that they "couldn't wait to start saving lives" 1 year into their 3-year "pilot study" and decided they were totally beneficial without decent figures to support them. Now they have to focus on the beneficial ones and hope we don't notice the rest. >> Edited by Peter Ward on Friday 27th August 17:58

No, it's random.

The quoted figures are so ridiculous the camera partnership statisticians are deliberately lying and know it. You simply cannot make the claims they do with the data they have.