Scottish road deaths not changed

[puggit]

http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/04/464.asp

Scotland Not Safer After Five Years of Speed Cameras
Road deaths in Scotland have remained static despite five years of speed camera enforcement.

Safer Scotland logoThe latest statistics from the Scottish Executive confirm that the number deaths on Scotland's roads has not decreased since speed cameras were introduced in 1999. Last year, 307 died in driving accidents, a figure essentially unchanged from the 310 deaths figure in 1999.

Safe Speed road safety campaign founder Paul Smith argues that before speed cameras were installed, road deaths decreased every year as a result of improvements in vehicle safety and medical care. Had cameras not been deployed, Smith argues the trends show there would be 100 fewer fatalities every year.

"The truth is that Scottish road safety has not improved one jot since 1999 despite an explosion in the use of speed cameras," Smith said.

Source: Key 2004 Road Accident Statistics (Scottish Executive, 6/15/2005)

[url]Stats here|http://www.thenewspaper.com/rlc/docs/05-scotstats.pdf[/url]

[princeperch]

Well blow me down with a feather, no surprises there then.

Puggit, you get a ticket when you thought you got nabbed by a scamera van a while back?

Seen quite a few S2000 like yours in Reading of late, I hope you wernt the one who missed the scam van on the wokingham road yesterday...

[FunkyNige]

puggit said:

Scotland Not Safer After Five Years of Speed Cameras

Well obviously there aren't enough speed cameras then.

[8Pack]

FunkyNige said:

puggit said: Scotland Not Safer After Five Years of Speed Cameras Well obviously there aren't enough speed cameras then.

Nige, ......consider yourself "duffed up" by the PH collective.

[timtonal]

8Pack said:

FunkyNige said: puggit said: Scotland Not Safer After Five Years of Speed Cameras Well obviously there aren't enough speed cameras then. Nige, ......consider yourself "duffed up" by the PH collective.

'Twas sharcasm, shurely!

[supermono]

Same in Norfolk. I got the figures under the freedom of information act from the police HQ -- straight from the horse's mouth. Average deaths pa equal five years before and five years after, serious injuries improvement exactly equal before and after too.

Obviously no surprise. I've taken it up with the "safety camera" parasites and also tried to get an investigation going in the local paper after a report yesterday saying they've just bought some bike cameras and that things have improved to the tune of 40%.

You guys all have a duty to do the same thing rather than just bitching about it. Maybe if we all get our local figures we can collate them and send them in to a national paper.

The cracks are beginning to show and something simple like showing the truth is these scammers are justifying their own little businesses, whilst safety levels aren't improving might just be the catalyst we need to get shot and replace with proper old school road safety schemes that work.

Hell, I'll even collate the figures myself -- send them to [e-mail]

Cheers!
Andy

[puggit]

princeperch said:

Well blow me down with a feather, no surprises there then. Puggit, you get a ticket when you thought you got nabbed by a scamera van a while back? Seen quite a few S2000 like yours in Reading of late, I hope you wernt the one who missed the scam van on the wokingham road yesterday...

Hi PP,

You'll mostly see the wife in the S2000 - I commute in the Pug. The S2000 is 'Nurburgring Blue' - or metallic light blue in English.

I didn't get the ticket from the van in Henley, nor the M25 gantry which flashed me on the M25...

I know of the Wokingham Road van well - sneaky positioning - all about cash!

[apache]

Wait for a new argument, " before scameras were introduced the numbers of cars on the road were significantly less than today so scameras have reduced deaths comparatively"

[Size Nine Elm]

apache said:

Wait for a new argument, " before scameras were introduced the numbers of cars on the road were significantly less than today so scameras have reduced deaths comparatively"

On the contrary, "The introduction of speed cameras has increased the number of cars on the roads".

[_dobbo_]

supermono said:

Same in Norfolk. I got the figures under the freedom of information act from the police HQ -- straight from the horse's mouth. Average deaths pa equal five years before and five years after, serious injuries improvement exactly equal before and after too.

Andy, would you mind telling me how you approached this? I recently had a complaint about a speed camera advert with the ASA rejected as they claimed that road deaths were reduced. I'd love to counter this with figures if I could.

[MilnerR]

apache said:

Wait for a new argument, " before scameras were introduced the numbers of cars on the road were significantly less than today so scameras have reduced deaths comparatively"

Wait for the argument that the speed limits are too high


SCP logic dictates that speed cameras make roads safer, therefore if the accident rates remain high the limits that those cameras are enforcing must be wrong!

[james_j]

_dobbo_ said:

supermono said: Same in Norfolk. I got the figures under the freedom of information act from the police HQ -- straight from the horse's mouth. Average deaths pa equal five years before and five years after, serious injuries improvement exactly equal before and after too. Andy, would you mind telling me how you approached this?

Seconded.

[_dobbo_]

apache said:

Wait for a new argument, " before scameras were introduced the numbers of cars on the road were significantly less than today so scameras have reduced deaths comparatively"

Ah, but cars are comparatively safer for both drivers/passengers and pedestrians, which would surely offset that argument? To which the usual head in sand speed kills mantra would likely be the response!

[DaGinge]

Interesting, given the BBC published this:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/4087732.stm
just 3 days ago.....interesting to see the selective use of statistics...the BBC must've accidentally omitted that the previous year represented a gain.

Given the drop is really an adjustment to the normal in statistical terms, I wonder how they will spin it next year when the figures will more than likely rise.

[GreenV8S]

Obviously people are adapting to the cameras and speeding up elsewhere, so we need lots more speed cameras to make you drive safely everywhere. You speeding drivers are a bunch of irresponsible hooligans, for goodness sake won't you please think of the children you're putting at risk?

[TripleS]

GreenV8S said:

Obviously people are adapting to the cameras and speeding up elsewhere, so we need lots more speed cameras to make you drive safely everywhere. You speeding drivers are a bunch of irresponsible hooligans, for goodness sake won't you please think of the children you're putting at risk?

Yes I feel terribly guilty!

BTW, I take it you will be having a 'black box' fitted to that wheelbarrow I recommended for you Peter. Got a good handbrake has it?

Best wishes all,
Dave.

[supermono]

I got the figures by calling norfolk police HQ and asking for the department which deals with accident figures in the county. They gave me an email address to write to so I did -- asking specific questions about accidents on particular stretches of road and in the county as a whole.

The freedom of information act gives you the right to this information, and I was given an immediate response saying it was being done and would be delivered in x days. And it was...

SM

>> Edited by supermono on Thursday 16th June 14:18

[parrot of doom]

DaGinge said:

Interesting, given the BBC published this: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/4087732.stm just 3 days ago.....interesting to see the selective use of statistics...the BBC must've accidentally omitted that the previous year represented a gain. Given the drop is really an adjustment to the normal in statistical terms, I wonder how they will spin it next year when the figures will more than likely rise.

I have complained on the BBC website about this. It shows poor journalism.