Norfolk unleash a new tali-bike

[danohagan]

Clearly the FIVE talivans they have snooping the roads aren't bringing them enough money...

[url]http://new.edp24.co.uk/content/News/story.aspx?brand=EDPOnline&category=News&tBrand=edponline&tCategory=news&itemid=NOED15%20Jun%202005%2010%3A02%3A56%3A573[/url]

[supermono]

I'm in correspondence with these jokers having got the casualty figures from the police. They're having ZERO effect (no, really? Who'd have thought measuring the speed of cars wouldn't have an impact on the number of accidents!)

SM

[puggit]

The article mentions a civilian operator

[FastShow]

I wouldn't worry, Norfolk scammers haven't got the vaguest idea how to follow even basic legislation. If you get caught by them, you can be pretty safe in the knowledge they'll cock the prosecution up somehow.

[supraman2954]

article said:

A speed camera motorbike is to join the fleet of yellow vans scouring Norfolk roads for law-breaking motorists

Yeah, like the non-insured/MOTed/taxed/licenced/registered/sober/capable…….

Let’s forgo that fact they won’t engineer roads to be safer; if a sign was put up clearly stating “casualty hotspot” I sure as hell would slow down. However, speed cameras let you scream though these hotspots at any speed you desire

article said:

A civilian camera operator will drive the distinctively marked (but well hidden ) Honda Deauville

article said:

Since the Norfolk Casualty Reduction Partnership began operating cameras, the number of people killed or seriously injured in the areas of use had fallen by 50pc.

Someone else who conveniently forgets about ‘selection on bias’ or ‘regression to the mean’

Most biased article ever!


Does anyone else find the author’s name particularly funny?

[supermono]

I've emailed the author the actual figures in a spreadsheet from the police themselves. In summary there were 67 deaths per annum average for the 5 years before they started scamming, and 67 for the 5 years after. Plus 2005 is looking worse so far, for what it's worth.

5% improvement year on year for the 5 previous years, same for the 5 since they started.

I've asked the author where his figures came from (as if I don't already know) and suggested that a bit of investigative reporting would be interesting to us Norfolk residents that are subjected to the scamming.

It's sickening that these lies are being printed in the newspapers. Why aren't independent bodies reviewing the (in)effectiveness of these jokers?

SM

[supermono]

5% improvement year on year for injury crashes that is...

SM

[puggit]

supermono said:

5% improvement year on year for injury crashes that is... SM

Which were recently re-classified...

[james_j]

supermono said:

It's sickening that these lies are being printed in the newspapers. Why aren't independent bodies reviewing the (in)effectiveness of these jokers? SM

Yes, it's almost as if the (especially local) newspapers where in league with the revenue-raising scam. Surely not.

[autismuk]

supermono said:

I'm in correspondence with these jokers having got the casualty figures from the police. They're having ZERO effect (no, really? Who'd have thought measuring the speed of cars wouldn't have an impact on the number of accidents!) SM

Yeah, well the reason for that is they put the scameras on the very few dual carriageways we have in Norfolk.

Example. We have a crap trunk road, the A140, goes from Norwich to Ipswich. It's a death trap. The scameras sit, needless to say, on a bridge on the only bit of dual carriageway in the middle, about 2-3 miles in 40 of this road, and the safest bit of the whole road.