The gospel according to St Saira ...
Discussion
As promised, I detail below some questions that were asked of the Wiltshire Safety Camera Partnership after the M4 protest, and the answers than came back from the Great and Good Saira Khan, their Communications Manager. My personal view on the answers is that St Saira is in dire need of some training in communications, so as to not publish propaganda that you can drive a coach and horses through!! The data follows:
Question 1:
If speed is such a danger as to require a speed camera to be installed or mobile devices used, why are the cameras not armed with film and used 24/7? Speeding drivers are using the roads 24/7.
Answer
Static cameras operate 24hrs a day, everyday. The nature of mobile cameras means that it is not possible to operate them 24hrs a day, as there is a significant human element involved, i.e., these cameras need a operator to detect speeding motorists, it is not an automatic system.
Comment
Methinks St Saira is being a little economical with the truth regarding static cameras operating 24 hours a day, every day ….
Question 2:
Whilst driving home from Heathrow airport to Melksham on Monday 25/05/05 between 7.30 and 11.30am why were there no speed cameras?
Answer
As above, the cameras on the motorway in Wiltshire are mobile and they are not there 24hrs a day. Our observations show that there has been a significant change in driver behaviour and even when there is no camera van, the traffic seems to be travelling at or below 70mph.
Comment
St Saira is clearly talking about a different M4 to the one I use - perhaps her M4 goes through Savernake forest or somewhere … Things on the real M4 are, shall we say, now getting back to normal !!
Question 3:
Despite poor road conditions, it was overcast, gloomy and raining, with a lot of spray from the road surface. Elements, which you would agree, would make for very dangerous motorway driving conditions, especially when combined with the reported 50% of speeding drivers. If as I suspect, the cameras cannot be used in such conditions, why weren’t police patrols used instead? Surely safety remains the Road Policing Unit’s objective, even in the rain?
Answer
This is a matter for the Chief Constable, but I would like to point out that the Safety Camera Unit and its officers are an additional resource for roads policing. The unit does not cost the constabulary or the tax payer anything. The unit and its operations are fully funded by fines.
Comment
This comment: “The unit and its operations are fully funded by fines.” clearly lays the lie, once and for all, that the Wiltshire Safety Camera Partnership are not out to catch you, they want you to slow down” (their words, not mine). No speeding fines = no income = no wages for the staff = a trip to the Job Centre for every one of ‘em. If the only thing that stood between you and the dole queue was dishing out FPNs to motorists, you wouldn’t exactly want them to slow down, would you !!!!!
Question 4: If speed is a major contributory factor in 1/3 (30% approx) of all accidents, why aren’t the police increasing their “safety patrols” to combat and prevent the remaining 2/3rd of causes.
St Saira gave no reply to this question.
Question 5:
Why was speed detection cameras renamed from “Speed Cameras” to “Safety Cameras”? Less controversial, perhaps?
Answer
They have not been renamed. There are two types of cameras - 1) Speed enforcement cameras & 2) Red light offence cameras. Safety Cameras is a collective name for the two different types.
Comment
George Orwell warned us about this in his book “1984.” Similar comments might be: “Ignorance is sense.” “Weakness is strength.” Oh, and by the way, carrots make you see in the dark and the moon is made of green cheese ….
Question 6:
After all is said and done, an increased police presence, observing for, detecting and thereby preventing those offences, which result in 70% of road accidents, could be argued as “Safer” for all road users. Unarguably resulting in safer roads than relying on a static device, capable only of detecting one aspect of road safety and blind to the remaining raft of dangerous and illegal driving practises?
Answer
Cameras have been proven to reduce collisions. In Wiltshire there has been a 64% reduction in Personal Injury collisions at camera sites (The National Safety Camera Prog. Three year evaluation report, 2004). And since enforcement commenced on the M4 we have observed the following.
Period looked at: 1200 hours 13th April to 0900 hours 13th May
Number of injury collisions by year for the above period
2001 2002 2003 2004 2005
14 9 13 12 5
Average for the 4 years before enforcement 12
Total since enforcement 5
Reduction 7
Percentage reduction 58.37%
Comment
This lot beggars belief!!! Accidents happen randomly – you just cannot say that the number of “expected” accidents in 2005 will be the average number occurring over the last four years, and you most certainly cannot, with any degree of credibility, then take that average, work out the “reduction” to two decimal places, and then claim all the credit for it!!!
Any further comments, chaps and chapesses?
>> Edited by rs1952 on Thursday 16th June 20:54
Question 1:
If speed is such a danger as to require a speed camera to be installed or mobile devices used, why are the cameras not armed with film and used 24/7? Speeding drivers are using the roads 24/7.
Answer
Static cameras operate 24hrs a day, everyday. The nature of mobile cameras means that it is not possible to operate them 24hrs a day, as there is a significant human element involved, i.e., these cameras need a operator to detect speeding motorists, it is not an automatic system.
Comment
Methinks St Saira is being a little economical with the truth regarding static cameras operating 24 hours a day, every day ….
Question 2:
Whilst driving home from Heathrow airport to Melksham on Monday 25/05/05 between 7.30 and 11.30am why were there no speed cameras?
Answer
As above, the cameras on the motorway in Wiltshire are mobile and they are not there 24hrs a day. Our observations show that there has been a significant change in driver behaviour and even when there is no camera van, the traffic seems to be travelling at or below 70mph.
Comment
St Saira is clearly talking about a different M4 to the one I use - perhaps her M4 goes through Savernake forest or somewhere … Things on the real M4 are, shall we say, now getting back to normal !!
Question 3:
Despite poor road conditions, it was overcast, gloomy and raining, with a lot of spray from the road surface. Elements, which you would agree, would make for very dangerous motorway driving conditions, especially when combined with the reported 50% of speeding drivers. If as I suspect, the cameras cannot be used in such conditions, why weren’t police patrols used instead? Surely safety remains the Road Policing Unit’s objective, even in the rain?
Answer
This is a matter for the Chief Constable, but I would like to point out that the Safety Camera Unit and its officers are an additional resource for roads policing. The unit does not cost the constabulary or the tax payer anything. The unit and its operations are fully funded by fines.
Comment
This comment: “The unit and its operations are fully funded by fines.” clearly lays the lie, once and for all, that the Wiltshire Safety Camera Partnership are not out to catch you, they want you to slow down” (their words, not mine). No speeding fines = no income = no wages for the staff = a trip to the Job Centre for every one of ‘em. If the only thing that stood between you and the dole queue was dishing out FPNs to motorists, you wouldn’t exactly want them to slow down, would you !!!!!
Question 4: If speed is a major contributory factor in 1/3 (30% approx) of all accidents, why aren’t the police increasing their “safety patrols” to combat and prevent the remaining 2/3rd of causes.
St Saira gave no reply to this question.
Question 5:
Why was speed detection cameras renamed from “Speed Cameras” to “Safety Cameras”? Less controversial, perhaps?
Answer
They have not been renamed. There are two types of cameras - 1) Speed enforcement cameras & 2) Red light offence cameras. Safety Cameras is a collective name for the two different types.
Comment
George Orwell warned us about this in his book “1984.” Similar comments might be: “Ignorance is sense.” “Weakness is strength.” Oh, and by the way, carrots make you see in the dark and the moon is made of green cheese ….
Question 6:
After all is said and done, an increased police presence, observing for, detecting and thereby preventing those offences, which result in 70% of road accidents, could be argued as “Safer” for all road users. Unarguably resulting in safer roads than relying on a static device, capable only of detecting one aspect of road safety and blind to the remaining raft of dangerous and illegal driving practises?
Answer
Cameras have been proven to reduce collisions. In Wiltshire there has been a 64% reduction in Personal Injury collisions at camera sites (The National Safety Camera Prog. Three year evaluation report, 2004). And since enforcement commenced on the M4 we have observed the following.
Period looked at: 1200 hours 13th April to 0900 hours 13th May
Number of injury collisions by year for the above period
2001 2002 2003 2004 2005
14 9 13 12 5
Average for the 4 years before enforcement 12
Total since enforcement 5
Reduction 7
Percentage reduction 58.37%
Comment
This lot beggars belief!!! Accidents happen randomly – you just cannot say that the number of “expected” accidents in 2005 will be the average number occurring over the last four years, and you most certainly cannot, with any degree of credibility, then take that average, work out the “reduction” to two decimal places, and then claim all the credit for it!!!
Any further comments, chaps and chapesses?
>> Edited by rs1952 on Thursday 16th June 20:54
Keep arguing purely for comedy purposes! Pull apart her answers logically and emperically then await a response. Remember to point out that a major contributory factor in accidents is excessive speed (not usually measurable by cameras) but only 3% have a major cause of speeding. See what she says to that, it could be interesting, it could be bollox.
jewhoo said:Unfortunately those of us who bait communications people at the Scameraships know that when met with a reasoned argument they just clam up or ask us to think of the children
Keep arguing purely for comedy purposes! Pull apart her answers logically and emperically then await a response. Remember to point out that a major contributory factor in accidents is excessive speed (not usually measurable by cameras) but only 3% have a major cause of speeding. See what she says to that, it could be interesting, it could be bollox.
Speed Camera Blokey said:
Number of injury collisions by year for the above period
2001 2002 2003 2004 2005
14 9 13 12 5
Hi Robin!
Injury collisions? What about death collisions (shhhh!) or maybe nobody died!.
If we've already had 5 incidents this year and we're not even half way through.
What effect do you thing making everybody do 70 mph and forcing everybody to travel boxed-in in bunches across the 3 lanes will do for these sorts of accidents boys and girls?
>> Edited by timtonal on Friday 17th June 11:53
jewhoo said:Did you ask using FOI act? Might be more chance so long as you're not asking operational questions such as speed thresholds etc
Unfortunately those of us who bait communications people at the Scameraships know that when met with a reasoned argument they just clam up or ask us to think of the children
Tell me about it, I asked NSCP a perfectly reasonable question which has been totally ignored.
rs1952 said:
Oh, and by the way, carrots make you see in the dark and the moon is made of green cheese ….
...
Any further comments, chaps and chapesses?
Only that the moon is made of creamcheese.
As someone who's job it is to defend camera's I suspect any attempt to reason with her will be flogging the proverbial... But well done for trying - they don't like it up 'em!
puggit said:
puggit said:
Unfortunately those of us who bait communications people at the Scameraships know that when met with a reasoned argument they just clam up or ask us to think of the children
Tell me about it, I asked NSCP a perfectly reasonable question which has been totally ignored.
Did you ask using FOI act? Might be more chance so long as you're not asking operational questions such as speed thresholds etc
AFAIK you dont have to request something "under" the FOI act, if its covered by it, it "should" be released, regardless of whether you told them you are seeking the info under the foi or not.
You will never get the truth from them as they have a vested interest in proving their worth. The answers were predictable as they are all ones used by every scamera partnership. These people would be clerks in any other line of work but they have become all powerful in this operation. Some of the people who were seconded to these operations from the NHS were people who were wanted shut of when it was an experiment, now they have become self funded big wigs.
I'm not a statistician, but I'd ask this...
Q. How on earth can you compare an average taken over 48 months with figures gleaned from just 3 months enforcement? You're not comparing like with like, so the comparison, and thus the % reduction claim, is invalid.
Unless my maths has failed me, a period that's 16 times longer would have 16 times more OPPORTUNITY for collisions to occur? I'm sure you could cherrypick a 3 month snapshot from within the 48 month average period, compare it to the three month enforcement period and come up with an INCREASE in collisions.
How on Earth can these people be allowed to get away with such blatant statistical dishonesty?
>> Edited by hornet on Saturday 18th June 00:48
Q. How on earth can you compare an average taken over 48 months with figures gleaned from just 3 months enforcement? You're not comparing like with like, so the comparison, and thus the % reduction claim, is invalid.
Unless my maths has failed me, a period that's 16 times longer would have 16 times more OPPORTUNITY for collisions to occur? I'm sure you could cherrypick a 3 month snapshot from within the 48 month average period, compare it to the three month enforcement period and come up with an INCREASE in collisions.
How on Earth can these people be allowed to get away with such blatant statistical dishonesty?
>> Edited by hornet on Saturday 18th June 00:48
Soory guys, but unfortunately I think some of you are misunderstanding these figures - if you look at the first posting:
They are using that one month (approx) time period from mid-April to mid-May - hence rest of 2005 etc isn't relevant. But I wonder why they picked just that particular sample - couldn't be because it's the only way to make their figures come out right, could it? Perhaps a good question to ask is what about all the other months' figures.
Wiltshire Scamership said:
Period looked at: 1200 hours 13th April to 0900 hours 13th May
Number of injury collisions by year for the above period
2001 2002 2003 2004 2005
14 9 13 12 5
Average for the 4 years before enforcement 12
Total since enforcement 5
Reduction 7
Percentage reduction 58.37%
They are using that one month (approx) time period from mid-April to mid-May - hence rest of 2005 etc isn't relevant. But I wonder why they picked just that particular sample - couldn't be because it's the only way to make their figures come out right, could it? Perhaps a good question to ask is what about all the other months' figures.
I questioned a number of people in my house between 12:00 and 13:00 yesterday, then again between 05:00 and 06:00 today. The responses differed.
Seriously, I gave up believing 'government' statistics so many years ago that I forget when it was. Recently, over a period of 09:00 to 18:00 one day, my local council allegedly counted vehicles parked in the road on which my house is situated. They then broke the figures down into "residents", "visitors" and "commuters". At one time they claimed there were no "residents" cars parked on the road. Funny that, one of my cars was parked there all day because a builder's van was occupying the drive.
I recall a gentleman from the DTI telling me in 1996 that they had cranked a load of figures through a computer model and realised that the results were unacceptable to the Minister ... so they changed the model ... three times (!) ... until the figures were "correct".
Streaky
>> Edited by streaky on Sunday 19th June 05:57
Seriously, I gave up believing 'government' statistics so many years ago that I forget when it was. Recently, over a period of 09:00 to 18:00 one day, my local council allegedly counted vehicles parked in the road on which my house is situated. They then broke the figures down into "residents", "visitors" and "commuters". At one time they claimed there were no "residents" cars parked on the road. Funny that, one of my cars was parked there all day because a builder's van was occupying the drive.
I recall a gentleman from the DTI telling me in 1996 that they had cranked a load of figures through a computer model and realised that the results were unacceptable to the Minister ... so they changed the model ... three times (!) ... until the figures were "correct".
Streaky
>> Edited by streaky on Sunday 19th June 05:57
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff