T2000; 0.000154% of the Uk requested scameras?!

[ed22]

Ho ho!
Two statements from T2000 pasted from their most recent 'press release'
http://www.transport2000.org/

"Speed camera and road safety statistics

Seventy-one per cent of people in Britain are in favour of speed cameras, with 23 per cent opposed.
Source: Which? Magazine 2004


Speed Camera Partnerships across Britain receive around 10,000 requests for speed cameras from local communities each year. Source: Transport 2000, 2004 "



So that's 0.000154% of the population requesting them. [i] Hardly makes that 71% support look convincing or that motivated does it?![/i]

[deeps]

Haha nicely put!

Does anyone actually believe the stats that they spout?

I would guess yes, only those that want to, reality doesn't come into it for them!

I would wager any amount that 71% plus are NOT in favour of speed cameras, it's been proven time and time again in independant polls. Whats the point of a poll where you only ask those who've previously expressed a preference for the support of cameras!
Trouble is, some people believe what they're fed without questioning it, just look at any camera partnership website and read the cherry picked stats!

Regards the 71%, how can they lie like that? IMO it totaly discredits them and all the camera partnerships who spout the same lie. How can you trust any of their manipulated statistics after such a blatent lie? Shamefull twisting of the truth.

[kenp]

They probably did the survey in their own office, which proves that nearly a third of the staff at Traffic2000 are not convinced that scameras are the solution.

[parrot of doom]

Its all in the question:

"Would you be supportive of speed cameras if it could be demonstrated that they make the roads safer for all users?"

or:

"The figures show that speed cameras are ineffective at making the roads safer and may actually make them more dangerous - would you be supportive of a speed camera on your street?"

[8Pack]

Did no-one see the poll on Sky News today {monday}?

Asking if cameras were for safety or cash? Last time I saw it it was: 86% Cash - 14% safety.

Edited to add: ........ MMmmh! wonder if it's still open and available on the web?

>> Edited by 8Pack on Tuesday 28th June 02:21

[8Pack]

Ah! Yes, it IS. On: www.sky.com/skynews/home

Look for the "vote" box about the AA map thing

OK I got the question slightly wrong but Hey Ho! it's late!

[autismuk]

kenp said:

They probably did the survey in their own office, which proves that nearly a third of the staff at Traffic2000 are not convinced that scameras are the solution.

Q7. Are you

(a) In favour of Safety Cameras to save children [ ]
(b) A paedophile supporting child murderers [ ]

Please tick one box.

This is probably only a slight exaggeration. I know very few people who are in favour of Scameras - anywhere.


>> Edited by autismuk on Tuesday 28th June 08:00

[GreenV8S]

Do you think that speed cameras should be used to

(a) improve road safety
(b) make money

71% think that cameras should be used to improve road safety.

[dcb]

autismuk said:

This is probably only a slight exaggeration. I know very few people who are in favour of Scameras - anywhere.

Lots of folks have stickers on the back of their cars for various popular causes, "Save the Gay Whale" etc etc

I've only ever seen *one* car ever with a sticker promoting speed cameras.

I rather suspect the driver was employed by the speed camera partnership.

[ed22]

mmm, Sussex Pratnership had the nerve to be at Goodwood fos this year.............

[Guzzi Steve]

It doesn't matter how many polls,or how they word them.They are just going to manipulate the figures to suit themselves anyway.

[james_j]

ed22 said:

mmm, Sussex Pratnership had the nerve to be at Goodwood fos this year.............

Yes, what the fluck were they doing there bu66ering up the atmosphere. I couldn't even walk near them otherwise I'd have had a bit of an argument and it would have spoiled my day.

[Muncher]

james_j said:

ed22 said: mmm, Sussex Pratnership had the nerve to be at Goodwood fos this year............. Yes, what the fluck were they doing there bu66ering up the atmosphere. I couldn't even walk near them otherwise I'd have had a bit of an argument and it would have spoiled my day.

I spent quite a while on their stand "debating" with them...

[ed22]

Muncher said:

james_j said: ed22 said: mmm, Sussex Pratnership had the nerve to be at Goodwood fos this year............. Yes, what the fluck were they doing there bu66ering up the atmosphere. I couldn't even walk near them otherwise I'd have had a bit of an argument and it would have spoiled my day. I spent quite a while on their stand "debating" with them...

What was their reaction out of interest? I also avoided them as I was having a fantastic day out and didn't want to haveto spend half an hour calming down after raging at them.

[Muncher]

ed22 said:

Muncher said: james_j said: ed22 said: mmm, Sussex Pratnership had the nerve to be at Goodwood fos this year............. Yes, what the fluck were they doing there bu66ering up the atmosphere. I couldn't even walk near them otherwise I'd have had a bit of an argument and it would have spoiled my day. I spent quite a while on their stand "debating" with them... What was their reaction out of interest? I also avoided them as I was having a fantastic day out and didn't want to haveto spend half an hour calming down after raging at them.

I didn't really want to speak to them but was dragged there. Generally a reasonable bunch but completely misguided. Had not heard of SafeSpeed but accepted that excess speed only contributed to 7% of accidents.

So frustrating, they were far too smug. When asked if it was having a massive effect on the PR Police, all they could say was "we aren't the police, we're the partnership" despite all of those operating the vans being police officers.