Paul Smith was just on Points West!
Discussion
I was watching it too..
The Wiltshire camera partnership have released their latest figures claiming success:
Between April and July 2005,
on the stretch of M4 they covered with mobile cameras,
there were 12 crashes resulting in 1 fatality,
the amount of crashes is down 60% on previous years.
Robin was also interveiwed and pointed out that the mobile cameras havn't been seen on that stretch for the last 2 months or so!
I'd like to see the figures for crashes when the mobile cameras were actually there. ie. the first 3 or 4 weeks, I remember a cluster of crashes coinciding with that, probably 12? LOL.
Looks like the partnership is manipulating the stats here....ok so what's new!
The Wiltshire camera partnership have released their latest figures claiming success:
Between April and July 2005,
on the stretch of M4 they covered with mobile cameras,
there were 12 crashes resulting in 1 fatality,
the amount of crashes is down 60% on previous years.
Robin was also interveiwed and pointed out that the mobile cameras havn't been seen on that stretch for the last 2 months or so!
I'd like to see the figures for crashes when the mobile cameras were actually there. ie. the first 3 or 4 weeks, I remember a cluster of crashes coinciding with that, probably 12? LOL.
Looks like the partnership is manipulating the stats here....ok so what's new!
chris watton said:
Yep, Mr Safe Speed was just on the BBC news, talking about speed cameras, as there was 'prpaganda' before the interview stating that there has been an over 60% decrease in accidents since the M4 cameras were used in April!
The lying twisting b@stards.
Did Paul Smith get a chance to set the record straight?
And here is what the safety camera partnership didn’t tell you (or, at least, they did if you saw their press release and their subsequent statements, which most people haven’t) :-
1. There was one more fatality in 2002 than 2005, (or before the partnership got interested in the M4), and;
2. They will not reveal the number of NIPs they have issued because (according to them) “it is not pertinent to the safety campaign”
My “spies” have been out. We have not seen one scamera van on the M4 since April 29th. That is, of course, not to say that they haven’t been there, but simply that we haven’t seen them.
And one hell of a lot of people haven’t seen them ….. Interesting, would you not say?
What we have seen, however, is more trafpol on this stretch of motorway than we have seen for a number of years. Exactly what we asked for in our protest demands.
I have a sneaking suspicion that the partnership have been told to keep a low profile and that, once again, they are spinning their propaganda to show what a fine job they are doing when, in reality, they are doing nothing.
We’ve all seen it before, all around the country. If they can massage some data so that the figures look good, they’ll take all the credit. If the figures look bad, then they’ll say that: “it proves we need more speed cameras”
I shall finish with some quotes from the press release that they put out – so they say, part of the “overwhelming” public support for their tax-gathering antics:
“I have been incensed to read that there are people out there protesting about the mobile safety cameras on the M4. As Vice-chair of Roadpeace we have had many calls from motorists who have been involved in crashes or whose family members have been involved in crashes on this particular stretch of motorway” (Rita Taylor)
“About time it was done properly and nice to see someone has the gumption to uphold and enforce the law as it always should have been” (P.W.B. Hampshire)
The problem is, the idiots who say things like this are being conned by the camera partnerships up and down the country each and every day – and they are buying the propaganda hook, line and sinker.
Robin@m4protest.org
>> Edited by rs1952 on Wednesday 13th July 23:58
1. There was one more fatality in 2002 than 2005, (or before the partnership got interested in the M4), and;
2. They will not reveal the number of NIPs they have issued because (according to them) “it is not pertinent to the safety campaign”
My “spies” have been out. We have not seen one scamera van on the M4 since April 29th. That is, of course, not to say that they haven’t been there, but simply that we haven’t seen them.
And one hell of a lot of people haven’t seen them ….. Interesting, would you not say?
What we have seen, however, is more trafpol on this stretch of motorway than we have seen for a number of years. Exactly what we asked for in our protest demands.
I have a sneaking suspicion that the partnership have been told to keep a low profile and that, once again, they are spinning their propaganda to show what a fine job they are doing when, in reality, they are doing nothing.
We’ve all seen it before, all around the country. If they can massage some data so that the figures look good, they’ll take all the credit. If the figures look bad, then they’ll say that: “it proves we need more speed cameras”
I shall finish with some quotes from the press release that they put out – so they say, part of the “overwhelming” public support for their tax-gathering antics:
“I have been incensed to read that there are people out there protesting about the mobile safety cameras on the M4. As Vice-chair of Roadpeace we have had many calls from motorists who have been involved in crashes or whose family members have been involved in crashes on this particular stretch of motorway” (Rita Taylor)
“About time it was done properly and nice to see someone has the gumption to uphold and enforce the law as it always should have been” (P.W.B. Hampshire)
The problem is, the idiots who say things like this are being conned by the camera partnerships up and down the country each and every day – and they are buying the propaganda hook, line and sinker.
Robin@m4protest.org
>> Edited by rs1952 on Wednesday 13th July 23:58
james_j said:
Did Paul Smith get a chance to set the record straight?
Even I don't know! Oh, they had me on tape setting things straight, but what they used and what they didn't I have no idea.
I was in a small studio in Inverness. I get questions from an interviewer who I can't see in an earpeice and respond. That goes to tape (Or probably some hard disc recording gizmo), then they edit it to show what they want to show. It's OK, but you're very remote from the process.
>> Edited by safespeed on Wednesday 13th July 23:58
Paul - I saw it - your piece was excellent!!!
On the whole, the entire item was remarkably well balanced. In fact, to play "devils advocate" for a minute, I think we got more air time than Saira Khan.
Perhaps we have friends in BBC Bristol. Indeed, the cameraman who was in my car on the M4 this afternoon seemed remarkably in agreement with our views.
On the whole, the entire item was remarkably well balanced. In fact, to play "devils advocate" for a minute, I think we got more air time than Saira Khan.
Perhaps we have friends in BBC Bristol. Indeed, the cameraman who was in my car on the M4 this afternoon seemed remarkably in agreement with our views.
rs1952 said:
Paul - I saw it - your piece was excellent!!!
On the whole, the entire item was remarkably well balanced. In fact, to play "devils advocate" for a minute, I think we got more air time than Saira Khan.
Perhaps we have friends in BBC Bristol. Indeed, the cameraman who was in my car on the M4 this afternoon seemed remarkably in agreement with our views.
Oh good! I'm pleased to hear it. Thanks. We need a chat. I'm here now and tomorrow. Give me a bell.
Paul, I thought the interveiw was live, they certainly made it appear that way, so like you say they can pick and choose what bits they want.
The main question the news presenter asked was if you had now changed your mind on the M4 cameras as they are a proven success.
They then had you saying more time is needed to get a proper balanced conclusion and more police are needed on patrol, or words to that effect from memory.
They didn't really put you across as anti-camera IMO.
I watch the BBC local news quite often and whenever there's any issue about speeding or cameras their coverage is usually very heavily swayed towards supporting the camera partnerships, have to disagree with you there Robin.
A few months ago they ran a five minute feature on the evening broadcast, every day Monday to Friday, about fatalities on the local roads and how we should all THINK! and SLOW DOWN!. SPEED KILLS was the theme and basically "if you speed you kill" was the message being pushed down your throat every evening.
Since then I've felt the local BBC is happy to be an advertising machanism for the camera partnerships.
Having said that, for what it's worth, well done Paul & Robin! I know it aint easy!
The main question the news presenter asked was if you had now changed your mind on the M4 cameras as they are a proven success.
They then had you saying more time is needed to get a proper balanced conclusion and more police are needed on patrol, or words to that effect from memory.
They didn't really put you across as anti-camera IMO.
I watch the BBC local news quite often and whenever there's any issue about speeding or cameras their coverage is usually very heavily swayed towards supporting the camera partnerships, have to disagree with you there Robin.
A few months ago they ran a five minute feature on the evening broadcast, every day Monday to Friday, about fatalities on the local roads and how we should all THINK! and SLOW DOWN!. SPEED KILLS was the theme and basically "if you speed you kill" was the message being pushed down your throat every evening.
Since then I've felt the local BBC is happy to be an advertising machanism for the camera partnerships.
Having said that, for what it's worth, well done Paul & Robin! I know it aint easy!
Not in your area Gents, and did NOT of course see the broadcast, but...............
Somehow, I'm taken back in history to when the "French" did NOT have a speed limit! But that the Police had the "descretion" as to whether the speed was excessive for the conditions at the time....
MMmmmh!!!! .................if only
Somehow, I'm taken back in history to when the "French" did NOT have a speed limit! But that the Police had the "descretion" as to whether the speed was excessive for the conditions at the time....
MMmmmh!!!! .................if only
rs1952 said:
What we have seen, however, is more trafpol on this stretch of motorway than we have seen for a number of years. Exactly what we asked for in our protest demands.
I have a sneaking suspicion that the partnership have been told to keep a low profile and that, once again, they are spinning their propaganda to show what a fine job they are doing when, in reality, they are doing nothing.
Sounds likely - I've been thinking along these lines for a while.
Could be an exceedingly cunning "marketing" plan, i.e. announce the M4 scameras in a blaze of publicity, hoping for the reaction we gave them via the protest etc, all the while sneakily upping trafpol numbers (just as we've been asking them to!) and then claim any success as down to the cameras!
I've yet to see a scamera van on the M4 (not that I drive it more than about once a week) but I have seen more trafpol (some with hairdryers) than I recall from recent years...
pdV6 said:
I've yet to see a scamera van on the M4 (not that I drive it more than about once a week) but I have seen more trafpol (some with hairdryers) than I recall from recent years...
I would concur with that. It's fine by me - I believe as I think we all do that trafpol will exercise some discretion that a civvy in a scam van won't, and can also look out for real dangerous stuff. Just a shame that the camera pratnerships get to benefit via propoganda.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff