Cumbria Camera Sites Bombshell
Discussion
Safe Speed issued the following PR at 12:26 today:
[b]PR227: Roads fatalities leap 39% at camera sites in Cumbria[/b]
news: for immediate release
According to official information obtained under the Freedom of Information
act by a member of the public, fatalities have leap by an average of almost
40% at speed camera sites in Cumbria since partnership operations commenced.
Figures obtained show fatal crashes at speed camera sites as follows:
Before Cumbria Camera Partnership:
year / deaths
2000 10
2001 6
2002 8
2003 2 (first quarter)
Total: 26 deaths in 39 months
Average 8 deaths per year
After Cumbria Camera Partnership:
year / deaths
2003 10 (last three quarters)
2004 12
2005 5 (up to June 30th)
Total: 25 deaths in 27 months
Average 11.1 deaths per year
Paul Smith, founder of the Safe Speed road safety campaign
(www.safespeed.org.uk) said: "The full horror of the speed camera programme is
gradually emerging. Far from saving lives, speed cameras are killing us. They
are a deadly distraction away from the core values of safe driving."
"The government has not done their research properly - their claims are shot
through with false assumptions and inadequate data. There's a lack of
understanding of how road safety works at the highest level. Perhaps we
shouldn't be surprised when the Secretary of State for Transport does not hold
a driving licence."
"The figures are even worse than they appear because we expect reductions at
camera sites due a statistical bias known as regression to the mean."
"We must get these dangerous cameras off the roads right now. People are dying
because of them. The term 'safety camera' will go down in history as a sick
joke."
Paul Smith challenged Steve Callaghan, the manager of Cumbria Partnership to
debate the issues on BBC Radio Cumbria. He declined. We assume that they
don't have any worthwhile facts to contribute to the debate. However we would
be delighted to be proved wrong and repeat the challenge - Won't you debate
the issues in any national Mr Callaghan? If you think someone else can do
better - nominate your champion! We'll meet any challenge.
<ends>
Notes:
Official materials released under the Freedom of Information Act:
http://www.safespeed.org.uk/pr227.zip
Correspondence regarding the Radio Cumbria debate challenge:
http://www.safespeed.org.uk/forum/viewtopic.php?t=2003
[b]PR227: Roads fatalities leap 39% at camera sites in Cumbria[/b]
news: for immediate release
According to official information obtained under the Freedom of Information
act by a member of the public, fatalities have leap by an average of almost
40% at speed camera sites in Cumbria since partnership operations commenced.
Figures obtained show fatal crashes at speed camera sites as follows:
Before Cumbria Camera Partnership:
year / deaths
2000 10
2001 6
2002 8
2003 2 (first quarter)
Total: 26 deaths in 39 months
Average 8 deaths per year
After Cumbria Camera Partnership:
year / deaths
2003 10 (last three quarters)
2004 12
2005 5 (up to June 30th)
Total: 25 deaths in 27 months
Average 11.1 deaths per year
Paul Smith, founder of the Safe Speed road safety campaign
(www.safespeed.org.uk) said: "The full horror of the speed camera programme is
gradually emerging. Far from saving lives, speed cameras are killing us. They
are a deadly distraction away from the core values of safe driving."
"The government has not done their research properly - their claims are shot
through with false assumptions and inadequate data. There's a lack of
understanding of how road safety works at the highest level. Perhaps we
shouldn't be surprised when the Secretary of State for Transport does not hold
a driving licence."
"The figures are even worse than they appear because we expect reductions at
camera sites due a statistical bias known as regression to the mean."
"We must get these dangerous cameras off the roads right now. People are dying
because of them. The term 'safety camera' will go down in history as a sick
joke."
Paul Smith challenged Steve Callaghan, the manager of Cumbria Partnership to
debate the issues on BBC Radio Cumbria. He declined. We assume that they
don't have any worthwhile facts to contribute to the debate. However we would
be delighted to be proved wrong and repeat the challenge - Won't you debate
the issues in any national Mr Callaghan? If you think someone else can do
better - nominate your champion! We'll meet any challenge.
<ends>
Notes:
Official materials released under the Freedom of Information Act:
http://www.safespeed.org.uk/pr227.zip
Correspondence regarding the Radio Cumbria debate challenge:
http://www.safespeed.org.uk/forum/viewtopic.php?t=2003
Ah, but "... in 2004 the number of people killed and seriously injured at the hotspots monitored by the cameras was reduced by almost 70 per cent, so we are succeeding in our core task. "
Doesn't matter that more people were killed, as long as the number of people injured reduces to cover the numbers then they are a resounding success!
Gareth
Doesn't matter that more people were killed, as long as the number of people injured reduces to cover the numbers then they are a resounding success!
Gareth
Well done Paul.
Does anyone else think it coincidental that:
* Steve Callahan (79 posts in 14 months) hasn’t posted anything since April?
(previous post rate was 8 posts per month)
* Destroyer (256 posts in 16 months) hasn’t posted anything in the last two months?
(previous post rate was 18 posts per month)
Both posters having claimed to work for camera partnerships!!
>> Edited by smeggy on Saturday 6th August 10:46
Does anyone else think it coincidental that:
* Steve Callahan (79 posts in 14 months) hasn’t posted anything since April?
(previous post rate was 8 posts per month)
* Destroyer (256 posts in 16 months) hasn’t posted anything in the last two months?
(previous post rate was 18 posts per month)
Both posters having claimed to work for camera partnerships!!
>> Edited by smeggy on Saturday 6th August 10:46
Einion Yrth said:
Its a very small sample period Paul, is the variation any more statistically relevant than the bullshit they spout riding on the back of regression to the mean?
Yes, I do believe that it's statistically significant. Obviously we've used all the figures available - we have not applied any sort of selection.
There are two external sources of bias that increase the significance of the results:
1) Site selection bias or regression to the mean. We would have expected the figures to fall.
2) Background road safety improvements (improvements to vehicles, roads and post crash medical care)(even after allowing for growth in traffic) make it about 5% less likely that you'll die in a similar crash year after year.
safespeed said:
Its a very small sample period Paul, is the variation any more statistically relevant than the bullshit they spout riding on the back of regression to the mean?
Yes, I do believe that it's statistically significant. Obviously we've used all the figures available - we have not applied any sort of selection.
There are two external sources of bias that increase the significance of the results:
1) Site selection bias or regression to the mean. We would have expected the figures to fall.
2) Background road safety improvements (improvements to vehicles, roads and post crash medical care)(even after allowing for growth in traffic) make it about 5% less likely that you'll die in a similar crash year after year.
Both good points, I'll shut up now
They'll still claim success using 'spin', lies and obfuscation to try to continue their 'salary-streams' and careers (they call that a career!).
After all, if they admit failure they'll be looking for new jobs, and who would ever consider employing an ex-Cash-Camera Pratnership employee in any role at all - I know I wouldn't, nor would I, through my recruitment business, offer such a person to any client as I know what the response would be.
After all, if they admit failure they'll be looking for new jobs, and who would ever consider employing an ex-Cash-Camera Pratnership employee in any role at all - I know I wouldn't, nor would I, through my recruitment business, offer such a person to any client as I know what the response would be.
Good work Paul, hopefully you'll get your debate and hammer another nail in the coffin of 1 dimensional road safety. Then again the partnerships can come up with some pretty convincing arguments:
Crazy logic, but no crazier than thinking that taking photos of people driving in a straight line at 10mph over the speed limit will save lives......
Partnership logic said:
Partnership figures clearly show that out of the 3 people per year extra who died 100% of them would have died sooner or later anyway. Therefore the number of overall deaths (taken over the course of human history)hasn't actually increased as these people would have died eventually.......
Crazy logic, but no crazier than thinking that taking photos of people driving in a straight line at 10mph over the speed limit will save lives......
Good work Paul!
I must confessed to being unconvinced by the figures as the sample size is so small - the fact that it's the biggest available sample size doesn't change that. After all a difference of 1 death per year would equate to 12.5% change and I would be reasonably surprised if the figures came out the same for both periods with or without action. I guess I'm just saying that I'm not convinced that the figures are statisically significant.
That said, all the crap the partnerships put out is similarly insignificant (if not more so). I see no reason not to fight fire with fire.
I must confessed to being unconvinced by the figures as the sample size is so small - the fact that it's the biggest available sample size doesn't change that. After all a difference of 1 death per year would equate to 12.5% change and I would be reasonably surprised if the figures came out the same for both periods with or without action. I guess I'm just saying that I'm not convinced that the figures are statisically significant.
That said, all the crap the partnerships put out is similarly insignificant (if not more so). I see no reason not to fight fire with fire.
This'll make you all chuckle. I was approached at work today by someone passing on a request from our SCP asking for further training for their "Intelligence Officer." I did check to make sure he meant to use the word "intelligence" in the same sentence as SCP! I was told it was so that they could keep beeter records of those who they may think aren't fillling in their NIPs truthfully and may be Perverting the Course of Justice.
I pointed out that had these offenders been stopped by Officers, this would never be an issue, and that perhaps the SCPs had created their own problem. Not that I'm advocating telling lies of course, I was playing devils advocate somewhat. I gave an assurance I would put the request on my list.
That's my list of things I am not going to do.
I pointed out that had these offenders been stopped by Officers, this would never be an issue, and that perhaps the SCPs had created their own problem. Not that I'm advocating telling lies of course, I was playing devils advocate somewhat. I gave an assurance I would put the request on my list.
That's my list of things I am not going to do.
A very small proportion of accidents happen in good conditions where some drivers exceed the speed limit on roads like the M6 in Cumbria and other good roads.
They should be addressing the causes of accidents involving pedestrians crossing the motorway, cars veering off the road (Zzzzzzz?), trucks (governed), bad lane discipline, driving too close etc.
And the speed limit's irrelevant when it comes to excess speed.
>> Edited by timtonal on Friday 5th August 19:00
MilnerR said:
Crazy logic, but no crazier than thinking that taking photos of people driving in a straight line at 10mph over the speed limit will save lives......
Not only flashing behing you, I got 2 flashes which did truthfully momentarily blind me Sunday night, bringing the wife back from work. I was doing the speed limit in the trusty 1.2 Clio, main beam on, very dark, heading towards the tax camera, and then I had 2 blinding flashes from the thing, as I couldnt see, I had to break and couldnt see the road ahead for a second or so! Safety cameras! are you kidding!!!
xxplod said:
This'll make you all chuckle. I was approached at work today by someone passing on a request from our SCP asking for further training for their "Intelligence Officer." I did check to make sure he meant to use the word "intelligence" in the same sentence as SCP! I was told it was so that they could keep beeter records of those who they may think aren't fillling in their NIPs truthfully and may be Perverting the Course of Justice.
I pointed out that had these offenders been stopped by Officers, this would never be an issue, and that perhaps the SCPs had created their own problem. Not that I'm advocating telling lies of course, I was playing devils advocate somewhat. I gave an assurance I would put the request on my list.
That's my list of things I am not going to do.
I think they've wisened up to the fact that people sell their points on. Either that or Pepipoo's PACE defence is getting up their noses Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff