I got a reply! Arrive Alive - Check this out
Discussion
** What I Sent a while ago **
Dear Beth,
I am sorry to have to contact you as an outraged member of the public.
With interest I took a brief look at your safety camera partnership website.
As a long distance driver of some mileage now and seeing the poor quality
of driving on the roads on a daily basis I am always on the lookout for
things that would cut accident rates and cause result in safer driving
habits.
Of course I am horrified to see that your site also has this misguided
obsession with speed. Obviously having the chief constable richard
b*runstrom(I am not going to dignify the title with capital letters or
correct spelling) that you do who clearly has some serious psychological
issues regarding driving it is not suprising.
On a brief drive through North Wales I saw over 10 (s)camera vans. Also on
that brief drive I had someone drive right into the side of me at a
roundabout. Were they exceeding the speed limit? No. Were they not paying
attention? Yes. Would your (s)camera vans have caught them? NO.
I wouldnt be so upset about all this if I knew that for every speeding
driver caught, there would be a lane hogger prosecuted, and a roundabout
lane cutter fined, but no.
Even your OWN FIGURES on the website admit that only 1 in 3 collisions speed
was a "major" factor, however you seem to have done everything you can in
catching speeding drivers. So are you by action admitting that the other 2
in 3 circumstances are ok? Dangerous driving is fully acceptable and
speeding is not?
Great! In that case I will pick a really busy town center and drive at bang
on 29.5MPH through it. Therefore I am safe because I am not speeding? And
please dont insult my intelligence by saying that I would be caught. BY
WHAT??? A LASER VAN?? I dont see and traffic police around so I will drive
as recklessly as I want now knowing that I have the full support of the
safety (s)camera partnership.
Of COURSE speed is a contributry factor in accidents!!! If everyone stood
still there would be no momentum therefore nothing could collide!
I did a brief poll around my office, a few clients, parents, grandparents
etc. About 70 people among a cross section of "middle" and "upper" UK
citizens. WITHOUT EXCEPTION it has been agreed that the placement and use
of these (s)cameras are at best a hinderence and a money making scheme with
no regard to safety. And knowing that your force thinks that drugs should
be allowed, its good to know where I can go to waste my years away on drugs
once you have taken my and many thousands of other livelyhood away from the
horrendous crime of exceeding the speed limit by 10%+2.
You have LOST support of the general public. All you have left are the
radical suckers who probably dont drive anyway.
Please continue to bring in the laser vans and the fixed cameras, I will get
a car with cruise control and drive how I like knowing that, speed kills and
if I dont speed I cannot be hurt.
Another interesting point is that even though speeds across the country have
dropped, accidents have risen?! Makes a mockery of your whole effort doesnt
it....
Regards,
Gh0st.
ps. I have not been caught by these devices ever so I am not writing this
out of spite of malice, simply facts.
Dear Beth,
I am sorry to have to contact you as an outraged member of the public.
With interest I took a brief look at your safety camera partnership website.
As a long distance driver of some mileage now and seeing the poor quality
of driving on the roads on a daily basis I am always on the lookout for
things that would cut accident rates and cause result in safer driving
habits.
Of course I am horrified to see that your site also has this misguided
obsession with speed. Obviously having the chief constable richard
b*runstrom(I am not going to dignify the title with capital letters or
correct spelling) that you do who clearly has some serious psychological
issues regarding driving it is not suprising.
On a brief drive through North Wales I saw over 10 (s)camera vans. Also on
that brief drive I had someone drive right into the side of me at a
roundabout. Were they exceeding the speed limit? No. Were they not paying
attention? Yes. Would your (s)camera vans have caught them? NO.
I wouldnt be so upset about all this if I knew that for every speeding
driver caught, there would be a lane hogger prosecuted, and a roundabout
lane cutter fined, but no.
Even your OWN FIGURES on the website admit that only 1 in 3 collisions speed
was a "major" factor, however you seem to have done everything you can in
catching speeding drivers. So are you by action admitting that the other 2
in 3 circumstances are ok? Dangerous driving is fully acceptable and
speeding is not?
Great! In that case I will pick a really busy town center and drive at bang
on 29.5MPH through it. Therefore I am safe because I am not speeding? And
please dont insult my intelligence by saying that I would be caught. BY
WHAT??? A LASER VAN?? I dont see and traffic police around so I will drive
as recklessly as I want now knowing that I have the full support of the
safety (s)camera partnership.
Of COURSE speed is a contributry factor in accidents!!! If everyone stood
still there would be no momentum therefore nothing could collide!
I did a brief poll around my office, a few clients, parents, grandparents
etc. About 70 people among a cross section of "middle" and "upper" UK
citizens. WITHOUT EXCEPTION it has been agreed that the placement and use
of these (s)cameras are at best a hinderence and a money making scheme with
no regard to safety. And knowing that your force thinks that drugs should
be allowed, its good to know where I can go to waste my years away on drugs
once you have taken my and many thousands of other livelyhood away from the
horrendous crime of exceeding the speed limit by 10%+2.
You have LOST support of the general public. All you have left are the
radical suckers who probably dont drive anyway.
Please continue to bring in the laser vans and the fixed cameras, I will get
a car with cruise control and drive how I like knowing that, speed kills and
if I dont speed I cannot be hurt.
Another interesting point is that even though speeds across the country have
dropped, accidents have risen?! Makes a mockery of your whole effort doesnt
it....
Regards,
Gh0st.
ps. I have not been caught by these devices ever so I am not writing this
out of spite of malice, simply facts.
** what i have received **...
Thank you for your comments. I shall endeavour to respond to some of the
issues you raise.
There are 8 camera vans in total in North Wales, with an average of 4 out on
any one day. Not the 'proliferation' of cameras that some papers make out.
Contrary to popular misconception, we do not prosecute motorists at 10%+2.
This is the ACPO guideline.
We have never professed that we are the complete answer to road safety, but
we are a small part of the bigger road safety picture. We have 9 officers
working on the camera vans, paid for directly by speeding motorists. These
officers have now released operational traffic officers/ police patrol
vehicles to concentrate on other areas of road safety such as dangerous
driving, drink-drug driving, detecting vehicles that are not taxed, MOTed or
insured. None of the officers on the project are paid for by North Wales
Police, but are paid for by the speeding motorists, hence freeing up the
money to put more officers on the beat.
A recent independent survey in June showed that 87% of respondents agreed
that the use of safety cameras should be supported as a method of reducing
casualties and the number of requests for cameras we receive in this office
is phenomenal. Unfortunately we are tied by strict guidelines as to the
locating of our cameras and hence cannot be everywhere.
This is not a police initiative. I work for the health service and the
impact of reducing casualties on the roads is huge for the health service.
Did you know that every serious road traffic injury costs the health service
£150,000 (we had approximately 400 serious injuries last year) and that a
fatality on our roads costs well over £1million (we have on average 60-70
people killed on our roads every year)? All paid for by the North Wales
taxpayer.
And finally, you mention speed and casualty reduction. I can confirm that
the number of people exceeding the speed limit in North Wales has dropped by
42%. As yet, because the project is in its infancy, it's difficult to
release casualty reduction figures, the statisticians say a 5 year period is
the best for comparison. However, what I can say is that in North Wales
last year on roads NOT targeted by Arrive Alive we saw casualty figures drop
by 15% and on roads that were targeted by Arrive Alive we saw casualty
reduction figures drop by 35%. Encouraging figures for all of us who are
working to reduce death and injury and our roads.
Regards
Beth Siân Mitcheson
Rheolwr CC & Marchnata - Siwrne Saff
PR & Marketing Manager - Arrive Alive
***This document is not protectively marked***
Thank you for your comments. I shall endeavour to respond to some of the
issues you raise.
There are 8 camera vans in total in North Wales, with an average of 4 out on
any one day. Not the 'proliferation' of cameras that some papers make out.
Contrary to popular misconception, we do not prosecute motorists at 10%+2.
This is the ACPO guideline.
We have never professed that we are the complete answer to road safety, but
we are a small part of the bigger road safety picture. We have 9 officers
working on the camera vans, paid for directly by speeding motorists. These
officers have now released operational traffic officers/ police patrol
vehicles to concentrate on other areas of road safety such as dangerous
driving, drink-drug driving, detecting vehicles that are not taxed, MOTed or
insured. None of the officers on the project are paid for by North Wales
Police, but are paid for by the speeding motorists, hence freeing up the
money to put more officers on the beat.
A recent independent survey in June showed that 87% of respondents agreed
that the use of safety cameras should be supported as a method of reducing
casualties and the number of requests for cameras we receive in this office
is phenomenal. Unfortunately we are tied by strict guidelines as to the
locating of our cameras and hence cannot be everywhere.
This is not a police initiative. I work for the health service and the
impact of reducing casualties on the roads is huge for the health service.
Did you know that every serious road traffic injury costs the health service
£150,000 (we had approximately 400 serious injuries last year) and that a
fatality on our roads costs well over £1million (we have on average 60-70
people killed on our roads every year)? All paid for by the North Wales
taxpayer.
And finally, you mention speed and casualty reduction. I can confirm that
the number of people exceeding the speed limit in North Wales has dropped by
42%. As yet, because the project is in its infancy, it's difficult to
release casualty reduction figures, the statisticians say a 5 year period is
the best for comparison. However, what I can say is that in North Wales
last year on roads NOT targeted by Arrive Alive we saw casualty figures drop
by 15% and on roads that were targeted by Arrive Alive we saw casualty
reduction figures drop by 35%. Encouraging figures for all of us who are
working to reduce death and injury and our roads.
Regards
Beth Siân Mitcheson
Rheolwr CC & Marchnata - Siwrne Saff
PR & Marketing Manager - Arrive Alive
***This document is not protectively marked***
K RIGHT OFF! 
This is not a police initiative. I work for the health service and the
impact of reducing casualties on the roads is huge for the health service.
Did you know that every serious road traffic injury costs the health service
£150,000 (we had approximately 400 serious injuries last year) and that a
fatality on our roads costs well over £1million (we have on average 60-70
people killed on our roads every year)? All paid for by the North Wales
taxpayer.
Now they are starting to get into dangerous territory by quoting figures from NHS expediture on road traffic accidents.
If her figures are to be believe that means that the 60 serious injuries cost them somewhere in the region of £6 Million. Thats F@ck all when you compare it to the amount of money they have spend on treatments for Smokers, drug abuse, alcohol abuse even DIY injuries and what about sport related injuries.
But I don't see the Government wanting to ban cigarettes or alcohol or pastimes/ DIY!! What about the influx of people coming here for free health treatment!! So what shes saying in effect is we're paying for speeding not just in our fines but also in the duty on fuel which goes to the Health service and also in our NI which went up this year to pay for all these extra accidents that are occuring!! So does that mean if we all stopped speeding and having crashes that not only would speed cameras dissappear but NI would go down and fuel duty decrease?? Would it FCUK!!
Its nothing more than Labour sponsered pilaging of the motoring community to prop up and bale out a beleagured, thieving, disorganised, corrupt, lying, inept, results driven bunch of halfwitted government nobbers.
impact of reducing casualties on the roads is huge for the health service.
Did you know that every serious road traffic injury costs the health service
£150,000 (we had approximately 400 serious injuries last year) and that a
fatality on our roads costs well over £1million (we have on average 60-70
people killed on our roads every year)? All paid for by the North Wales
taxpayer.
Now they are starting to get into dangerous territory by quoting figures from NHS expediture on road traffic accidents.
If her figures are to be believe that means that the 60 serious injuries cost them somewhere in the region of £6 Million. Thats F@ck all when you compare it to the amount of money they have spend on treatments for Smokers, drug abuse, alcohol abuse even DIY injuries and what about sport related injuries.
But I don't see the Government wanting to ban cigarettes or alcohol or pastimes/ DIY!! What about the influx of people coming here for free health treatment!! So what shes saying in effect is we're paying for speeding not just in our fines but also in the duty on fuel which goes to the Health service and also in our NI which went up this year to pay for all these extra accidents that are occuring!! So does that mean if we all stopped speeding and having crashes that not only would speed cameras dissappear but NI would go down and fuel duty decrease?? Would it FCUK!!
Its nothing more than Labour sponsered pilaging of the motoring community to prop up and bale out a beleagured, thieving, disorganised, corrupt, lying, inept, results driven bunch of halfwitted government nobbers.
tvrslag said:
Its nothing more than Labour sponsered pilaging of the motoring community to prop up and bale out a beleagured, thieving, disorganised, corrupt, lying, inept, results driven bunch of halfwitted government nobbers.
I take it that you won't be voting Labour in the next election then?
Patience my incandescent friend. Simply spread the anti scamera petition "word" to the masses. Educate the uneducated ones in the ways of anti scameraism(new word? ) give them the real facts, point them in the direction of the truth, and then youll see these unaccountable scum just fade away. I personally cannot wait to start canvassing the local area.
Perhaps Ted could run a competition for the most signatures collected? say a tvr chimaera for first prize? ( ) and an excellent Pistonheads fleece for runners up! ? lol
Perhaps Ted could run a competition for the most signatures collected? say a tvr chimaera for first prize? (
) and an excellent Pistonheads fleece for runners up! ? lol 
tvrslag Sorry guys got a bit caried away
:takes deep breath........... and breathes out:
And relax...
I WILL be signing the petition at the earliest opportunity, and have even gone as far as joining the poeples alliance party, unfortunately they won't be canvassing at the next election.
But seriously that kind of rubbish just makes me mad. Typical new labour spin that appears to manifest itself throughout all management levels in Government
:takes deep breath........... and breathes out:
And relax...
I WILL be signing the petition at the earliest opportunity, and have even gone as far as joining the poeples alliance party, unfortunately they won't be canvassing at the next election.
But seriously that kind of rubbish just makes me mad. Typical new labour spin that appears to manifest itself throughout all management levels in Government
er...not being funny here but...
Ghost - you raised a load of good points and I think she's actually responded in a pretty decent manner all things considered. I dont doubt you counted more than 8 cameras, but I doubt they were all for this partnership. Lying in print is something these organisations are trained out of from the word go because its too media dangerous. If she says they have 8, they can no doubt prove that.
As usual, this thread has started down the 'it isn't fair because it isn't equal to xyz' (in this instance smoking/drinking). Thats very true, but also entirely irrelevant, as counter arguments are just too easy: "the government wont stop people geting killed by smoking so they should also remove the driving test entirely cos otherwise it aint fair" - this sort of thing doesnt make sense. So no-one should try and do anything as someone, somewhere will be able to find a comparitor where it ISNT done?
The point of this (if there is one) is the we should debate what she has said specifically, and not start turning it into a 'bloody government' tint - as that dont half get boring fast.....
Night
Ghost - you raised a load of good points and I think she's actually responded in a pretty decent manner all things considered. I dont doubt you counted more than 8 cameras, but I doubt they were all for this partnership. Lying in print is something these organisations are trained out of from the word go because its too media dangerous. If she says they have 8, they can no doubt prove that.
As usual, this thread has started down the 'it isn't fair because it isn't equal to xyz' (in this instance smoking/drinking). Thats very true, but also entirely irrelevant, as counter arguments are just too easy: "the government wont stop people geting killed by smoking so they should also remove the driving test entirely cos otherwise it aint fair" - this sort of thing doesnt make sense. So no-one should try and do anything as someone, somewhere will be able to find a comparitor where it ISNT done?
The point of this (if there is one) is the we should debate what she has said specifically, and not start turning it into a 'bloody government' tint - as that dont half get boring fast.....
Night
How do these people arrive at the costs per accident/death etc as £150k and £1million.
Is it that resources are only employed/bought if and when an accident occurs?
Surely what they mean is that £1million pounds of resources is used as a result of a road fatality. £1million that would be spent on those resources anyway, simply to maintain them in employment etc.
Take firemen and engines. If in a given week there are no callouts, the men and machines still cost £x. If there is just one call-out then you could say the cost of that callout is £x. Either way you spend £x.
Its all a big PR con to quote the cost of accidents and then use this as a reason for the policies they come up with.
Is it that resources are only employed/bought if and when an accident occurs?
Surely what they mean is that £1million pounds of resources is used as a result of a road fatality. £1million that would be spent on those resources anyway, simply to maintain them in employment etc.
Take firemen and engines. If in a given week there are no callouts, the men and machines still cost £x. If there is just one call-out then you could say the cost of that callout is £x. Either way you spend £x.
Its all a big PR con to quote the cost of accidents and then use this as a reason for the policies they come up with.
Well I can see that the average cost to the NHS of a serious injury might be £150,000, but how can a death cost the NHS £1million?
If I am killed in a RTA then the cost to the NHS is to transport me to the morgue! In any event the cost of an ambulance is reclaimed from the insurance company anyway.
Didn't I also read that the government were proposing all NHS costs should be reclaimed via insurance? In which case there will be no cost to the NHS from accidents. In fact I suspect one could argue that RTAs would beenfit the NHS as I bet the charge to the insurance company will include the admin and construction of the Hospital.
If I am killed in a RTA then the cost to the NHS is to transport me to the morgue! In any event the cost of an ambulance is reclaimed from the insurance company anyway.
Didn't I also read that the government were proposing all NHS costs should be reclaimed via insurance? In which case there will be no cost to the NHS from accidents. In fact I suspect one could argue that RTAs would beenfit the NHS as I bet the charge to the insurance company will include the admin and construction of the Hospital.
Gh0st said:
** what i have received **...
A recent independent survey in June showed that 87% of respondents agreed
that the use of safety cameras should be supported as a method of reducing
casualties
Gh0st, ask for details of this survey. I'd love to see the actual questions asked. I don't doubt that they received 87% for something, but how was it worded. They'd easily get 87% for something like:
"Do you think that safety cameras placed in known accident blackspots, where previous death or serious injuries have occurred in the last 6 months, have the potential to reduce further accidents of this nature"
Who wouldn't say yes to that question, for example, but that does not mean the respondents are in favour of the safety Scamera partnerships and all they stand for.
Nightmare said:
er...not being funny here but...
Ghost - you raised a load of good points and I think she's actually responded in a pretty decent manner all things considered. I dont doubt you counted more than 8 cameras, but I doubt they were all for this partnership. Lying in print is something these organisations are trained out of from the word go because its too media dangerous. If she says they have 8, they can no doubt prove that.
As usual, this thread has started down the 'it isn't fair because it isn't equal to xyz' (in this instance smoking/drinking). Thats very true, but also entirely irrelevant, as counter arguments are just too easy: "the government wont stop people geting killed by smoking so they should also remove the driving test entirely cos otherwise it aint fair" - this sort of thing doesnt make sense. So no-one should try and do anything as someone, somewhere will be able to find a comparitor where it ISNT done?
The point of this (if there is one) is the we should debate what she has said specifically, and not start turning it into a 'bloody government' tint - as that dont half get boring fast.....
Night
Nightmare.
I didn't say the driving the test should be abolished. My point was concerning her comment (which you pointed outyourself needs to be debated) about the cost of accidents.
And I said this is a new and dangerous twist to their trying to achieve their targets or reducing acidents on the roads. The comparison is that there are other things that people can do that also have massive inherant risks, but you don't see Government backed agencies telling you not to cut your timber with a circular saw as all circular saw injuries cost the NHS £50,000 per patient last year!!
JHere is a direct comparison.
Underage smoking is illegal but you don't see cameras taking photos of every baby faced youth buying ciggies, but how much will these actions cost the NHS in the young persons lifetime? And who knows what consequences these choices by young people to smoke are going to have in both fiscal and health terms in the future, on their friends and families? I'm sorry but the comparisons are there.
gixxer1000 said:
** what i have received **...
A recent independent survey in June showed that 87% of respondents agreed
that the use of safety cameras should be supported as a method of reducing
casualties
Gh0st, ask for details of this survey. I'd love to see the actual questions asked. I don't doubt that they received 87% for something, but how was it worded. They'd easily get 87% for something like:
"Do you think that safety cameras placed in known accident blackspots, where previous death or serious injuries have occurred in the last 6 months, have the potential to reduce further accidents of this nature"
Who wouldn't say yes to that question, for example, but that does not mean the respondents are in favour of the safety Scamera partnerships and all they stand for.
Your wish is my command - posted today
****
Beth,
Thankyou for replying and being so clear about the answers. Its actually very refreshing to hear from a member of the partnerships who doesnt just shove "speed kills" down your throat which is as we all know a very generic and not accurate statement.
Just one area concerns me that seems to contridict a very large point in your e-mail that I cant seem to understand.
You said:***
A recent independent survey in June showed that 87% of respondents agreed
>that the use of safety cameras should be supported as a method of reducing
>casualties and the number of requests for cameras we receive in this office
>is phenomenal.
****
This is VERY surprising since there have been a LOT of independant survays and most of them hang in the 70% AGAINST speed cameras not FOR them!!!! BBC website also did a poll recently that hung very in the negative.
Please would you mind explaining the exact wording used in the survay and the target group? Im sure I could make a survay come up positive for just about anything with the right wording and/or target group. If you ask any average motorist in the street you will 90% of the time find that they will almost vote for anyone who will get RID of the cameras!
I await your reply,
Regards,
Gh0st
Beth Siân Mitcheson is an accomplished professional liar. Its her well paid job to be.
There were 17 camerea vans in North Wales over 20 months ago. You can see 6 or 8 vans any day outside Wrexham station alone. And NWP have many other stations.
Of course the figures are plucked out of thin ari with the connivance of the other local govt, central govt bodies and Quangos.
Why do prefessional armies attempt to maim and not kill their enenies - to increase the burden and hence cost of care. So thats why a death costs £1 miullion and an injury is good value at £ 150,000
My ass.
These people are now believing their own propaganda vey soon
There were 17 camerea vans in North Wales over 20 months ago. You can see 6 or 8 vans any day outside Wrexham station alone. And NWP have many other stations.
Of course the figures are plucked out of thin ari with the connivance of the other local govt, central govt bodies and Quangos.
Why do prefessional armies attempt to maim and not kill their enenies - to increase the burden and hence cost of care. So thats why a death costs £1 miullion and an injury is good value at £ 150,000
My ass.
These people are now believing their own propaganda vey soon
Richard C said:
Beth Siân Mitcheson is an accomplished professional liar. Its her well paid job to be.
There were 17 camerea vans in North Wales over 20 months ago. You can see 6 or 8 vans any day outside Wrexham station alone. And NWP have many other stations.
Of course the figures are plucked out of thin ari with the connivance of the other local govt, central govt bodies and Quangos.
Why do prefessional armies attempt to maim and not kill their enenies - to increase the burden and hence cost of care. So thats why a death costs £1 miullion and an injury is good value at £ 150,000
My ass.
These people are now believing their own propaganda vey soon
Richard C Is quite correct in respect of Mizz Beth "pinnochio" mitcheson. She certainly does tell some whoppers!
The NHS already claims the cost back of treatments for accident victims from Insurance companies. This includes the cost of ambulance etc. I think there is an upper limit but the majority can be recouped. These partnerships like arrive alive have elevated many people to top payed civil service jobs with bullet proof packages, when they wouldn't normally acheive much otherwise, and they are indeed expert at telling the message today as it is. So in 5 years time when casualty rates do not decline the statisticians will have said 5 to ten years buying more time. I wish I worked for a company which has such fixed costs and an endless supply of income. If costs go up set a new lower speed limit, set up shifts in the vans round the clock and hey presto more money. And if any goverment tries to disband them these proffesionals will trot out some grieving mother with a picture of a baby killed by speed ( wether true or not ) and any polotician who dares to say these quango operated monopolies are bad will look a twat.
gixxer1000 said:
Gh0st, ask for details of this survey. I'd love to see the actual questions asked. I don't doubt that they received 87% for something, but how was it worded. They'd easily get 87% for something like:
"Do you think that safety cameras placed in known accident blackspots, where previous death or serious injuries have occurred in the last 6 months, have the potential to reduce further accidents of this nature"
Who wouldn't say yes to that question, for example, but that does not mean the respondents are in favour of the safety Scamera partnerships and all they stand for.
The thoroughly bent surveying technique used by the scammers to claim that the public are "fully behind them" is exposed on this web page.
The seven loaded questions they ask are actually set by the DfT. They must really take us for idiots.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff