Its your duty as a citizen...

[neil.b]

I noticed on Derbyshire Safety Camera Partnership web site that a rather embarassing typo seems to have found its way onto one of the key pages;

www.slowitdown.co.uk/about.asp

In the Speed Kills box they missed the "7th" from in between "excessive speed is the" and "biggest cause in all road collisions".

Will be emailing them to bring them to point out the error, I'd suggest other people consult their local camera scheme web sites and check too. They're obviously run off their feet and need a helping hand with the proof reading

Perhaps also you might want to suggest that while publicising the 7th highest cause of accidents, they might like to let everyone know what the 6 higher ones are.

[lunarscope]

[D-Angle]

www.slowitdown.co.uk/faq.asp

Fact or Fiction my hairy Irish ae!

[streaky]

Sent to Hants & IoW SCP:

"
Dear Sirs,

On your website www.safetycamera.org.uk/, you claim that, "The Partnership aims to...... reduce the number of accidents and people killed or injured on the roads because...... the biggest contributory factor in road collisions is excessive or inappropriate speed" (my emphasis).

You will note that the recent Road Safety Research Report No. 43, dated February 2004 published by the Department for Transport, lists "Excessive speed" (defined as speed in excess of the limit, or inappropriately high for the prevailing conditions) as a contributory factor in only 12.5% of accidents. Indeed, by the DfT's own statistics, based upon returns from 18 police forces (including Hampshire) speed - whether in excess of the speed limit or simply too high for conditions - is only the seventh most frequent contributory factor in accidents. The biggest is "inattention", recorded as the contributory factor in over a quarter of accidents - this is twice the percentage accorded to "speeding".

I trust that, in the interests of accuracy and completeness, you will amend the incorrect information portrayed on your website, and better and correctly inform the motoring and other public as to THE biggest factor in road accidents.

Yours faithfully,
"

[mybrainhurts]

And, if they don't, keep hounding them and write to the local paper..........

[hornet]

Would it be ok if I used that letter as a template for the letter I'm going to send to Herts SCP?

I want to ask them why the recent plethora of cameras in and around Watford don't appear on their website and, given that all cameras in Herts must meet "strict criteria", would they be so kind as to furnish me with the data? Might ask for the 2003 KSI figures while I'm at it.

Might send a copy to the local Conservative MP as well.

[streaky]

Here is the reply I received:

"
Dear [Streaky]

Thank you for your email.
You refer to an extract from the DfT report which has been used by the Safer Speed pressure group under the heading of Speed 'not the main cause of accidents'. This is a perfect example of the selection and distortion that often appears in the media or on the web sites of pressure groups. No qualified accident analyst will rely solely on Stats 19 raw data to determine the causation of collisions. When full examinations of collisions are undertaken the results are unequivocal. They show that the largest single contributory factor for collisions is speed. This research data is confirmed by anecdotal evidence from traffic police. We also know from independent British research that safety cameras reduce casualties by up to 35% (56% for pedestrians) and it seems to be commonsense that if speed is not a significant factor in collisions then this reduction would not occur. All this research has been replicated across the world which is why there are so many countries using speed cameras as part of their strategy to reduce casualties on the roads.

We know from research and police experience that speeding or driving too fast affects the outcome of any crash. The faster your speed the more likely you are to have a collision and the worse your injuries will be. Driving within legal speed limits means you are driving within the law and also contributing to reducing your chances of having a crash. In a recent study in Scotland it was found that drivers who regularly break the speed limit and who get speeding tickets are twice as likely to be involved in a crash. (Prof: Steve Stradling, Napier University).

Thank you for your interest

Julian Hewitt
"

I did not refer explicitly to the "extract from the DfT report which has been used by the Safer (sic) Speed pressure group" - you'd think they could get Paul's organisation's name correct, they must see it often enough.

Mr Hewitt refers to, "a perfect example of the selection and distortion that often appears in the media or on the web sites of pressure groups" - of course, this excludes the distortions preented by the SCPs as "fact".

So, "anecdotal evidence" is used to support their (lost) cause. Anyone here think that contrary anecdotal "evidence" would be included?

"We also know from independent British research" - obviously, the DfT is not "independent" and therefore their stistics don't count ... unloess the (occasionally) support the SCP's case.

Hewitt also says, "safety cameras reduce casualties by up to 35% (56% for pedestrians)" - I hadn't realised that the scamera were flashing pedestrians too.

Did I expect anything else? Of course not!

Streaky

PS - I put my letter into the public domain for anyone to use as a template. Let's see what replies the buzz-phrase generators of other SCPs produce - Streaky

[cuneus]

For a reply ?:

Speed Camera Anger:
I served as a police officer for 30 years and from 1997-2000 supervised all road death investigations in Shropshire - more than 100 of them.

I agree with the general tone of the views expressed in your article (There's gold in them there speed cameras, last week). In my experience the main causes of deaths and serious injury on the road do not include slight infringements of the speed limit. The causes I would most readily identify are: the careless right turn, aggressive high-speed driving, the born-again biker, poor vehicle maintenance, drink-driving and the very elderly driver.

I have to admit that I have recently had the misfortune to incur points on my licence for the first time in 40 years' driving as the result of a speed camera. I would not object if I believed the cameras made a substantial contribution to road safety. However, having first-hand knowledge of where the serious collisions are likely to occur, I know that many of the selected camera sites are anything but black spots.

I conclude that revenue, rather than safety, is the prime motivation.

John Trott
Shropshire

[pi55edoffnow]

any one played the stupid game try to get to work on time?.Impossible in a street with no warning signs and looking at it in 2d this is the sort of crap I would expect from a load of *****.I noticed the van has moved from the motorway side of pleaseley to the mansfield side NOT MAKING ENOUGH MONEY BOYS?.SPEED CAMERAS ARE A SCAM NOTHING MORE NOR LESS A SCAM.

[Tafia]

streaky said:

Here is the reply I received: " Dear [Streaky] Thank you for your email. You refer to an extract from the DfT report which has been used by the Safer Speed pressure group under the heading of Speed 'not the main cause of accidents'. This is a perfect example of the selection and distortion that often appears in the media or on the web sites of pressure groups. No qualified accident analyst will rely solely on Stats 19 raw data to determine the causation of collisions. When full examinations of collisions are undertaken the results are unequivocal. They show that the largest single contributory factor for collisions is speed. This research data is confirmed by anecdotal evidence from traffic police. We also know from independent British research that safety cameras reduce casualties by up to 35% (56% for pedestrians) and it seems to be commonsense that if speed is not a significant factor in collisions then this reduction would not occur. All this research has been replicated across the world which is why there are so many countries using speed cameras as part of their strategy to reduce casualties on the roads. We know from research and police experience that speeding or driving too fast affects the outcome of any crash. The faster your speed the more likely you are to have a collision and the worse your injuries will be. Driving within legal speed limits means you are driving within the law and also contributing to reducing your chances of having a crash. In a recent study in Scotland it was found that drivers who regularly break the speed limit and who get speeding tickets are twice as likely to be involved in a crash. (Prof: Steve Stradling, Napier University). Thank you for your interest Julian Hewitt " I did not refer explicitly to the "extract from the DfT report which has been used by the Safer (sic) Speed pressure group" - you'd think they could get Paul's organisation's name correct, they must see it often enough. Mr Hewitt refers to, "a perfect example of the selection and distortion that often appears in the media or on the web sites of pressure groups" - of course, this excludes the distortions preented by the SCPs as "fact". So, "anecdotal evidence" is used to support their (lost) cause. Anyone here think that contrary anecdotal "evidence" would be included? "We also know from independent British research" - obviously, the DfT is not "independent" and therefore their stistics don't count ... unloess the (occasionally) support the SCP's case. Hewitt also says, "safety cameras reduce casualties by up to 35% (56% for pedestrians)" - I hadn't realised that the scamera were flashing pedestrians too. Did I expect anything else? Of course not! Streaky PS - I put my letter into the public domain for anyone to use as a template. Let's see what replies the buzz-phrase generators of other SCPs produce - Streaky

Quote: No qualified accident analyst will rely solely on Stats 19 raw data to determine the causation of collisions. ends.

So how do they explain that when Transport Research Laboratory experts carried out a similar exercise into the various causes of nearly 3000 accidents, they came up with a figure of 7.3% for excessive speed as a factor, not neccessarily the prime cause, using their method of recording causation which, I understand was not Stats 19?

>> Edited by Tafia on Tuesday 6th April 14:33

[Tafia]

streaky said:

Here is the reply I received: " Dear [Streaky] Thank you for your email. You refer to an extract from the DfT report which has been used by the Safer Speed pressure group under the heading of Speed 'not the main cause of accidents'. This is a perfect example of the selection and distortion that often appears in the media or on the web sites of pressure groups. No qualified accident analyst will rely solely on Stats 19 raw data to determine the causation of collisions. When full examinations of collisions are undertaken the results are unequivocal. They show that the largest single contributory factor for collisions is speed. This research data is confirmed by anecdotal evidence from traffic police. We also know from independent British research that safety cameras reduce casualties by up to 35% (56% for pedestrians) and it seems to be commonsense that if speed is not a significant factor in collisions then this reduction would not occur. All this research has been replicated across the world which is why there are so many countries using speed cameras as part of their strategy to reduce casualties on the roads. We know from research and police experience that speeding or driving too fast affects the outcome of any crash. The faster your speed the more likely you are to have a collision and the worse your injuries will be. Driving within legal speed limits means you are driving within the law and also contributing to reducing your chances of having a crash. In a recent study in Scotland it was found that drivers who regularly break the speed limit and who get speeding tickets are twice as likely to be involved in a crash. (Prof: Steve Stradling, Napier University). Thank you for your interest Julian Hewitt " I did not refer explicitly to the "extract from the DfT report which has been used by the Safer (sic) Speed pressure group" - you'd think they could get Paul's organisation's name correct, they must see it often enough. Mr Hewitt refers to, "a perfect example of the selection and distortion that often appears in the media or on the web sites of pressure groups" - of course, this excludes the distortions preented by the SCPs as "fact". So, "anecdotal evidence" is used to support their (lost) cause. Anyone here think that contrary anecdotal "evidence" would be included? "We also know from independent British research" - obviously, the DfT is not "independent" and therefore their stistics don't count ... unloess the (occasionally) support the SCP's case. Hewitt also says, "safety cameras reduce casualties by up to 35% (56% for pedestrians)" - I hadn't realised that the scamera were flashing pedestrians too. Did I expect anything else? Of course not! Streaky PS - I put my letter into the public domain for anyone to use as a template. Let's see what replies the buzz-phrase generators of other SCPs produce - Streaky

Another obvious point. If their cameras are reducing fatalities, why are fatalities increasing? Doh!

[hornet]

So, anti camera groups can quote DfT evidence drawn from police data, as well as voice concerns at rising fatality rate yet be accused of "distorting the facts", whilst SCPs can take the extremely dubious interpretations of TRL323, survey results from obviously impartial organisations such as BRAKE and T2000 (who aren't pressure groups, no sir...), chuck in some anecdotal evidence, pretend it's gospel and base their whole safety policy around it whilst ignoring any figures that don't fit their requirements? Even worse, they then patronise and/or smear anyone who dare question their statistics or voice concerns as to their motive.

Simple question for Mr Hewitt and his ilk - if the cameras are so bloody wonderful, why are deaths going up? Why have counties with rabid pro camera police chiefs and equally zealous SCPs seen 20-30% increases in fatalities, whilst those rare counties that have shunned the scam policy are enjoying accident and fatality rates well below the national average? More worrying still, why did the police chief of said county get attacked by a politician for not using cameras?

[neil.b]

Still awaiting a reply. Will post it when/if I get one.