City's speed cameras to be moved !!

Both speed cameras on Coventry's ring road are to be taken down.

The cameras, at Ringway Swanswell and Ringway St Nicholas, were installed 10 years ago on the city centre road, which has a 40mph speed limit.

West Midlands Casualty Reduction Partnership says they are not visible and should be in a better location.

The ring road is one of several sites in the West Midlands which fail to meet guidelines that state cameras must be visible from at least 60m away.

The partnership which is made up of police, council officers and road safety experts, says speed cameras need to be visible from a distance to remind motorists to slow down.

The group will take the cameras down in two weeks, although alternative sites have not yet been decided.

The partnership wants to move the cameras to other areas in Coventry where there have been speed-related accidents.

The ring road will be monitored once the cameras have been moved to see if there is a change in drivers' speeds and the number of accidents.

Here:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/coventry_warwickshire/3707678.stm>;

So:
>West Midlands Casualty Reduction Partnership says they are not visible and should be in a better location.

The truth is more likely to be, they are not raising enough revenue !!

As:
>The ring road is one of several sites in the West Midlands which fail to meet guidelines that state cameras must be visible from at least 60m away.

Are cameras at the 'Several other sites' which fail to meet guidelines also to be removed?

>The partnership wants to move the cameras to other areas in Coventry where there have been speed-related accidents.

Or, to be more precise, where they will raise more money!

Finally:
>The ring road will be monitored once the cameras have been moved to see if there is a change in drivers' speeds and the number of accidents.

The only change will be, the cash flow will cease! as cameras have little or nothing to do with road safety, they are there, simply to make money, especially when they are concealed.

What's the betting that there will be no further reports on Coventry's ring road from the 'partnership' re: the cameras removal? Even if there is a fatal accident, which the cameras could not have prevented anyway !!

Seems there's a problem with the link.

I'll try again:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/coventry_warwickshire/3707678.stm

U-turn on ring road speed cameras.

Speed cameras on Coventry's ring road are being taken down in an astonishing U-turn by road safety chiefs.

At a time when drivers face being caught on film more than ever before, the ring road is to become a camera-free zone.

Safety experts say the cameras are hidden from drivers and would be better off elsewhere in the city.

The cameras, which have been on the city's ring road for 10 years, will be taken down on October 14 and 15.

They are the first of 10 cameras in the West Midlands to be uprooted because they are in places they are not needed.

Andrew Pearce, of the council-backed West Midlands Casualty Reduction Partnership, which is responsible for the cameras, said: "The idea of cameras is that you see them and you slow down.

"They are there to save lives not to take pictures.

"These cameras can't be seen in advance of the site, so they can't do their job in a fair and open way."

The cameras will be moved to areas in Coventry where there are speed-related accidents.

The ring road will be monitored once the cameras are taken away to see if speeds and accident rates change.

Mr Pearce added: "We will continue to install new cameras where speed is costing lives, and these units will be used somewhere else in Coventry."

See:
http://iccoventry.icnetwork.co.uk/0100news/0100localnews/tm_objectid=14707025%26method=full%26siteid=50003%26headline=u%2dturn%2don%2dring%2droad%2dspeed%2dcameras-name_page.html


>"They are the first of 10 cameras in the West Midlands to be uprooted because they are in places they are not needed.

Well bloomin 'eck!
(They must have read my earlier comments!)


Andrew Pearce, said:
>"The idea of cameras is that you see them and you slow down.

Why then, are there numerous deliberately concealed cameras still operating?

>"They are there to save lives not to take pictures.

Er..did he forget to mention the revenue bit deliberately?

>"These cameras can't be seen in advance of the site, so they can't do their job in a fair and open way."

>>A fair and open way!?!?
Try telling Nott's. Partnership (among others) THAT one!

Road Death Toll Highest For Years

Oct 1 2004 The number of people killed on roads in the West Midland rose by five per cent last year. Official Department for Transport statistics showed 321 people were killed in the West Midlands - a study area including the West Midlands conurbation, Herefordshire, Shrop-shire, Staffordshire, Warwickshire and Worcestershire - compared to 306 in 2002. A total of 3,508 people were killed on Britain's roads last year, the highest rate since 1997. The Government has confirmed it is to investigate the rise in fatalities nationally - two per cent - and is particularly concerned about the 14 per cent increase in motorcycle deaths last year, compared with 2002. The figures have also prompted road safety watchdogs to call for an increase in traffic police and less reliance on speed cameras. The total number of fatalities across the country included 693 in twowheeled motor vehicle accidents. However, the number of children who died in road accidents fell by four per cent. Road Safety Minister David Jamieson said: "We are encouraged by the continued fall in road casualties despite the continuing growth in road traffic levels. "We are concerned about the slight rise in road deaths and are actively researching the causes of this, especially the reasons for the significant rise in motorcycle deaths. We will be publishing a motorcycling safety strategy shortly."............

http://icbirmingham.icnetwork.co.uk/post/news/tm_objectid=14705951%26method=full%26siteid=50002%26headline=road%2ddeath%2dtoll%2dhighest%2dfor%2dyears-name_page.html

 

Slight rise?

Slight?

They used to fall before cameras came in!

 

And everyone knows what "casualties" means according to the government, don't they?

Oh, you don't, actually?

Well, there's a surprise!

 

You bunch of sad, boring tossers!

At least we don't suffer from Knob Rot you silly old moo.

If you've nothing to contribute the least you could do is not publicise the fact.

 

Feel free to continue giving us a piece of your mind, even though you obviously don't know when to stop.

You'll notice that on this forum everyone is allowed to speak their mind, even if they haven't got any left due to an excess of generosity in giving everyone a piece of it.

Thank you Boggy - Mr Anonymous!

Still the same old boring claptrap from a saddo tosspot!

> Slight rise?
>
> Slight?
>
> They used to fall before cameras came in!

So do tell us, Mr B, is the increase in deaths an increase across all road users, or does it affect only one group? Motorcyclists, say.

Has there been an increase in deaths on roads where speed cameras might actually be sited, or is it an increase on roads where speed cameras are unlikely to be sited? Motorways, say.

Perhaps deaths have actually decreased on roads where speed cameras are sited, while deaths elsewhere have gone up. That would tend to suggest that there should be more speed cameras, surely?

Listen up you lily-arsed pasty-rear:

The scammers boast that accidents at accident hot spots fall by a quarter, a third, a half.

If they don't rise.

 

But accidents should fall by a half, two thirds, three quarters by themselves after a blip in "statistics".

 

So the fall claimed is a rise in real terms.

 

And look at the actual numbers in "large" percentage rises they try to blame the overall rise in fatalites on.

 

And the actual numbers in the "large" falls in fatalities they boast about.

 

Sorry, old bean:

Time for you to go back to spin central for a de-brief!

 

Why did it take ten years to remove this camera if it was ineffective in raising reven...sorry! cutting road deaths?

The overall rise in road deaths is not down solely to motorbikes but you have to ask what trend is causing the increase in road deaths and injuries on bikes if cameras are cutting motorist deaths and injuries as highlighted by the pro-scammers?

If the mean road death trend had continued the way it was before cameras then we would not be at the figure we have today.

If you see the first graph from this page it shows the continuation of the previous trend of road deaths plus the rise in camera convictions and actual road deaths.

http://www.safespeed.org.uk/effects.html

It only goes to 2002 but it is obvious that now we would have around or just under 2000 road deaths a year with respect to the previous trend but it is actually back to early 1990 levels.

Andrew

Oh dear Mr B, you seem to be avoiding the issue that you actually raised above. Namely, deaths (not accidents).

So, I'll ask again.

Is the increase in deaths an increase across all road users, or does it affect only one group? Motorcyclists, say.

Has there been an increase in deaths on roads where speed cameras might actually be sited, or is it an increase on roads where speed cameras are unlikely to be sited? Motorways, say.

Have deaths actually decreased on roads where speed cameras are sited, while deaths elsewhere have gone up?

Do you think you can manage to answer the questions this time?

You're an idiot Pasty-Face (when are you going to settle on the one name then, afraid that people might spot too easily that there is only one person who visits here with your warped view of reality?).

 

a) You should know the answers already if you want to debate them.

b) I've answered your questions already.

 

As you are an idiot, I'll help you out anyway.

 

Oh dear Mr B, you seem to be avoiding the issue that you actually raised above. Namely, deaths (not accidents).

Errrrrrrrrmmmmmmmm

Which bit of killed ... killed ... killed ..... fatalities ...... killed don't you understand?

The formerly falling fatality figures have reversed.

The government keeps on about falling "accidents" which is a meaningless "statistic", compunded with a useless definition.

So, I'll ask again.

Is the increase in deaths an increase across all road users, or does it affect only one group? Motorcyclists, say.

There are around four times as many car occupant fatalities as motorcycle rider fatalities.

Skimming through the press releases:

In the previous year the former fell by around 2 and the latter rose by around 23.

Last year the former rose by around 20 and the latter rose by about 84.

I am giving approximate figures because the PR gives a mixture of percentages and numbers (and gives prominence to the good news) to give the desired spin, and I can't be arsed to dig out the raw data if you can't.

The point is that fatalities used to fall by around 200 a year before the introduction of the Speed Kills policies and Scameras.

Has there been an increase in deaths on roads where speed cameras might actually be sited,

Which bit of substituting:

But fatalities should fall by a half, two thirds, three quarters by themselves after a blip in "statistics".

So the fall claimed is a rise in real terms.

 

for:

But accidents should fall by a half, two thirds, three quarters by themselves after a blip in "statistics".

So the fall claimed is a rise in real terms.

Do you struggle with?

 

or is it an increase on roads where speed cameras are unlikely to be sited? Motorways, say.

In case you hadn't heard:

Motorways are out safest roads.

And they are also the roads where the greatest proportion of drivers (over 85%) exceed the artificial, inappropriate and arbitrarily lowered speed limits.

Obviously you hadn't as you would have worked out for yourself that speed doesn't kill, only inappropriate speed.

And that that has absolutely nothing to do with speed limits or their observance.

 

Have deaths actually decreased on roads where speed cameras are sited, while deaths elsewhere have gone up?

Again, which bit of:

But fatalities should fall by a half, two thirds, three quarters by themselves after a blip in "statistics".

So the fall claimed is a rise in real terms.

Are you struggling with?

Do you think you can manage to answer the questions this time?

I've managed it every time.

It's becoming clear to me that you either don't ever read replies.

Or you are a spin doctor.

Probably both.

 

or is it an increase on roads where speed cameras are unlikely to be sited? Motorways, say.

In case you hadn't heard:

Motorways are out safest roads.

And they are also the roads where the greatest proportion of drivers (over 85%) exceed the artificial, inappropriate and arbitrarily lowered speed limits.

 

Also, in case you haven't heard:

They are starting to introduce speed cameras on motorways and motorway standard roads.

At places where people have been able to make good progress in the past.

But, surprise surprise, there are now loads of accidents occuring.

 

Do try to keep up.

 

Try taking a serious daily paper.

 

Instead of a daily briefing from a scamera partnership.

 

Lalias Pisstiass......You need some Ipodium....

I live in Lancs. They have hundreds of speed cameras here - they used to send you on a course for daring to drive at 31mph in a 30 mph zone ... but were OK about 45 in a 40 mph zone.... But then they used to cut off the Speed Awareness Course at £85 per head (and cardboard sandwiches)

Now ... after a lot of letters of complaint in our local papers ... they now send out a sarcastic letter up to the 10% plus 2 guideline and offer the speed course for up to 2mph above this.

Time will tell whether the revised policy will improve their results. But I can certainly tell you that for the years 2000 to 2003 inclusive - Lancashire's death and injury rate increased by a whopping year on year increase of 33%. This is despite almost every road having a scam (and we get
a new one each week still....)

We do not see many policemen on our roads either... we used to see them prior to 2000.

I am a Nurse in a busy A&E in this County - so I do see these people being brought in for treatment after accidents. I can certainly say for certain that I have not seen a significant decrease in numbers.

I can certainly say for certain that a lot of these casualties test positive for an illegal substance - many more since 2000 - but what can you expect when they know there is less chance of being pulled by the non-existant copper here.

I also hear people say that they were not speeding "I know because I checked my speedometer a few times".

Now - whether or not that is a human reaction to try to defend themselves for an accident - I really cannot say.

However, mush - I got done last year at 34 mph at about 6 am on a Sunday morning - on a deserted road as I returned from a spectacularly bad shift.

It was by a fixed Gatso - a new one - which was hidden from my view by another road sign. It was also on a dual carriageway which had always been 40 mph for years. They downgraded to 30 mph - and although I was aware of the change - I had picked up a little speed on the downhill - and did not notice. I was mortified when I got that NIP a week later! I did the Speed Course as alternative to penalty points. They did give me a copy of the Highway Code and a hazard perception video after the course. They were friendly and they did not beat us up over getting "done for speeding" But ... NIP for such a small overspeed for a very short distance did seem OTT and perhaps targetting the wrong type to benefit from this course.

They have since sent me a useful notepad and tips to keep in the glove compartment, a tyre pressure gauge, a key ring and a fluorsecent jacket - and I wonder if this is some kind of apology from them.

However, because of this experience I can tell you that each time I see one of these damned cameras - despite the course, despite since completing an IAM, I STILL CHECK MY SPEEDO SEVERAL TIMES when I approach one and as I drive past one.

I am absolutely certain that I am not alone in this - and I do wonder whether this is why I am still treating so many people as a result of RTAs.

So I would not dismiss Paul Smith's ideas at all - and he was poppet when I spoke to him.

Dear Mr B, you do seem to be a little confused.

> Oh dear Mr B, you seem to be avoiding the issue that you actually raised above.
> Namely, deaths (not accidents).
>
> Errrrrrrrrmmmmmmmm
>
> Which bit of killed ... killed ... killed ..... fatalities ...... killed don't you understand?

Well, if you look above, it was you that started muddying the issue by talking about accidents rather than deaths.

You started out with deaths, then changed to accidents, then changed back to deaths. It would be nice if you were consistent.


> The government keeps on about falling "accidents" which is a meaningless "statistic",
> compunded with a useless definition.
Is that why you chose to use the same terminology then?


> There are around four times as many car occupant fatalities as motorcycle rider fatalities.
>
> Skimming through the press releases:
>
> In the previous year the former fell by around 2 and the latter rose by around 23.
> Last year the former rose by around 20 and the latter rose by about 84.

So what you're saying is that most of the increase in deaths IS accounted for by a single group of road users.

Excellent, I'm glad we agree on this.

I asked "Has there been an increase in deaths on roads where speed cameras might actually be sited?"

To which you replied ...
> Which bit of substituting:
> But fatalities should fall by a half, two thirds, three quarters by themselves after
> a blip in "statistics".
> So the fall claimed is a rise in real terms.
> for:
> But accidents should fall by a half, two thirds, three quarters by themselves after
> a blip in "statistics".
> So the fall claimed is a rise in real terms.
> Do you struggle with?

That doesn't really answer the question does it?

So I'll ask again, in simpler terms, just for you.

Has there been an increase in deaths on urban A roads (where speed cameras are likely to be sited)?

You may answer this yes or no.

Has there been an increase in deaths on motorways and rural roads (where speed cameras are unlikely to be sited)?

Once again, a simple yes or no will suffice.

I'm sure you'll be able to agree that there is an important distinction here. If, of course, you're interested in road safety policy and not just in pursuing some paranoid fantasy.

LP

Long Player: 

Still incapable of doing your own research?

Or afraid of admitting the truth!

 

Let me make it simple for you:

Deaths are hard to disguise.

Before the introduction of speed cameras and the Speed Kills philosophy of road "safety" the roads were getting safer every year, per vehicle mile, in all categories.

Now the roads are getting more dangerous every year, in all categories.

It is hard to hide the fatality figures, but they try their best by burying the bad news in the Killed and "Seriously" (which has nothing to do with either the layman's or the medical definition of serious) injured.

And where they can't even fiddle that they scrape around for any other "statistic" or combination of statistics, or timescales, or areas, where there was a bit of apparent or alleged "good news".

To give you an understanding of how this works without them even having to try: consider the recent news of the boy who died because his doctor couldn't get him an ambulance, or the incident in the Panorama documentary. Was it five ambulances tied up for seven hours, or the other way round, or something??!

Because the hospitals wanted to hit their A&E waiting time targets they refused to accept the occupants of the ambulances with relatively minor injuries until they had cleared the queues already in A&E.

Now, definitions of various types of road "accident" depend on whether the "victim" is hospitalised.

In the good old days people would be taken into A&E with a real minor injury, or just for observation for concussion, just to be on the safe side. But this would turn the minor injury into a "serious" one as far as the road casualty statistics are concerned. What ambulance driver is going to do that now, and risk being stuck and unable to react to a real emergency?!

So the "serious" injury statistics appear to fall, despite real serious injuries, and deaths, rising!

 

Still following?

 

Similarly accidents are random "natural" events and you would not expect a nice neat distribution. There are nearly half a million miles of roads in the UK, and around 3,500 fatalities pa. You are likely to get clusters of fatalities, or accidents, or whatever you want to measure, happening perfectly naturally and randomly. You are likely to get a speed camera erected where you had a cluster of of them. But whatever you were measuring is NOT likely to cluster in the same place again, it is likely to cluster somewhere else!

Whatever you were measuring should naturally fall without a speed camera. With the speed cameras in place they do not fall as much as they should naturally by themselves!

In other words the cameras are causing an increase in whatever you are trying to measure even at the locations where the Scammers are claiming their best results!

 

Still keeping up?

 

Now, I couldn't be arsed to dig out the raw data, but even the latest spin admits:

On built up roads (eg by schools) where you rarely get speed cameras because most people are travelling slowly and they would only catch the very odd lunatic: slight and serious accidents (see above about how that's a fiddle) went down by a lot, and fatalities went up by only 1%.

Whereas on non built up roads (where you get lots of scameras because people let their speed build up because it is generally safe to do so, but they can keep messing around with the limts) slight and serious accidents didn't go down as much.

Because 6% more people were killed!

And that is because people are paying less attention to the road and more to their speedo and the signs, and because journeys are taking longer and people are losing concentration or even falling asleep.

But on motorways, trunk and principal roads, where it is harder for them to mess with the speed limits and hide scameras, despite the fact that "Speed Kills": fatalities only rose by 2%. Wheras on minor roads, where traffic and limits are low, they rose 8%.

 

But the salient facts are that the fastest and busiest roads (something unbelievable like 30% of traffic is carried on 3% of our road "system" are our safest.

And before the spread of speed cameras fatalities per mile fell. Since their proliferation the trend has reversed.

 

Now, go and troll somewhere else!

 

Mr B,

As you yourself said "Deaths are hard to disguise."

I'm very glad that you've decided to stick to one measure, rather than continuing your attempt to muddy the issue by introducing "serious injury" stats also.

Thank you for making that clear, even though you spent several paragraphs repeating the same, tired obfuscation about other measures. I really can't see why you'd spend so much time arguing with yourself though.

Now, on the matter of the roads where speed cameras are sited.

As you well know, the vast majority of speed cameras are sited on urban roads, where deaths (not KSIs) have actually decreased.

The roads where deaths (not KSIs) have increased are, largely, rural A roads and motorways. The two types of roads least likely to have speed cameras installed.

LP