Dishonest Government

frootfancy

Tony Blair, it would seem, likes to think of us as proles. Little people who don't understand the complexities of his trade. However i'd like to bring to your attention some startling facts about His Holiness that should drive home what is what.

The police forces of the UK have been steadily burried in red tape.Extra forms, bigger court files, more paper. Obviously this will impact upon the amount of time PC Pinkerton could be pounding his beat. So forms were sent out to monitor time spent on patrol. Guess what? Only 50% of time was on 'frontline patrol'. The British Governemnt alarmed by this fact decided action was needed. A year later and frontline patrol figures (in the West Mids) had risen to 63%. As a result tehy simply classed file preparation as a frontline duty. Forgive me for saying but sitting in a nick in front of a computer is not what i'd call being on patrol. That's the same as hospitals leaving patients in ambulances at busy times so they are not registered in A+E to beat waiting list times.

It gets better too. Reductions in violent crime? Not as impressive as they first appear. With the increase of assaults, adult on child assaults were re-classified as child cruelty. The offense is not a national statistic and by dumping these assaults into this catagory you've got instant reductions. Ethical? Not on your life.

Speed cameras are anotherbone of contention. Noticed there are no figures announcing their success in reducing road deaths this year? Well that's because deaths increased despite record numbers of cameras. An example of this can be found in Birmingham. Bristol Road South to be precise. In the five years before a speed camera was erected on the road there were no road fatalities. In the five years since there have been seven. Cameras cannot detect defective tyres, un-tested vehicles, drunk drivers and a whole plethora of road traffic offences which are the causes of fatalities 9aside from speed).

Basically i've touched on a tiny area of what the Government gets up to. But with this insight can we really trust what they say ever?

bonkey

frootfancy wrote:

Speed cameras are anotherbone of contention.

Why?

Noticed there are no figures announcing their success in reducing road deaths this year? Well that's because deaths increased despite record numbers of cameras.

There are no figures regarding how many people more would have been killed had the cameras not been there, so this argument holds no water.

It should also be pointed out that the reduction would be caused during the initial years of rollout, after which the cameras would most likely continue to have a suppressant effect, but wouldn't necessarily continue to have a reductive effect.

An example of this can be found in Birmingham. Bristol Road South to be precise. In the five years before a speed camera was erected on the road there were no road fatalities. In the five years since there have been seven.

So, thats an average of 1.4 per year? In an area the size of Birmingham?
At a guess...1.4 per year is small enough that its not significant enough to indicate anything. I'm also willing to guess that there will have been at least one bad year with 3 of the 7 people killed, and one year with none. Small numbers do nto good statistics make.

Cameras cannot detect defective tyres, un-tested vehicles, drunk drivers and a whole plethora of road traffic offences which are the causes of fatalities 9aside from speed).

Yes - aside from speed. The cameras were designed to deal with the speed issue. They've done that, and had measurable success. Mathematically, its a success that must plateau, but a lack of further reduction in deaths is not a reason to suggest that the system is failing.

Basically i've touched on a tiny area of what the Government gets up to. But with this insight can we really trust what they say ever?

I'd suggest that your "insight" into the speed cameras - having just taken that single example - is at best no more an accurate representation of whats actually happening than the government's lack of decaration of success is.

With this insight, how can we trust anything you say....which includes your criticism of the government?

The answer is simple. Everyone interprets information from their standpoint. If you choose to ignore this fact when reviewing information, or choose not to search multiple different standpoints from which the same informtion has been interpreted, then you're not going to get a good overall picture.

You may not be able to trust the government, but they're generally no less reliable then those seeking to convince us that they can't be trusted.

jc

Boggle

Bonkey, have a read of: www.safespeed.org.uk

Read through the figures and studies presented and see if his camera argument holds water. I'd be interested in your comments if you get the time to read it...

frootfancy

"So, thats an average of 1.4 per year? In an area the size of Birmingham?
At a guess...1.4 per year is small enough that its not significant enough to indicate anything. I'm also willing to guess that there will have been at least one bad year with 3 of the 7 people killed, and one year with none. Small numbers do nto good statistics make."

Ok, and average death of 1.4 a year does not sound like a lot but when you consider that in the five years before its erection the figure was 0.0 then it does become significant. Deaths on this road have gone from non-existant to this figure in a comparative time period. That will do for me.

"Yes - aside from speed. The cameras were designed to deal with the speed issue. They've done that, and had measurable success. Mathematically, its a success that must plateau, but a lack of further reduction in deaths is not a reason to suggest that the system is failing."

The system is failing. Gatso and Truvelo cameras being placed on Britain's roads were seen as the ultimate in policing. Becuase of this traffic police (in the West Mids at least) have been scaled back with the officers returned to beat/ response work. Speed is only one contributing factor to road deaths but it seems to be the only one the Government is concerned with.

"With this insight, how can we trust anything you say....which includes your criticism of the government?"

the_syco

frootfancy wrote:

Deaths on this road have gone from non-existant to this figure in a comparative time period.

Sorry, but I find it hard to believe that road kill was ever non-existant.

Wibbs

frootfancy wrote:

Speed is only one contributing factor to road deaths but it seems to be the only one the Government is concerned with.

Yes, well their speed cameras do make a fair few quid for the British exchequer. Hmmmm I wonder is that the reason for their popularity?

Doubtless the Irish government will copy this looney policy to the letter as usual. It's an easy target and yet another way for the motorist to fill the coffers. Fine put them up in front of schools and in built up areas where they're likely to do some good.

Now before anyone starts whittering on about "well if you're not speeding you won't have a problem", let me just point out that most of the speed cameras/checks in Ireland are on main roads and motorways. Roads that are convenient for the police and are most likely to generate income. I'm sorry if you're momentarily doing 110kph on a dual carriage way marked at 100kph, I do not see the problem.

Another issue in this country are the laughable speed limits on some roads. Now we had an opportunity to fix this problem when we changed over to metric speed limits, but oh no, as usual, the idiots in this country stayed with the status quo and in some cases made things worse. the N11 from Loughlinstown onwards is a case in point. At one point on a modern dual lane road the limit is 60kph, yet if you drive off onto the many country roads that line said road, the limit is 100kph. Lunacy.

If they were truly committed to road safety there would be spot checks on roads near pubs at closing time. That should go some way to reducing the carnage. Then again that's been an obvious route to take for years, yet strangly has not been implemented. Gardai I know would only love to do this, as many of them are sick and tired of showing up to accidents where alcohol is the main factor.

Gurgle

Wibbs wrote:

Lunacy.

Expensive lunacy.
Pretty much covers the sweeping reforms in Irelands transport legislation over the last 10 years.

Reduction in road deaths - 0%*
Increase in congestion - 1000%*
Increase in cost of owning a car - 300%*

* Not based on actual data

kasintahan

Speed cams in the UK aren't only used for reducing road deaths and filling the coffers, there is considerable concern for their proposed use with facial recogntion tech.
Now that's a much scarier prospect (or an excellent way to keep the populace in check - depending on how you salute).

Boggle

Gardai I know would only love to do this, as many of them are sick and tired of showing up to accidents where alcohol is the main factor.

I think the main reason you don't see more check points for alco is the fact that their is alot of paperwork involved in a dui case and they simply don't want the hassle.

Yes - aside from speed. The cameras were designed to deal with the speed issue. They've done that, and had measurable success. Mathematically, its a success that must plateau, but a lack of further reduction in deaths is not a reason to suggest that the system is failing.

A bit like penalty points eh??

There are no figures regarding how many people more would have been killed had the cameras not been there, so this argument holds no water.

They've done that, and had measurable success.

If there are figures there to show how succesful this has been then there must be figures to show how many would have died were they not there.

[success = "those would have died without camera's" - "those who died with camera's"]

frootfancy

"I think the main reason you don't see more check points for alco is the fact that their is alot of paperwork involved in a dui case and they simply don't want the hassle."

In England at least, cases drink drive are now so low check points are not really a necessity although they do spring up in the run-in to Christmas. Its also standard practise beath test after and injury RTC so breath testing does still go on but not to the levels it used to.

"If there are figures there to show how succesful this has been then there must be figures to show how many would have died were they not there. "

One thing i forgot to mention in the original post is figure fudging, When looking at an accident black spot suitable for speed cameras the measure is how many people are killed at the site in a five year period. However as you can see from the amount of cameras around, it can't be that many people killed at one site. The authorities now lump in ANY collision, whether it be a scraped wing-mirror or a pedestrian scraped off the pavement. Naughty naughty!

Ladypawpaw

frootfancy wrote:

Tony Blair, it would seem, likes to think of us as proles.

A stunning political argument. I do hope to see you on Newsnight soon.

frootfancy wrote:

It gets better too. Reductions in violent crime? Not as impressive as they first appear. With the increase of assaults, adult on child assaults were re-classified as child cruelty. The offense is not a national statistic and by dumping these assaults into this catagory you've got instant reductions. Ethical? Not on your life.

the vast majority of assaults on children are commited by their own parents. It is perfectly logical to classify these as child cruelty.

May I suggest you criticise the people that batter their kids instead of the government?

frootfancy wrote:

Speed cameras are anotherbone of contention. Noticed there are no figures announcing their success in reducing road deaths this year? Well that's because deaths increased despite record numbers of cameras.

That is because selfish idiots still speed.

The more speed cameras the better, in my opinion. I think fines should be scrapped - so idiots can't whine about them. Instead a much harsher penalty points system should be introduced. This will get johnny 60mph in a residential area off the road much quicker.

frootfancy

"A stunning political argument. I do hope to see you on Newsnight soon. "

I admit personal conjecture, if only i were blessed with your literary prowess.

"the vast majority of assaults on children are commited by their own parents. It is perfectly logical to classify these as child cruelty.

May I suggest you criticise the people that batter their kids instead of the government? "

Are they? So anyone over the age of 18 who assaults someone under the age of 18 is their parent? Wow, its true when people say the world's getting smaller. Are you my mother?

"That is because selfish idiots still speed.

The more speed cameras the better, in my opinion. I think fines should be scrapped - so idiots can't whine about them. Instead a much harsher penalty points system should be introduced. This will get johnny 60mph in a residential area off the road much quicker."

As i mentioned before, speed is not the only cause of road fatalities. Poor driving by people who don't have licenses, badly maintained cars, people who continue along a motorway at 70 with zero visibility, elderly people who should have been taken off the roads, drunk pedestrians, inconsiderate cyclists, children who have never been taught the highway code, yobs throwing bricks from motorway overpasses, a lack of forward vision in drivers, general driving standard decrease, drink drivers, people on go-peds/ mini motos, poor road conditions, dangerous junctions, poor roadsigns/ markings, tired drivers, the list is endless. Until you accept its more than speed that causes deaths you'll still get them. Gatsos are not replacement for traffic police officers. They don't watch how you drive, check your tyres or your driving license, they don't want to know if you're drunk or should be tucked up in bed after Countdown.

They are however an easy way of making cash, pushing traffic bobbies onto beats and making it look like we have more police. I guess i'll never understand why the government £oves them so much.

So much for my debating ability.

therecklessone

frootfancy wrote:

Speed cameras are anotherbone of contention. Noticed there are no figures announcing their success in reducing road deaths this year? Well that's because deaths increased despite record numbers of cameras.

Road deaths fall to lowest since 1926

frootfancy

Ah at last some figures since 2002.

they may have fallen now but lets not forget this;

http://icteesside.icnetwork.co.uk/thejournal/news/tm_objectid=15687528&method=full&siteid=50081&headline=road-deaths-fall-in-camera-free-zone-name_page.html

They ain't working here..

http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/04/478.asp

No involvement from cameras here..

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2005/07/01/ncar01.xml&sSheet=/news/2005/07/01/ixhome.html


Speed cameras not the answer, as i've already stated.

http://icbirmingham.icnetwork.co.uk/0100news/0200nationalnews/tm_objectid=15683190&method=full&siteid=50002&headline=roads-death-toll-reaches-record-low-name_page.html


Figures went up in 2003 so no trumpeting of figures up until this point.

" "Road safety in the UK is being mismanaged and widely misunderstood. The modern emphasis on vehicle speeds is so wide of the mark that it would be laughable if it wasn't so tragic. And 'tragic' is indeed the word, because if former trends in road safety had continued throughout the speed camera decade we'd be down to about 2,000 road deaths each year by now. We know we have substantial and beneficial road safety gains going on, including: * Improvements in vehicle safety (thought to make fatalities 4% less likely each year as vehicle safety improvements ripple into the national fleet.) * Improvements in road engineering (accident black spot treatments, and roads development transferring traffic to better roads (e.g. bypasses)). A good working estimate for the benefit of roads engineering is around 2% per annum.) * Improvements in post crash medical care (thought to save more lives at the roadside by about 1% per annum)."


Quoted from Paul Smith of the Safe Speed campaign. These benefits are coming around despite the presence of speed cameras. As you can see from above, deaths fall where they are not present and increase where they are. Transport think tank cites increased traffic police patrols as the answer and do speed cameras address the fall in deaths through the 60s. 70s and 80s?

In 2003 deaths rose despite a record number of cameras. To say they are directly involved in this decrease is irresponsible. Introductions of new roads, more traffic calming measures, increases in health-care and junction improvements are as much if not more to do with the issue of the fall in road deaths.

axtradub12

Look to Ireland on Dishonest Governments before kicking on the Brits. :rolleyes:

frootfancy

Just my experience with my government i guess

boidey

frootfancy wrote:

Tony Blair, it would seem, likes to think of us as proles. Little people who don't understand the complexities of his trade. However i'd like to bring to your attention some startling facts about His Holiness that should drive home what is what.

Yes and so? New Labour= Wet Tory. In order to get elected he had to push the labour party to the right of the political spectrum.
I really believe that it was only that the tory party could not present themselves as a credible alternative and the UK population will never forgive the tories for the poll tax allowed him a 3rd term.
I have wondered at times is he a tad insane? Self conviction and self delusion has become his trade mark. For endorsing and following Bush into Iraq Bliar has condemmed himself as warmonger.
I had better stop now, I'm gettin annoyed thinking about the sactimonious mendacious odious unctious bástaerd.
I'm not even going to get into his hamfisted handling of the so called peace process. Thats another thread
Debate all yez like about speed cameras, they do save lives.
Ask any polis/emergency service in whatever country ya like if you are unsure about the impact of excessive speed. If the Gardai were to do their job they might save reduce the roadkill on irelands roads.
This post has been sponsored by stella artois

frootfancy

"Ask any polis/emergency service in whatever country ya like if you are unsure about the impact of excessive speed"

I think you'll find unofficially most police officers would tell you inappropriate speed is the real danger.

frootfancy

This today...

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/printFriendly/0,,1-2-1665429,00.html

Boggle

This today...

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/printF...1665429,00.html

Any chance you'd paste it onto a post? problem with my server and it won't bring up .co.uk sites for sopme reason...

frootfancy

certainly, am having the same problem with i.e links too.


June 23, 2005

Police remove ten speed cameras over safety fears
By Ben Webster, Transport Correspondent





A POLICE force is dismantling ten speed cameras and removing film from another 50 after the first official admission that badly positioned devices could undermine road safety.

West Midlands Police has found after a review of all its cameras that many fail to comply with strict government rules on where they can be located. The force is expected to be the first of many to remove devices after the Government ordered a national audit of Britain’s 6,000 speed cameras.

The cameras being removed in the West Midlands were installed before the rules on siting were tightened in 2000.

Three were found to break guidelines that cameras must be visible from at least 60m (200ft) away. Two were obscured by a bridge and one was hidden behind a road sign.

A spokesman for the West Midlands Casualty Reduction Partnership, which includes the police and seven local authorities, said that motorists had been braking suddenly after spotting the cameras too late.

“We recognise that there is a potential safety hazard from sudden braking if you can’t see the camera,” he said.

Several other cameras were removed because the road layout had changed or the highway authority had used some other method to slow vehicles. In two cases a dangerous crossroads had been replaced by a roundabout. In another, traffic lights had been installed on an open stretch of road.

The partnership spokesman said that West Midlands had also decided to switch off cameras at locations where there had been no injury in a traffic collision in three years.

Under the Department for Transport’s rules, cameras can be positioned on roads only where there have been at least four collisions involving death or serious injury within a one-kilometre stretch in the previous three years. Once the camera is installed, it can remain indefinitely even if there are no further collisions.

Camera supporters argue that this is sensible because collisions might occur again if the camera were removed. But West Midlands has decided that it cannot justify fining drivers when there have been no recent casualties.

The spokesman said that sites where there had been no collisions for four years would be reviewed to see whether the cameras could be removed. “We hope our approach will convince motorists that we only have cameras where there is a road safety problem,” he said.

Paul Smith, founder of anti-camera campaign Safe Speed, welcomed the initiative and called on other forces to copy it. “We hope this is the beginning of the end for cameras . . . Motorists have been fined more than £700 million since the early 1990s but the roads haven’t got safer.”

Meanwhile, several speed camera partnerships are being forced to delay plans to install hundreds more cameras because the Department for Transport has yet to approve them. Some of the partnerships suspect that the department is beginning to doubt the effectiveness of cameras. Last month the department commissioned a two-year research project to investigate claims that the fall in road casualties at camera sites was due more to the random nature of crashes than to drivers slowing.













Copyright 2005 Times Newspapers Ltd.
This service is provided on Times Newspapers' standard Terms and Conditions . Please read our Privacy Policy . To inquire about a licence to reproduce material from The Times, visit the Syndication website .

Boggle

Thanks footfancy.