Safe Speed Forums

http://www.iwcp.co.uk/ViewArticle2.aspx ... eID=915084

CAMERAS 'SAVING LIVES AT BLACKSPOTS'

By Suzanne Pert
ROAD accidents in which people were killed or injured on the Island have reduced in areas where speed cameras have been installed.

The key message from the Safety Camera Partnership for Hampshire and the IW in its annual report is that speed cameras are dramatically reducing road casualties at the accident blackspots where they are located.
The report showed the number of people killed or seriously injured at camera sites in the two counties fell by 62 per cent while the number of people injured fell by 35 per cent.
Figures for the IW alone show a reduction in injury accidents from an annual average of 67 to 46 and the number of fatal or serious injury crashes dropping from 16 to nine.
The partnership pointed out that the cash savings alone were enormous, given that the average costs of dealing with a fatal accident are almost £1.5 million and around £700,000 for a serious injury accident.
Speed cameras were first installed on the Island in May, 2003, at Newport Road, Lake; Horsebridge Hill, Newport; and at St John's Hill, Ryde.
A second trio of cameras came in July, 2004, at Victoria Avenue, Shanklin; Sandown Road, Lake; and in High Street, Wootton.
Julian Hewitt, spokesman for the partnership, said: "IW drivers should be proud of the fact that, by taking extra care at the casualty clusters on the Island, they have reduced the number of collisions in which people were injured by 21 and the number of collisions in which people were killed or seriously injured by seven.
"This not only reduces the misery and pain for individuals and families of those involved in collisions on our roads but also saves money and resources so the whole community benefits."
===================================

Utter rubbish.

Hampshire joined the scam in April 2002.

Hamphire fatalities:

2001 69
2002 96
2003 108
===================================

We need to fight these lies effectively and every single time.

When I send an email to the journalist in such cases about 25% respond to me. Few retract the claim or print an alternative view.

When I telephone the Journalist I get about 75% positive response, but I'm not sure we do very well with any sort of follow up.

Even when I get a journalist to really understand the issues (especially regression to the mean) there's always another local journalist who'll print the lies next time.

Anyone got any really good ideas about how we fight these lies?

_________________
Paul Smith
Our scrap speed cameras petition got over 28,000 sigs
The Safe Speed campaign demands a return to intelligent road safety

I see. For K read KSI.

Another SCP spin on words. Where the KSI figure comes down that means lives are being saved, even if the death toll goes up.

KSI reduction does not mean fewer deaths, just ask the CSCP..

_________________
Speed camera policy Kills

It's worse. The "benefit" claimed for the cameras is mostly an RTTM benefit illusion. In fact I believe the RTTM benefit illusion is usually LARGER than the reduction, meaning that the effects of cameras are negative even at speed camera sites. See:
http://www.safespeed.org.uk/rttm.html
http://www.safespeed.org.uk/pr126.html
http://www.safespeed.org.uk/pr127.html

_________________
Paul Smith
Our scrap speed cameras petition got over 28,000 sigs
The Safe Speed campaign demands a return to intelligent road safety

I suppose that you could take each incident to the Press Complaints Commission if the journalist concerned refused to retract the lies. From the Code of Practice,

1. Accuracy
   1. The Press must take care not to publish inaccurate, misleading or distorted information, including pictures.
   2. A significant inaccuracy, mis-leading statement or distortion once recognised must be corrected, promptly and with due prominence, and - where appropriate - an apology published.
   3. The Press, whilst free to be partisan, must distinguish clearly between comment, conjecture and fact...

I phoned the Press Complaints Commission, who say that this is something they will investigate on an individual basis. AFAICT, the press cannot simply use a camera partnership's press releases with impunity. The press must assess evidence presented to them about the accuracy of any quoted press release and act in accordance with the code of practice.

HTH,

_________________
Will

Interesting.

The risk here is that the partnership uses its massive resources to convince the PCC that they were right, and then we're on a loser after that. The resource inequality means that we'd be quite likely to lose, irrespective of the quality of the respective cases.

_________________
Paul Smith
Our scrap speed cameras petition got over 28,000 sigs
The Safe Speed campaign demands a return to intelligent road safety

Also from the PCC code of practice is:

So, perhaps you don't need to involve the partnerships. All that may be needed is to claim that you have not been afforded the fair opportunity to reply to the inaccuracies - IOW, they have published the SCP tripe but are refusing to publish your press releases. So, they should at least afford you the right of reply.

_________________
Will

If the banter on pepipoo is correct these are all truvelos?

In which case motorcycle casualty data can legitimately be removed from the stats.

Also Isle of white is a tourist spot, well 2004 was pretty wet last year any idea of the visitor stats?

PS I spoke with my wife who used to work in PR - your success rate from press releases of 25% and 75% is excellent - she used to get about a 10% success rate afte phoning them every day.

Well done that man.

Unfortunately that wasn't a PR success rate. It was a "complaint email" success rate. Mostly I don't have time to even think about the personal contact approach with general information. I send out 700+ copies of a PR and wait for the phone to ring.

_________________
Paul Smith
Our scrap speed cameras petition got over 28,000 sigs
The Safe Speed campaign demands a return to intelligent road safety

Surely you're missing the point. The press release was specifically referring to the reduction in accidents at the accident blackspot where the camera was.

The point is that such a figure DOES NOT describe any benefit (or otherwise) of the camera. See these pages:

http://www.safespeed.org.uk/gambling.html
http://www.safespeed.org.uk/rttm.html

_________________
Paul Smith
Our scrap speed cameras petition got over 28,000 sigs
The Safe Speed campaign demands a return to intelligent road safety

I can't believe they're claiming this BS, not after a young girl was mown down and killed recently at a pedestrian crossing pretty much under the shadow of one of those 'safety cameras' on Horsebridge Hill they're so proud of.