Row erupts over 'misuse' of speed camera data (From Witney Gazette)

Insight says...
8:35am Thu 19 Aug 10

So, not only couldn't they wait a full two weeks to start their fear mongering media bombardment, they couldn't even be bothered to make sure the data was correct.
No surprises there then.

Report this post » Register/Log In »

Blue Pedro says...
10:59am Thu 19 Aug 10

This is a spectacular own goal and shows the effect of jumping to conclusions. The effect of switching off the cameras will not be known for some time. Even then it will be hard to prove that the cameras not being on is the only factor. Hopefully people will still agree that reducing road deaths is a good thing and that effective measures should be put in place to achieve that. Do nothing is not an option.

Report this post » Register/Log In »

firstwitney says...
11:14am Thu 19 Aug 10

What will be interesting and more meaningful is the comparison of accident statisics in oxon where the cameras have been switched off and in Berks & Bucks where they are still in operation.

Report this post » Register/Log In »

Idris Francis says...
12:34pm Thu 19 Aug 10

Ronald Regan’s wise advice “Don’t just do something, stand there” tell us that all too often the political imperative to be seen to be “doing something” causes more problems than it solved. That in excess of 10,000 more people have died on our roads since speed cameras started than would have been expected on the basis of far better trends going back 50 years earlier suggests that speed cameras have indeed been a politically inspired disaster.

Given that Camera Partnerships across the country, including Thames Valley, have systematically misrepresented the both the supposed benefits of their cameras and the rights and responsibilities of defendants – as I can prove – for up to 10 years it is not in the least surprising that, faced with their P45s and the Dole they are now scratching around for and misrepresenting any data that might stay their execution.

More important than history or fraud however is how best to choose how to proceed.

Read www.safespeed.org.uk
/vas.html which fully documents how the DfT and Transcom, having claimed in 2006 that speed cameras are the most effective road safety method known – albeit with only a 12% advantage over vehicle activated signs – were forced (by me) to admit in 2007 that vas are 9 times more cost effective than cameras.

Even that was still a lie however, because it was based only on 1st year figures, The real figures are that £1k pa signs are as effective as £50k pa cameras, and do not need 40 or 50 jobsworths to run them, or to issue 1000s of speeding tickets every week.

Incidentally, from 1991 to 2004 there were 3,851 examples in Thames Valley of 1km square areas with 4 KSI or more in 3 years, the common threshold for camera installation. The average % fall in fatalities in the following 3 years was 48%, in SI 38% and KSI 39%. The joke is of course that only a handful of those 3,851 sites ever had a camera installed, and so the % reductions routinely claimed by Thames Valley “at our sites” have always largely happened anyway due to falling trend, regression to mean and other factors.

Speed cameras are and always were a CON, a modern form of snake-oil. Time for the snake-oil merchants to hitch their waggons and leave town.

Ronald Regan’s wise advice “Don’t just do something, stand there” tell us that all too often the political imperative to be seen to be “doing something” causes more problems than it solved. That in excess of 10,000 more people have died on our roads since speed cameras started than would have been expected on the basis of far better trends going back 50 years earlier suggests that speed cameras have indeed been a politically inspired disaster. Given that Camera Partnerships across the country, including Thames Valley, have systematically misrepresented the both the supposed benefits of their cameras and the rights and responsibilities of defendants – as I can prove – for up to 10 years it is not in the least surprising that, faced with their P45s and the Dole they are now scratching around for and misrepresenting any data that might stay their execution. More important than history or fraud however is how best to choose how to proceed. Read www.safespeed.org.uk /vas.html which fully documents how the DfT and Transcom, having claimed in 2006 that speed cameras are the most effective road safety method known – albeit with only a 12% advantage over vehicle activated signs – were forced (by me) to admit in 2007 that vas are 9 times more cost effective than cameras. Even that was still a lie however, because it was based only on 1st year figures, The real figures are that £1k pa signs are as effective as £50k pa cameras, and do not need 40 or 50 jobsworths to run them, or to issue 1000s of speeding tickets every week. Incidentally, from 1991 to 2004 there were 3,851 examples in Thames Valley of 1km square areas with 4 KSI or more in 3 years, the common threshold for camera installation. The average % fall in fatalities in the following 3 years was 48%, in SI 38% and KSI 39%. The joke is of course that only a handful of those 3,851 sites ever had a camera installed, and so the % reductions routinely claimed by Thames Valley “at our sites” have always largely happened anyway due to falling trend, regression to mean and other factors. Speed cameras are and always were a CON, a modern form of snake-oil. Time for the snake-oil merchants to hitch their waggons and leave town. Idris Francis

Report this post » Register/Log In »

Idris Francis says...
1:02pm Thu 19 Aug 10

One more absolutely basic point, on statistics. Across the country Councillors and officials are saying that they will decide whether to keep individual cameras on the basis of their results. This is abject nonsense!

Accidents at individual sites are so small in number (and indeed affected by other factors such as weather, the economy etc) that random chance will
play a far greater role in accident causation than any camera ever could.

The other fundamental aspect of this problem is that no one can ever know what would have happened had the camera not been there (though we do have records of accidents, deaths and even suicides happening a a direct result of cameras being there.

The usual naive, but self-serving, assumption by Partnerships that unless cameras are installed, accidents and casualties will continue at the same rate as in the recent past is complete nonsense, because the sites are explicitly selected for having had high levels of accidents in the recent past. As my previous posting pointed out, these high levels fall naturally whether the cameras are installed or no.

Here is a simple probability formula for the sort of Poisson distribution of quasi-random events that accidents clearly are. There is a 90% possibility of a change being due to random chance if it lies within X plus or minus (X divided bythe square root of X)

For example, if the averge number of accidents at a site is 16 in a year, there is a 90% chance that in the following year is due to random chance if it lies within 16 +/- (16/4) ie from 12 to 20, or +/-25%.

However with about 5,000 sites at present and 2,200 fatalities, the average number of fatalities per site is 0.44. The square root of 0.44 is 0.66 so the random variation range is from 0.22 (in practice of course 0) to 1.1

Surely local authorities have statisticians - even 18 year old work-experience statisticians - who could point this out before yet more public money is wasted on meaningless "research"?

One more absolutely basic point, on statistics. Across the country Councillors and officials are saying that they will decide whether to keep individual cameras on the basis of their results. This is abject nonsense! Accidents at individual sites are so small in number (and indeed affected by other factors such as weather, the economy etc) that random chance will play a far greater role in accident causation than any camera ever could. The other fundamental aspect of this problem is that no one can ever know what would have happened had the camera not been there (though we do have records of accidents, deaths and even suicides happening a a direct result of cameras being there. The usual naive, but self-serving, assumption by Partnerships that unless cameras are installed, accidents and casualties will continue at the same rate as in the recent past is complete nonsense, because the sites are explicitly selected for having had high levels of accidents in the recent past. As my previous posting pointed out, these high levels fall naturally whether the cameras are installed or no. Here is a simple probability formula for the sort of Poisson distribution of quasi-random events that accidents clearly are. There is a 90% possibility of a change being due to random chance if it lies within X plus or minus (X divided bythe square root of X) For example, if the averge number of accidents at a site is 16 in a year, there is a 90% chance that in the following year is due to random chance if it lies within 16 +/- (16/4) ie from 12 to 20, or +/-25%. However with about 5,000 sites at present and 2,200 fatalities, the average number of fatalities per site is 0.44. The square root of 0.44 is 0.66 so the random variation range is from 0.22 (in practice of course 0) to 1.1 Surely local authorities have statisticians - even 18 year old work-experience statisticians - who could point this out before yet more public money is wasted on meaningless "research"? Idris Francis

Report this post » Register/Log In »

Idris Francis says...
1:03pm Thu 19 Aug 10

One more absolutely basic point, on statistics. Across the country Councillors and officials are saying that they will decide whether to keep individual cameras on the basis of their results. This is abject nonsense!

Accidents at individual sites are so small in number (and indeed affected by other factors such as weather, the economy etc) that random chance will
play a far greater role in accident causation than any camera ever could.

The other fundamental aspect of this problem is that no one can ever know what would have happened had the camera not been there (though we do have records of accidents, deaths and even suicides happening a a direct result of cameras being there.

The usual naive, but self-serving, assumption by Partnerships that unless cameras are installed, accidents and casualties will continue at the same rate as in the recent past is complete nonsense, because the sites are explicitly selected for having had high levels of accidents in the recent past. As my previous posting pointed out, these high levels fall naturally whether the cameras are installed or no.

Here is a simple probability formula for the sort of Poisson distribution of quasi-random events that accidents clearly are. There is a 90% possibility of a change being due to random chance if it lies within X plus or minus (X divided bythe square root of X)

For example, if the averge number of accidents at a site is 16 in a year, there is a 90% chance that in the following year is due to random chance if it lies within 16 +/- (16/4) ie from 12 to 20, or +/-25%.

However with about 5,000 sites at present and 2,200 fatalities, the average number of fatalities per site is 0.44. The square root of 0.44 is 0.66 so the random variation range is from 0.22 (in practice of course 0) to 1.1

Surely local authorities have statisticians - even 18 year old work-experience statisticians - who could point this out before yet more public money is wasted on meaningless "research"?

One more absolutely basic point, on statistics. Across the country Councillors and officials are saying that they will decide whether to keep individual cameras on the basis of their results. This is abject nonsense! Accidents at individual sites are so small in number (and indeed affected by other factors such as weather, the economy etc) that random chance will play a far greater role in accident causation than any camera ever could. The other fundamental aspect of this problem is that no one can ever know what would have happened had the camera not been there (though we do have records of accidents, deaths and even suicides happening a a direct result of cameras being there. The usual naive, but self-serving, assumption by Partnerships that unless cameras are installed, accidents and casualties will continue at the same rate as in the recent past is complete nonsense, because the sites are explicitly selected for having had high levels of accidents in the recent past. As my previous posting pointed out, these high levels fall naturally whether the cameras are installed or no. Here is a simple probability formula for the sort of Poisson distribution of quasi-random events that accidents clearly are. There is a 90% possibility of a change being due to random chance if it lies within X plus or minus (X divided bythe square root of X) For example, if the averge number of accidents at a site is 16 in a year, there is a 90% chance that in the following year is due to random chance if it lies within 16 +/- (16/4) ie from 12 to 20, or +/-25%. However with about 5,000 sites at present and 2,200 fatalities, the average number of fatalities per site is 0.44. The square root of 0.44 is 0.66 so the random variation range is from 0.22 (in practice of course 0) to 1.1 Surely local authorities have statisticians - even 18 year old work-experience statisticians - who could point this out before yet more public money is wasted on meaningless "research"? Idris Francis

Report this post » Register/Log In »

Sophia says...
8:56pm Thu 19 Aug 10

Idris: very good posts.

The Anti Car Fascists will clearly stoop to any lie or misrepresentation.

What I hope to shed more light on is the murky finances of all this. A great deal of money has been collected by the informal, extra Parliamentary taxation that is what speed cameras really are. Who gets it?Are they democratically elected? Where are their accounts? Does some find its way into companies and who exactly owns and benefits from those companies? We could do with some light shed on this whole business

Report this post » Register/Log In »

Idris Francis says...
11:12pm Thu 19 Aug 10

Thanks, Sophia - so many people seem to have their brains in neutral but mouths in gear. Some facts.

The 4th year report shows fines of £110m and costs of £96m - from memory - so the direct cash benefit for HMG was trivial. However the £96m did pay the salaries of about 2,000 otherwise unemployable jobsworths who would otherwise have been paid Dole money.

In 2008 or 2008 fines fell by 30%, partly due to 50% of vehicles having GPS warning systems which make cameras even less effective. It is highly likely that operating costs now greatly exceed fine income.

Invariably omitted from costs are the high costs borne by defendants in terms of lost time, legal fees, lost licenses, jobs and businesses - unquantifiable but huge.

Many Partnerships seek to justify their existence by claiming that the "value" of the accidents they have supposedly prevented greatly exceeds their operating costs - by factors of 2 to 10. Ignoring here that they have cut few if any accidents, the DfT's HEN1 valuations they use - £1.9m for a fatality - are largely based on notional values for pain and suffering avoided - figures which appear in no national or local authoriy accounts, ever.

Realisti, but still optimistic, figures for accidents actually prevented reduce benets below cost even at these inflated valuations, as does simply correction the valuations. Adjusting for both reduces benefits to a tiny proportion of costs.

Brake, one of the worst threats in the country to road safety, is part funded by the speed camera industry. They have repeatedly refused to accept that I have sent them concrete evidence that signs are massively more cost effective than cameras and refuse to speak to me when I telephone them.

The Parliamentary Advisory Committee on Transport Safety (PACTS) gives the impression of being a Parliamentary body. It isn't. It is a lobbying organisation part funded by speed camera companies, which helps explain why they didn't want to know about the DfT's fraudulent assessment of cameras v signs, and will admit nothing whatever about speed camera problems. This sort of attitude is where the word "Jobsworth" ie "More than my job's worth to rock the boat" comes from.

Then there are Councillors, who have been systematically misled by the DfT and camera industry and who have great difficulty - like any politician - in holding their hands up to say "Sorry, I was wrong" and too many of those who finally realise that cameras are useless prefer to stay quiet rather than rock the boat.

In 50 years as an electronic engineer and 30 as a businessman I have never come across such a can of worms before.

Thanks, Sophia - so many people seem to have their brains in neutral but mouths in gear. Some facts. The 4th year report shows fines of £110m and costs of £96m - from memory - so the direct cash benefit for HMG was trivial. However the £96m did pay the salaries of about 2,000 otherwise unemployable jobsworths who would otherwise have been paid Dole money. In 2008 or 2008 fines fell by 30%, partly due to 50% of vehicles having GPS warning systems which make cameras even less effective. It is highly likely that operating costs now greatly exceed fine income. Invariably omitted from costs are the high costs borne by defendants in terms of lost time, legal fees, lost licenses, jobs and businesses - unquantifiable but huge. Many Partnerships seek to justify their existence by claiming that the "value" of the accidents they have supposedly prevented greatly exceeds their operating costs - by factors of 2 to 10. Ignoring here that they have cut few if any accidents, the DfT's HEN1 valuations they use - £1.9m for a fatality - are largely based on notional values for pain and suffering avoided - figures which appear in no national or local authoriy accounts, ever. Realisti, but still optimistic, figures for accidents actually prevented reduce benets below cost even at these inflated valuations, as does simply correction the valuations. Adjusting for both reduces benefits to a tiny proportion of costs. Brake, one of the worst threats in the country to road safety, is part funded by the speed camera industry. They have repeatedly refused to accept that I have sent them concrete evidence that signs are massively more cost effective than cameras and refuse to speak to me when I telephone them. The Parliamentary Advisory Committee on Transport Safety (PACTS) gives the impression of being a Parliamentary body. It isn't. It is a lobbying organisation part funded by speed camera companies, which helps explain why they didn't want to know about the DfT's fraudulent assessment of cameras v signs, and will admit nothing whatever about speed camera problems. This sort of attitude is where the word "Jobsworth" ie "More than my job's worth to rock the boat" comes from. Then there are Councillors, who have been systematically misled by the DfT and camera industry and who have great difficulty - like any politician - in holding their hands up to say "Sorry, I was wrong" and too many of those who finally realise that cameras are useless prefer to stay quiet rather than rock the boat. In 50 years as an electronic engineer and 30 as a businessman I have never come across such a can of worms before. Idris Francis

Report this post » Register/Log In »

carioca says...
11:29am Fri 20 Aug 10

The above all sounds like totally self righteous car facism. If you lived in a street where cars regularly break the speed limit, and were offered speed cameras, what would you do? The speed limit is there for a reason. Driving too fast is breaking the law period. If you break the law, accept the consequences. It is anti-social behaviour of the very worst kind. All residents should have the right to place a speed camera on their roads, and decide how to use the money from the fines. The money should never go to central government. Spinning the statistics counts for very little, people that live near the cameras are nearly always 100% in favour of them

Report this post » Register/Log In »

Insight says...
1:56pm Fri 20 Aug 10

carioca wrote:
The above all sounds like totally self righteous car facism. If you lived in a street where cars regularly break the speed limit, and were offered speed cameras, what would you do? The speed limit is there for a reason. Driving too fast is breaking the law period. If you break the law, accept the consequences. It is anti-social behaviour of the very worst kind. All residents should have the right to place a speed camera on their roads, and decide how to use the money from the fines. The money should never go to central government. Spinning the statistics counts for very little, people that live near the cameras are nearly always 100% in favour of them

It may 'sound' like car fascism, but oddly enough you've hit the nail almost directly on the head. The vast majority of us don't live anywhere near a speed camera, even today with 6000 of them less than a fraction of Britains roads are monitored for traffic offences and yet if we complain about the total lack of any kind of enforcement on 'our' road we're all treated to a lecture about speed cameras and accused of being right wing anti social speed merchants.
It's all very well having a holier than thou attitude regards to taking the punishment, but from my bay window no one is being punished and further more, even near speed cameras, those who have GPS and sat navs drive past cameras as if they don't even exist.
Meanwhile, all we see is this fear mongering propaganda put out by what is essentially a private enterprise that has chosen to pursue a profit orientated operation on one single aspect of law enforcement to the exclusion of all others.
The single biggest avoidable killer on Britain’s roads today is driving under the influence of drink or drugs which is a factor in 17% of all fatalities and yet the previous government didn’t bother to supply targets to police for casualty reduction operations and therefore failed to supply proper funding and we’ve seen over 20% of our traffic police disappear to rely on easily avoided speed cameras and these incompetent statistic fiddling road safety aficionados who when combined with all the vested financial interests such as insurance companies and even these so called road safety charities means our roads are less well policed than they’ve ever been.

[quote][p][bold]carioca[/bold] wrote: The above all sounds like totally self righteous car facism. If you lived in a street where cars regularly break the speed limit, and were offered speed cameras, what would you do? The speed limit is there for a reason. Driving too fast is breaking the law period. If you break the law, accept the consequences. It is anti-social behaviour of the very worst kind. All residents should have the right to place a speed camera on their roads, and decide how to use the money from the fines. The money should never go to central government. Spinning the statistics counts for very little, people that live near the cameras are nearly always 100% in favour of them[/p][/quote]It may 'sound' like car fascism, but oddly enough you've hit the nail almost directly on the head. The vast majority of us don't live anywhere near a speed camera, even today with 6000 of them less than a fraction of Britains roads are monitored for traffic offences and yet if we complain about the total lack of any kind of enforcement on 'our' road we're all treated to a lecture about speed cameras and accused of being right wing anti social speed merchants. It's all very well having a holier than thou attitude regards to taking the punishment, but from my bay window no one is being punished and further more, even near speed cameras, those who have GPS and sat navs drive past cameras as if they don't even exist. Meanwhile, all we see is this fear mongering propaganda put out by what is essentially a private enterprise that has chosen to pursue a profit orientated operation on one single aspect of law enforcement to the exclusion of all others. The single biggest avoidable killer on Britain’s roads today is driving under the influence of drink or drugs which is a factor in 17% of all fatalities and yet the previous government didn’t bother to supply targets to police for casualty reduction operations and therefore failed to supply proper funding and we’ve seen over 20% of our traffic police disappear to rely on easily avoided speed cameras and these incompetent statistic fiddling road safety aficionados who when combined with all the vested financial interests such as insurance companies and even these so called road safety charities means our roads are less well policed than they’ve ever been. Insight

Report this post » Register/Log In »

Insight says...
2:05pm Fri 20 Aug 10

Or in other words, stop wasting millions of pounds on these hordes of non productive back office jobs worth’s and their massively over paid managers and all the dependant charities along with equipment and cameras that are virtually out of date and obsolete before they’re even erected and put 'real' police back in cars and do the bloody job properly.
Now I’ve said that, if you want to continue to call me a car fascist ..knock yourself out, I couldn’t care less.

Report this post » Register/Log In »

carioca says...
2:19pm Fri 20 Aug 10

Shame that speeding does not carry the same stigma as drink/drug driving.
How can speeding not be anything other than antisocial behaviour? Speed is the still the biggest killer on the roads, and the speed limit is intended to limit drivers for safety reasons, not because some killjoy wants to spoil a boy racers fun. ALL the speed cameras I know of are in residencial areas, or on roads where there is a history of accidents. We need them as the police force simply don't enforce limits are way too tolerant of those that drive dangerously. I not some naive eco warrior type, but just witness to misery that speeding causes. The way the camera are managed is does make them less effective than they should be, I'll agree with you there. But to remove them all together just sends out a signal to drivers that it is OK to break the law.

Report this post » Register/Log In »

Insight says...
3:08pm Fri 20 Aug 10

Actually, according to the DfT's own figures that had to be revised once the UK statistics authority refused to call their earlier 'unwittingly misleading' attempts 'official' less than 3% of collisions on Britain’s roads have 'breaking a speed limit' as a factor.
All other misuse and spin of these speed related stats, such as too fast for conditions are irrelevant to speed cameras as all they monitor is the speed limit and are simply incapable of adjusting to anything else.
Which simply means, if there were a speed camera on every 100 yards of every single road in the country and even then they were 100% efficient at their one and only function and absolutely no one was speeding then the absolute best return you could expect is less than 3% reduction in collisions. That isn't bending stats, that’s simple maths that a 10 year old could do.
It also isn't a question of the police not enforcing limits or being lenient, they simply haven't been funded properly since the speed camera empire builders took over and with advances in technology these days speed cameras are simply incapable of catching those they should be catching, but they’ll happily bulk up their stats on busy roads with, in some cases, no history of crashes on the basis of 'community concern' while leaving residential and therefore less lucrative areas to fend for themselves.
It's time to change all this and dump all the dead wood partnerships who have a reputation little better than a rogue clamping company and go back to doing it properly.

Report this post » Register/Log In »

Insight says...
3:16pm Fri 20 Aug 10

Of course, no one expects the partnerships to give up without a fight, they have, afterall, invested their careers in this white elephant.
But now the rest of the world is switching them off, most recently and perhaps notably the state of Arizona in America who were the first to adopt speed cameras and who were at one time speed citation capital of the world have now outlawed camera enforcement on their highways statewide because it simply doesn't work it's only a matter of time.
The big speed camera switch off isn't just local, or even national ..it's global.

Report this post » Register/Log In »

Idris Francis says...
7:14pm Fri 20 Aug 10

I am pleased to see more comments agreeing with the only sensible conclusions to draw from the evidence. For the avoidance of doubt:

Even if cameras eliminated all speeding at 6,000 current sites, the overall maximum possible benefit would be well below 0.5% of casualties. It made no sense whatever to spend such a large part of the available budget on such a small part of the overall problem - its insane.

On a like-for-like basis of observed casualty reduction signs are massively more cost effective than cameras - see www.safespeed.org.uk
/vas.htm for the detailed figures.

Signs provide immediate "real-time" warnings of hazards ahead and often the nature of the hazard - far more effective than a letter in the post 2 weeks later, perhaps after the accident that could have been avoided

Who in his right mind would spend £50,000 a year on one cameras site when the same £50,000 a year would pay for 50 signs at 50 sites, each sign on average as effective as a camera? That is what Counciils are finally realising though it took an economic crisis and budget cuts to force most of them to do it

Some of the problems with cameras are that due to very high costs of £50k pa, and the number of fines being at or beyond the limit of public acceptability, it is simply not possible to increase numbers by anything like the proportion needed to solve the limited coverage problem. Signs on the other hand, costing 50 times less and with not public hostility whatever, could be used in far greater numbers and hence have much better overall effect for the same money. Or the same effect for much less money, releasing money for other measures, or anything in between

Or

I am entirely in favour of more pollice patrols, the more the better, because they can monitor and inhibit all forms of dangerous driving, not just speeding. Cameras have for 10 years or more provided police with an excuse for cutting police patrols, as patrol officers have confirmed to me.

I really do grow tired of the sanctimonious comments of those who have never looked at the numbers or the economics - and in most cases simply refuse to do so on the usual principle "My mind is made up, please do not confuse me with the facts."

I am pleased to see more comments agreeing with the only sensible conclusions to draw from the evidence. For the avoidance of doubt: Even if cameras eliminated all speeding at 6,000 current sites, the overall maximum possible benefit would be well below 0.5% of casualties. It made no sense whatever to spend such a large part of the available budget on such a small part of the overall problem - its insane. On a like-for-like basis of observed casualty reduction signs are massively more cost effective than cameras - see www.safespeed.org.uk /vas.htm for the detailed figures. Signs provide immediate "real-time" warnings of hazards ahead and often the nature of the hazard - far more effective than a letter in the post 2 weeks later, perhaps after the accident that could have been avoided Who in his right mind would spend £50,000 a year on one cameras site when the same £50,000 a year would pay for 50 signs at 50 sites, each sign on average as effective as a camera? That is what Counciils are finally realising though it took an economic crisis and budget cuts to force most of them to do it Some of the problems with cameras are that due to very high costs of £50k pa, and the number of fines being at or beyond the limit of public acceptability, it is simply not possible to increase numbers by anything like the proportion needed to solve the limited coverage problem. Signs on the other hand, costing 50 times less and with not public hostility whatever, could be used in far greater numbers and hence have much better overall effect for the same money. Or the same effect for much less money, releasing money for other measures, or anything in between Or I am entirely in favour of more pollice patrols, the more the better, because they can monitor and inhibit all forms of dangerous driving, not just speeding. Cameras have for 10 years or more provided police with an excuse for cutting police patrols, as patrol officers have confirmed to me. I really do grow tired of the sanctimonious comments of those who have never looked at the numbers or the economics - and in most cases simply refuse to do so on the usual principle "My mind is made up, please do not confuse me with the facts." Idris Francis

Report this post » Register/Log In »

doozer says...
9:09pm Sat 21 Aug 10

carioca wrote:
The above all sounds like totally self righteous car facism. If you lived in a street where cars regularly break the speed limit, and were offered speed cameras, what would you do? The speed limit is there for a reason. Driving too fast is breaking the law period. If you break the law, accept the consequences. It is anti-social behaviour of the very worst kind. All residents should have the right to place a speed camera on their roads, and decide how to use the money from the fines. The money should never go to central government. Spinning the statistics counts for very little, people that live near the cameras are nearly always 100% in favour of them

...I can't help feeling that you have missed the point, the main oint, the most imortant point of all of the above...SPEED CAMERAS DO NOT WORK. We've all been fed a lie and now the removal of cameras needs 'official' justification/explan
ation to make them go. We all want safer streets...it seems fairly clear (thanks to those such as Idris) that cameras are not the answer!

Frighteningly, we all apathetically (well, nearly all of us - again, there are exceptions like those above) sit back and 'accept' what we are told by those who make decisions on our behalf. If they are so wrong and have been allowed to get away with this for so long...what else do we 'accept' but actually....shouldn'
t?

Report this post » Register/Log In »

Hugh Jaeger says...
12:20pm Mon 23 Aug 10

I suspect that carioca is right, that many people oppose safety cameras in general but support the one near their home or local school that protects them or their family.

Part of the comparison between counties that firstwitney wants is already available. Oxfordshire has scrapped all 72 of its safety camera sites hastily, indiscriminately and apparently without reviewing the casualty data for any of them. Bucks has reviewed its 51 camera sites, identified the 10 least effective and taken only those 10 out of use.

Bucks is smaller than Oxon but has an award-winning road safety department. Oxon road safety staff are decent folks and do their best with inadequate resources. However, Bucks are admired by colleagues throughout the country and are an example to follow.

It will be harder to get a meaningful comparison with Berkshire, because in 1998 Berks county council was replaced with six unitary authorities each with a separate road safety department and separate local policy. Casualty data for the six separate unitary areas may be too small to be statistically robust enough for a meaningful comparison.

Report this post » Register/Log In »

Insight says...
4:10pm Mon 23 Aug 10

Hugh Jaeger said:
"I suspect that carioca is right, that many people oppose safety cameras in general but support the one near their home or local school that protects them or their family".
...
I guess it all really depends on the number of people who don't realise that an ever growing segment of driving society is becoming equiped with GPS and Sat Navs rendering the entire stock of speed cameras in this country completly redundant and therefore no one is as 'protected' as they're lead to believe as the fine revenue plummets year on year forcing councils up and down the land to supplement this modern day folly with our council taxes.
A twentieth century concept circumvented made useless by a cheap twenty first century dashboard device, hardly a hi tech solution or something to be proud of is it.

Report this post » Register/Log In »

Hugh Jaeger says...
6:11pm Wed 25 Aug 10

Safety cameras' purpose is to reduce casualties. Only their detractors ever pretended cameras were to penalise as many drivers as possible or raise as much revenue as possible. The perfect safety camera would be one that caught no-one and earnt no revenue from penalties because 100% of drivers passing it obeyed the speed limit.
`
Camera-bashers would claim such a camera was useless, because drivers might slow down only for that camera and speed up again afterwards. But each Thames Valley SRP camera has been installed to tackle a particular hazard site where there has been a cluster of accidents resulting in casualties, so if it achieves compliance only at the location of that hazard the camera has still done its job.
`
Far from circumventing safety cameras, GPS and SatNav help motorists to anticipate cameras and comply with them. This should reduce the (small but exaggerated) risk of drivers unexpectedly braking when taken unawares by a safety camera.
`
I know of no English police force, county council or even camera partnership that has ever been silly enough to claim safety cameras are the whole solution to inappropriate speed. Cameras are just one more tool among many.
`
Not every hazard site can be policed enough of the time to reduce casualties there by a significant amount. Police officers are too valuable for that and need to be used flexibly and efficiently. Some roads can be re-designed to "engineer out" hazards, but some hazards may not have an engineering solution. A safety camera is one logical option to reduce casualties at a site that has a history of accidents resulting in casualties.
`
Now even some former sceptics accept the case for cameras. North Yorkshire County Council has always rejected safety cameras in the past, but it has now completed a study that demonstrates they would be cost-effective in reducing casualties in that county.
`
N Yorks' mixture of roads and distribution of casualties are different from Oxfordshire's. Oxon's casualties tend to be geographically more concentrated whereas N Yorks' are more scattered. N Yorkshire's geography is not analogous to Oxon's, but N Yorks' willingness to be guided by evidence rather than political fads is an example Oxfordshire should do more to follow.

Safety cameras' purpose is to reduce casualties. Only their detractors ever pretended cameras were to penalise as many drivers as possible or raise as much revenue as possible. The perfect safety camera would be one that caught no-one and earnt no revenue from penalties because 100% of drivers passing it obeyed the speed limit. ` Camera-bashers would claim such a camera was useless, because drivers might slow down only for that camera and speed up again afterwards. But each Thames Valley SRP camera has been installed to tackle a particular hazard site where there has been a cluster of accidents resulting in casualties, so if it achieves compliance only at the location of that hazard the camera has still done its job. ` Far from circumventing safety cameras, GPS and SatNav help motorists to anticipate cameras and comply with them. This should reduce the (small but exaggerated) risk of drivers unexpectedly braking when taken unawares by a safety camera. ` I know of no English police force, county council or even camera partnership that has ever been silly enough to claim safety cameras are the whole solution to inappropriate speed. Cameras are just one more tool among many. ` Not every hazard site can be policed enough of the time to reduce casualties there by a significant amount. Police officers are too valuable for that and need to be used flexibly and efficiently. Some roads can be re-designed to "engineer out" hazards, but some hazards may not have an engineering solution. A safety camera is one logical option to reduce casualties at a site that has a history of accidents resulting in casualties. ` Now even some former sceptics accept the case for cameras. North Yorkshire County Council has always rejected safety cameras in the past, but it has now completed a study that demonstrates they would be cost-effective in reducing casualties in that county. ` N Yorks' mixture of roads and distribution of casualties are different from Oxfordshire's. Oxon's casualties tend to be geographically more concentrated whereas N Yorks' are more scattered. N Yorkshire's geography is not analogous to Oxon's, but N Yorks' willingness to be guided by evidence rather than political fads is an example Oxfordshire should do more to follow. Hugh Jaeger

Report this post » Register/Log In »

Idris Francis says...
6:31pm Wed 25 Aug 10

A few quick points.

Anyone who thinks that effectiveness of individual speed cameras can be assessed should be booted around the car park until he sees sense - or sent on 30 minute course on basic statistics. Casualty numbers at individual sites are so few that random chance overwhelms any camera effect.

It follows that the only way to evaluate cameras is en masse over several years. When you do - as I have done - the clear evidence is that they make matters worse. 10,000 lives worse.

If N Yorks have worked out that cameras would be cost effective they should be fired and replaced by someone with a modest pass in O level arithmetic - or even a modest fail. Its garbage.

How many times do I need to provide the evidence that (at least in my da) a third-former would have understood?

Report this post » Register/Log In »

Hugh Jaeger says...
7:00pm Wed 25 Aug 10

A camera-basher who advocates violence may be unsurprising but is certainly unhelpful. Has Idris Francis read North Yorks CC's professional study? If he is sneering at it, comparing it unfavourably with O Level arithmetic, and abusing its authorsm, all without having read it, he makes himself look at best bad-tempered and at worst arrogant and ignorant.
`
A debate about casualty reduction deserves better than this boorishness. Please calm down and write sense.

Report this post » Register/Log In »

Idris Francis says...
7:37pm Wed 25 Aug 10

That Hugh Jaeger chooses to interpret a metaphorical proposition that those who do not understand numbers should be bashed around the playground until thy do as "advocating violence" is sadly typical of the smears and misrepresentation I have come to expect over the years from those who hold dogmatic opinions but know nothing. In another context it would be desribred as "playing the man instead of the ball".

Here, in the simplest possible terms is a statement I invite Mr. Jaeger to prove wrong:

The number of accidents that occur at individual cameras sites is so small that random variations overwhelm any possible camera effect. Geddit?

Here is another one: As we can never know what accidents would have happened had a camera not been present, we can never know what difference that camera has made.

It follows that those who claim to have evaluated the performance of individual camera sites simply do not know what they are doing - unless of course they are deliberately producing invalid data, as the DfT clearly did over cameras v signs, to achieve some objective other than road safety.

I have been an engineer for 50 years and a businessman for 30. I know that there are unbreakable rules governing ariithmetic and when I see them being broken I do not need to read the detail to know that to be the case.

Like someone who patents perpetual motion, there is no need to read the patent to dismiss it out of hand. Remember the old phrase "If wishes were horses beggars would ride?" If wishing that cameras save lives would make them save lives I would be on my knees praying, but they don't and can't so I am not.

I have had 10 years of reading official lives and challenging brain-dead and lying officials, and id that makes me short tempered, tough.

Report this post » Register/Log In »

Hugh Jaeger says...
7:50pm Wed 25 Aug 10

People who read online debates know that a great deal of aggression, hatred and prejudice are expressed on them. People who in person might behave themselves get all bold and abusive when online. Violent language fosters violent behaviour, however much one may claim it was only a metaphor. I have not lied or misrepresented Idris; I have challenged an effect of his boorishness that he seems unwilling to acknowledge.
`
People who know me know that I consider the evidence and base my opinions thereon. Idris' implication that I "hold dogmatic opinions but know nothing" is wrong and defamatory on both counts.
`
Idris admits he is short-tempered and refuses to moderate his temper or apologise. Instead he misrepresents defames council officers as "brain-dead and lying". This too is defamatory.

Report this post » Register/Log In »

Idris Francis says...
8:26pm Wed 25 Aug 10

Mr. Jaegar - you completely ignored my challenge to prove me wrong over data from individual cameras sites being statistically meaningless - again you chose to play the man instead of the ball. Have you no answer?

If anyone doubts that officials and politicians have lied about speed cameras I can prove that they have and that they continue to do so. I have failed to find, for example, a single Partnership web site that does not mislead readers about their rights and responsibilities, in the interests of keeping the cash coming.

Only this morning I received a reply from Mr. Giannisi apologising for making a false statement on BBC TV. He had claimed a 50% fall in casualties over 8 years when the real figure was 29%, as was perfectly clear from the DfT annual reports I have on file. That he went on to claim in his reply that he had not intended to say 8 years, but o 45% from the 1994-98 average reference point to 2009, when that fall was equally obvious in the DfT reports as being 31%, suggests that he is either careless with his facts or stlil seeking to mislead, as indeed many of his recent statements have done. That correspondence, copied to the Minister and others, continues.

Incidentally the reason the 31% 14 year figure is little different from the 29% 8 year figure is that casualties barely changed from 194/98 to 2001.

My references to "brain-dead" and lying related to officials and others, not to anyone here. Mr. Jaeger claims to base his opinions on facts, but re-reading his posts I see not only a large numbers of pro-camera statements (in defiance of the real facts) but peculiarly well-informed knowledge of Oxon, Bucks and Berks operations and their staff. How come?

Here are three more questions Mr, Jaegar, please answer this time:

What, if any, is your relationship with camera organisations in your area or elswhere? Whether Council departments or Partnership staff?

To what extent if any will your own income or that of your friends or family be affected by these camera cuts?

If - and of course I do not yet know - you are involved in some way, do you not think you should have told us?

Mr. Jaegar - you completely ignored my challenge to prove me wrong over data from individual cameras sites being statistically meaningless - again you chose to play the man instead of the ball. Have you no answer? If anyone doubts that officials and politicians have lied about speed cameras I can prove that they have and that they continue to do so. I have failed to find, for example, a single Partnership web site that does not mislead readers about their rights and responsibilities, in the interests of keeping the cash coming. Only this morning I received a reply from Mr. Giannisi apologising for making a false statement on BBC TV. He had claimed a 50% fall in casualties over 8 years when the real figure was 29%, as was perfectly clear from the DfT annual reports I have on file. That he went on to claim in his reply that he had not intended to say 8 years, but o 45% from the 1994-98 average reference point to 2009, when that fall was equally obvious in the DfT reports as being 31%, suggests that he is either careless with his facts or stlil seeking to mislead, as indeed many of his recent statements have done. That correspondence, copied to the Minister and others, continues. Incidentally the reason the 31% 14 year figure is little different from the 29% 8 year figure is that casualties barely changed from 194/98 to 2001. My references to "brain-dead" and lying related to officials and others, not to anyone here. Mr. Jaeger claims to base his opinions on facts, but re-reading his posts I see not only a large numbers of pro-camera statements (in defiance of the real facts) but peculiarly well-informed knowledge of Oxon, Bucks and Berks operations and their staff. How come? Here are three more questions Mr, Jaegar, please answer this time: What, if any, is your relationship with camera organisations in your area or elswhere? Whether Council departments or Partnership staff? To what extent if any will your own income or that of your friends or family be affected by these camera cuts? If - and of course I do not yet know - you are involved in some way, do you not think you should have told us? Idris Francis

Report this post » Register/Log In »

Idris Francis says...
8:54pm Wed 25 Aug 10

...North Yorkshire County Council announced it was shelving plans to introduce speed cameras.

........A spokesman said: “There are no plans to introduce fixed speed cameras in North Yorkshire and it is envisaged that the issue will be reviewed in 12 months time.”

Report this post » Register/Log In »

Hugh Jaeger says...
2:01pm Sat 4 Sep 10

A recent North Yorks CC report has established that there is a solid safety case for speed cameras - mobile ones in its case as road casualties in North Yorks are not concentrated in a small number of locations.
`
NYCC's decision not to introduce cameras this year is entirely due to Government spending cuts and nothing to do with road safety.
`
As the above facts fail to suit Idris' predetermined opinion he leaves them out of his argument. This is not surprising but it is rather telling.

Report this post » Register/Log In »

Idris Francis says...
9:09pm Sat 4 Sep 10

I accept of course that many organisations have for some years produced reports claiming significant speed camera benefit but to achieve that objective they invariably ignore or trivialise (a) regression to the mean (b) long term trend due to improving roads and vehicles etc (c) drivers diverting to avoid cameras. I have no reason to suppose that the County Council officials who prepared the report referred to are any more likely to have got it right than did PA Consulting (for the DfT) or many others. It is however worth noting that even the DfT, following a decade of complaints about RTTM having been (scandalously, deliberately and cynically) ignored or trivialised, have finally admitted that the claims of the 4th year report were indeed seriously overstated.

I have already provided considerable detail showing how it is literally impossible for speed cameras ever to bring about the scale of accident reductions claimed for them, because the reductions far exceed the proportion of accidents ever due to speeding in the first place. I have also I think pointed out that the supposed financial benefits, claimed to be multiples of 2 or 3 or 4 (think of a number then double it) of costs, consist to a very great extent of hypothetical valuations of pain and suffering avoided and not real money in any local or national authority accounts.

Benefit/cost, assessed even on the maximum possible accident reduction - ie all accidents primarily due to speeding - is less than one, even using these ludicrous valuations (intended by the DfT for a quite different purpose) Similarly, benefits are well below cost using even the false claims for accident reduction, but real cash costs eliminated. Using realistic accident reductions and realistic cash values benefits together. benefits are so far below costs as to hardly exist.

While cuts in Government funding did indeed bring these issues to a head, you are mistaken to claim that North Yorks CC's decision not to proceed with cameras was entirely due to the funding problem - I am not the only one to have sent Councillors the real evidence and analysis showing that there can at best be no meaningful benefit and at worst serious adverse effects.

In view of Mr. Jaeger's further attack on me I repeat here in bullet point form, the questions I asked him earlier that he has chosen to ignore:

a/ Please identify any argument I have made which you believe to be wrong, and explain why. If you can show that anything I have written is indeed wrong, I will accept that as being the case, apologise and explain why I was mistaken.

b/ Explain how it any meaningful conclusions could be drawn from accident numbers at individual camera sites that are far too small to have any statistical significance.

c Explain why, given the massive amounts of data from more than 10 years it could ever make any sense for a local authority to spend substantial amounts of public money on their own speed cameras trials using just 3 or 4 cameras, as had been proposed for N Yorks. What could they possibly find that is not already a matter of record?

a/ How do you know so much about the people in and the activities of these Partnership? Is it because you or your family or friends are directly involved in them?

b/ If so, what is the extent of your involvement or that of your family or friends?

c/ If so, to what extent will your or their income be affected by cuts to camera operations in the Thames Valley, or elsewhere?

Google tells me, Mr. Jaeger that (assuming you have no namesake with similar interests in your area) you comment on tramways, bus users. including having being the PR officer for Foxcan, which campaigned in favour of re-opening canals. Are you still operating as a PR man, paid or unpaid and if so for whom?

For the record, I do not campaign for others, nor am I paid to do so, nor do I receive expenses. For the record, I would be happy to come to any venue in Thames Valley, to debate these issues and show the real evidence.

One final point - As stated in my letter published in the Telegraph last Tuesday, Mick Giannasi, CC of Gwent Police sent a long and detailed letter to all local authorities criticising government policy on cameras and by implication those authorities who had cut funding and calling for cameras to be maintained (though not increased in number). I will now file a formal complaint with his Police Authority both for breach of the Principle of Separation of Powers, i.e. that the job of the police is to enforce the law, not tell politicians what to do, and for the innumerable serious errors in his analysis. That said, his claim in his reply to me of a 45% reduction instead of 31% turns out to have been correct in the sense that he was referring to KSI accidents, not KSI casualties as I thought. Quite why the number of accidents fell 50% faster than the number of casualties (i.e/more casualties per accident) when vehicle secondary safety was improving by leaps and bounds is less than clear.

Anyone who needs more detailed information on these issues will find my contact details on www.safespeed.org.uk
/vas.html or could ask the web site for them

I accept of course that many organisations have for some years produced reports claiming significant speed camera benefit but to achieve that objective they invariably ignore or trivialise (a) regression to the mean (b) long term trend due to improving roads and vehicles etc (c) drivers diverting to avoid cameras. I have no reason to suppose that the County Council officials who prepared the report referred to are any more likely to have got it right than did PA Consulting (for the DfT) or many others. It is however worth noting that even the DfT, following a decade of complaints about RTTM having been (scandalously, deliberately and cynically) ignored or trivialised, have finally admitted that the claims of the 4th year report were indeed seriously overstated. I have already provided considerable detail showing how it is literally impossible for speed cameras ever to bring about the scale of accident reductions claimed for them, because the reductions far exceed the proportion of accidents ever due to speeding in the first place. I have also I think pointed out that the supposed financial benefits, claimed to be multiples of 2 or 3 or 4 (think of a number then double it) of costs, consist to a very great extent of hypothetical valuations of pain and suffering avoided and not real money in any local or national authority accounts. Benefit/cost, assessed even on the maximum possible accident reduction - ie all accidents primarily due to speeding - is less than one, even using these ludicrous valuations (intended by the DfT for a quite different purpose) Similarly, benefits are well below cost using even the false claims for accident reduction, but real cash costs eliminated. Using realistic accident reductions and realistic cash values benefits together. benefits are so far below costs as to hardly exist. While cuts in Government funding did indeed bring these issues to a head, you are mistaken to claim that North Yorks CC's decision not to proceed with cameras was entirely due to the funding problem - I am not the only one to have sent Councillors the real evidence and analysis showing that there can at best be no meaningful benefit and at worst serious adverse effects. In view of Mr. Jaeger's further attack on me I repeat here in bullet point form, the questions I asked him earlier that he has chosen to ignore: a/ Please identify any argument I have made which you believe to be wrong, and explain why. If you can show that anything I have written is indeed wrong, I will accept that as being the case, apologise and explain why I was mistaken. b/ Explain how it any meaningful conclusions could be drawn from accident numbers at individual camera sites that are far too small to have any statistical significance. c Explain why, given the massive amounts of data from more than 10 years it could ever make any sense for a local authority to spend substantial amounts of public money on their own speed cameras trials using just 3 or 4 cameras, as had been proposed for N Yorks. What could they possibly find that is not already a matter of record? a/ How do you know so much about the people in and the activities of these Partnership? Is it because you or your family or friends are directly involved in them? b/ If so, what is the extent of your involvement or that of your family or friends? c/ If so, to what extent will your or their income be affected by cuts to camera operations in the Thames Valley, or elsewhere? Google tells me, Mr. Jaeger that (assuming you have no namesake with similar interests in your area) you comment on tramways, bus users. including having being the PR officer for Foxcan, which campaigned in favour of re-opening canals. Are you still operating as a PR man, paid or unpaid and if so for whom? For the record, I do not campaign for others, nor am I paid to do so, nor do I receive expenses. For the record, I would be happy to come to any venue in Thames Valley, to debate these issues and show the real evidence. One final point - As stated in my letter published in the Telegraph last Tuesday, Mick Giannasi, CC of Gwent Police sent a long and detailed letter to all local authorities criticising government policy on cameras and by implication those authorities who had cut funding and calling for cameras to be maintained (though not increased in number). I will now file a formal complaint with his Police Authority both for breach of the Principle of Separation of Powers, i.e. that the job of the police is to enforce the law, not tell politicians what to do, and for the innumerable serious errors in his analysis. That said, his claim in his reply to me of a 45% reduction instead of 31% turns out to have been correct in the sense that he was referring to KSI accidents, not KSI casualties as I thought. Quite why the number of accidents fell 50% faster than the number of casualties (i.e/more casualties per accident) when vehicle secondary safety was improving by leaps and bounds is less than clear. Anyone who needs more detailed information on these issues will find my contact details on www.safespeed.org.uk /vas.html or could ask the web site for them Idris Francis

Report this post » Register/Log In »

Hugh Jaeger says...
9:32pm Wed 8 Sep 10

Idris states that road fatalities since the introduction of safety cameras have been 10,000 more than would have been expected from trends established over the previous 50 years. He offers no evidence at all that the introduction of cameras slowed the rate of casualty reduction.
`
Idris' use of this evidence is what is called a "post hoc ergo propter hoc" argument. He has enough of a scientific education to know that this is no proof of anything. Therefore it seems bogus for him to try to use such an argument.
`
This website requires all contributors to be courteous and not abusive. Idris exempts himself from this rule and accuses public employees of telling "lies", being "jobsworths", "snake-oil merchants" and "self-serving", and in the case of North Yorkshire of writing "garbage".
`
I asked Idris to calm down and write moderately. He replied with another intemperant, defamatory and angry outburst: "I have had 10 years of reading official lives and challenging brain-dead and lying officials, and it that makes me short tempered, tough."
`
In further posts Idris sinks deeper into non-credible conspiracy theory. He calls me "peculiarly well-informed knowledge of Oxon, Bucks and Berks operations and their staff" and asks how. The answer is that when I put polite questions to road safety departments in Oxon, Bucks and other counties they give me polite and helpful answers whenever they can.
`
Idris then construes a conspiracy theory that I may have some relationship with either Council departments or Road Safety Partnership staff. He lowers his speculation to the cruder level that the income of myself or my friends or family may be affected by safety camera cuts. He then tries to imply disingenuity by suggesting that I should have declared the relationship that he admits may exist only in his imagination.
`
I am active in a number of transport campaigns, one of which is the Friends of Oxford Canal Terminal. Because one of my posts in FOXCAN is as PR officer, Idris construes that perhaps I am a professional who earns money from PR. It doesn't take much nous to realise that if I were a paid PR, I wouldn't spend so much of my clients' valuable time responding to him in a dialogue on a webpage which by now few people except Idris and I are reading!
`
Given Idris' unrepentant abuse of myself and others, his disregard for the rules of this website and therefore his consistent arrogance, he is poorly qualified to set rules for what others should write in their posts.
`
It is improper enough to have a total stranger demand personal information about my friendships, my family, my income, my friends' income, my family's income. Receiving such a demand from a stranger who has used violent language and repeatedly shows that he has an anger management problem is too much.

Idris states that road fatalities since the introduction of safety cameras have been 10,000 more than would have been expected from trends established over the previous 50 years. He offers no evidence at all that the introduction of cameras slowed the rate of casualty reduction. ` Idris' use of this evidence is what is called a "post hoc ergo propter hoc" argument. He has enough of a scientific education to know that this is no proof of anything. Therefore it seems bogus for him to try to use such an argument. ` This website requires all contributors to be courteous and not abusive. Idris exempts himself from this rule and accuses public employees of telling "lies", being "jobsworths", "snake-oil merchants" and "self-serving", and in the case of North Yorkshire of writing "garbage". ` I asked Idris to calm down and write moderately. He replied with another intemperant, defamatory and angry outburst: "I have had 10 years of reading official lives and challenging brain-dead and lying officials, and it that makes me short tempered, tough." ` In further posts Idris sinks deeper into non-credible conspiracy theory. He calls me "peculiarly well-informed knowledge of Oxon, Bucks and Berks operations and their staff" and asks how. The answer is that when I put polite questions to road safety departments in Oxon, Bucks and other counties they give me polite and helpful answers whenever they can. ` Idris then construes a conspiracy theory that I may have some relationship with either Council departments or Road Safety Partnership staff. He lowers his speculation to the cruder level that the income of myself or my friends or family may be affected by safety camera cuts. He then tries to imply disingenuity by suggesting that I should have declared the relationship that he admits may exist only in his imagination. ` I am active in a number of transport campaigns, one of which is the Friends of Oxford Canal Terminal. Because one of my posts in FOXCAN is as PR officer, Idris construes that perhaps I am a professional who earns money from PR. It doesn't take much nous to realise that if I were a paid PR, I wouldn't spend so much of my clients' valuable time responding to him in a dialogue on a webpage which by now few people except Idris and I are reading! ` Given Idris' unrepentant abuse of myself and others, his disregard for the rules of this website and therefore his consistent arrogance, he is poorly qualified to set rules for what others should write in their posts. ` It is improper enough to have a total stranger demand personal information about my friendships, my family, my income, my friends' income, my family's income. Receiving such a demand from a stranger who has used violent language and repeatedly shows that he has an anger management problem is too much. Hugh Jaeger

Report this post » Register/Log In »

Hugh Jaeger says...
1:13am Thu 9 Sep 10

Idris fails to deny that he has used a "post hoc ergo propter hoc" argument. Every good scientist accepts that this form of argument is invalid.
`
Idris has lurched from one mis-spelling to another of my surname. If correctly assembling six letters to make a common German noun causes him so much trouble, how accurate can Idris' 400 Mb of evidence be?
`
Idris' increasingly personal incandescence against contributes nothing to the facts of casualty reduction. However, it strengthens the reasons I have already given for not disclosing the personal details for myself, my friends and family that he demands.
`
If he really wants to lower this debate to demanding personal details not only of myself but also of people who are not taking part in this debate, Idris should consider first fully disclosing the relevant facts about himself. What and how many are Idris' motoring convictions, how many hours of valuable court time he has taken up trying to get certain of them thrown out, have his legal adventures cost UK taxpayers anything and if so how much?
`
And if Idris brings this much aggression merely to a discussion of road safety, how aggressive can he be when actually motoring?

Report this post » Register/Log In »

Idris Francis says...
8:55pm Thu 9 Sep 10

What utter drivel! It's smokescreen stuff to avoid the points that really matter.

1/ I have provided ample evidence, direct and by web site references, to confirm that the DfT and Transcom lied about cost effectiveness of cameras v signs - yet Mr. Jaeger continues to ignore it, preferring to challenge the accuracy of my data and analysis by snide remarks about typos. Sure I make typos from time to time, but I do not make errors of fact.

I did not ask for any personal details whatever about Mr. Jaeger, his friends or family, I did not ask how much money or how many jobs, or for names. I asked only for a straight yes or not to the simple question, do he or his associates have any direct employment or financial interest in the continuation of speed cameras. I believe that any such involvement should be declared so that others may judge the extent, if any, to which his comments might be influenced by such relationships. For my part I have confirmed that I have none whatever.

For the third time he fails to answer the direct question, despite having skirted around the subject trying to give the impression that the answer is No, but without actually writing that word. I don't know about others, but that tells me all I need to know.

For the record I have a clean license and have driven 1m miles or so in a wide variety of cars from slow 1933 Austin to fast modern cars such as Jaguars, all without hurting anyone and without ever losing my license.

Stop blowing smoke Mr. Jaeger, start dealing with the evidence not innuendo and smear. But asking that is, I am afraid, a waste of time because as I have pointed out before, camera advocates operate only on superficial and naive theories, and absolutely hate the facts.

Weasel words, half-truths, fiction, smear and innuendo, the hall-mark of the PR man.

.

Report this post » Register/Log In »

Row erupts over 'misuse' of speed camera data (From Witney Gazette)

Headlines RSS Feed

Row erupts over 'misuse' of speed camera data

click2find

Most popular

Jobs

Dating

Homes

Cars

About cookies