Ernest Marsh wrote:
The Westmorland Gazette wrote:
A four-year report into the effectiveness of safety cameras showed them to be a success. Government transport secretary Alistair Darling said the report was clear proof that safety cameras saved lives.
Mr Tea agreed, saying the Cumbria cameras had been working well by cutting deaths and serious injuries by almost 70 per cent.
The announcement by the Department for Transport also revealed that money raised by cameras would now go towards improved road safety measures rather than new cameras from 2007.
Although this would not drastically alter Cumbria's road safety measures, it would enable more schemes like improved road junctions and warning signs.
Cutting DEATHS by 70% or is that INCREASING deaths, and reducing seriously injured? So for 2004, 57 deaths is 70% of 53?
Or is 377 seriously injured 70% of 393?
My my - hasn't mathematics changed since I was at school!!
I have received an explanation from "the submarinated one" as Wildy puts it!!
I was seriously mistaken, and Kevin was quite correct.
The Cameras in Cumbria HAVE reduced KSI's by 72.3 %
My mistake was in using the statistics on the Cumbria Safelty Camera Partnership's website, from 2003 in which they started operations, to 2005.
In fact if you add the decline in KSI's from January 1999, to 2003, where KSI's fell all by themselves, to the small decline evidenced on the CSCP website, [at core sites] then the KSI's HAVE "reduced by nearly 70%".
In a giant twist of the statistics, they have now decided (in press releases anyway) to add previous declines to their own - which makes their case look stronger.
So the road safety case for Ings looks certain.
Use accidents NOT related to speed to place cameras there, and collect revenues in a needlessly reduced limit, and F*ck Bannerigg where accidents happen regularly, and somebody's son DIED this week, as it does not fit the criteria, and needs money
spending on it!
No chance there then, unless they can raise revenue as a result!
On the crossing in Windermere, where a boy narrowly escped death last year, they WONT put a PELICAN crossing in, because it would cost £48000, but they will put a crossing warden there
at school times (not sure WHEN yet). The rest of the time, the old people who use it can just risk their necks.
According to RoSPA, and reported by Steve on the now defunct CSCP Forum,
"Government figures state the real cost of a fatal road accident to Society is in excess of £1 million" yet they are pissing about over £48000!!
I think I feel sick!
To think the taxpayer is subsidising these incompetant bunch of cretins!!