If this is real I'm sure that T2000 want it circulated as widely as possible:
A request from Transport 2000...
Those of you who are unlucky enough to get Channel 5 will know that, as well as the usual blend of pornography and documentaries on serial killers, you can now watch its own version of the Top Gear programme.
Fifth Gear began on Monday 8 April (last night) and seems to be aimed at the same slot as Top Gear, namely the car enthusiast/boy racer/ABD member/road rager market.
It seems that the former presenters of Top Gear - Quentin Wilson, Tiff Needell, Adrian Simpson and Vicki Butler-Henderson - have fled from the BBC to the new programme.
I suggest we keep a watch on Fifth Gear and make sure they don't get away with anything. We can start now because last night they had a major feature on speed cameras that was one sided and promoted a rather cavalier approach to speed and enforcement.
Specifically, the programme:
Mentioned nothing about the dangers of speed.
Mentioned nothing about how speed cameras have cut crashes and casualties.
Presented cameras as Police revenue earners.
Promoted dashboard camera detection equipment.
The programme did imply that this was not a complete look at the issues and that the subject might be revisited. However, it is certainly worth criticising the programme makers now and demanding that they redress the balance in future editions.
If you can, please write to the Channel 5 complaints line at dutyoffice@c... or phone it on 0845 705 0505.
Points you might like to mention are:
*The Transport Research Laboratory has found that excessive speed is a factor in more than one-third of fatal road crashes.
*Hit by a car at 35mph a person is twice as likely to be killed as someone hit at 30mph.
*Speed cameras have demonstrated the casualty reductions achievable through speed limit enforcement. A 1996 study of ten police forces showed that crashes were reduced by 28 per cent and speeds by an average 4.2mph per site. In West London cameras reduced fatal crashes by 70 per cent. In April 2000 the Government began a trial in which speeding fines were used to cover the costs of cameras. Now, in Lincolnshire, 45 per cent fewer drivers are exceeding the speed limit and crashes resulting in death and serious injury are down by 90 per cent at camera sites. In Northamptonshire speeds are down and so are the numbers of people killed and seriously injured: a 40 per cent reduction within eight months of the start date.
Many thanks for your time and effort...
Steve Hounsham
Transport 2000
|
|
Most of the speed cameras in the UK are sited where they are for one reason. And it ISNT to cut accidents.
|
|
|
"Now, in Lincolnshire, 45 per cent fewer drivers are exceeding the speed limit and crashes resulting in death and serious injury are down by 90 per cent at camera sites. "
Hang on a minute..... how many crashes resulting in death and serious injury were there at the camera sites (which, to be reasonable, we will define as within 800 yards either side of the camera) before the cameras were installed? Too few for the sample to be statistically valid, I'll bet. And as for the other statistic - presumably, as most people in Lincolnshire now now where the cameras are, they slow down as they pass them - hence fewer convictions, which is where the "45% reduction in speed" comes from.
Must be a hoax - no campaigning organisation would set themselves up to be shot down in flames so easily, would they?
|
|
|
I don't think it's a hoax. This is the kind of simplistic rant that appeals to the hand-wringing 'save our children from the evil driver' brigade.
I note there's no mention of Thurrock, where the accident rate has shot up since the latest rash of anti-car measures were installed.
'*Hit by a car at 35mph a person is twice as likely to be killed as someone hit at 30mph'
Of course, if parents were to tell their children to keep away from the roads, and idiots refrained from blundering into the roads instead of using the crossings provided, there would be a massive reduction in accidents. But it's all the driver's fault isn't it?
|
|
|
Unfortunately any loony with a fax machine can set themselves up as a 'pressure group'
Well Transport 2000 are by their own title 2 years out of date already!
|
|
|
Did you know T2000's president is Michael Palin, of Monty Python fame?
Last time I saw him on the box, he had his a**e over the side of a big wooden boat, cr*****g in the Indian Ocean. Pity he didn't fall in!
Mr Hounsham has his facts wrong, of course.
Transport Research Lab found excessive speed the PRIMARY cause of 7.3% of casualties, not 33% as officially spouted (TRL report 323). 33% CAN be extracted from the report, but this includes secondary and subsequent causes, including things such as "misjudged the speed of the other vehicle". Irrelevant here, and nothing that cameras can cure.
The govt camera trial, to which he refers, has now been discredited as a fix by university statisticians.
His success story in Lincolnshire revealed a 19% increase in fatalities the following year.
He has to utter this rubbish to justify his job.
Do all T2000 people have their a**es over the side?
|
MBH
You shot my fox. I was going to say that, but not as clearly.
What I need now are the latest (2001) accident stats for:
Cleveland
Northants,
Notts
Thames Valley
Strathclyde
South Wales
These were all in the "successful" trial of speed cameras.
Does anyone know where to find these figures.
Thanks
|
|
|
|
So far as I know, 2001 stats will not be out until September in report form.
However, if you can tell me what you want, I'll try.
Accidents by reason/severity/location/user ? Whaddya want ?
|
|
|
|
Armed with the appropriate figures and statistics why don't we all, individually, write to Transport 2000 with copies to respective MPs? The more people that get up and counter this sort of stuff with well-argued data the better
|
|
|
Note eg the following:
> Hit by a car at 35mph a person is twice as likely to be killed as someone hit at 30mph.
So "obviously" if you stick to the urban speed limit you wont kill anyone, and if you creep over it you will.
Errrrrrrrrrm, no!
Read what the spin actually says:
> Hit by a car *at* 35mph a person is twice as likely to be killed as someone hit *at* 30mph.
IE If someone runs onto a motorway so close that someone travelling at the speed limit only manages to halve their speed on impact, they are twice as likely to die as if the speed is reduced to 30 on impact.
There's a lot of good debunking info on the The Association of British Drivers website, especially here
And on the Ringroad.Org website.
|
|
|
Michael Palin you say....
Well this is definately the right room for an argument ;-) (or was that Eric Idle ?)
Was this the same organisation which slated Top Gear before ? I think Fifth Gears report echoed the views of many motorists and only the anti-motorist lobby will bother to complain.
|
|
|
