Caught on C****a

Programme about sp**d c****as on BBC2 Wales last night.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/wales/weekinwee...oncamera.shtml

Included extensive interview with Richard Brunstrom, Chief Constable of North Wales police, forced
camera supporters (rightly) to prove their case with genuine evidence, but again allowed the speed
lobby to make it's unsubstantiated claims that the number of human police patrols have been reduced
and that other road safety issues are being ignored.

--
Rob

Robert Bruce wrote:
>
> with genuine evidence, but again allowed the speed lobby to make it's unsubstantiated claims that
> the number of human police patrols have been reduced and that other road safety issues are being
> ignored.

The anti speed camara loby may make many unsubstantiated claimes, but those are not two of them. It
might be a bit much to claim that it is as a result of speed camaras, but every police force in the
country admits that many road traffic officers have been re-tasked or dual-tasked to follow the
governments priority policing list.

Road traffic safety doesn't make the top ten in that.

mae <Simian@in_valid.semi-evolved.org> wedi ysgrifennu:

> The anti speed camara loby may make many unsubstantiated claimes, but those are not two of them.
> It might be a bit much to claim that it is as a result of speed camaras, but every police force in
> the country admits that many road traffic officers have been re-tasked or dual-tasked to follow
> the governments priority policing list.

They are unsubstantiated in the sense that I have *never* seen them substantiated. This does not
mean that they are *unsubstantiable*, however: If "every police force in the country admits [it]"
then give me a reference and I'll be satisfied. My objection is that only one side of this argument
ever seems to have to justify itself, while the other can make endless glib statements and appears
to get away with it without question.

--
Rob

On Fri, 27 Feb 2004 08:36:43 -0000, Simian
<Simian@in_valid.semi-evolved.org> wrote in message
<103u0crtj202gca@news.supernews.com>:

>The anti speed camara loby may make many unsubstantiated claimes, but those are not two of them. It
>might be a bit much to claim that it is as a result of speed camaras, but every police force in the
>country admits that many road traffic officers have been re-tasked or dual-tasked to follow the
>governments priority policing list.

These are claims made by the speed camera lobby, and not only are they unsubstantiated, they have
been rebutted by the Parliamentary Advisor Committee on Traffic Safety (PACTS), at least in the form
that the speedophiles make said claims.

If traffic police numbers have reduced it is not because of cameras, it is because of the
performance guidelines, which are set by central government.

--
Guy
===
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://chapmancentral.demon.co.uk

88% of helmet statistics are made up, 65% of them at Washington University

Robert Bruce wrote:
> mae <Simian@in_valid.semi-evolved.org> wedi ysgrifennu:
>
>> The anti speed camara loby may make many unsubstantiated claimes, but those are not two of them.
>> It might be a bit much to claim that it is as a result of speed camaras, but every police force
>> in the country admits that many road traffic officers have been re-tasked or dual-tasked to
>> follow the governments priority policing list.
>
> They are unsubstantiated in the sense that I have *never* seen them substantiated. This does not
> mean that they are *unsubstantiable*, however: If "every police force in the country admits [it]"
> then give me a reference and I'll be satisfied.

There are no official stats on the number of traf pol, because no official body collects *and*
publishes them. What we are left with is journalists getting written responses from the forces, and
the remaining traf pol saying that their particular force has lost x% in the last n years to dual-
use & basic reduction.

I could probably point you at examples of both (tho I'm reluctant to provide the latter), but would
you believe either of them?

Just zis Guy, you know? wrote:
> On Fri, 27 Feb 2004 08:36:43 -0000, Simian <Simian@in_valid.semi-evolved.org> wrote in message
> <103u0crtj202gca@news.supernews.com>:
>
>>The anti speed camara loby may make many unsubstantiated claimes, but those are not two of them.
>>It might be a bit much to claim that it is as a result of speed camaras, but every police force in
>>the country admits that many road traffic officers have been re-tasked or dual-tasked to follow
>>the governments priority policing list.
>
> These are claims made by the speed camera lobby, and not only are they unsubstantiated, they have
> been rebutted by the Parliamentary Advisor Committee on Traffic Safety (PACTS), at least in the
> form that the speedophiles make said claims.
>
> If traffic police numbers have reduced it is not because of cameras, it is because of the
> performance guidelines, which are set by central government.

You've just repeated what I said. Did you have a point?

On Fri, 27 Feb 2004 22:51:36 -0000, Simian
<Simian@in_valid.semi-evolved.org> wrote in message
<103vifo22mrt989@news.supernews.com>:

>You've just repeated what I said. Did you have a point?

I haven't repeated what you said. You suggested that these were not unsubstantiated claims made by
the speedophiles. They are both claims made by speedophiles and unsubstantiated. Just as they like
to try to blame speed-related crashes on anything but speed, they like to blame reductions in
traffic police solely on cameras. In both cases they are wrong.

--
Guy
===
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://chapmancentral.demon.co.uk

88% of helmet statistics are made up, 65% of them at Washington University