Talk:Safety camera partnership

message: I've attempted to drag this article back to the point by including some information about Safety Camera Partnerships in it.  It could probably be better fleshed out but I hope it will inspire someone else to add more along the same lines.  This article really should be about the facts of SCPs, how they work, how they are set up, what they do.  The effectiveness or otherwise of safety cameras should certainly be a minor part of the article rather than the major part (in my opinion at least).  --Richard Clegg 17:24, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Safety Camera Partnership -- History 

message: I removed a link to this page:
http://www.abd.org.uk/rigging_the_evidence.htm
Because (A) it's silly -- the authorities chosen were chosen before the 1999 accident figures would have been collected.
(B) it's obsolete -- there are lots more authorities using the camera sites now.  I presume even the ABD can't make the claim they have all been selected like this.  I think it does a case more harm than good to show claims which are so far out of date.  --Richard Clegg 12:58, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The claim, silly or not, was made at the time, and it is in context with the history of SCPs.  The fact that the results of the trial were, despite being controversial from the outset, used to justify the existence of, and the creation of further SCPs makes the ABD page historically important. The fact that that claim was made so long ago, and that RTM is only now being acknowledged as significant at camera sites by the DfT does itself make it a candidate for inclusion.  We should not pretend that it never happened, or that science alone has mandated the use of speed cameras.  We should not censor, and we definately cannot rewrite history, so I've put it back. -De Facto 13:14, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  But it just makes the ABD look silly.  There must be better informed criticism out there?  --Richard Clegg 13:19, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's daft, what on earth is the point of it?  It makes no sense. Just zis Guy you know? 13:22, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It was published about the subject of this article.  We shouldn't be dealing in POV, just facts. -De Facto 14:02, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  We shouldn't be dealing with *any* facts, just the relevant ones.  I tried to get more people to actually write things about Safety Camera Partnerships themselves but not many people seem interested in making this article actually about them rather than another pro-anti camera debate.  Including ill-informed research since shown to be false (and, to be honest, not clever at the time -- the link shows fundamental misunderstanding of RTTM and is written by someone ignorant of even basic stats) does neither this article nor ABD any favours.  I'm sure any mathematically inclined ABD members would wince to see it. --Richard Clegg 14:13, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

text: I'm not judging them, just documenting what they said at that time.  If you know of a better source for critical views please tell us and/or include it.  -De Facto 13:58, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  obsolete ABD claim 

message: I snipped the reference to this paper because, while it is an interesting (and indeed worrying) paper it is not relevant to an article about Safety Cameras.  The article (for those without bmj access) suggests that the police under-report serious injuries and hence reduce KSI accidents using evidence from hospital admissions.  However, it does not mention Safety Cameras and does not suggest that under-reporting is larger in safety camera areas so is not relevant to the topic of this article.  I include the reference here fore interest.
 RCGB also shows that KSI has fallen over this period, although research by M. Gill et al. (2006) suggests that these results may be due to a fall in the completeness of reporting of these injuries.
--Richard Clegg 15:43, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Any references to RCGB, particularly in casualty trend discussions, need to be qualified, given that hospital statistics apparently contradict the trends that RCGB portrays. -- de Facto (talk). 16:24, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I think that's an extremely over-the-top reaction.  This is one paper -- I don't think this one paper makes RCGB claims "contraversial" or "suspect" -- there are several other interpretations to the data than the one the authors came up with.  However, the RCGB reference in the safe speed section adds little of use about SCP so I removed that.  --Richard Clegg 07:53, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with the removal of that piece from the article. -- de Facto (talk). 09:03, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Changes in safety on England’s roads: analysis of hospital statistics 

message: Unless I am misreading the "contributory factors" report the "exceeding speed limit" or "going too fast for conditions" are both judged by police officers rather than objective.  However, the figures are in line with other figures about the connection between speeding and fatality.  However, we may wish to omit the report here or move the section to speed limit where it would be arguably more appropriate.  I think we do not want to replicate a discussion on whether or not "speed kills" in this article when it is best placed elsewhere.  On the other hand, we need to provide some context for the debate.  --Richard Clegg 12:39, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Here we are concerned with the role of SCPs and the judgement to use speed cameras to reduce road casualties.  To put that judgement in context we need to understand what proportion of road casualties can be targeted by speed cameras.  Given that speed cameras can detect exceeding the speed limit but cannot detect going too fast for the conditions it seems reasonable to refer to the statistics for the former in this article and not to confuse the issue by also referring to other contributory factors.  Equally the 'too fast' statistic probably doesn't belong in speed limit either, but the 'exceeding the limit' one most certainly does.  The report 'in general' may well belong in another article about road safety in general. -- de Facto (talk). 12:59, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  To be clear, I was talking in specific about the report under discussion "Contributory factors to road accidents".  In this the contributing factor "exceeding the speed limit" was NOT judged by speed cameras but was judged by the attending officer.  While the report is not wholly clear on the subject it makes it clear that this is a subjective not an objective judgement (see page 3 of the report).  --Richard Clegg 13:42, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I understand all that.  The point I'm making is that the only data that we should be interested in here is that which is actually relevant to the speeding problem ("exceeding the speed limit").  The reason I say that is because cameras can target speeding.  The "going too fast for the conditions" data is nothing to do with speeding, indeed, as I understand it, everthing recorded in this category happened within the speed limit, otherwise the other category would have been used.  The "too fast" data is, I think, a red herring in a speed limit enforcement context. -- de Facto (talk). 14:22, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Contributory factors 

message: I feel that the following text is not neutral in its point of view.
"A Safety Camera Partnership (also Casualty Reduction Partnership, Safer Roads Partnership) is a local multi-agency partnership between British Local Government, police authorities, HMCS, Highways Agency and the National Health Service within the United Kingdom. Their aim is to enforce speed limits and red traffic lights by the use of cameras, along with persecuting motorists to increase the income of the authorities especially the police.[1]"
The reason I feel this way is the text "along with persecuting motorists to increase the income of the authorities".  This seems to have been written by someone who has been caught who feels that their fine was unfair.  The counter argument is that, had they not jumped a red light, or not been speeding, then they wouldn't have had the fine.  I personally think that removing the part after the comma (especially as I believe the fines now go to central government instead of the police or local authority) would be the correct thing to do. Cjmillsnun (talk) 11:20, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree.  I will remove it. Parrot of Doom 11:51, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  General description (first section) 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Safety Camera Partnership. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20110718022327/http://www.nationalsafetycameras.co.uk/nscl/policy/policy/2005-06%20Handbook.pdf to http://www.nationalsafetycameras.co.uk/nscl/policy/policy/2005-06%20Handbook.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20070123100626/http://www.dft.gov.uk:80/stellent/groups/dft_rdsafety/documents/divisionhomepage/032515.hcsp to http://www.dft.gov.uk/stellent/groups/dft_rdsafety/documents/divisionhomepage/032515.hcsp
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 17:47, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified