Is this proof cameras are a scam?

[map]

Just looking at the figures from the Lincolnshire Road Safety Partnership (I was at Barton Bike Night and picked up a leaflet).

Now I know you can prove anything with statistics but some of the figures look a bit wrong.

The full table is in this link - https://www.lincssafetycamera.com/CollisionData.asp

For example Personal Injury Collisions (PIC)
A15 Snitterby S/B, Before=6, After=6, % reduction=-40% (not 0%)
A15 Scampton N/B, Before=2, After=5, % reduction=+50% (not +150%)

and Killed Seriously Injured (KSI)
Brant Road Waddington N/B, Before=1, After=1, % reduction=-25%
A52 Leverton S/B, Before=4, After=2, % reduction=-100% (not -50%)

There are many other examples of this in these figures.
I suspect it is only the % figures that get reported so the partnership continues to justify its existance.

Now my questions are (1) have I understood this right? and (2) are there any more examples of this apparent inconsistancy in data?

Any other comments welcome
____________________
...and the whirlwind is in the thorn trees, it's hard for thee to kick against the pricks...
Gibbs, what did Duckie look like when he was younger?

[Klause]

Does seem very dodgy
____________________
Current bikes: 1960 Triumph 5ta x2, TTR600RE, KTM200EXC, Cagiva Elephant 900ie.

[Kickstart]

Hi

Suspect it is to do with the time periods involved.

However note that the numbers look best on the most recent scameras which pretty much supports the case that any apparent effects of cameras are just short term statistical anomalies.

All the best

Keith
____________________
Traxpics, track day and racing photographs - Bimota Forum - Bike performance / thrust graphs for choosing gearing

[map]

[Chriss]

I've been tempted, on more than one occasion to take spray paint to the camera lense. There's so much debate about weather they're for raising cash or not. We all *know* they are, and there are so few that I actually belive make a blind bit of difference.

Sorry, just vented a bit of steam.
____________________
TheShaggyDA: I've got 3 or 4 pairs that predate my wife, so at least 11.5 years old.

[the grim reaper]

There's lies, damn lies and statistics.

Did you know that the government state that one third of all accidents are attributable to speed.What they don't say is how they describe speed related accidents. They attribute a car pulling out from a junction into another car as a speed related accident, not a muppet induced accident.

It's all a smokescreen to justify more cameras.

Cheers

Grim
____________________
Adverts don't always work: Remember that advert, where the army are running across the desert and they have a wounded man on a stretcher. They get to a ravine, the bridge is down and a caption pops up that says, 'What are you thinking?'. I don't know about you but I was thinking, 'Christ, I'm glad I'm not in the f***ing army'.

[map]

Well someone did phone me back
I was put through to the data analyst.

She said that the figures before are 3 years before the camera and the figures after are 5 years after the camera (this is for the 1998 A15 Snitterby S/B, Before=6, After=6, % reduction=-40%).

So that means 6/3 - 6/5 = 0.8, which is a -40% average reduction in the before figure.

Now there's 2 points to this
(1) Should be grateful they cocked up again because 2005-1998=7 years which is -57% average reduction (even if it's 2004 figures it's still wrong )
and
(2) It is hardly a level playing field as over the longer period the % accidents will be less than the shorter one.

So, I for one, can't really believe these figures
As I said before this fiddling with the figures to get the result that's favourable undermines the whole credibility and justification for the camera partnerships.

Lies, damn lies and statistics.


____________________
...and the whirlwind is in the thorn trees, it's hard for thee to kick against the pricks...
Gibbs, what did Duckie look like when he was younger?