Halfbaked Hopkins

In the ongoing online discussions on this Post story about the mayoral election Lib Dem Councillor for Knowle, Gary Hopkins chips in this spin,

by gary_hopkins ...Polling shows
1 Non voters and genuinely undecided in a clear lead.
2 Mr Rees in a narrow first preference vote in front of Jon Rogers.
3 The Tories nowhere with their voters either giving Jon First or second preference to keep out Labour.
The other overwhelming stat that comes back is that, liked or not ,George Ferguson is known to that tiny % of the chattering politically active classes but 95% + are completely unaware of him...__________________________________________

My reply: What polling is this? Who is it conducted by? Please give actual figures and the source(s) - otherwise what you say is not backed by facts we can check out. Its quite a common practice for Lib Dems to state a so called 'fact' or a quote in the 'Focus'  newsletters without giving the source for it. Lib Dem materials very often skew figures via very dodgy bar charts and illustrations. If its deliberate its unethical if its not its very poor and sloppy thinking and communication.

By choosing to have a dig at George Ferguson the Lib Dems, a) show they have something to be concerned about and, b) reinforce Ferguson's credentials as a candidate independent from party politics.

[Update 14 Oct: Cllr Hopkins has been challanged three times to produce figures and sources but has not done so - in fact he's made things worse through more party politics and attempted point scoring. No surprise there then.]

UK Census 2011: Alert - a liberty issue for all (and one for David Davies??)

Received this today (thanks to Jean for this) and thought it well worth passing on. Wonder if the newly resigned former Shadow Home Secretary David Davies would take up this issue of liberty? Email sent to my MP and local councillors today.

The next UK Census (in 2011), in which participation is compulsory, might be run by an arms company with close links to the United States government, and which also focuses on intelligence and surveillance work. See below for more info.

The decision is now imminent. Sign the petition today: (Deadline to sign up by: 15 June 2008)
Petition on the Downing Street website -

http://petitions.pm.gov.uk/census-alert/

What's the problem?
The process of running the 2011 Census will be contracted out by the Office of National Statistics to a private company.

One of the two contractors in the final round of selection is the arms company Lockheed Martin, 80% of whose business is with the US Department of Defence and other Federal Government agencies.

This might concern you because:
The Census rules mean that every household will be legally obliged to provide a wide range of personal information that will be handled by the chosen contractor.

Lockheed Martin produces missiles and land mines which are being used in Afghanistan and Iraq and which are illegal in many countries. They also focus on intelligence and surveillance work and boast of their ability to provide `integrated threat information´ that combines information from many different sources.

New questions in the 2011 Census will include information about income and place of birth, as well as existing questions about languages spoken in the household and many other personal details. This information would be very useful to Lockheed Martin´s intelligence work, and fears that the data might not be safe could lead to many people not filling in their Census forms.

Census Alert is therefore campaigning to stop Lockheed Martin from being given the contract.
The campaign is supported by the Green Party, politicians from Plaid Cymru, Labour and the Scottish National Party, and others opposed to the arms trade and concerned about personal privacy.

We are not opposed to the Census itself. Aggregated, the information collected is important in allocating resources to local authorities and public services. But personal privacy is important too, and we are concerned that Lockheed Martin's involvement could undermine public confidence in the process and lead to inaccurate data being collected. There is still time to stop this happening and we are not calling for a boycott of the Census at this stage.

Before the final decisions on the contract are made, we are asking you to do the following:
*Sign our petition opposing arms company involvement in the Census.Contact your MP and ask them to raise the issue in Parliament.
*Contact your local Councillor and ask them to highlight their concerns about the allocation of local authority resources.

Multiple studies show road safety cameras save lives!! (Though camera opponents will believe only what they want, whatever the facts)

Bob Bull thinks the evidence does not show that speed/safety cameras save lives and serious injuries. His letter says the figures I gave have been proved wrong (‘Speed Cameras’, Bristol Evening Post Soapbox, 20 Sept). I have to tell him that the evidence in favour of speed/safety cameras, from multiple studies, is overwhelming. I fear that he and possibly others will only believe what they want to believe, no matter what the facts are. An independent review by University College London, published 2005 of more than 4,000 cameras over a four year period, featured on the Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents website, clearly demonstrates that cameras reduce speeding and collisions a great deal. Deaths and serious injuries at camera sites were cut by 42%.


The review concluded: vehicles breaking the speed limit at fixed camera sites fell by 70%; the reduction at mobile sites was by 18%; speeding at 15 mph or more above the limit fell by 91% at fixed sites and by 36% at mobile sites; average vehicle speed across all new sites fell by 6%; people killed or seriously injured fell by 42% at camera sites, meaning there were 1,745 fewer people killed or seriously injured at the camera sites per year – including 100 fewer deaths; people killed and seriously injured fell by 50% at fixed sites and by 35% at mobile sites; there was a 32% reduction in the number of children killed or seriously injured at camera sites; the number of pedestrians killed or seriously injured fell by 29% at camera sites; a 22% reduction in collisions involving (fatal, serious or slight) personal injury at camera sites, equating to 4,230 fewer personal injury collisions per year.


The impact of the first British speed cameras, installed in West London in 1992, was assessed by the West London Speed Camera Demonstration Project in 1997. In the first three years of operation, cameras: cut deaths by 70% ; cut serious injuries by 27% ; cut slight injuries by 8%.


A 1995 study by the Police Research Group concluded that speed cameras reduced casualties by 28%.


Initial evaluation of the pilot schemes by the DfT in 2003 found that the: drivers exceeding the speed limit fell from 47% to 20%.; drivers exceeding the speed limit by more than 15mph fell from 7.4% to 0.3%.; average speeds at the camera sites fell by 10% (3.7mph).; 35% fewer people (numbering 285) were killed and seriously injured; there was a 56% reduction in the number of pedestrians killed or seriously injured at camera sites.; there were 14% (about 510) fewer crashes.


A three year review of cameras in 24 areas (“The National Safety Camera Programme: Three-year Evaluation Report” by University College, published 2004 ) found they significantly reduced speeding and collisions, and had cut deaths and serious injuries at camera sites by 40%.

Looks like Bob Bull and company are in a small minority of 18% or less since the level of public support for the use of cameras has been consistently high with 82% of people questioned agreeing with the statement that ‘the use of safety cameras should be supported as a method of reducing casualties’.


Public attitude surveys clearly show that people support safety cameras because they save lives. In a 2005 parliamentary statement the Secretary of State for Transport said that 71% of people surveyed agreed that the primary use of cameras was to save lives. Surveys conducted in the 8 pilot areas had previously found that: 70% agreed that “fewer accidents are likely to happen on roads where cameras are installed”; 67% agreed that "Cameras mean that dangerous drivers are now more likely to get caught"; 82% agreed that "Cameras are meant to encourage drivers to keep to the limits, not punish them"

Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents site has more.

World statistics updated in real time

There are some absolutely staggering stats on this website, updated in real time:

http://www.worldometers.info/

Its well worth a visit and a ponder.

Cut human-caused weather extremes by going green

January 20th marked the four hundredth anniversary of the huge tidal wave around the Bristol Channel that caused so much death, damage and distress. Such an anniversary reminds us of the awesome power of natural forces. This power has been clearly demonstrated to us all in Bristol and across the country in our recent weather, with several deaths resulting.

The tidal wave four hundred years ago was a natural event. Yet we are now living in a time where we cannot say that all the weather extremes we experience are wholly natural events. Firm, reliable and verified scientific evidence as collected together by the UN and others has now been saying for decades that pollution of the atmosphere with carbon emissions has altered our climate and thus our weather. Weather extremes have always happened and always will but science now says that as a result of human behaviour these extremes will occur more frequently and that they will be more intense and damaging.

As I write even more scientific evidence is being presented by the BBC/Open University in their report on the climateprediction.net project. Many Bristolians have taken part in this by downloading climate model software onto their home computers from the BBC website. The findings of this project are stark and go beyond a pleasant Mediterranean climate. Evidence of: increased flooding risk; more powerful storm surges; more torrential rain; stronger heatwaves, and more, are confidently predicted to occur if we dont act to substantially cut carbon emissions. Links between environmental problems are also presented eg year on year decrease of open, green space in Bristol reduces the natural capacity of land to deal with extra rain and so flooding risk rises. Unlike green space tarmac and concrete dont act like a sponge.

Problems like carbon emissions and open space loss caused by human behaviour can of course be changed by altering behaviour. Saving energy through upgrading home insulation keeps you more comfortable and saves you money on bills as well as cutting carbon emissions. Taking the train and/or holidaying in the UK instead of flying cuts emissions but also boosts your local, regional and national economy as you spend here and not abroad - there's also a lot to discover in our diverse country. Helping to save a piece of local open green space from development will maintain the ability of land to cope with rain and campaigning to build and maintain genuinely local facilities like swimming pools cuts car use, making our air healthier to breathe. There are many big plus points in such behaviour change - so go green!