YOU SAID IT
Opinion poll
Wednesday, 25 June 2008
Name: Andy Daines, Bracknell
Enquiry: I am dismayed to see you've not published the results of your poll concerning speed camera effectiveness citing infiltration. Could it be that it was accurate and you didn't like the results? Supposing it had been "infiltrated" by supporters of speed cameras? I'll bet you'd have published the results then.
Name: Dr Roy Milner, University of Sheffield Medical School, Sheffield
Enquiry: I noticed that your opinion poll page has gone down to technical issues caused by malicious use. I take it you can assure me that the opinion polls demise wasn't due to the fact that the result was not the one you wanted to hear? It was 95% against speed cameras last time I checked, then all of a sudden, the poll is no more. I suspect that had the poll shown 95% in favour it would be on your front page!
Name: Paul Thompso, South Elmsall, Pontefract
Enquiry: Having just read the comments on your Poll page I would like to ask if you would have thought there had been an attempt to corrupt the site had the vote been 94% in favour of cameras rahter than against?
When you put up a poll, the result relates to the people who have visited and voted on the poll. Are you certain the result is linked to the emails you have received? What are the numbers involved? Maybe you just asked a question large numbers of people feel passionate about.
REPLY: The poll was 74% in favour one day and - literally - 94% against the next. All the negative "responses" were from fictional, sequential email addresses. Our web specialists suspect the use of a spam virus programmed to deliver the same indecipherable message over and over. The same tactic was used to attempt to swamp the Comment/contact us, You said It, FAQ and Subscribe to Scan pages. Work is currently underway to remove the virus and the corrupting messages and install a means to prevent similar attacks in future.
About 5,500 people visit our site every month because they recognize it is THE primary source of information about safety cameras operation and related road safety matters for West Yorkshire. These visitors and others overwhelmingly and repeatedly confirm to us through opinion polls, street surveys, independent research, public meetings, outreach events and one-to-one that West Yorkshire people support the use of speed control safety cameras as a proven method for reducing death and injury on local roads... and they want more cameras.
In a survey carried out over several months and published in January, 78% agreed that cameras are meant to encourage drivers to keep to the speed limit, not punish them. 78% recognised that fewer accidents are likely to happen on roads where cameras are installed, and nearly as many (73%) believed that cameras mean more "dangerous" drivers will be caught, not just speeders.
The biggest support - 82% - was in response to the question: should the use of cameras be supported as a method of reducing casualties? And the same proportion recognised that the primary aim of cameras is to save lives.
Hardly anyone (less than 2%) felt that cameras were unnecessary and should be scrapped, only 7% believed that cameras are just to raise revenue from motorists, and few people (16%) felt there were too many cameras where they lived
It is not feasible that this solid and continuing public support could be overturned literally overnight
Subscribe to SCaN now!