Safe Speed Forums

The campaign for genuine road safety
It is currently Fri Feb 20, 2026 17:44

All times are UTC [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 29 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: Fri Dec 29, 2006 18:07 
Offline
Member
Member
User avatar

Joined: Thu Apr 15, 2004 09:16
Posts: 3655
http://www.biggleswadetoday.co.uk/ViewArticle2.aspx?sectionid=182&articleid=1942119

Quote:
More people could die and be seriously injured on Bedfordshire's roads as a result of slashed funding for speed cameras next year.

That is the grim prediction contained in a report to the county's police authority, which belongs to the body which runs cameras across the area – the Bedfordshire and Luton Casualty Reduction Partnership.

The report warns that due to a national shake-up in the way safety partnerships are paid for, Bedfordshire could next year see a "reduced level of offences detected and possible increase in the number of killed and seriously injured."

Currently, money raised by speeding fines in Bedfordshire goes to the Government.

The partnership claims back all its running costs, including equipment, staff and publicity, with Whitehall retaining any surplus cash.

From next April, the partnership will instead be funded by grants paid to its two local authority members, the county council and Luton Borough Council.

But this only adds up to £2.34 million – well below the £2.75 million the partnership needs to operate.

And the new grants are for road safety in general – they do not have to be spent solely on running the speed camera network.


The police authority report says this new arrangement "has reduced dramatically" the level of funding available.

And, faced with other money worries, it is set to drop a plan to help make up the shortfall with £300,000 of its own money.

Police authority treasurer, Alan Williams, said: "We would need to find that money from the mainstream police budget, but what we are saying is that this isn't anything to do with the police authority, because it comes from changes in Government funding.

"You are going to get a lesser service with less support staff, and that does have a consequence."

Bedfordshire Police Authority is facing a £2.63 million hole in its books for the next financial year.

Cutting the money earmarked for casualty reduction would cost five police posts, although the officers cannot be made compulsorily redundant. Four civilian police staff jobs would also go.

The partnership's cameras raised £3.66 million in 2003-04 from 60,920 fines, according to figures released last year by the Department for Transport.

Bedfordshire's operational costs ate up £2.29 million, leaving a surplus for the Government of around £1.37 million – the sixth highest in the UK.

The figures also showed a 73 per cent fall in deaths and serious injuries at camera sites, making Bedfordshire's cameras the most effective in England.

Partnership spokesman Caryl Jones said: "The deployment of safety cameras in the county's worst collision trouble spots has made an important contribution to the reduction in road casualties in our area.

"There is a commitment to maintain the good results achieved with whatever funds are available."


They are going to have to compete for cash with other road safety activity. Its the begining of the end i think.... :)

_________________
Speed camera policy Kills


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Dec 29, 2006 18:50 
Offline
User

Joined: Fri Aug 05, 2005 21:27
Posts: 247
Location: Near Stockport
More of the usual "speed kills" spin then.

I read that a motorcyclist was injured when he hit a child at 50 mph (on an NSL dual carriageway). The child - who was killed - was apparently "playing chicken" with some others, and ran across straight in front of a van, unaware that the bike was overtaking it. No doubt this is done to death elsewhere, but I mention it here for a reason.

Now "compare and contrast" the "Driver in a hurry, child in a coma" spinvert. The aim is to brainwash us into believing that whenever there is a collision between a vehicle and a pedestrian, the cause is "excessive speed" on the part of the vehicle's driver. Of course the entire thing was staged for the cameras, and there is no discussion as to why the child plunged into the road straight into the path of a car in the first place, or any road safety education slant. Clearly the child is blameless. :evil:

I can't see any way forward until there is a fundamental rethink in government policy.

_________________
Brian


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Dec 29, 2006 19:27 
Offline
Gold Member
Gold Member

Joined: Thu Nov 09, 2006 14:06
Posts: 3654
Location: Oxfordshire
I wonder how they'll explain away the lack of a skyrocketing number of deaths after their funding is cut...


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Dec 29, 2006 21:16 
Offline
Gold Member
Gold Member

Joined: Sun Aug 06, 2006 09:13
Posts: 771
Has anyone ever looked into the accounting of an SCP? It would be interesting to see where they spend the money.

_________________
Wake me up when the revolution starts
STOP the Toll Tax http://www.traveltax.org.uk


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Dec 30, 2006 01:39 
Offline
Gold Member
Gold Member

Joined: Sat Mar 06, 2004 16:34
Posts: 923
Location: UK
Graeme wrote:
Has anyone ever looked into the accounting of an SCP? It would be interesting to see where they spend the money.


I have seen a few detailed lists, the vast majority is salaries, then operational costs (eg. rent, film, fuel, equipment, paper, postage)

Under the Audit Commission Act You have the right to inspect all accounts, invoices and contracts of public bodies, including the SCP. Somebody did so with Essex's accounts and it was interesting. I recall they were paying a huge amount of money for paper.

edit: On the original question, I suspect the local councils are much more cynical of SCP's than they once were, especially now instead of being a cost-neutral body the councils will now benefit themselves by cutting the funding. They are now thinking "2.75 million pounds, what on earth do they spend it all on?"

Gareth


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: !
PostPosted: Sat Dec 30, 2006 02:14 
Offline
User

Joined: Sun Sep 03, 2006 04:10
Posts: 3244
The biggest problem they're having in Beds is trying to explain why the accident rate is so high at two speed cam locations.
Both are at a point where two lanes change into one lane....one at the end of a dual carriageway on the top of a hill and where the cam is only sighted JUST where the road goes from 70 to 60 AND changes to single lane. The other a mile away where the road has three lanes, one lane downhill and two lanes uphill, the cam is sited on the blind side of a right hand bend where the road changes from two to one lane. Both have recent fatalities at those points.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Dec 30, 2006 02:29 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Sat Mar 06, 2004 06:46
Posts: 16903
Location: Safe Speed
Yes, we can be sure of a squeeze. But a squeeze is nowhere near enough. There are far too many individuals and organisations who are 'addicted' to speed cameras. There's going to have to be cold turkey and rolling heads before we can get road safety back on track.

_________________
Paul Smith
Our scrap speed cameras petition got over 28,000 sigs
The Safe Speed campaign demands a return to intelligent road safety


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Dec 30, 2006 11:10 
Offline
Member
Member

Joined: Thu Mar 25, 2004 19:19
Posts: 1050
unfortunately the greedy camera partnership are top of the table when it comes to cash. In surrey bike safe has already been told there are no funds for 2007. This is depsite the fact that each rider pays 50 quid for the day AND the run leaders do the day free of charge!.

I wonder how beds performed pre-scamera partnership?


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Dec 30, 2006 11:28 
Offline
Member
Member
User avatar

Joined: Thu Apr 15, 2004 09:16
Posts: 3655
SafeSpeed wrote:
Yes, we can be sure of a squeeze. But a squeeze is nowhere near enough. There are far too many individuals and organisations who are 'addicted' to speed cameras. There's going to have to be cold turkey and rolling heads before we can get road safety back on track.


Maybe. but now the have to share the funding with other organisations they are going to have to justify their spending "internaly" as well. this has never happened before. I think the the dismantling will happen quickly. Be prepared for EVERY SCP bleading heart story in the media over the next few weeks. Lets see how many friends they actualy have.

_________________
Speed camera policy Kills


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Dec 30, 2006 13:43 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Sat Mar 06, 2004 06:46
Posts: 16903
Location: Safe Speed
Gizmo wrote:
SafeSpeed wrote:
Yes, we can be sure of a squeeze. But a squeeze is nowhere near enough. There are far too many individuals and organisations who are 'addicted' to speed cameras. There's going to have to be cold turkey and rolling heads before we can get road safety back on track.


Maybe. but now the have to share the funding with other organisations they are going to have to justify their spending "internaly" as well. this has never happened before. I think the the dismantling will happen quickly. Be prepared for EVERY SCP bleading heart story in the media over the next few weeks. Lets see how many friends they actualy have.


They may be 'embattled', but they will be able to 'buy' a lot of friends and defences with a £100m budget. It's nowhere near good enough.

_________________
Paul Smith
Our scrap speed cameras petition got over 28,000 sigs
The Safe Speed campaign demands a return to intelligent road safety


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Dec 30, 2006 15:49 
Offline
Gold Member
Gold Member

Joined: Sat Mar 06, 2004 16:34
Posts: 923
Location: UK
Gizmo wrote:
SafeSpeed wrote:
Yes, we can be sure of a squeeze. But a squeeze is nowhere near enough. There are far too many individuals and organisations who are 'addicted' to speed cameras. There's going to have to be cold turkey and rolling heads before we can get road safety back on track.


Maybe. but now the have to share the funding with other organisations they are going to have to justify their spending "internaly" as well. this has never happened before. I think the the dismantling will happen quickly. Be prepared for EVERY SCP bleading heart story in the media over the next few weeks. Lets see how many friends they actualy have.


It will be very interesting to see what happens. After this news it might make other councils less likely to bow to pressure to match the existing costs. It would probably be quite easy for them to justify cutting the costs by quoting the other projects being funded, and if they are normal road safety schemes then it would be difficult for the SCP to argue that they are more "worthy".

For most SCPs I doubt there will be any job losses - many have police officers, court and council staff seconded from their usual employers so they would move back to their usual jobs. For those employing civlians operators and back-office staff I imagine there might be some job losses. I guess the managers/PR will be the very last to go.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Dec 30, 2006 16:12 
Offline
Gold Member
Gold Member

Joined: Mon Nov 08, 2004 23:42
Posts: 200
Location: Milton Keynes
RobinXe wrote:
I wonder how they'll explain away the lack of a skyrocketing number of deaths after their funding is cut...


If the rate goes down, the cameras are obviously still working a bit even with the reduced funding and think how much better it would be if they were funded properly. If it goes up, it's obviously due to the reduced funding, look at all these dead children you're responsible for, how can you sleep at night, give us some more money.

These organisations have a *lot* of resources available for publicity, and a strong incentive to use them.

_________________
Peter Humphries (and a green V8S)


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Dec 30, 2006 17:04 
Offline
Member
Member
User avatar

Joined: Thu Apr 15, 2004 09:16
Posts: 3655
g_attrill wrote:
For most SCPs I doubt there will be any job losses -


Maybe thats why some of the posts are on 12 month contracts.

Quote:
Cutting the money earmarked for casualty reduction would cost five police posts, although the officers cannot be made compulsorily redundant. Four civilian police staff jobs would also go.



Now the gravy train has officially ended I think the PR voice will start to dissipate. Money will start to be siphoned away to other activity. Lets face at one time camera cash could only be used for cameras. Now it does not. Just think how many budget holders are going to be getting their hands in the till. Many Police forces are in the red. Dipping into camera cash will be irresistible, whatevery they are saying in public.

_________________
Speed camera policy Kills


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Dec 30, 2006 17:50 
Offline
Gold Member
Gold Member

Joined: Tue Nov 28, 2006 15:27
Posts: 683
Location: New Forest
diy wrote:
In surrey bike safe has already been told there are no funds for 2007. This is depsite the fact that each rider pays 50 quid for the day AND the run leaders do the day free of charge!


That's dreadful news!

I know many people who have benefited from Bike Safe and have then gone on to do further training.

Maybe the Bike Safe guys have been rumbled and it's been discovered that they are giving loads of good advice rather than sticking to "Just keep to the speed limit son, and you'll be fine"

_________________
It's tricky doing nothing - you never know when you're finished


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Dec 30, 2006 17:53 
Offline
Gold Member
Gold Member

Joined: Mon Nov 08, 2004 23:42
Posts: 200
Location: Milton Keynes
Gizmo wrote:
Now the gravy train has officially ended I think the PR voice will start to dissipate.


On the other hand, instead of just the scamera operators and their immediate supporters, anyone who has a chance of getting their hands on revenue from this cash cow will be promoting them.

_________________
Peter Humphries (and a green V8S)


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Dec 30, 2006 22:00 
Offline
Friend of Safe Speed
Friend of Safe Speed
User avatar

Joined: Sun Sep 25, 2005 10:16
Posts: 7986
Location: Moved to London
Quote:
The figures also showed a 73 per cent fall in deaths and serious injuries at camera sites, making Bedfordshire's cameras the most effective in England.


And here it is, black and white, no room for interpretation: the link between the drop in KSIs at camera sites and the effectiveness of cameras.

There is no doubt at all that RTTM has a significant effect on the perceived effectiveness – no one disputes that. So given statements like these, how on earth can the SS detractors keep up their efforts without also targeting the SPCS for dishing out this kind of nonsense?

If these people do not also start targeting the SCPs for such obvious fallacies then it is difficult to believe that their motives are not for the common good.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Dec 31, 2006 00:03 
Offline
Friend of Safe Speed
Friend of Safe Speed
User avatar

Joined: Thu Aug 11, 2005 19:50
Posts: 3369
Location: Lost in the Wilderness
smeggy wrote:
Quote:
The figures also showed a 73 per cent fall in deaths and serious injuries at camera sites, making Bedfordshire's cameras the most effective in England.


And here it is, black and white, no room for interpretation: the link between the drop in KSIs at camera sites and the effectiveness of cameras.

There is no doubt at all that RTTM has a significant effect on the perceived effectiveness – no one disputes that. So given statements like these, how on earth can the SS detractors keep up their efforts without also targeting the SPCS for dishing out this kind of nonsense?

If these people do not also start targeting the SCPs for such obvious fallacies then it is difficult to believe that their motives are not for the common good.


Something we can only keep pumping away at for 2007 :) .

_________________
Useless laws weaken necessary laws.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Dec 31, 2006 12:34 
Offline
Life Member
Life Member
User avatar

Joined: Wed Apr 13, 2005 14:00
Posts: 1271
Location: Near Telford, UK / Barcelona, Spain
smeggy wrote:
Quote:
The figures also showed a 73 per cent fall in deaths and serious injuries at camera sites, making Bedfordshire's cameras the most effective in England.

Hah!! Still not a patch on the Smithfield Road, Shrewsbury, "virtual Camera" though... That managed a 76% reduction! :-)

_________________
"Politicians are the same the world over... We build bridges where there aren't any rivers." - Nikita Kruschev


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Dec 31, 2006 12:50 
Offline
Friend of Safe Speed
Friend of Safe Speed
User avatar

Joined: Sun Sep 25, 2005 10:16
Posts: 7986
Location: Moved to London
I think everyone should be told to exceed the speed limit for a week, doing so spanning 10 metres either side from where the accident took place.

I bet we can achieve nearly a 100% reduction of KSIs at that site simply by making people exceed the speed limit.

:lol: :roll:


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Jan 02, 2007 14:23 
Offline
User

Joined: Tue Mar 09, 2004 12:33
Posts: 770
Location: Earith, Cambs
I had several contacts with the Bedfordshire lot a while back. Every answer I got to my questions was a 'fudge' and a re-stating of their original 'spin'. Maybe some of you would like to ask how their 73% statistic works as fatals in the county have remained largely unchanged. They still, for example, target regularly the A1 at Sandy which has always been relatively safe, but where there ware a couple of nasty accidents a few years back. That location has, of course, regressed to the mean now. The guy there was:
clive.milton@Bedfordshire.pnn.police.uk


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 29 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2  Next

All times are UTC [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 29 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You can post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group
[ Time : 0.018s | 11 Queries | GZIP : Off ]