Safe Speed Forums

http://www.nwemail.co.uk/news/viewartic ... ?id=164647

cumbria speed camera vans to hunt in pairs
Published on 22/12/2004

A NEW campaign to cut speeding could spell double trouble for motorists in Cumbria.

Two safety camera vans are set to be sited within a quarter of a mile of each other on certain stretches of road where speeding is commonplace.

Roads targeted will include stretches of the A590 between Barrow and the M6, as well as the A595 along the West Cumbria coast and the A6.

The move by Cumbria Safety Cameras aims to outfox motorists who think they can escape punishment by slowing down for a speed camera and then immediately exceeding the speed limit once they have gone past.
========================================

This sounds completely barking doesn't it?

But there's a reason. They call it "race away". Drivers and riders annoyed by talivans speed away and crash at the next bend. Steve Callaghan of the Cumbria S camera partnership let it slip, and Brunstrom's been on about it.

It's one more way that the damn cameras are killing us.

When are they going to be honest about the effect they are having?

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

I think that the effect they are having is quite crucial. Somebody somewhere obviously believes that motorists should be thinking to themselves..



What they fail to grasp is that people don't 'speed' because they are arrogant know-it-alls (although there will be a small number who actually are). And they also appear to believe we have no right to get annoyed when we see money spent on laybys for talivans when, further up the road, a botched reworking of the lanes at the end of a dual carriageway has left the road surface potted and uneven.

Great, so I can now lose my licence twice in one shopping trip.

_________________
-mike[F]
Caught in the rush of the crowd, lost in a wall of sound..

Safe Speed issued the following PR at 23:17 on 22nd December 2004:

PR155: Race away crashes lead to double trouble in Cumbria

NEWS: For immediate release

According to press reports, Cumbria are to introduce "double" speed
traps - two camera vans just one quarter of a mile apart.

One might wonder at the purpose of such a bizarre tactic. Do they want
to issue double fines to passing drivers? Double fines would be bad
enough, but the truth is far more frightening.

It turns out than there have been a series of crashes as frustrated
and annoyed drivers leave a zone of speed enforcement. They have been
having crashes at the very next hazard. Safe Speed believes this
little known side effect of speed cameras is the true reason for the
bizarre Cumbrian double traps. It's called "race away", and the double
cameras are a misguided attempt to combat this special danger.

In an interview with the Times earlier this year Chief Constable
Richard Brunstrom, sometimes called 'The mad mullah of the traffic
taliban' said: "We have a particular problem with motorcyclists
slowing down for the cameras but then speeding up and dying on the
next corner."

Paul Smith, founder of the Safe Speed road safety campaign
(www.safespeed.org.uk) commented: "We have been trying to monitor
these so called "race away" crashes for some time. Camera partnerships
are reluctant to give us any information, and we're not surprised.
Race away is one of a series of dangerous speed camera side effects,
none of which have been properly investigated.

In February this year, Steve Callaghan, manager of the Cumbria camera
operation said: "The mobile sites we have set up have hard standings
where the vans are usually located but we can move them within the
location of that site. Let's say the site is 0.9km long, we can
operate anywhere inside that distance and this will be done in the
coming months. Hopefully this will combat the effect of the 'race
away' and subsequent disaster at a nearby hazard."

This is a difficult issue for the camera proponents - do they warn the
public of the hazard, thereby admitting that their cameras have deadly
side effects, or do they allow it to continue? Cumbria has a novel
'solution', but of course we'll end up with drivers and riders who are
twice as annoyed crashing after the second camera.

On Wednesday 22nd December annual road deaths in Cumbria surpassed the
2003 total making 2004 the worst year since 2000, and there's a high
risk week to go.

Paul continues: "After the formation of the camera partnership in
Cumbria (April 2003) road fatalities have gone up in both 2003 and
2004. Any suggestion that cameras save lives is a sick joke, and
especially so for the thousands who have been fined or even banned
from driving. Safe Speed demands that we immediately suspend all speed
camera operations nationally. The side effects are killing us."

Important tips for all road users:

Anyone caught speeding twice, 1/4 mile apart should ignore the fixed
penalty notices and ask the court to deal with BOTH as a SINGLE
OFFENCE. Taking your case to court also PREVENTS the local camera
partnership from recovering any fine money.

<ends>

Notes for editors:
******************

BBC story from August,

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/3564128.stm

Contains: "Richard Brunstrom, head of road policing for the
Association of Chief Police Officers, told the Times: "We have a
particular problem with motorcyclists slowing down for the cameras but
then speeding up and dying on the next corner."

***

In February this year, Steve Callaghan, manager of the Cumbria Camera
Partnership said:

"The mobile sites we have set up have hard standings where the vans
are usually located but we can move them within the location of that
site. Lets say the site is 0.9km long, we can operate anywhere inside
that distance and this will be done in the coming months. Hopefully
this will combat the effect of the 'race away' and subsequent disaster
at a nearby hazard."

***

On December 22nd, writing in the CSCP forum, Steve Callaghan said:

"We have noticed that some motorists race away from safety camera
sites, sometimes flicking up a couple of fingers on the way. Not being
totally satisfied with this sort of reaction our camera operators
reported this back to me.

We predicted that the envelope of compliance around the camera would
be about 1000m before and may be 500-1000m afterward for the more
manipulative (an coincidentally, the more at risk) driver. We also
predicted that the speed profile at accident hot spots would change
with some migration of speed to either side of the accident hot spot.
This has now occurred."

Notice how the wording has softened since February?

Link:
http://www.cumbriasafetycameras.org/for ... =743&st=45

***

Press story from the North West Evening Mail:
http://www.nwemail.co.uk/news/viewartic ... ?id=164647


cumbria speed camera vans to hunt in pairs
Published on 22/12/2004

A NEW campaign to cut speeding could spell double trouble for
motorists in Cumbria.

Two safety camera vans are set to be sited within a quarter of a mile
of each other on certain stretches of road where speeding is
commonplace.

Roads targeted will include stretches of the A590 between Barrow and
the M6, as well as the A595 along the West Cumbria coast and the A6.

The move by Cumbria Safety Cameras aims to outfox motorists who think
they can escape punishment by slowing down for a speed camera and then
immediately exceeding the speed limit once they have gone past.

***

Cumbria fatality figures:
2000: 55
2001: 47
2002: 49
2003: 54
2004: 47 to end November, 8 so far in December making 55.

***

Cumbria Camera Partnership can be contacted on 01768 217477

http://www.cumbriasafetycameras.org

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

That thread you linked to on CSCP has a lot of gems in it. I wonder how long before it gets culled?!

Make hay while the sun shines........

_________________
Speed camera policy Kills

Just like a pack of wild animals hunting prey

Andrew

_________________
It's a scam........or possibly a scamola


Homer Simpson

I was thinking of the WW2 U boats..the Wolf Pack

BTW two intersing rules apply...
Handbook of Rules and Guidance for the National Safety Camera programme for England and Wales for 2005/06
1) rule 3.2.1b
multiple housings or mobile enforcement points are allowed within the approved site but a vehicle detected speeding by more than one camera at a site is to be regarded as a single offence

2) rule 10c
....camera sites must not overlap.

_________________
Speed camera policy Kills

3 more fatals on Boxing Day in 2 separate crashes, so now up to 58 for the the year so far.

Apart from 1999 (62), 2004 (the first full year of CSCP, least we forget) has been the worst year in the last 11.

How much longer has CSCP got?

There is quite a bit in one discussion on the CSCP. I summarised it, hopefully in a non-emotive way, in my first post in it... http://www.cumbriasafetycameras.org/for ... 57&st=15&#

They have already said their primary aim is NOT to reduce deaths but KSIs..



Even though their website homepage said otherwise...


Paul...I think another press release is called for..

_________________
Speed camera policy Kills

I know I said I needed organs for a couple of patients of mine - but do not need Steve Callaghan to help provide them by his daft policies here.

Or is it because SI costs NHS and Insurance companies money? Death is so much cheaper and think of the death duties!

Am in cynical mode ...bad day at work! My own stats death wise took a swing downwards!

No doubt they will blame it on the long hot summer.

That was their answer.......

I think that is is time for the locals to write to their MP to ask who is accountable for the failure in road safety policy.

Deaths have gone up 15% since the introduction of the Casualty Reduction Partnership.

I have no doubt that if the fatalities had come down there would have been an imediate press release from the partnership claiming success.

Now they have to held responsible for their failure.
[/quote][/code]

_________________
Speed camera policy Kills

I have no doubt that if the fatalities had come down there would have been an imediate press release from the partnership claiming success.

Now they have to held responsible for their failure.


Spot on Gizmo - their "explanation" for the increase is to blame drivers speeding up having passed the Talivan. Strange really, it's only a couple of months back they were shouting from the rooftops KSI's were down 40% at their target sites...

Fatals were 49 in 2002 before they started, 2001 49 (on their site) or 47 according to others. 1998 was 48, 1994 was 46 - if 2004 had been say 46 as well, there would be a major press release on Jan 1st, as you say.
Of course, it would claim all the credit for the reduction on 2003, 2002 etc, conveniently forgetting to mention it also happened 10 years ago, when the "average" vehicle didnt have ABS, 4-6 airbags, impact bars et al...

Let us hope so.....but somehow I fear they will get away with it...

If you are a local a letter to you MP would be good...they are obliged to answer....if they are on the opposition side it may get read in parliament.

_________________
Speed camera policy Kills

It's not compulsory you know. All you brilliant drivers can't control your right foot enough to stick to the limits - maybe a bit of retraining would be useful.

If that saved lives I may agree but it dosn't does it...Road speeds are claimed to be falling in the camera partnerships and the death toll keeps going up...maybe you should stop believing everything you read on the SCP sites...

_________________
Speed camera policy Kills

Hence the word 'can'.

_________________
-mike[F]
Caught in the rush of the crowd, lost in a wall of sound..

As far as I know from Lancs who offer a fairly comprehensive retrain for their 10% plus 4 speeders - their data to date does suggest that none re-offend within the three years. Incidentally - they do teach COAST and mention it formally on their programme.

We keep records of those we warn and lecture for internal monitoring purposes only - very few re-offend on our patch! Some get a NIP and others - use discretion. Depends on attitude and nature of the offence.

Regarding the double trouble in Cumbria...should in fairness be treated as one offence. Admit - we do station our mobiles along certain roads to prevent the acceleration effect - but generally tend to give lecture and treat as one offence if person trigged both cameras. If they slowed for the first and were then copped by the second - then again just one offence has been committed. With regard to Cumbria's tactic - think this is the intention - to at bag at least one offence : person knows about Ings and slows down. They then accelerate after the "hazard". So they set up a second one to try to entrap an offence. I'd be inclined to keep the speed steady and 3 mph below limit for a mile either sides of any camera van.

They'd be better off employing more police really... Nothing like our guys behind you to slow you down a bit .