Safe Speed Forums

The campaign for genuine road safety
It is currently Tue Apr 28, 2026 14:43

All times are UTC [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 2 posts ] 
Author Message
 Post subject: Is the end in sight?
PostPosted: Fri Jul 15, 2005 09:25 
Offline
Member
Member

Joined: Thu Mar 11, 2004 00:24
Posts: 2400
Location: Kendal, Cumbria
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0, ... 58,00.html

Times wrote:
Speed camera U-turn as 500 sites rejected
By Ben Webster, Transport Correspondent

THE Government is blocking the installation of nearly 500 new speed cameras amid signs that ministers are beginning to doubt the effectiveness of the devices.

The 38 camera partnerships, which include police forces and local authorities, have been ordered not to use cameras at any new sites. The ban includes places where there have been several fatal crashes caused by speeding vehicles.

The Association of Chief Police Officers (Acpo) condemned the ban, saying that it could cost lives because dangerous roads were being left unprotected by cameras.

The Department for Transport is reviewing the rules on deploying cameras after concerns that partnerships have failed to consider alternatives, such as improving junctions or erecting warning signs.

The review is being overseen by Stephen Ladyman, the new Road Safety Minister, who has been caught three times by speed cameras and at one stage had nine points on his licence, one offence away from a six-month ban. More than two million drivers received speed camera fines last year, a tenfold increase in less than a decade.

In a letter sent to the partnerships this week, the department said that it had decided not to approve any more sites until it received a report on the peformance of existing sites. It ordered partnerships to revise their budgets because they would receive less revenue than expected from fines. Under the scheme introduced five years ago, partnerships are allowed to keep a proportion of camera fines to pay for more cameras.

The scheme has prompted claims that partnership staff may favour cameras over other solutions because they need to ensure a steady flow of income to pay their salaries. The department is understood to be concerned that it may have exaggerated the benefits of cameras by failing to allow for the random nature of crashes.

Partnership managers accused the department of failing to give an adequate explanation for the ban. One told The Times: “We submitted our operational case in November but the department has been dragging its feet for eight months. They are clearly rethinking their policy but they haven’t got the honesty to say so.”

Ian Bell, Acpo’s speed camera liaison officer, said: “I am concerned that any delay in installing cameras where they are most needed increases the risk of speed-related crashes.

“All the sites submitted for approval to the department meet the existing criteria so it is difficult to understand why they have not been approved.”

There must have been at least four crashes involving death or serious injury per kilometre in the previous three years before a fixed camera can be installed, or two crashes for a mobile camera.

Three people died recently in two collisions on a road in Cheshire which had already had enough crashes to qualify for a camera. Lee Murphy, manager of the Cheshire partnership, said that the deaths had happened in May, six months after he had applied to the department for permission to begin mobile camera enforcement. “We were still waiting for a response when the accidents happened. We have now decided to use cameras there anyway because we just can’t wait any longer.”

Forces can deploy cameras wherever they choose for up to 15 per cent of the total time that they spend enforcing speed limits.

The Parliamentary Advisory Council for Transport Safety, which supports speed cameras, admitted yesterday that some may not be justified. Rob Gifford, the council’s director, said: “In some cases a partnership may have chosen to install a camera when an engineering solution may have been better.

“But we still believe the department should have the courage of its convictions. Cameras have been proven to work, and people may die if there is a delay in enforcing a site.”

Mr Gifford said the doubling of camera sites to about 6,000 in the past five years had helped to reduce speeding. Since 2000 the proportion of vehicles exceeding the limit in 30mph zones has fallen from 66 per cent to 53 per cent.

Paul Smith, of the anti-camera campaign Safe Speed, said: “I’m delighted that the department appears to be realising that it has used bogus statistics to justify more cameras.”

_________________
CSCP Latin for beginners...
Ticketo ergo sum : I scam therefore I am!


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Jul 15, 2005 22:02 
Offline
User

Joined: Thu Jun 10, 2004 18:58
Posts: 306
Location: LanCA$Hire ex Kendal
Notice they have started using the mobile site whilst still awaiting "permission".

Says it all really - secretive and accountable to no one - the true world of the Scammer.

How long will it be, for the sake of the BiB especially, before these parasites are closed down? :evil:


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 2 posts ] 

All times are UTC [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 281 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 : 0.017s | 12 Queries | GZIP : Off ]