Safe Speed Forums

Speed trap police ‘are being sneaky’

5:30pm Thursday 1st March 2012 in Evesham Vale

Speed trap police ‘are being sneaky’ Speed trap police ‘are being sneaky’
AN Evesham man says he believes police are employing “sneaky” tactics to catch drivers speeding in order to make a ‘quick pound’.
James White said he spotted an officer with speed monitoring equipment at the same spot on Cheltenham Road on October 19 last year and on February 20 this year, which he said was out of sight for drivers.
Mr White, of Evesham Road said: “I have recently witnessed a speed trap on the Cheltenham Road right at the end of the road near the roundabout. On both sightings the speed trap was hidden from view until you were right on top of it.
“I feel something should be done to stop the police sneaking around with enforcement cameras to try and make a quick pound.”
Mr White went on to suggest some other areas in Evesham which he felt would benefit from speed monitoring including Port Street in Bengeworth, Hampton or Greenhill.

Police guidelines for speed monitoring state all sites must have camera warning signs to notify drivers, officers must wear high visibility clothing, the bikes or vans must be marked and all sites are published on the Safety Camera Partnership website.
Vicki Bristow from the Safety Camera Partnership said: “The core sites we enforce from have a collision history and a speeding problem. We are there to bring these speeds down and in turn help to reduce collisions.
“This particular site in Evesham meets the criteria for one of our core sites. Since we have been operating there we have reduced the average speed. Our officers don’t have any targets to meet regarding how many people are detected speeding.
The only targets we have relate to reducing speeds.”

Police guidelines for speed monitoring state all sites must have camera warning signs to notify drivers, officers must wear high visibility clothing, the bikes or vans must be marked and all sites are published on the Safety Camera Partnership website.

Vicki Bristow from the Safety Camera Partnership said: “... The only targets we have relate to reducing speeds.”

“Your staff have a very specific role and can only park and position their vehicles at recognised sites when engaged in speed detection duties. These sites have been surveyed and approved, the exact position being made clear to all concerned. Should an enforcement vehicle be parked outside the established boundaries in such a way either to contravene parking restrictions or create a hazard, there will be no special consideration or allowance claimed by citing exemptions found in traffic regulations. If any of your staff operate in such a way as to receive any form of parking or speeding fine, they will be solely liable.

The only example of any form of exemption I can produce would be last year’s 3 day joint operation in ******* **********, where a number of partnership vehicles were built into the plan allowing them to operate from non-standard sites but only for the duration of the exercise. Such vehicles were seconded to include special consideration and exemption but only for that period. Day to day running of partnership enforcement operations does not constitute the allowance of any form of exemption as this is for routine partnership purposes.”

So no targets relating to safety?
That statement goes a long way to explaining why limits are forever needlessly falling.

So if only one accident has occurred since 08 this site, it still gives no justification to the speed camera operation. It does show however that Regression To The Mean is easy to see, and something that is crucial when estimating if 'effects' of road safety policies are working or not. Failure to understand and consider this shameful. The Campaign that I represent explains RTTM clearly.
For most motorists speed enforcement alters our visual perceptions, as it may threaten livelihoods and lifestyles, which takes priority over any potential damage to people and property, which ought to always be the top safety consideration when travelling. Speed is a factor in an accident but not the 'cause'. (Other failures have occurred prior to this.)
By concentrating on the wrong road safety policies we are failing to spend our precious resources on the right ones. We also concentrate the motorist on the wrong priorities too.
The Police report accidents through the Stats 19, and in many cases they simply tick a box. If no box exists then the 'nearest' becomes accepted. This can distort the truth, which can multiply and give false results. However we know that hospitals have long seen greater numbers of accidents than the Police report - this has been the case for many decades.
We must address the causes of accidents, to ensure proper prevention methods are implemented. Authorities have a great responsibility to ensure this is done and any failure to do so makes them irresponsible, and potentially unfit for purpose/office.
Replacing police with automated enforcement as 'cheap police' (dft website) is appalling. There is no quick route to proper and intelligent road safety.