Safe Speed Forums

The campaign for genuine road safety
It is currently Tue Jul 07, 2020 13:15

All times are UTC [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 28 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: Tue Aug 03, 2010 11:47 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Tue Oct 12, 2004 02:17
Posts: 7361
Location: Highlands
Bucks Free Press here
Oliver Evans wrote:
We won't reveal camera fines because some are switched off, Buckinghamshire bosses say
By Oliver Evans - 7:00am Tuesday 3rd August 2010

SPEED camera chiefs have refused to say how much money each device makes – because it would show which ones are switched off.
They refused a Freedom of Information Act request from The Bucks Free Press on the number of tickets issued and fines collected for each camera.
They also claimed it would make the county’s 51 fixed cameras a target for vandals.

This is despite the BFP previously winning a long-running battle to get figures for two cameras – and fines being released elsewhere in England and not being linked to attacks.
It comes as a council chief prepares to reach a decision on camera funding which could see some turned off for good. About £2m in fines were paid from 2007 to 2009.
Attorney General and Beaconsfield MP Dominic Grieve, the chief legal advisor to the Crown, hit out.

He said: “While I appreciate there may be a need not to show which ones are switched off, it would be able to show which speed cameras are collecting the most money.”
Wycombe MP Steve Baker said: “The information should certainly be released.
“We are entering a time when Government needs to be much more open and transparent.”
He said the issue of inactive cameras ‘approaches the question of road safety from the wrong direction’.
He said: “It supposes people will only behave themselves if they are under surveillance.
“We need to get to a situation where people behave themselves on the road because they want to behave themselves on the road.”

We asked for the number of Notice of Intended Prosecutions issued and paid for each camera, in 2007 to 2010. This included the county’s 64 mobile sites.
But the Thames Valley Safer Roads Partnership’s Ellie Hynes said she was ‘not obliged’ to provide the figures as she said they were exempt under the act.
The information risked ‘increased speeding at sites where it is known that a camera is out of use’.
This would ‘expose sites that received no enforcement (often the case in Thames Valley) thereby encouraging speeding where there was no perceived risk of detection’.

She said: “Our own research shows that if a driver believes a camera unit is inactive; speeds at the site will increase.
“Increased speeds mean a higher risk of injury to road users and members of the public.”
And she said: “By releasing the individual camera sites in Buckinghamshire we would [be] effectively advertising to anti-speed camera vandals which cameras they should target.”

This would incur repair and surveillance costs, she said, and pointed to a 2007 News of the World article listing the 100 most busy cameras from available data.
One was hit by an arson attack and she said it is ‘strongly considered’ this was linked to the article.
The Bucks Free Press won a two-year battle with the partnership to get information about two speed cameras on Marlow Hill, High Wycombe, released under the Act.

We appealed to the Information Commissioner, who regulates use of the Act. He backed the partnership – but the BFP then won an appeal at the Information Tribunal.
The figures showed £1.2m worth of fines had been paid with more than 21,000 slapped with tickets between November 2002 and December 2006.
And other speed camera bodies have released figures – and three which disclosed the information within the last year did not link this to attacks.
There were no attacks since the Salford Advertiser published the ‘top 10 cameras’ in June, The Greater Manchester Casualty Reduction Partnership told The Free Press.
Sussex Safer Roads Partnership said there had been two ‘minor incidents’ since The Brighton Argus published figures in October but did not link them with the article.

Dorset Safety Camera Partnership said it released figures regularly in the ‘genuine public interest’ and to cut down on requests.

Spokesman Louise Edwards said: “It is considered that where cameras have been attacked in Dorset the offences against the public safety are being carried out by mindless thugs whenever they feel inclined to do so with no thought to the camera’s location or statistics.”

Buckinghamshire County Council transport boss Cllr Valerie Letheren is today expected to announce her decision on its funding for the partnership.
Oxfordshire County Council voted last week to pull its funding, meaning all Oxon cameras were switched off on Sunday.
She has said Bucks is likely to cut funding and manage cameras itself, turning some off.
The TVSRP did, however, release the number of tickets paid in Buckinghamshire, 12,125 in 2009. Tickets are £60, meaning tickets were worth £727,500.
This means that between 2007 and 2010, the partnership was paid fines worth £2m.
But just 44 per cent of tickets issued were paid. Many are offered a ‘speed awareness course’ instead of points and fine.

The partnership recently hailed a fall in deaths and collisions in its ten-year lifetime, from 33 in 2000 to 23.
Those killed or seriously injured fell from 396 in 2000 to 242 in 2009. The total number of people involved in collisions fell from 2,884 to 1,960 from 2000.
Just goes to show what great paranoia it relies on and how totally flawed the whole concept is !
It also clearly shows just how they think and recognise that it is based upon the fear of loosing your licence not about instilling good behaviours and encouraging better driving practices.

_________________
Safe Speed for Intelligent Road Safety through proper research, experience & guidance.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Aug 03, 2010 12:48 
Offline
Gold Member
Gold Member

Joined: Thu Nov 09, 2006 14:06
Posts: 3654
Location: Oxfordshire
Thames Valley Safer Roads Partnership’s Ellie Hynes wrote:
Our own research shows that if a driver believes a camera unit is inactive; speeds at the site will increase.


I would be interested to see this research. Do we think it has been peer reviewed? :twisted:

If, say, 85% or more of speeds increased, without any associated increase in accidents, then one might suppose that the limit is too low for the prevailing conditions.

Thames Valley Safer Roads Partnership’s Ellie Hynes wrote:
Increased speeds mean a higher risk of injury to road users and members of the public.


Unsubstantiated.

Wycombe MP Steve Baker seems to have his head screwed on right.

_________________
Regulation without education merely creates more criminals.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Aug 03, 2010 19:49 
Offline
New User
New User

Joined: Tue Apr 28, 2009 18:15
Posts: 6
Quote:
Thames Valley Safer Roads Partnership’s Ellie Hynes wrote:
Increased speeds mean a higher risk of injury to road users and members of the public.


Aren't the vast majority (if not all) road users 'members of the public' - I suppose you could exclude police and other highway patrols when they are on duty. Equally surely the only members of the public at risk on the roads would be road users - although there are scenarios where people have vehicles crashing through their houses etc I believe them to be rare.

Does this suggest a lack of joined up thinking by safety camera staff with them assuming there are motorists are separate to the general public.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Aug 03, 2010 19:52 
Offline
Member
Member

Joined: Fri Oct 26, 2007 19:08
Posts: 3434
She's probably a non driver, who assumes all drivers are suicidal maniacs, not part of the human race.

_________________
My views do not represent Safespeed but those of a driver who has driven for 39 yrs, in all conditions, at all times of the day & night on every type of road and covered well over a million miles, so knows a bit about what makes for safety on the road,what is really dangerous and needs to be observed when driving and quite frankly, the speedo is way down on my list of things to observe to negotiate Britain's roads safely, but I don't expect some fool who sits behind a desk all day to appreciate that.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Aug 03, 2010 21:06 
Offline
User

Joined: Sat Oct 20, 2007 22:50
Posts: 3267
RobinXe wrote:

Thames Valley Safer Roads Partnership’s Ellie Hynes wrote:
Increased speeds mean a higher risk of injury to road users and members of the public.


Unsubstantiated.


Have you anything to show that higher speeds (in the same given environment) do not result in a higher risk of injury to road users and members of the public?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Aug 03, 2010 21:29 
Offline
Life Member
Life Member

Joined: Sat Mar 27, 2004 13:50
Posts: 2643
weepej wrote:
Have you anything to show that higher speeds (in the same given environment) do not result in a higher risk of injury to road users and members of the public?


Have you anything to show that they do?

_________________
Only when ideology, prejudice and dogma are set aside does the truth emerge - Kepler


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Aug 03, 2010 21:47 
Offline
User

Joined: Sat Oct 20, 2007 22:50
Posts: 3267
Pete317 wrote:
Have you anything to show that they do?


And there we go.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Aug 03, 2010 22:34 
Offline
Life Member
Life Member
User avatar

Joined: Sun Sep 25, 2005 21:17
Posts: 3734
Location: Dorset/Somerset border
Well, have you?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Aug 03, 2010 22:38 
Offline
User

Joined: Sat Oct 20, 2007 22:50
Posts: 3267
Johnnytheboy wrote:
Well, have you?


Plenty of evidence out there, but of course, one "hole" in it appears to invalidate the entire paper.

So I was looking forward to seeing proof that increased speed doesn't mean increased number of incidents and picking holes in that.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Aug 03, 2010 22:40 
Offline
Life Member
Life Member
User avatar

Joined: Sun Sep 25, 2005 21:17
Posts: 3734
Location: Dorset/Somerset border
http://www.roadsafetyfoundation.com/downloads/Map.pdf

Fast roads are safe roads. Check all the modern roads, all safer than the old A-roads.

Oh yes, I forgot, it's a different "environment".


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Aug 03, 2010 22:49 
Offline
User

Joined: Sat Oct 20, 2007 22:50
Posts: 3267
Johnnytheboy wrote:
Oh yes, I forgot, it's a different "environment".



Yes you did.

You can't compare motorways with urban high streets as far as pedestrian casualties goes I'm afraid, unless you want to turn your local high street into a motorway.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Aug 03, 2010 23:05 
Offline
Gold Member
Gold Member

Joined: Thu Nov 09, 2006 14:06
Posts: 3654
Location: Oxfordshire
Weepej, do you have anything to show that an increase of speed has linear proportionality to increased risk? I'd be surprised if you do, since that would fly in the face of the well-established 85%ile rule, and I'm sure we'd have heard you crowing about that before now!

Of course there is a point at which increasing speed becomes inappropriate for the prevailing conditions, and above this the risk increases at a significant rate, but it is fallacious to suggest that this means that any given speed will be riskier than any lower speed.

Thus I stand by my assertion that the SCP's claim that increased speeds mean increased risks is unsubstantiated. Care to try to prove me wrong?

_________________
Regulation without education merely creates more criminals.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Aug 03, 2010 23:06 
Offline
Life Member
Life Member

Joined: Sat Mar 27, 2004 13:50
Posts: 2643
weepej wrote:
Plenty of evidence out there


Well, let's have it then. Let's see the mechanism of the relationship fully explained and quantified.

_________________
Only when ideology, prejudice and dogma are set aside does the truth emerge - Kepler


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Aug 04, 2010 00:27 
Offline
Gold Member
Gold Member

Joined: Fri Sep 24, 2004 23:26
Posts: 9272
Location: Treacletown ( just north of M6 J3),A MILE OR TWO PAST BEDROCK
Pete317 wrote:
weepej wrote:
Plenty of evidence out there


Well, let's have it then. Let's see the mechanism of the relationship fully explained and quantified.


Exit Weepy ,stage ( left or right - cant remember which he choose last) to ignore the request . :D

_________________
lets bring sanity back to speed limits.
Drivers are like donkeys -they respond best to a carrot, not a stick .Road safety experts are like Asses - best kept covered up ,or sat on


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Aug 04, 2010 00:29 
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:
you show yours

Quote:
no, you show yours

Haven't we been around this loop recently? :roll:

_________________
Views expressed are personal opinions and are not necessarily shared by the Safe Speed campaign


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Aug 04, 2010 00:39 
Offline
Gold Member
Gold Member

Joined: Fri Sep 24, 2004 23:26
Posts: 9272
Location: Treacletown ( just north of M6 J3),A MILE OR TWO PAST BEDROCK
Steve wrote:
Quote:
you show yours

Quote:
no, you show yours

Haven't we been around this loop recently? :roll:


He reminds me of a hit from the 60's- "Judy in disguise " ,but this time "gobby in disguise ( on a bike)"

_________________
lets bring sanity back to speed limits.
Drivers are like donkeys -they respond best to a carrot, not a stick .Road safety experts are like Asses - best kept covered up ,or sat on


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Aug 04, 2010 06:30 
Offline
Supporter
Supporter
User avatar

Joined: Thu Oct 16, 2008 13:45
Posts: 4042
Location: Near Buxton, Derbyshire
Pete317 wrote:
weepej wrote:
Have you anything to show that higher speeds (in the same given environment) do not result in a higher risk of injury to road users and members of the public?


Have you anything to show that they do?


It is not unreasonable, given the human physiology and the laws of physics, to think that, in the abstract, higher speeds (in the same environment) would result in a higher risk of accident and injury. So there is greater onus for on the denier of that statement than on its proponent to prove their case.

_________________
When I see an adult on a bicycle, I do not despair for the future of the human race. H.G. Wells
When I see a youth in a motor car I do d.c.brown


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Aug 04, 2010 06:39 
Offline
User

Joined: Sat Oct 20, 2007 22:50
Posts: 3267
dcbwhaley wrote:
So there is greater onus for on the denier of that statement than on its proponent to prove their case.


Exit Steve, botach, Pete317, RobinXE ,stage ( left or right - cant remember which they choose last) to ignore the request .


Either that or we end up playing top trumps with various links to statistics.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Aug 04, 2010 06:48 
Offline
Supporter
Supporter
User avatar

Joined: Thu Oct 16, 2008 13:45
Posts: 4042
Location: Near Buxton, Derbyshire
What is the scientific basis for the 85% rule?

_________________
When I see an adult on a bicycle, I do not despair for the future of the human race. H.G. Wells
When I see a youth in a motor car I do d.c.brown


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Aug 04, 2010 08:11 
Offline
Gold Member
Gold Member

Joined: Thu Nov 09, 2006 14:06
Posts: 3654
Location: Oxfordshire
dcbwhaley wrote:
What is the scientific basis for the 85% rule?


You'll find it on the main site.

The fact is that despite lacking the resources of the vested interests, their own data support the reality that increased speed does not bear a linear relationship to increased risk.

Sources have been cited, the fact that it's not spelt out with enough primary school simplicity for people whose request for sources has been met, and wish to respond with head in the sand denial, does not invalidate those sources any more than a researcher who claims that a conclusion drawn from their data is invalid because it's not the one they wanted to prove!

Paul did lots of work on this that can be found on the main site, there is no need to reproduce it in the forum.

_________________
Regulation without education merely creates more criminals.


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 28 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2  Next

All times are UTC [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot] and 3 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 cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
cron
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group
[ Time : 0.296s | 16 Queries | GZIP : Off ]