Safe Speed Forums

From a Local rag today (sorry about the long link, I cant figure out the code to make it short).

http://icteesside.icnetwork.co.uk/0100n ... _page.html

If you want you can contact them yourself but I find a few things Mr Bennet has to say as not exactly true.


The important parts are here:

"But it doesn't matter whether it is visible or not because there is nothing in the handbook that says mobile vehicles have to be on show.

"The vehicle actually has nothing to do with the deployment of cameras. It is used as a way to get the camera to a site and to protect the officer from the elements."






I thought that in the handbook it does mention that either the van, the operator or the equipment have to be clealy visible so stating that there is nothing in the handbook about the van be visible is not exactly true.

Also the handbook does state that the camera has to be fully visible, something which he failed to mention.

I have seen this location and the van was behind the concrete wall with the camera infront of the van.

If the van wasnt visible how could the camera be visible.

Can anyone else pick some bones because I intend to write in.

I dont expect miracles on this, I just want to put the s*its up them.

This is from the 2005/2006 handbook.



You can find the full texts as a PDF at:http://www.cumbriasafetycameras.org/library/Final%202005-06%20Handbook.pdf
Clearly by not being visible, there is no visible deterent other than the signs, and since they dont actually STOP offenders, who may well run down a road worker a few hundred yards from the camera, then it seems simply an excersise in collecting cash.
You should point this out to the newspaper, AND Balfour Beaty - pointing out that the cameras will do NOTHING to prevent danger to their employees that the signs could not do on their own, and that should a death occur, they may have a case for NEGLIGENCE.

_________________
Time to take responsibility for our actions.. and don't be afraid of speaking out!

Looks like a change in stratergy. Slap a 30 limit, put up a camera and watch the money come rolling in....

The had a 30 limit on the A47 while roadworks were going on. Must have been a 5 mile streach. Complete with cameras. Seemed to take a VERY long time to take the signs and cameras down after the workmen had gone...hmmmm wonder why

_________________
Speed camera policy Kills

Because it's in the press, you can bring the scameratsi chapter concerned to task via the Press Complaints Commission. The first two articles of their code of practice reads:

So, if they've wrongly printed the scameratsi's claims as fact, they must print a retraction with the same prominence as the original article; If they've merely quoted the scameratsi, you have a right to reply.

However, in this case it looks like the scameratsi is exercising its rights under the Press Code of Conduct to reply to readers' comments.

AFAICT, the only thing that may be unlawful about this is if the pratnership retained any revenue generated by covert vehicles. If they did, it would be in breach of article 3.5 that Ernest quoted, and I suspect someone's head should roll for misfeasance, misuse of public funds, or similar.

_________________
Will

The Camera manager at Teeside is quite correct in his response and the challenges made here are flawed.

Mobile units are required to be liveried. This is stated in Rule 4, site conspicuity.
The vehicles in teeside are liveried as stated.

Article 3.5 particularly refers to Police Covert Operations which this is not so it doesn't apply.

Rule 5, Site Visibility, says that mobile units must be visible for 60 or 100 meters for less than and more than 40 mph speed limits. this is a derivative of the Signing and Lighting regulations applied to roadworks etc. The visibility distances are there to allow motorists to safely negotiate the hazards of temporary road installations and equipment, the mobile unit is regarded as such. As the mobile unit is seperated by a barrier/wall in this instance, this rule does not apply as long as vehicles are detected within the boundary of the declared site.

Its Teesside, at least try to spell the name right before you pretend to know the sites there are perfectly OK.

Talk about a farce.

What is the point in making a rule stating the vans have to be perfectly visible but then you can still hide them anywhere you want.

Oh wait, don't answer that.

This is actually gobbledegook.

I'm assuming you mean that for speed limits less than 40mph the units must be visible for 60m ahead, and that the units must be visible for 100m ahead where the speed limit is more than 40mph. What does the rule say for visibility in a 40mph limit?

I posted this yesterday in the Road safety, camera and policy news thread, and I thought someone would have picked up on the 'no accidents, contractors request' part of the article?

Ever get that feeling of Deja Vue? But Mr Bennett said: "The van has the Cleveland Police logo on it and is clearly visible.
Steve said something very similar about the talivan at INGS before he had the grass cut!!
If I read it correctly, Mr Bennet says The van is clearly visible; It doesnt have to be clearly visible; It doesnt have to be prominently placed.
The witness said "The van was parked behind a concrete wall".
Now if Mr Bennett is like Steve, he opened his mouth BEFORE he checked that the operator was following procedure!


but Mr Bennett says "But it doesn't matter whether it is visible or not because there is nothing in the handbook that says mobile vehicles have to be on show" But it does say "Whilst there is no specified colour or design for mobile enforcement vehicles,
equipment or personnel, the livery used on either the camera operator,
equipment or the mobile vehicle must be clearly visible to approaching drivers."

_________________
Time to take responsibility for our actions.. and don't be afraid of speaking out!