Safe Speed Forums

http://www.holdthefrontpage.co.uk/news/2005/07july/050708cams.shtml



Sounds like a cop-out to me.

_________________
Speed camera policy Kills

Perhaps it might be just a tad embaressing to admit that they've lost the records
But then again do they know how many dummies they employ

Hurrah to that!
Then why on earth try to decrease it's effectiveness by trying to obtain information that would do so?


And again, why try to obtain information to undermine it?


Here Here!!!


Them's the rules dear boy. We don't need a newspaper to tell us that.

Quite why a Safety Camera supporter, as the editor/newspaper has claimed to be would require this sort of information is hard to understand. A knowledge of the wet-film camera deployment strategy or ratio would inevitably provide information to allow those who are determined to manipulate the system to do just that, it cannot be in the public interest to release this sort of information. It is in the interests of SOME of the public and that is why they should not receive it. The widespread deployment of digital technology will reduce the cost of deployment of wet-film cameras and remove the need for a dummy ratio altogether.
Well done to the partnership for taking this line and well done for the editor for showing his/her support, it is most welcome.

Because it is in the public interest to know the truth about scam efficiency in saving lives.

Of course - we know they do not jump up and down and tell people of a danger ahead.

The only thing which helps avoid n accident is simply driving to COAST principles.



Because we need to know the truth - and you are admitting here that there could well be information which undermines ...you cannot dispute IG's patch's record - with NO cams....


Them's the rules dear boy. We don't need a newspaper to tell us that.[/quote]

Pity you don't always abide by these rules


Of course it is in the public interest - it affects bank balances, livelihood, mobility....and you must have something to hide on this basis.

_________________
If you want to get to heaven - you have to raise a little hell!

Smilies are contagious
They are just like the flu
We use our smilies on YOU today
Now Good Causes are smiling too!

KEEP SMILING
It makes folk wonder just what you REALLY got up to last night!

Smily to penny.. penny to pound
safespeed prospers-smiles all round! !
But the real message? SMILE.. GO ON ! DO IT! and the world will smile with you!
Enjoy life! You only have the one bite at it.

Why should it undermine anything?
All you're doing is reinforcing the already strong suspicion, nay belief, that you have something to hide.
If everything's above board and the scameras are working, as you insist, then why are you so desparate to hide stuff from the public? You should be shouting it from the rooftops. Halllelujah!

Why would it interest a driver to know which camera:
a. is a dummy/live?
b. detects the most speeding offences?

Why is it in the public interest that one or all drivers or any number in between should know these facts?

Maybe he was a camera supporter on faith, or because he used to believe the spin, but by now he's noticed the small detail of the cameras costing rather than saving lives.

Because cameras are hazards, that's why - to be dealt with just like any other hazard. Or do you want to keep hazards hidden?
Besides which, they're paid for by our money - which gives us a right to know. Or do we no longer have any say in the way we're governed?

Cheers
Peter

Still no valid reasons for this information to be released.

Actually JJ there is even if one is a supporter of cameras for genuine road safety.

A number of cameras are dummy's we know that, a number of cameras are live we no that.

Cameras generate an amout of total fines, we no that, what we do not know is whether some cameras whish are live are generating lots of fines and some that are live are generating few.

This is essential information as if the intention is not to raise revenue but to stop speeding and if all cameras are located at black spots and according to the rules, if some are more effective than others at reducing speeds then a study of why should be done to identify why some are more effective than others.

The reality is that we can not trust the partnership staff to conduct such a study as you are far from impartial after all your personal lively hood relies on fines not on people slowing down, doesn't it. If there is not enough revenue we will see rdundancies from the parttnerships and non of you want that do you.

Therefore I would expect that a supportive journalist, would be encouraged to do any research he wants, a lack of assistance from the partnership suggests that they do not like what he would find out.

_________________
Former Military Police Officer and accident investigator

Surely it is up to the authorities to demonstrate valid reasons for it to be withheld, not the other way round.

A few years ago you were saying the same about camera locations - now they're in the AA road atlas!

_________________
"Show me someone who says that they have never exceeded a speed limit, and I'll show you a liar, or a menace." (Austin Williams - Director, Transport Research Group)

Any views expressed in this post are personal opinions and may not represent the views of Safe Speed

We have given our reasons why it is being witheld. The reasons have been upheld so far.
As the reasons are considered reasonable it is now up to you to give more compelling reasons to release such information. That's how it works. Your method would mean everything being released regardless. Thankfully that is not the purpose of the Act.

We have never advocated the witholding of camera locations or their justification, the information is openly available and has been from even before our operations started. Perhaps you have mistaken us for some other organisation.

Consider this announcement:
All of our Police are either on leave, rest days or will be in Kendal on Saturday night

Then answer these questions:
Where do you think the buglars will a) carry out burglaries b) not carry out burglaries?
Where will drivers who may want to drink and drive do so A0Kendal b) anywhere else
etc....etc...

It is for this reason that dummy camera or camera detections are witheld.

It makes sense when you actually think about it doesn't it and most of all it certainly doesn't make sense to make announcements like the one above.

Skillfully avoided

_________________
Former Military Police Officer and accident investigator

You can rest assured that if they DO drink and drive , the "safety" cameras will never catch them .

It has not been avoided at all but has put perfectly in perspective your flawed logic.
The avoidance is your own now please discuss.

And please be assured that they have never been set up to do so but they DO free up Police time to ensure they can.

Are you seriously trying to tell me that we have the same number of traf. pol. now dedicating more of their time to other infringements of road traffic law ?

JJ,

what body regulates the Safety Camera Partnerships?

Is the the PCC? or maybe the local government ombudsman?

I presume that the audit comission have an involvement too.

If I have a complaint against a Partnership and they fail to address it to my satisfaction to whom do I follow up my complaint?

There isn't really an established practice here but I would say the following would be a fair procedure:
1. Contact the Safety Camera/Partnership Project Manager with the complaint
2. Once a response is received or a fair time has elapsed with no response address your complaint to the Steering Group of that Partnership
3. Once that is exhausted address the complaint to the Safety Camera Programme Director at DfT with a history of the complaint and correspondence

It really depends on what your complaint is, should it be regarding a request for information you should carry out step 1. Then follow the FoI complaint procedure enclosed with the response.

All common sense really but would be the fairest sort of system for all parties involved I would think.