Safe Speed Forums

Paul Garvin, the Chief Constable of Durham, has recently made some very pointed comments on the subject of speed cameras:

http://icnewcastle.icnetwork.co.uk/0100 ... _page.html

Mr Garvin said: "The pro-camera lobby, and a lot of the safety partnerships, deliberately misquote the statistics to try and mislead people to try and justify their position.

"I think it is disingenuous if we are really intent on reducing casualties on the road - as opposed to enforcing speed limits and dishing out lots of tickets."

Mr Garvin estimates the number of accidents caused by speeding at between 3pc and 4pc - far less than those caused by drivers who are tired or drunk.

The chief constable said that more accidents are caused by poor driving habits than simply speed limits being broken.

Mr Garvin insisted: "This force is not soft on speeding motorists. Our officers issue 7,000 speeding tickets a year. We adopt an intelligence-led approach by looking at persistent offenders and also targeting drink and drug driving and bad driving.

"Perhaps the Government should be held accountable for the fact that they have not agreed to fund the upgrading of the A66. That would save many more lives than speed cameras. The speed cameras issue is not a point of principle, it is a fact that they are pointless."

A very brave and wise man, in my view (and "In Gear's" gaffer, too, presumably)

_________________
"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

Aye mate - he is my boss!

The best you could have too!

And we are not soft on any crime up here. We will prosecute motorists who deliberately flout the law. By no means - a soft touch here!

The difference is - we do it without scams and with common sense. We have better safety record than most - and this patch certainly intends to keep it that way! We have support from our public too.

Common sense beams out of our boss - in evey aspect of police work.

If you typed in Geordie a bit more often we might have guessed sooner.

_________________
Make everything as simple as possible, but not simpler - Einstein

Wasn't it Paul who analysed the figures in collaboration with the Durham force for better and thourough understanding?

_________________
www.beterveilig.nl

In Gear - do you have any idea if Paul Garvin would be willing to try something?

He seems convinced that the pro-camera partnerships are deliberately misquoting statistics to make themselves look good, and many of us on here also believe the statistics to be nothing more than regression to the mean.

Therefore we have the perfect opportunity to have a "control" area if he is willing to go along with it.
Within Durham sites could be identified that have a cluster of accidents (and preferably also a high number of cars exceeding the speed limit), using similar criteria to the existing partnerships. However without using speed cameras we could then monitor what happens to those sites to see if the number of accidents does reduce on average (for the designated "sites") with no external intervention.

Assuming the numbers do go down without the presence of a camera, this would also give Paul Garvin the ideal ammunition to discredit the pro-camera partnerships the next time they attempt to quote statistics, which could then be proven to show nothing more than regression to the mean.

If data has already been collected for previous years then this would be even better, because it is now impossible to intervene in an to attempt to change the figures one way or another. Again sites could be identified (using standard guidelines), then figures for the following years could be examined for improvements or otherwise.

This data would also be on a level playing field with the existing Safety Camera Partnerships because they appear to be happy to take credit for any improvement at one of their sites, whether or not there has been any other change made in the location (e.g. road improvement, lower speed limit etc.), which may have happened at or around the same time as the introduction of the scamera.

Any thoughts?

Matt.

These are the sites at which we lurk around with mobile traps!



Already in hand! We keep very close eye on our "danger zones" You will not get away with speeding up here!




Again - in hand. We are not daft around here!

and perhaps - but not daft!


[quote="beermatt"
This data would also be on a level playing field with the existing Safety Camera Partnerships because they appear to be happy to take credit for any improvement at one of their sites, whether or not there has been any other change made in the location (e.g. road improvement, lower speed limit etc.), which may have happened at or around the same time as the introduction of the scamera.

Any thoughts?

Matt.[/quote]

We are trying to fight the daft lads' fire with fire!

One thing is certain - we do issue speeding tickets and all our customers get advice and the lecture in that tone of voice!

OK - maybe I should clarify.. I'm not necessarily talking about real danger sites (where it sounds as if you're doing an admirable job).
I'm talking about using the SCP rules that would allow you to link a few random crashes together (that in reality are not likely to recur because they are genuinely random), at a site that has 20% lot of people doing, say, 35 in a 30 limit (but not really causing a danger by doing so) to create a virtual "hotspot".

For example is it possible to find 2 KSI within a Km within the last 3 years (criteria for a mobile enforcement site)? If you can't get KSI then what about 4 Personal Injury Collisions within a Km?
Don't forget that the collisions should also have had speed as a causation factor - this can be a causation factor on the severity of the outcome, not necessarily the primary cause of the collision (so yes, do include your drunk/drugged driver in a stolen car that happened also to exceed the speed limit as he caused an accident..)

Probably teaching granny to suck eggs but there's some good info on the Guidelines for placement at http://www.speedcameras.org/speed_camer ... elines.htm.

Also don't forget that 15% of your imaginary camera sites can be placed anywhere - just create a "hotspot" at some sites that have had an accident or 2.

Once you have your "hotspots" monitor the trends over the following year (or even 3 months seems enough for the SCPs), to see if there is an improvement (i.e. improvement even without a camera).
This may then prove that (at least some of) the "improvements" quoted by the SCPs are in reality nothing more than would have happened anyway, had the camera not been there, and the random accidents move to other random locations..

As above - I'm not necessarily talking about real danger zones..
(Also I don't visit Durham often, but I also don't take the knowledge that you don't have a SCP as a licence to speed indiscriminately).

I'm saying nothing

"Customers"??!!
I like it!!

Well we do pay their wages!

_________________
-mike[F]
Caught in the rush of the crowd, lost in a wall of sound..

So Garvin doesnt agree with the safety camera system and says that speed cameras are pointless but is perfectly willing to use speed enforcement at accident clusters as a means to reduce accidents at these sites.
Sounds a bit 2 faced as they would say in Durham.


So how would this give Garvin ammunition to attack the safety camera partnerships when you have just said that you use the same techniques as they do?

_________________
It's Champion Man

Garvin is more or less alone in stadnign up to the SCP's and for that, you call him two-faced?

I don't think anyone is saying that speed enforcement doesn't need to take place, I think we are saying that it is better to have TrafPol doing the enforcement as they can choose to give advice/warn/FNP or ROS.

IF a particular road does have an accident blackpost due to speed then I would want to see it targetted by TrafPol.

The crucial difference I see, is that Mr Garvin has avoided going down the route of linking enforcement with revenue in the form of a "Safety" camera partnership. As such he is free to deploy his officers where and when they will have the greatest benefit, without having to "balance the books" by needing to fill a quota of speeding tickets.

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

I personally think the crucial difference is in In Gear's last comment:-

Therefore if some is being genuinely dangerous then they are stopped and shown immediately how and why they are causing a danger. Also if they are unlicenced/uninsured/using cloned plates then this will not prevent them being stopped, and if they are also drunk/drugged etc. then this can also be acted upon.

Contrast this with the SCP policy of sending you a notice 2 weeks later (unless you're a company car/rental car driver etc. when it can be months). If a person was being genuinely dangerous then they are allowed to carry on doing so in the intervening period, with no knowledge that they have even caused a problem (and therefore denied an opportunity to change their ways). If they are unlicenced/uninsured/using cloned plates then no worries at all, and if they are drunk/drugged etc. then this will have gone completely unnoticed.

We have seen several stories recently of people (e.g. Councillor in Weston Super Mare) who have been caught speeding multiple times before they are even aware of the first offence. If they had been stopped the first time (even if given the lecture, not ticketed) they would be likely to change their driving habits from that moment onwards, and would not have caused the 2nd/3rd/4th offence.
But then again the SCPs are happy for people to keep offending as long as the cash keeps rolling in - why stop poeple and prevent further cash withdrawl opportunities? And as they only want easy money then it's a good thing they can't follow up on unlicenced drivers/drunk drivers etc. - it's probably not as cost-effective as going after Mr. Average that licences/insures his car properly..

Or to use a more extreme example, what's the best way of dealing with drunk drivers? The occasional 60 quid fine when they happen to trigger a camera, or being stopped by a real copper who's going to nick 'em? Reckon the drunks will take the points and fine over a ban any day, and not only can they carry on in the intervening period, but probably much longer afterwards.
I doubt the thought of drunk drivers getting away with their stupidity makes you more comfortable, itschampionman, so why are you so supportive of a policy that in effect allows many of them to do this?

_________________
Make everything as simple as possible, but not simpler - Einstein

This is ongoing practice throughout our patch. We are using this data to monitor trends in the county. And of course - our top guy needs this data to do his job properly and deploy all our coppers correctly. It is about "value for money". This is why he is against the scam dogma. We need more Paul Garvins - (and other Paulies! )

You are not that Steve from Cumbrian site under new name - are you?

We use speed enforcement at our hotspots - because to do otherwise would be a bit silly. As a matter of fact - almost a third of these speeders turn out to be drunk, driving illegally - banned already by other prats, uninsured etc etc. A speeder - real speeder - may have committed other offence and we bang to rights. Scameras do not catch these people.

The rest welcome the words of advice - and we usually find they tend to obey the law in future. Heck - if we do not stop them and educate there and then on spot - we are not likely to improve things. And the proof of pudding is in our unadulterated - non-enhanced stats which we submit to powers that be! We are on target to accident reduction here. The truth will out evenutally.

We happen to think it a bit two faced to spout road safety by scam - and offer no corrective treatment - such as lecture (and they are hard hitting - we do not hold the punches!) A fine and points - OK - but does person really - really - understand why the speeding ticket was issued? Understand the danger? From what I observe (and raw stats we see . ) - NOPE!

And I would agree from jaunts up and down the country - these scams are not placed in the really dangerous zones. Some are - but a significant number do not appear to be so. This compromises the SCPs and very concept of road safety.



Because our normal driving standards have improved throughout the county. Our accident rate - will behave like other accident rates - fluctuate - because that is nature of accidents. But overall- severity of those accidents is becoming less, and so is the frequency.


The SCPs are so very fond of "accidents down by 35/40% at camera sites" - but KSIs in their area have increased - because of regression to mean on one hand and traffic finding alternative route to known scamera. on the other. Accidents are random as well - so accidents hotspots will find new hotspot area - away from scam site - may even occur few hundred yards further along same road as people have returned to normal speed.


With trafpol - they tend to follow and lurk around. And will use discretion and treat you fairly and squarely. You know what you have done wrong immediately - and there is better overall learning experience and curve. A scam cannot provide that!

I personally would prefer a smacked leg there and then, rather than being told wait till your Dad gets home and then wondering what the hell has my Dad smacked me for

_________________
Semper in excreta, nur quantitat variat.

Exactly how does it do that?
This is a completely nonsensical statement. Why does a safety camera system allow drink drivers to get away with it. It does not there is no link. Are you saying that there are less drink drivers detected because there are less road traffic police. Again nonsense. The safety camera system will surely free up the police time to address these things.

_________________
It's Champion Man

Compare the numbers of traffic police now with the numbers before the speed camera obsession started.

The telling fact is that there are now more drink/drive accidents than ten years ago, yet fewer drink drive convictions.

We used to catch them before they crashed, now we wait until afterwards!

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

First off, let's cut the crap and stop calling them safety cameras. They cannot detect unsafe behaviour, they can only detect speed. They are speed cameras. If you've got a camera design that can detect unsafe behaviour, great, we'll all call it a safety camera. You'll make a fortune, and deservedly so as it'll be a damn sight more useful than speed cameras. But all we have now are speed camers, no more, no less. Don't get me wrong, they are very good at detecting illegal speed, and sometimes that means unsafe behaviour as well. But what good are they when you don't get punished right away? If I misbehaved at school ( mm, yeah, did happen a bit) they didn't hang around for a couple of weeks and then give me a detention. It happened right away so no-one had any doubt over it. I knew what it was for, my classmates knew what it was for, and my long-suffering house master knew what it was for (sorry Dai, no hard feelings). Out on the road I notice that people tend to behave themselves for a while after seeing someone else being nicked, possibly because they think plod might finish up quickly and be after them soon. Cameras just make people slow down for a short distance and then speed up again. Plus, as I said before, if you set one off because you're sloshed then the camera can't punish you for that at all. Now, if you really think that getting a £60 fine and some points a fortnight after driving while tanked up is adequate punishment then we'll have to agree to disagree.

Not nonsense, I'm afraid. Cameras have not freed up any police time. First, traffic police numbers have been so heavily reduced it's hard to see how they could possibly have more time on their hands than in the pre-camera days. Secondly, the police still have to stop speeding drivers when they see them, yes? So the cameras haven't actually taken that part of the workload away. Just as well, really. You are clearly anti-speeding, and I am anti-bad driving, in which I would include excessive speed. We must surely agree on this point - if PC Bloggs happens to see a car whacking through a residential area at an excessive speed, he should do something about it rather than say "oh well, he's bound to trip one of the 5000 or so cameras sooner or later, that saves me from having to nick him myself. I'll wait and see what else comes along". A ridiculous scenario to be sure, but if we expect the cameras to do all the work of the police when it comes to speeding then it would effectively become the reality.

Now, if you want a clear example of how the combination of cameras and lack of police make it possible to drink drive without being caught, try this. I haven't seen a traffic patrol locally in years. Still see a few on the motorways of course, often with the LIDAR out , but naff all on the surrounding A roads. The nearest police station is several miles away, so panda cars are almost as rare as their namesakes. It's perfectly possible to go have a few drinks in town and drive back without seeing a police car, and if they ain't there they simply can't stop you. Contrast this with the police presence when I'd just passed my test about 15 years ago. I got stopped three times in as many years. (Two blown bulbs, which I changed on the spot since I've always carried a kit, and one noisy exhaust which got me a bollocking, er I mean the lecture in that tone of voice that InGear's always banging on about. I also had a wait in the rain while they checked the car for other defects, plus a producer and orders to go get a new exhaust. Served me right fot buying such a crappy old car! I was even breathalysed for one of the bulbs, btw. Got a little light of course. That's real road policing.) But now if you don't actually have an accident you're pretty unlikely to get any police attention no matter how bad your driving is unless you trip a camera. For a drunk that's good news - you're still getting away with it as 3 points and a 60 quid fine is much less severe than being banned for a year or more and being lightened by several hundred.

Now I don't know what the situation is in your area. Perhaps there still are plenty of patrols around, in which case lucky you! Here there is over reliance on cameras, and to a lesser extent, traffic calming. Neither of those does anything to stop any form of bad driving apart from speeding, and even then it's open to question.

_________________
Make everything as simple as possible, but not simpler - Einstein

Chumps - ee- is tha gone completely daft then!

Been reading Dick's secret diary? The one he keeps under his pillow to remind himself that he is talking complete b******ks:lol:

Less traffic police around means less police presence on the roads. If you are not there in the first place - you are not likely to catch the drunk are you!

These idiots take chances, cause the accidents. We do not know how many of these just pinged a scamera and received Fixed Penalty when they should have received lengthy ban.

Why do they take the chance?

Because they know they are unlikely to be stopped by a copper - as they have been replaced by scam. One of two things can happen to them should they ping a scam is Fixed Penalty. and the other is accident and death/injury they can cause.

N OT MY IDEA OF SOLID SAFETY MEASURE