Safe Speed Forums

Heads up for Paul - Sky News showed a big article in the Times tomorrow, something about gov't calls on local authorities to restrain use of cameras. They should talk a bit more about it in the full preview which should be between now (11:20) and midnight.

edit: No need! It's just appeared online in the past ten minutes:

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0, ... 68,00.html

Gareth

Here you go:

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0, ... 68,00.html

Is this not the same thing by another route. I bet partnerships will have "targets" to meet.

I am VERY suspicious about how this will eventually be implemented.

My view is that it is very cleaver PR.

_________________
Speed camera policy Kills

Bing!

Well, I've read the report and it's a load of balls, if anything it will *increase* the power of the partnerships, they will surely be given the purse strings to spend the revenue and will obviously still claim back their costs under hypothetication. Most partnerships have said they will be unlikely to remove fixed cameras because it "risks the public's safety" (a Rachel Moon quote I think)

I predict some speed bumps being installed soon with a little sign reading "These speed bumps were paid for by XYZ Safety Camera Partnership, opened 1st Jan 2006 by Dr. Jones, Partnership Manager"

Gareth

On the face of it, it's a pretty strange set of moves. Clearly they are trying to solve problems that they think they have. But what are they?

They have realised they can't contol the partnerships. I'm certain that this move is intended to gain greater control and curb the empire building madness.

They want to toss a carrot or two to so called 'concerned communities' and Brake et al. I'm giuessing this is just a bit of spin and not a driver of change.

They are setting up for the 4th year report. We don't yet know what's in it but the spin appears to be (from the Times article) that cameras save 'over 100 lives each year'. Since they had to rely on RTTM to say that last year, there must be some very fancy dancing to say it again - either that or they are going to be stupid enough to ignore RTTM again (perhaps because the claims don't fly at all without it?). Very curious...

They want to try and defuse their biggest PR problem. The money. Is it real? I doubt it. More likely just spin.

All in all, at present, I think they have decided to stomp on the partnerships but not the cameras. But it's possible that they are quietly stomping on the cameras too, without having the balls to admit it.

Very interesting development...

_________________
Paul Smith
Our scrap speed cameras petition got over 28,000 sigs
The Safe Speed campaign demands a return to intelligent road safety

There's an emerging pattern here (months approximate):

January: Partnership staffing freeze
April: 4th year report delayed
May: Moratorium on speed camera site approval
October: Brunstrom goes
November: Hypothecation scrapped

There's pretty amazing stuff going on behind closed doors...

_________________
Paul Smith
Our scrap speed cameras petition got over 28,000 sigs
The Safe Speed campaign demands a return to intelligent road safety

Let's ask the horse's mouth:

-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Freedom of Information Act Request
Date: Sat, 05 Nov 2005 00:27:57 +0000
From: Paul Smith <psmith@safespeed.org.uk>
Organization: Safe Speed
To: DfT DfT <road.safety@dft.gsi.gov.uk>

Hi,

Please service the following request made under the Freedom of Information Act
2000.

I refer to the Times article, published 5th November 2005:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0, ... 68,00.html
entitled: "March of speed cameras halted".

Apparently the DfT has decided on some fairly drastic administrative and
practical changes to the speed camera programme.

I wish to see related documents as follows:

* All available documents regarding the proposed changes and the decision
process behind them. This includes meeting minutes, minister's briefing notes,
alternative proposals and analysis thereof, documents detailing the perceived
problems and/or concerns that led to the planned changes.

The address for correspondence is:
Trace House,
Clay of Allan
Fearn near Tain
Ross-shire
Scotland
IV20 1RR

Please acknowledge this Freedom of Information request.

I would prefer to receive your reply in electronic form by email.

--
Best Regards,
Paul Smith
Safe Speed

web: http://www.safespeed.org.uk
---------------------------------
promoting intelligent road safety

_________________
Paul Smith
Our scrap speed cameras petition got over 28,000 sigs
The Safe Speed campaign demands a return to intelligent road safety

Absolutely - on the face of it sounds like a major retreat. If hypothecation is scrapped we will see an end to local empire-building, and cameras needing to be justified on safety grounds.

Obviously they were always going to surround a retreat with fudge, but it really does give that impression.

_________________
"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

Safe Speed issued the following PR at 01:36 this morning:

PR253: Drastic speed camera changes announced - at last

news: for immediate release

The Times today reveals major changes in the way that speed cameras are
managed and financed. According to The Times:

* Cash for cameras scheme ends
* DfT wants fewer speeding tickets issued
* Cameras to be installed only as 'a last resort'
* Camera officials must work closely with Police and highways authority
* Digital only cameras in motorway road works (SPECS)

Paul Smith, founder of the Safe Speed road safety campaign
(www.safespeed.org.uk) said: "The DfT appears to be moving in the right
direction, but it is far too little and far too late. TRL595 proved that fixed
cameras were dangerous in motorway roadworks, but that's just the tip of the
iceberg. Speed cameras do not make our roads safer and never will. They are a
dangerous distraction and must be scrapped. They are founded only on bad
science, faulty logic, commercial interest and oversimplified thinking. We
will not be able to restore road safety trends until the DfT finally wakes up
to road safety reality."

"After 12 years of speed cameras there is still absolutely no scientific
evidence to show that they have an overall beneficial effect on road safety.
This is hardly surprising, because they make road safety worse."

"Safe Speed's tireless work, pointing out gross flaws in the figures and the
assumptions, is really making a difference. No other road safety organisation
is focused on the principles that gave us the safest roads in the world in the
first place."

This year has seen a series of 'interesting' events in the camera programme:

* Partnership staffing freeze
* Camera report severely delayed
* Freeze on camera sites
* Brunstrom goes from ACPO roads policing post
* Hypothecation scrapped

<ends>

Notes for editors
=================

Article in today's Times:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0, ... 68,00.html

'The PartnerSHIPS are sinking' first rate graphic (free to use)
(hi res available):
http://www.safespeed.org.uk/sinking.html

Safe Speed's findings in TRL595:
http://www.safespeed.org.uk/trl595.html

_________________
Paul Smith
Our scrap speed cameras petition got over 28,000 sigs
The Safe Speed campaign demands a return to intelligent road safety

There are 3 articles in the times

March of the speed camera
See earlier link
Candid camera -editorial page 23
Accuses them of entrapment- filling Gordon’s pockets-that a change is welcome and overdue-wasted opportunity to make roads safer- the clumsy points/ban system-then he has a pop at the anti camera bods (us?) and compares speeding to shoplifting ??

Setting the pace
Talks about following Lincolnshire’s model lead, joined up road safety, police - highways engineers and road safety officers working in the same building. Spending less to save more lives..

_________________
Speed limit sign radio interview. TV Snap Unhappy
“It has never been the rule in this country – I hope it never will be - that suspected criminal offences must automatically be the subject of prosecution” He added that there should be a prosecution: “wherever it appears that the offence or the circumstances of its commission is or are of such a character that a prosecution in respect thereof is required in the public interest”
This approach has been endorsed by Attorney General ever since 1951. CPS Code

The leader article is here: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0, ... 59,00.html

It is ignorant of the major road safety issues.

_________________
Paul Smith
Our scrap speed cameras petition got over 28,000 sigs
The Safe Speed campaign demands a return to intelligent road safety

Indeed - I just looked at it and saw that it concluded: "Rather than listening to speeding drivers curse cameras, a silent majority would rather those drivers kept an eye on the speedometer."

That must justify a letter to the Editor.

_________________
"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

The battle is not won but a major move has been made if they shift the focus to more use of speed boards.

The juggernaught of increasing cameras at a massive rate has been halted. That had to happen before we had any hope of rolling back the numbers.

The biggest issue that had to be overcome was that speed was the main killer and this year we have seen a series of about turns on that "Govt mantra".

There is now some real hope that traffic authorities can go back to a more rational wider view of the causes of death and injuries and widen their options than just installing a speed camera.

And there is no doubt that Safe Speed has been a significant factor in bring ing about the change.

Huge thanks to Paul.

A cynic may also conclude that Bliar has just adopted another of the Tories election promises (grant maintained schools, disability benefit reviews etc etc) . In which case the politicisation of the issue has probably brought change faster than adopting a politically neutral position. TBlair the Ramsey mac of the 21st century?

This is certainly welcome news, and has to be at least in part due to Paul's excellent work, so thumbs up to Safe Speed.

However there's still a long way to go yet; for now I would settle for a ban on using speed cameras on 70 mph roads, but it doesn't look like they're even going that far.

Just gone to The Times:


Sir,
Saturday’s Times editorial states “Rather than listening to speeding drivers curse cameras, a silent majority would rather those drivers kept an eye on the speedometer." Might I suggest that road safety would benefit if those drivers kept their eyes on the road ahead instead?
Yours faithfully

M McArthur-Christie
Road Safety Spokesman, The Association of British Drivers

Hi Mark - nice to see you finally finding a few seconds to break your posting 'duck' on SafeSpeed. I hardly think you qualify for the 'new user' avatar.

regards,

r11co

(ABD Member)

and

to MMC.


Hmmmm the article finishes with this line:

"Academic at the University of Liverpool who previously questioned the efficiency of speed cameras now accept the results (implied crash reduction) are genuine"

The academics at this University never even came to Durham who police without fixed speed cameras and have far less incidents than anywhere else and the academic in question focused only on a handful of 30 mph roads and the data supplied was data supplied by those concerened. Hardly what I could really credit as being researched beyond reasonable doubt!

Another factor not taken into account is reaction time. We have a thread on site here where an old geezer took far too long to react at 30 mph and ended up colliding with an elderly lady who sadly died. Focusing on telling people to drive at 30 mph is useless. We should be telling people to apply COAST as early hazard perception and risk assessment is the point when the driver plans and reacts by lifting foot off pedal and feathering the brake pedal....

The second piece on page two hails Lincolnshire as a beacon of excellence - because they have frozen new fixed camera installation - but then Lincs does have police, highways agency working in the same building as the prats and apparently each group inspects the dangerous roads and formally assesses lay- put, surface and speeding hot spot history before making decisions per the report and per " insider sources (Durham is acknowledged to be a beacon of excellence regardless of its critics in Brake! )

Lincs is apparently using more SID/VAS and "Slow Down" signs on the roads.

Funny that - I seem to recall the "sub marinated one" (I quite like Wildy's decription ) having a pop at Durham for such signs on some of our roads. Funny - but something so simple and not too "menacing" works a lot better than a speed camera

Lincs claim they have taken a leaf from Durham's book and made sure any mobiles are well publicised and completely visible. Since I have only driven through the area on rare occasions and not actually seen one - cannot comment.

But it also seems Lincs have a very funny brand of community service - motorists convicted of more serious motoring offences have to help erect the VAS/SIDS

_________________
Take with a chuckle or a grain of salt
Drive without COAST and it's all your own fault!

A SMILE is a curve that sets everything straight (P Diller).

A Smiley Per post
FINES USfor our COAST!

Approach love and cooking with reckless abandon - but driving with a smile and a COAST calm mind.

There are a few things in that editorial which warrant a letter to the Ed

I think we can all agree with this sentence:



and







Hmmm I would not say "careless" as "careless" to me is something much more serious and well below the required standard. I would not describe a person who is marginally above the speed limit and failed to notice a mobile hidden behind foliage or Gatso behind a bus shelter as unduly careless because he picked up a blip on a slight camber and failed to "feel" it. I like to think a traffic policeman exercises a better professional judgement than nit pick in the manner displayed by pratners and the scams.

We do prosecute in Durham - and we have the digital doo-dahs in our fleet - but we do allow a fair and appropropriately safe margin of error. If you get pulled here - you d deserve it! !

Most of the rest in that particular paragraph - I'd go along with.

However......








Perhaps if mumpties were discouraged from fetching and carrying the little darlings and we encouraged use of legs, two wheels and the bus .... we'd do better,

Contrary to popular belief - a significant number of schools are tucked down residential roads as well - and kids do not rush out of school gates and hurl themsleves in front of cars either. A VAS/SID/SPeed Board or a series of "Kill SPeed" signs along the route up to one and half mile either side of the school works better. After all - the kids will be walking down the pavements along thse roads and will probably step off the kerb away from the school/. Add in the investment of a good old fashioned course on the Green Cross Code, a Cycling Proficiency course and purchase of a "useful gadget" which you can set to warn of nearby schools....


Also - if they had this flexibility - the scams would be as now - anywhere but where they should be! - and it does not bode well for improving police/civilian public relations


As for the parting paragraph .... could have been written by Brake! Of course driving is an earned privilege - and the lower death rate of last year was due to a bad summer. This year will be up and Lancashire and some other areas have already reported increases over 2004 - and blame higher number of bikers and trippers taking to the roads in fine sunner weather. Thus the results of 2004 is nothing to be complacent about - nor should they be hailed as "proof of camera success" Incidentally, our patch - lower than ever in 2004 because of fewer bikers and as with our neighbours - a fine summer has caused some headaches ibiker/cyclist rates - but so far - we are still keeping a firm control on our record for safety here.

without cameras and lots of police in nice shiny powerful and well gadgeted cars!

_________________
Take with a chuckle or a grain of salt
Drive without COAST and it's all your own fault!

A SMILE is a curve that sets everything straight (P Diller).

A Smiley Per post
FINES USfor our COAST!

Approach love and cooking with reckless abandon - but driving with a smile and a COAST calm mind.

[/paranoia mode on]

The Times is owned by Murdoch. In my opinion, they suck up to the Government for business reasons. This explains the spin and attitudes written. They toe the line.

[/paranoia mode off]

Well, who says the media aren't biased?

_________________
Malcolm W.
The views expressed in this post are personal opinions and do not represent the views of Safespeed.