Safe Speed Forums

Interesting how The Sun (another Murdoch paper) has spun the same story a different way, and said "Britain could be facing thousands more Gatsos after the government said it would allow cameras to be placed more freely. Currently there need to be four accidents involving death or serious injury before a Gatso can be installed".

I'm working hard to see through the smoke and mirrors to find the underlying true story. Reading a different spin / perspective would help but I can't find the Sun's version. Anyone?

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

Or they are relying on RTTM again and know they can't get away with it forever.

I wonder what the KSI rate for 2005 is heading for? Are they looking for a scapegoat come next year when the figures are announced? Will it then be used as a reason to return to the cameras everywhere policy (or worse)?

Just because I'm paranoid doesn't mean they are not out to get me.

_________________
Useless laws weaken necessary laws.

Thanks. Not very illuminating, unfortunately.

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

All this from another article - http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0, ... 20,00.html

Lincolnshire spends less on cameras yet reduces road deaths

"Ministers want all partnerships to follow Lincolnshire’s policy of having camera officials, highway engineers and police road safety officers all working in the same building."

"Lincolnshire makes widespread use of speed indicator devices, which detect a vehicle’s speed and flash it up on a screen. These devices do not make any money but research has shown they can be more effective than cameras. "

""We park vans in prominent positions so people have an opportunity to slow down," the spokesman said."

Must say im very happy to hear of the "partners" getting another nail in the coffin, couldnt have come sooner; Theve been getting away with Murder (literally) for years.
However, theyre not dead yet, we need to keep our collective foot firmly planted on their scrawny necks (figuratively speaking) to ensure they do eventually die.

" Its Working"....PMSL!

_________________
"Safety" Scamera Partnerships;
Profitting from death and misery since 1993.

Believe nothing- Question everything.

Indeed Peter. I was thinking that it was a well reasoned article until I reached the last paragraph.

Last time I drove in North Wales (having the previous time been got by a hidden Talivan doing 35 in a 30 area on a deserted road) I was determined not to exceed the speed limit at all. This was extremely stressful, and required constant monitoring of the speedo, to the detriment of looking out for hazards ahead - and with people tailgating this "crawler" it was very difficult as well.

I'll keep a good lookout to see if there are any letters to the editor. I might even write one myself.

Brian

Looking back in the thread, it seems that MMC has written a letter making the exact same point I was going to make.

_________________
"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 more I look at this, the more it looks like tinkering to save face, jobs and ££. It could be (and I hope) the beginning of the end, but I suspect not.

The key thing is that the illness remains in place, even if a few of the symptoms are going to be cleared up. Whilst adherence to a posted limit remains the central plank of road safety, we're not going to see deaths falling. Until it's recognised that driving/riding is a hugely complex activity that needs training, education and mental skills we're just going to keep hearing the same old tune.

P.S. You're right about that "new user" logo - I've been lurking for a long while. Amazing what one learns over 'ere!

It IS the beginning of the end in the sense that the DfT is admitting that they are losing the argument. In effect they are giving ground in an admission that their previous position was unsustainable.

One particular weakness in their strategic position was lack of control of individual partnerships. The changes in this area are clearly intended to improve control of the partnerships. In this sense they may now have a stronger position.

Another key weakness was the money motivation affecting partnerships. They are seeking to strengthen against this accusation, but it's not enough and the accusation will not go away.

So I'm quite confident that it is a retreat, although probably a retreat to a slightly stronger position, and not that much of a retreat either.

But like any negotiation, a movement is a movement and belies a vulnerability.

And of course the bottom line is that their case is still complete bunk and we can easily keep up the pressure.

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

Additionally under a more central control the individual ones lose the arguement if one is abusing the "suggestions" for "non covert" enforcement of "we don't do that". It becomes a case of being able more effectively of being able more effectivly of being able to tar them all in that case with the same brush

Apparently the DfT press office are denying the Times Story completely this morning: "no decision has been taken."

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

Don't lose sight of the LTi 20-20 effect here.

If that loses its approval there'll be massive fallout....anyone think they may be preparing?

This discussion "dovetails" with this one:
http://www.safespeed.org.uk/forum/viewtopic.php?t=4669

i.e. the (proposed) drive to win back some public acceptance of speed cameras.

The public perception of speed cameras a couple of years ago was that they were a "necessary evil". Since reclamation of fines began, this perception has been replaced by an image of greedy, Empire-building, unaccountable partnerships and speed camera fines "paying for the bubbly at the shareholder's meeting". Like RailTrack, but worse.

Since the whole system depends on public acceptance (if people were to start refusing to pay, it would collapse exponentially, a la the Poll Tax) the profitable little "industry" they've created is under threat.

Their strategy for winning back support is two-pronged:

1) to spend *some* of the money from speed camera fines on highly-visible road safety improvements - improving junctions, street lighting etc. This will make people more willing to pay the fines if they know that they're going to a "good cause".
2) The aforementioned road safety improvements will, in turn, bring about a REAL reduction in road casualties (i.e. not just an imaginary one borne out of flawed & manipulated statistics). This reduction in casualties will then be attributed directly to speed cameras, justifying the continued existance of the "industry".

This is pure politics, of course. We all know that they could have just made the junction improvements etc. without us having to endure the speed camera debacle in the first place.

It looks like they're going to throw in some other "sweeteners" too, like speed cameras outside schools and on residential roads. And why not? They're making so much money they can afford to run a few nonprofitable GATSOs here and there. I wonder if these cameras will ever have film in them?

The big question is - is it too little, too late? Or is it, in fact, a total whitewash?

_________________
“For every complex problem, there is a solution that is simple, neat, and wrong.” - H. L. Mencken

Of course they are. That's sound political strategy. They want to gauge the public perception of the proposed changes before they commit to them publically.

_________________
“For every complex problem, there is a solution that is simple, neat, and wrong.” - H. L. Mencken

Follow up letters in The Times:

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0, ... 67,00.html

Moneyspinner or lifesaver? Camera curb reopens debate

Sir, From the inception of camera partnerships in 2002, Department for Transport guidelines have stated that speed cameras should be used only when other types of road engineering have been discounted. The policy reversal you note (report and leading article, November 5) can be seen as an admission that partnerships have abused this procedure.

The DfT aims to prove that cameras have saved 100 lives this year. This equates to one life for every 60 cameras, yet the DfT claims that all its cameras are saving lives. If a third of all accidents are caused by speed, then surely cameras should be saving about 1,000 lives a year. In reporting the siting of cameras near schools, you also hit upon one of the major flaws in this policy: when my child is crossing the road, the last thing I want a driver to be looking at is his speedometer.

S. CORKER
Manchester



Sir, I live on a road with two schools and have often seen a safety partnership van or bike taking pictures. However, I have never seen them when children are going to or from school, because it is then impossible to move at anywhere approaching the speed limit because of all the 4x4s and people movers. The cameras come out when the children are safely in their classrooms, leading me to believe that they are there for revenue, not children’s safety.

SEBASTIAN MARR
Chippenham, Wilts



Sir, As The Times points out, breaking the speed limit is breaking the law just like mugging and shoplifting. However, there is a difference: those convicted by speed cameras have not harmed anyone, and this is the cause of resentment.

It is clear that many people decide for themselves what speeds are safe much of the time, and that this works: accidents are infrequent and the majority are not caused by speeding. A law that is regularly ignored without serious consequences should be re-examined, not more rigorously enforced.

TIM HAMMOND
London SW6


Sir, The welcome news that speed camera numbers will not now increase and must be considered solutions of the last resort, is due in no small part to the efforts of those you describe (Comment, November 5) as a “voluble minority”. Some minority, given the Sunday Times poll of May 15 which shows that 93 per cent believe that cameras are primarily a revenue-raising tool.

Now that the Government has decided to stop digging this hole, we intend to help it to climb out of it by continuing to shout from the rooftops.

If, as your editorial implies, cameras were responsible in 2004 for the 8 per cent fall in road deaths, why did the ever-increasing number of cameras fail to have any such effect in even one of the years from 1995 to 2003?

IDRIS FRANCIS
Petersfield, Hants

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