Safe Speed Forums

On the front today, a full page saying that Hampshire drivers paid £4M in fines over the last few years along with the usual stuff about massive drop in KSIs with no mention of RTTM, redirection of traffic etc..

The local partnership publicity man, Julian Hewitt, is pictured saying something like "this proves all the speed camera gain-sayers are wrong.." however, he repeats that cameras are only put in where all other practical highway engineering solutions have been rejected. This is in line with the rules over installation, but I can think of a local example where you would have to be blind not to see that traffic lights would be the correct solution and not a camera.

To evidence this, after the camera was installed at Whinwhistle Road on the A36, a further two people were killed at this location.

The real reason for the camera was, of course, that a proper solution would have cost the council money whereas the camera was essentially "free".

I will be writing to the Echo.

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

Practically all Hampshire fixed camera sites show a strong element of regression to the mean: An example is that many sites went live in May 2003 but the 3-year baseline was 1998-2001. Guess what happened in 2002? Correct! The number of collisions fell before the cameras were in place, and stayed low in 2003/4. Did it stop them claiming that the cameras were responsible for the reduction? Correct again!

Gareth

Saw this today; they have modified their claim of reduction in KSIs to 16%; previously it was claimed to be about 40-60% so I think I will be writing to Mr Hewitt to ask why the change.

16% is totally insignificant when you're working with sites where there are 0,1,2, or 3 KSIs a year.

Hewitt has claimed a 92% reduction in Portsmouth in the past. I can't remember if that is KSIs PICs or collisions, they like swapping between them depending on which puts them in the best light.

Date Published: Monday 30 January 2006

Report says cameras cut number of road injuries



SPEED cameras are dramatically reducing road casualties across Hampshire, a new report claimed today.

The number of people killed or seriously injured across the county in 2004/5 has fallen by an average of 63 per cent on roads where speed cameras have been installed.

In Southampton, the number of fatal crashes at camera sites has decreased by ten per cent, according to Hampshire Safety Camera Partnership's annual report.

Partnership spokesman Julian Hewitt said: "We are very pleased with the results. This is very good news for everyone in Hampshire and the Isle of Wight. Speed cameras make a small but very valuable contribution to the wider casualty reduction initiatives. In doing so they save the pain and suffering that victims of road traffic accidents suffer."

However John Evans, Hampshire co-ordinator for the Association of British Drivers, claimed the figures used were misleading and selective.

He said: "It's a selective release of information designed to paint a picture the partnership wants to paint and not to present the facts. Overall figures for fatalities on Hampshire Roads are up by just under 50 per cent.

"Where there has been a decrease in accidents on speed camera routes the partnership isn't prepared to accept it could be down to other measures such as traffic calming, the introduction of pedestrian crossings and changing priorities at road junctions."

Mr Evans also argued that speeding is not the main cause of fatalities on the roads and more should be done to tackle uninsured drivers and those with no road tax and MoT.

Mr Hewitt said he recognised that speeding is just one cause of accidents but believed cameras were a successful way of tackling that problem.

He said: "Speed cameras are designed to catch people speeding and reduce road collisions in the areas where they are placed. The figures in the report, which have been presented to us by the police, prove they are doing this very well."

Last month the Daily Echo revealed how motorists caught speeding on camera in Hampshire paid out more than £4m in fines in three years. Nearly £1m of that went to the government.

The county's 70 fixed and mobile cameras raised £4,245,360 from 2002 to 2004.

The full report can be read at www.safetycamera.org.uk.

_________________
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

Mr Hewitt ranks alongside our very own Steve Callaghan as a speed camera apologist and 'speed kills' cult promoter.

He's a prize wassoch!

I was under the impression that each partnership employed a full-time statistician to work on the stats. Perhaps the statistician is paid by the Constabulary and therefore his statement is technically correct, but more impressive than saying "our figures show that...." ?

Gareth

Every report is expected to show off what has worked well and put a bit of a spin on the future for things that haven't gone so well. But Hampshire is a work of fiction. Every thing in the garden is rosey the grass is green and £4 million pounds well spent. an extra 60 people are pushing up daisies, did we mention the £4 milllion pound turnover.

_________________
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

Hampshire are trying to get a mobile route installed on The Avenue.
Now it is on of thier 15% sites.
Can we object as they have not tried any highway improvements. We could sugest traffic lights to assist traffic turning in and out of westwood road and winn road.

We all know it is an oppotunist commuter route

http://www.safetycamera.org.uk/pd/Minut ... ebsite.pdf

_________________
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