Safe Speed Forums

Published today:

http://www.dft.gov.uk/stellent/groups/d ... 611087.pdf

I'm reading it now.

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

Started to read it, but my heart sank with one of the opening paragraphs:

"Non-compliance with these rules and guidelines does not provide any mitigation of, or defence for, an alleged offence....."

This was in the previous version. Just saying it does not get them off the hook.

_________________
Speed camera policy Kills

Safe Speed issued the following PR at 12:35 this afternoon:

PR282: New speed camera rules - blundering on

news: for immediate release

Department for Transport (DfT) has published new rules for speed camera
partnerships today. Unbelievably, sites where it is 'dangerous to speed' are
still excluded.

Safe Speed first revealed the 'rules blunder' in January 2004. They select
sites where responsible motorists are speeding and exclude sites where no
responsible motorists are speeding. Because of this they do not enforce in,
say, narrow village high streets, where they would catch the occasional
nutter. They ONLY enforce in places where driving in excess of the speed limit
is safe and appropriate.

It is this 'rules blunder' that causes the widespread perception that speed
cameras are in the wrong places.

Paul Smith, founder of the Safe Speed road safety campaign
(www.safespeed.org.uk) said: "The incompetence and mismanagement behind the
speed camera programme is breathtaking. They have misused speed cameras to the
point that public confidence has evaporated."

"The 'rules blunder' ensures that the misuse will continue. Cameras may only
be placed only placed where routine speeding is safe.

"The continual confusion between safe behaviour and legal behaviour is
misdirecting everyone's road safety efforts. We must encourage safe behaviours
rather than those that are merely legal."

"The speed camera programme is to road safety what a hammer is to clock repair
- it's blunt and heavy and does far more harm than good."

"The only answer now is to remove all speed cameras from UK roads, and rebuild
road safety based on psychologically effective policies."

"Appendix H of the 4th year report (published December 15th 2005 by DfT)
suggests that speed camera effectiveness has been overestimated by 400%, and
even that has not considered the wide ranging deadly side effects. When the
side effects are eventually evaluated it will become clear how many people are
dying due to the fatally flawed policy."

<ends>

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


New handbook:
http://www.dft.gov.uk/stellent/groups/d ... 611087.pdf

Safe Speed page giving details of the 'rules blunder':
http://www.safespeed.org.uk/rules.html

(It is WELL worth your time to read and understand the 'rules blunder'.)

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

Gizmo
I read it as saying
"even though the siting and usage of the camera did not comply with the rules and guidelines, i.e. warning sign, visibility etc etc- you're still nicked".

Warwickshire mob put it slightly differently --

"Whilst Warwickshire County Council makes every effort to keep the information on this web site accurate, it disclaims any warranty or representation, express or implied about its accuracy, completeness or appropriateness for a particular purpose.

. "


Whilst nationally there's a site for kids -http://www.hedgehogs.gov.uk/main/main.html

Always thought this was for info on where the vans were hiding

_________________
lets bring sanity back to speed limits.
Drivers are like donkeys -they respond best to a carrot, not a stick .Road safety experts are like Asses - best kept covered up ,or sat on

don't forget Stephen Ladyman on top gear promising to make us love speed cameras...

_________________
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

Some people take that quite literally - they love to see them burn or explode, or drown.

_________________
lets bring sanity back to speed limits.
Drivers are like donkeys -they respond best to a carrot, not a stick .Road safety experts are like Asses - best kept covered up ,or sat on

To paraphrase:

I love the smell of burning cameras in the morning.

_________________
Gordon Brown saying I got the country into it's current economic mess so I'll get us out of it is the same as Bomber Harris nipping over to Dresden and offering to repair a few windows.

Chaos, panic and disorder - my work here is done.

http://www.wildcrafts.co.uk

The only significant changes seem to be:

* requiring mobile sites to have a camera sign every 1 km, rather than just at the start of the site

* 85th percentile speed only needs to be speed limit + 5, rather than the 10%+2 that was used before

* Adjustments to the collision history, to form a combined KSI and PIC total rather than just being based on KSI's. For some barmy reason, you need more casualties to justify a camera in a built-up area than you do in a rural area ... this seems completely the wrong way round...

* The "20% of drivers speeding" requirement has gone

If anything, this will lead to an increase in the number of sites, albeit slightly better signed.

That was there in the old rules...

_________________
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

[quote="anton"][quote]* requiring mobile sites to have a camera sign every 1 km

_________________
now retired

Presumably this is inferred from the guideline to use cameras only where a certain proportion of drivers are speeding?

Surely that makes sense? After all, it wouldn't it be a waste of money to use speed cameras where most people aren't speeding (and presumably most of the limited number who are are fairly likely to be improperly licenced or whatever)?

a statement well written

_________________
now retired

No. It couldn't be more wrong. Study the following page carefully and see if you agree: http://www.safespeed.org.uk/rules.html

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

If DSCP advertised on the Bournemouth balloon that would pretty much cover the whole town.

_________________
Andrew.

... and cut retail trade by 10%.

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

dft guidelines..

I am going to rename the highway code to the highway guidelines.
then I can drive round all the roundabouts the wrong way as they are only guidelines... one way streets... they arn't any more. bus lanes are for me too.
red lights are just guidelines and lights who needs them. Railway crosings can be ignored... as long as I dont go over 30 mph I wont die.
Stastistics you can prove anything. I have driven 27 years without an injury accident therefore I know best and the odds are less than 1% that I will crash

_________________
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

I think that makes two flawed assumptions -

a) That the 85-95%ile drivers are competant at assessing the appropriate speed for a road - if thats the case, one has to wonder why so many are failing to slow to the speed limit on the approach to cameras and

b) That the speed that these drivers consider to be safe is actually safe. As discussed in the roadworks thread, there may well be factors that these drivers are completely unaware of - given this, how can we necessarily rely on them to be correct in their judgement? The 85%-ile driver may get it right most of the time, but sometimes they do go too fast, which is why we need limits backed up with enforcement. In these situations, it is quite likely that 85%+ of traffic will be speeding - hence why cameras may be used in these situations.

I'm not sure what the point of a camera on a road where very few people are speeding would actually be. OK, these may be the super-dangerous bottom-of-the-barrel drivers, but then I imagine for that very reason cameras would have much effect on them.

(There is of course the crap limit issue which needs dealing with - however, I think that the problem there is authorities not following other guidlines, as opposed to following the guidelines refered to in this thread)

Not 85th to 95th percentile - it has to be sub 85th percentile in order for the 85th percentile to be above the prosecution threshold.

I'm perfectly happy to believe that they are driving at an appropriate speed for the conditions. The enabling speed survey will take place when no cameras are present.



Excessive speed crashes are FAR too rare for inappropriate speeds to be so widespread. With 32 million licenced drivers, 12% of crashes with 'excessive speed' as a contributory factor and 214,000 injury crashes in a year causing an excessive speed injury crash is a once in 1,250 years for the average driver. And of course most of those are well above the 85th percentile.

It's COMPLETELY out of the question to suggest that more than 15% using speed inappropriately to a significant degree.



If there's one job that cameras have the potential to do well, it's catch the occasional nutter. There's no way on earth that they will make us into safer drivers.

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