28th July 2003
>Your email that was sent to Sir George
Young has been forwarded to the
>Constabulary for their comment, and then
onto me as Project Manager for
>the Partnership. We recognise this extract
from the SafeSpeed website,
>SafeSpeed being a small group of vehemently
anti-speed camera lobbyists
>who have been working over the past year
and a half to undermine
>government efforts to reduce road casualties
through a managed roll-out of
>speed enforcement across the country.
And where's the evidence that there are
casualty reductions? Exactly?
>I raise this simply by way of
>introduction - the proponents of this
website clearly have there own
>agenda and it is no surprise that they
will be hosting comments of this
>nature on their web-page. Unfortunately
they have not bothered to check
>the accuracy of much of the contents
of the statement that was supplied.
We cannot check the accuracy of such information,
as Dr Sinclair very well knows. We published with faith and honourable
intent and will continue to do so.
>I have been asked to address the contents
of the article and comment. It
>is probably best to do that systematically,
on a comment by comment basis.
>15th May 2003 Hampshire has 16 cameras.
None of them yet work'.
>This is correct in that by the 15th of
May the cameras themselves were not
>yet operating as we were still in the
middle of testing the processes and
>systems. As I said in the media in the
run-up to the launch of the
>cameras, we would be applying a moratorium
on the use of the cameras for
>some weeks, to ensure that there would
be no problems with processing the
>offences. It also gave the public some
time to get used to the sight of
>the cameras before we started filming
speed offences through them, which
>we believed would be the fair thing to
do.
Accurate then.
>"In the first week of April 11,000 cars
passed the sites and the
>infringement rate was set at 40 mph.
Since only 18 cars, yes 18 of 11,000
>were speeding by that measure, the plans
to send drivers doing 36-40 a
>letter asking for compliance and a leaflet
only have been scrapped."
>Two major inaccuracies here. One - there
was never a proposal to set
>enforcement thresholds at anything OTHER
than the same levels we already
>used on our mobile routes. This Constabulary
adheres to the ACPO
>guidelines for speed enforcement, and
it had been agreed in mid-2002 that
>fixed cameras and mobile cameras would
continue to be set at these levels
>(from 36 mph in 30 mph zone, 47
mph in 40 zone etc).
These look like weasle words to us. Read
both carefully and see if you agree. Where's the mention of the plan to
send a letter in the reply?
>Secondly, the figures quoted here are
both partial and incorrect. We had
>data from only 3 of the camera units
by the first of April, indicating
>figures for three sites that simply bear
no match for the figures quoted
>here. All of the sites that we use cameras
at have are required to have at
>least 20 percent of vehicles exceeding
the speed limit prior to
>enforcement. We expect to see a significant
reduction in that level as
>soon as a camera is installed, particularly
in the first few weeks after
>installation. If this data had indeed
been collected (though the data that
>I have bears no resemblance to these
figures) it would have indicated a
>good reduction in excessive speed, and
would thus have been something for
>us to have been pleased with. But I can
state categorically that no data
>of this sort was ever used to determine
threshold levels, as these had
>been agreed by the Partnership, under
the guidance of the Police, months
>before fixed cameras were a reality in
Hampshire and the Isle of Wight.
>"The safety camera partnership that runs
the things is growing at one hell
>of a rate. They employ a statistician
and a press officer. More employees
>planned. They have so much money from
mobile camera enforcement, even they
>are embarrassed. They are spending it
flat out to minimise returning it to
>government. Next big project to try to
soak it up is to pay for a new
>traffic super garage (circa 2m). Web
site being built too."
>The writer was correct in recording that
a data analyst, media officer and
>web-site had been funded through the
Partnership. What he/she fails to
>report that all three are requirements
of all Safety Camera Partnerships.
>We are obliged to employ a data analyst
to ensure that the data we use is
>correct and up-to-date. We are obliged
to employ a press officer and host
>a website because education is one of
our key areas or responsibility and
>the rules of the national Safety Camera
Partnerships insists that we adopt
>one.. The only other staff brought on
to the Partnership have been police
>officers to assist with speed enforcement,
our key business, or clerks to
>process tickets - both legitimate spends.
We have never been 'embarrassed'
>by the revenue - our growth in ticket
numbers over the course of the year
>was extremely modest. By that stage,
in fact, there had not yet been any
>increase, and so the accusation that
we were embarrassed is simply
>fantasy. Our ambition, however, is not
to see an increase in ticket
>numbers or revenue, but on the contrary
to get to a point where the
>numbers of speeding motorists falls at
all our sites to the extent that we
>have achieved what we set out to do -
reduce speeding and speed-related
>casualties on our routes.
>
>The Safety Camera Partnership is not
able to contribute financially in any
>way to any of our Partners for any activates
not directly related to
>Safety Camera enforcement. There is no
way that we would be able, let
>alone interested, in funding a
Roads Policing Unit "garage".
>
>"One of the many big deceits is the criteria
for the cameras at 4 x KSI on
>the site over a 3 year period. Nobody
is supposed to realise that the KSIs
>to make the site qualify are mostly not
speed related. The partnership is
>(sic) a very vested interest with a different
tack to the police. Only
>self interest of more cameras and building
the empire."
>
>Again, this is full of half truths and
inaccuracies. Yes the criteria do
>require 4 KSI accidents over three years
but the criteria also require
>speed data to ensure that there is a
significant speed problem at that
>site - at least 20 percent of vehicles
exceeding the speed limit and 85th
>percentiles have to be at ACPO levels
or above. Both of these are reliable
>indicators of excessive speed. Together
the speed and casualty criteria
>are considered to have a natural cause-effect
relationship. This
>Partnership applies a more accurate test,
however - we do a detailed
>analysis of every accident to determine
primary and secondary causes, and
>will exclude any site at which fewer
that one-third of all accidents were
>potentially speed related. That way we
can ensure that speed enforcement
>will reduce casualties at that site,
which is our primary objective. It
>means that we have far fewer cameras
than a number of other Partnerships,
>but we have the certainty that they have
been located based on the best
>intelligence possible. We do not use
a different tack from the police -
>the Police are our leading Partner in
the Partnership and we follow police
>processes and protocols in every way.
Every one of our operational
>decisions has been made following consultation
with senior police officers
>and is in line with standard police practice.
This includes, and is well
>illustrated, in our use of enforcement
thresholds which has already been
>addressed.
>
>"The Supt of Portsmouth had 12 x NIPs
land on his desk for police cars
>yesterday!"
>I can confirm that we do, routinely,
get a number of emergency vehicles on
>our cameras. Where records indicate that
they were on legitimate business
>and the excessive speed had been unavoidable
they are duly cancelled.
>Where they were not the offence notice
is served on the driver in exactly
>the same way as it would be for any other
member of the public. I can only
>surmise that the writer feels that extra
leniency should be applied to
>police officers, which is something that
we would not agree to.
>
>"We now have an official target of turning
the 33,000 annual tickets into
>120,000."
>This is entirely untrue. We do not work
to targets related to numbers of
>tickets or revenue, only to the 2010
targets relating to the reduction of
>casualties on our roads.
>
>"They have also got permission subject
to certain criteria to have covert
>filming of some roads" This is again
entirely incorrect. This has never
>been raised, let alone debated, in this
Partnership. I understand that one
>other Partnership has used covert operations
to address their motorcycle
>fatality problem but this has not been
a policy that has been adopted in
>Hampshire and the Isle of Wight. Neither
is it 'in the pipeline'. We have
>gone to great lengths to explain to the
public that we want them to be
>aware of where cameras are because that
will help reduce speeds and
>casualties. Why would we jeopardise all
that good will by doing covert
>operations?
>
>"Almost all of us in my traffic office
are anti-camera, at least in the
>form they are taking. As always the need
to get rid of the cash or find
>something new to spend it on continues.
Another analyst post created, a
>traffic sgt to interface between police
and partnership, media person and
>some grasscrete to park the vans on.
All our of middle England's pay-packet."
>
>Once again - incorrect. No new media
person, no new analyst. One of each
>is enough thank you. We have no urgency
to spend money - every bit of
>expenditure is planned for a year in
advance and all of it has to be
>justified to the Department or Transport
in advance. All expenditure is
>audited specifically to ensure than no
unnecessary or inappropriate costs
>are being incurred. The funds for the
Partnership are coming only from
>revenue that is generated by drivers
exceeding the speed limit. That has a
>natural justice about is. The answer
- to those who want to see the end of
>Safety Camera Partnerships - is very
simple - don't speed. Not only will
>we be delighted because road deaths and
serious accidents will come down,
>but so will they, and Safety camera Partnerships
will become redundant. A
>win-win situation.
>
>Overall, the tone of this letter sounds
like it comes from someone with
>a grudge. We know that not all
of the public supports speed enforcement,
>although our own research indicates that
86% of the public support the use
>of cameras to reduce casualties, and
the BBC research found the level to
>be in the region of 75%. However we have
to accept that there will always
>be an element of the media that is hostile
to what we do, and similarly
>that not all the employees within our
Partner organisations will fully
>agree with speed enforcement. Given that
this was a SafeSpeed web-page
>article I suspect that the whole intention
of the article was to add
>weight behind the pressure to stop speed
enforcement completely across the
>UK, and allow drivers to choose their
own 'safe' speed. That is the
>fundamental belief of the Safe Speed
group. For your information the
>SafeSpeed Webpage clearly states: "We
believe that the Government, the DfT
>and their subcontractors are conspiring
to mislead the public about the
>nature of road dangers....The Advertising
Standards Authority recently
>ruled that "speed cameras save lives"
was legitimate and permissible
>claim, but they were misled and we are
trying to set that straight". They
>are obviously wanting to show that Safety
Cameras Partnerships are either
>unnecessary or corrupt, and the writer
of this article clearly had the
>same motive. It is interesting to note
that there have been no further
>contributions to that websiste by this
writer since July 2003, and I can
>only assume that he/she has since got
to know more accurate details about
>that Partnership and has no more mistruths
to add. What I hope has
>happened is that he/she has come to see
the very real difference we are
>making to road safety, and how carefully
we go about our business, and has
>become one of the growing numbers of
our supporters across the county.
>
>
>In conclusion, let me make the point
that evidence nationally,
>internationally and locally shows that
speed and red-light camera
>enforcement reduces the number of accidents.
An independent study of the
>eight pilot Safety Camera Partnerships,
which was published by the DfT in
>February 2003, shows a 35% reduction
in the number of people killed or
>seriously injured at camera locations
and a 56% reduction in the number of
>pedestrian casualties at camera locations.
Our latest figures show that
>on our mobile routes last year (April
2002 to March 2003) there was a 22
>percent reduction in personal injury
accidents and a 28 percent reduction
>in serious or fatal injuries. We are
extremely careful to carry out our
>enforcement in the most intelligent and
moderate way possible, and I
>believe our attention and care is paying
off.
>
>Dr Marion Sinclair
|
