I think this is a stupid Idea

[Pierre]

Originally Posted by andyl

An independent report last year said speed cameras save on average 100 lives per year.

An independent report by who? and based on what figures

And they raised £20m. Top!

raised! robbed more like.

Extending your argument, should we scrap speed limits as speed is not such an important factor?

Of course speed is a factor, speed will be a factor in every vehicular accident because if you're not moving you not likely to crash into anything. But also factor in weather, road condition, driver skills/ experience, drink/drugs, daylight/night, time of day. Speed will always be a factor but it very rarely the only factor or the main one - for the cause of the accident. I do concede that speed will probably the main factor influencing the possible severity of the accident.

Of Course Speed limits are essential, anyone doing 40 or 50 mph in a built-up 30mph residential area deserves to be nicked - no argument.

But what is annoying is where false low limits are implemented on perfectly good fast roads.

There is a by-pass near where I live that was built only recently. It is a dual carriageway it is 3.5 miles long and is as straight as anything, there are no pedestrian walkways or crossings and there is a seperate cycleway. Yet this road has a 40mph limit and cameras all the way along it.

Yet, I can turn of this by-pass onto a country road that is single carriageway, has loads of tight corners and concealed entrances and has a poor quality surface and the limit is 60mph - go figure.

But I will say that I like those vehicle activated signs and would guess they are quite effective (but there's no way I would concede they're cheaper than gatsos because gatsos, as I say, raised £20m last year thanks to the fundraising efforts of speeding drivers who can't quite grapple with the legal entity that is a speed limit).

So because they do not raise revenue they're not as cheap??

But a speeding driver that freqently uses a route with a vehicle activated sign will soon get wise to the fact that s/he will not be punished for breaking the law and so will return to old ways. And, there is a flaw in your argument.

These signs not only advise of speed limits but they advise of sharp corners and blind summits etc -you know "accident blackspots" where cameras are supposed to be situated to save lives - not on straight roads to raise revenue.

Remember they're called "safety cameras" now - funny that at "accident blackspots" they're now installing vehicle actuated signs instead of cameras.

If vehicle activated signs produce a 'substantial reduction in accidents' then surely speed is indeed a factor?!!

I've covered that one

I also don't dispute that there are other causes of accidents which need more effective policing and that we need more traffic police - and more proactive traffic police at that - to achieve that aim.

I wont argue at that.

What will happen with the proposed system is that topics like this will become dominant when, as always with politics, there are more important things to hand. Leaving aside for one moment the argument as to whether speed cameras reduce accidents, surely we should applauding their effectiveness at detecting a crime and ensuring an offender faces justice

In some cases I would call it entrapment not "justice"

(whilst covering local authority prosecution costs and returning a dividend to the Treasury). I mean this is the cause of so much angst with other offences - that people get away with it and don't pay the price. From where I'm standing this is not an issue worthy of lengthy political debate, but is precisely the sort of issue that will be raised countless times by aspiring politicians under Howard's proposals.

But driving community are making it an issue worthy of debate. Therefore it is a valid issue

OK, lot to respond to there monsieur Pierre.

The report: http://www.dft.gov.uk/stellent/group...ty_029193.hcsp
Summary of its findings: "The report showed that at the camera sites assessed:

· There was a 40% reduction in the number of people killed or seriously injured (KSI).

· There were 870 fewer KSIs per year, including more than 100 fewer deaths.

· There was a 33% fall in injury accidents - 4,030 fewer per year.

· There was a 35% reduction in the number of pedestrians killed or seriously injured.

· Average speeds at the most recently-introduced camera sites fell by around 7% or 2.4mph.

· Average speed at urban sites fell by around 8%.

· The number of vehicles speeding at new camera sites dropped by 71%.

· 79% of people surveyed supported the use of cameras to reduce casualties. Meanwhile today, Brake, the national road safety charity, released survey results showing that 78% of drivers supported the use of speed cameras outside schools. "

And the list of casualty reductions by area:

"Percentage reduction in deaths and serious injuries at camera sites

Cambridgeshire 55%
Derbyshire 17%
Lancashire 58%
Lincolnshire 18%
Norfolk 56%
North Wales 68%
Northamptonshire 46%
Nottingham (City) 33%
Staffordshire 30%
Strathclyde 34%
Thames Valley 43%
Warwickshire 42%

[Although Cleveland and Essex had reductions in the frequency of deaths and serious injuries at camera sites, there was insufficient data for estimates to be produced for these areas]

Percentage reductions in personal injury collisions per area per year at camera sites

Avon and Somerset 13%
Gloucestershire 23%
Bedfordshire 42%
Cambridgeshire 21%
Cleveland 50%
Derbyshire 23%
Essex 23%
Fife 15%
Lancashire 54%
Leicestershire 11%
Lincolnshire 24%
London 35%
Norfolk 41%
North Wales 41%
Northamptonshire 46%
Nottingham (City) 16%
Nottinghamshire (exc City) 12%
South Wales 32%
Dyfed-Powys 28%
Gwent 39%
South Yorkshire 60%
Staffordshire 20%
Thames Valley 28%
Warwickshire 23%
West Yorkshire 72%
Wiltshire 64%

[Although Hampshire and Strathclyde had reductions in the frequency of personal injury collisions at camera sites, there was insufficient data for reliable estimates for these areas]

A number of other areas have since joined the partnership scheme but too late to be included in today's figures."



No doubt there are lies, damn lies and statistics but whatever, speeding remains a crime and gatsos an effective way of detecting that crime. If people are unhappy with a speed limit on a particular road/area, then they should campaign to have it raised/lowered but to whine about cameras when they get caught is preposterous - they are not robbed, they get caught). We can't choose which laws we can and can't obey (well we can but if we get caught..)

Vehicle activated signs (VAS) are not cheap (in the context of speeding) because they don't catch people who then pay fines and generate revenue. So no they're not cheaper. That's what I said. I also said I can see that VASs can be effective, but that effectivenesss will be short lived as muppet drivers realise they will not be hit in the pocket and on their licence. But I accept unreservedly that vehicle activated signs should be used more widely to warn of road dangers.


The entrapment argument works only where drivers can claim they were not adequately warned of speed limits. Again I accept this can and does happen - I'm campaigning where I live for better signing of the widely flouted 20mph limit and was appalled to discover the stupid rules that exist (it's a zone so you can only have signs on the entry to the zone, not within it. How nuts is that?!). I have also been told,in writing, by the police that they cannot enforce 20mph limits (the logic of this eludes me) and that it is up to the council to use traffic calming to prevent abuse. But in my experience most but not all roads are adequately signed (and if you're not sure then caution should be your watchword!) and, for that matter, cameras are preceded by warning signs. Difficult to argue an entrapment case in such circumstances.

It may be an issue worthy of debate - hey, we're doing it now! - but it is a populist cause which ceaselessly focuses not on the crime, but the methods of detecting and dealing with that crime. Why do cameras hog the headlines rather than whether the limits in place are appropriate for the road conditions? Hmmm, could it be because people take it upon themselves to break the law and don't like paying up because of it.

[Pierre]

No doubt there are lies, damn lies and statistics

True, when you look at rules for the siting of cameras. "For a site to qualify for a fixed camera, it must have had at least four crashes that involve death or serious injury and/or at least eight crashes involving personal injuries in the past three years over a kilometre distance."

Note that the cause of the accident does not have be speed. However the figures you quote may appear impressive but they're not all that impressive when you dig deeper.

3 serious accidents and 8 bumps are all that is required. So if the camera has prevented a serious accident for 3 years it would be deemed to be 100% effective - yes?

So then why is the best score you can get 68%? that must mean that over the following 3 years of the camera being sited you've still had a serious accident at that spot, and the figures for other injuries are even less impressive.

Also if you want see the lengths that these "safety camera partnerships" will go to, to catch you check this out. Surely you can't defend some of these:

http://www.speedcam.co.uk/van.htm

but whatever, speeding remains a crime and gatsos an effective way of detecting that crime

Now, you know I can't argue against that. But it is the wider issues about Gatsos that is ****ing off the average motorist and actions like in that above link.

If people are unhappy with a speed limit on a particular road/area, then they should campaign to have it raised/lowered but to whine about cameras when they get caught is preposterous - they are not robbed, they get caught). We can't choose which laws we can and can't obey (well we can but if we get caught..)

Again a fair point that I can't really argue against. Apart from the fact the speed limits should be set correctly with out having to campaign for common sense.

but it is a populist cause which ceaselessly focuses not on the crime, but the methods of detecting and dealing with that crime

I don't think anyone, as I have always expressed, will argue against correctly sited cameras where there is an obvious safety concern.

People get piddled off by being restricted in their ability to travel at speed in locations where it is patently safe to do so but are restricted by badly sited cameras and or by practices shown in that link.

Halloo! I wish to remind you this is NOT a thread about speed cameras? Can we stay on topic please?

[Xaccers]

Originally Posted by andyl

Vehicle activated signs (VAS) are not cheap (in the context of speeding) because they don't catch people who then pay fines and generate revenue. So no they're not cheaper. That's what I said. I also said I can see that VASs can be effective, but that effectivenesss will be short lived as muppet drivers realise they will not be hit in the pocket and on their licence. But I accept unreservedly that vehicle activated signs should be used more widely to warn of road dangers.

As I stated earlier, even after 3 years VAS are still more effective at reducing vehicle speeds than cameras.

The police routinely break the law when issuing NIP's by not using recorded or registered delivery
They claim that speed cameras are "to prevent speeding" but then hide gatsos behind street signs, and mobile cameras in hedges, and plan to use a camera which can spot vehicles 2Km away, how is that preventing speeding?
They park illegally as the police are not above the law.
They tail gate on dual carrigeways trying to get motorists to break the speed limit.

I want a commisioner to hold the police to account and get them to do their jobs properly.


The increase in overall road deaths suggests that the cameras and VAS are not placed where they would prevent the most deaths, but in places where they are most likely to produce revenue.

An AA survey lists 173 miles of the most dangerous roads in the country. So how may of the thousands of speed cameras are on these killer-roads? Four! No wonder we now have over 1,000,000 people persecuted every year whilst the number of road-deaths is actually rising. The police are in it for the money!

Siigghhhhhhhh!

[Xaccers]

Originally Posted by Pierre

True, when you look at rules for the siting of cameras. "For a site to qualify for a fixed camera, it must have had at least four crashes that involve death or serious injury and/or at least eight crashes involving personal injuries in the past three years over a kilometre distance."

Also:

There has been a site survey by a road safety engineer and there are no other obvious, practical measures to improve road safety along this stretch of road

So, speed cameras must not be put in places where other measures can be taken to improve road safety.
So why were some installed on a brand new dual carrigeway, or is the highways agency deliberately building dangerous roads?
__________________

Originally Posted by Incognitas

Siigghhhhhhhh!

Originally Posted by Xaccers

I want a commisioner to hold the police to account and get them to do their jobs properly.

If a commisioner pledged to reign in the police and make them do their jobs properly targetting dangerous roads rather than roads with high income, increasing police patrols, tackling serious crime, then I'd vote for them, and if they failed, I'd vote them out.
Something I can't do with the PA!
So come on Howard, hurry up and win the election so we can get the country sorted again.

[Stuart]

People, this is NOT a thread about speed cameras. Can we please keep it on topic?

Going back to the original point, I think it would be a bad idea. It could (theoretically) cause the police to devote more resources to certain crimes, as they would gain the most publicity for the elected officials running the police.

Some may argue this happens now, but the way the police are set up, they are supposed to be independant from any political party.

[Xaccers]

Originally Posted by scastle

People, this is NOT a thread about speed cameras. Can we please keep it on topic?

Going back to the original point, I think it would be a bad idea. It could (theoretically) cause the police to devote more resources to certain crimes, as they would gain the most publicity for the elected officials running the police.

Some may argue this happens now, but the way the police are set up, they are supposed to be independant from any political party.

But they would still be independant, even if the commisioner was a member of a political party.
Why would it be a bad thing for the police to change their emphasis to tackling crimes which the public want them to tackle like vandals and burglaries?

[Pierre]

Originally Posted by Xaccers

Why would it be a bad thing for the police to change their emphasis to tackling crimes which the public want them to tackle like vandals and burglaries?

Well the short answer is: it wouldn't.

As I recall the police are public servants funded by our taxes, and as such the public should have a say on what they focus some of their resources on.

[Stuart]

Originally Posted by Xaccers

But they would still be independant, even if the commisioner was a member of a political party.
Why would it be a bad thing for the police to change their emphasis to tackling crimes which the public want them to tackle like vandals and burglaries?

Because I think that at least part of their emphasis would be on solving those crimes that would help the commissioner be re-elected.

Originally Posted by scastle

Because I think that at least part of their emphasis would be on solving those crimes that would help the commissioner be re-elected.

Spot on!

Originally Posted by Xaccers

Really? Then how come I had 27 f'ing undealt with incidents???? [etc]

*Because* they've got the Government on their bloody backs using them as a political football and adding new layers of bureaucracy instead of giving them the money letting them get on with their jobs!!!

See this report from 2001 http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/uk/...00/1329463.stm

"The head of the Police Federation is due to renew his call for a boost in officer numbers, saying current targets are insufficient to fight crime effectively.

"The organisation's chairman, Fred Broughton, is expected to criticise Home Secretary Jack Straw for leaving the service "powerless to prevent crime". "

Now since then we've seen plenty of "initiatives" and promises of new officers and new funding, but we've also seen rises in violent crime and burglaries.

See http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article...423380,00.html this report from January 2005:

"BRITAIN has one of the worldââ‚ƚ¬Ã¢â€žÂ¢s most ineffective police forces and highest crime rates, according to an authoritative report to be published this week.

"It says the police spend too much time behind desks instead of tackling and preventing crime. The result, it says, is that crime is †œa very low-risk activity for the criminalââ‚à ƒâ€šÃ‚¬Ãƒâ€šÃ‚ÂÂ�.

And http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article...423069,00.html this report which refers to Scotland, but is IMO entirely applicable to the entire UK:

"POLICE will refuse to respond to †œminorâ € � car crashes, fires or disputes between neighbours under plans to cut bureaucracy and put more officers on the beat.

"Police chiefs claim that they have been swamped by government legislation that is putting mounting pressure on the service and tying up officers with unnecessary paperwork."

We already *have* elected officials who are responsible for overseeing what the Police do, but they're too busy pushing them to reach "targets" to make the politicians look good than to fight crime.

[Pierre]

Originally Posted by Graham

It says the police spend too much time behind desks instead of tackling and preventing crime. The result, it says, is that crime is †œa very low-risk activity for the criminalââ‚à ƒâ€šÃ‚¬Ãƒâ€šÃ‚ÂÂ�.

That's an old issue that this government has failed to sort out.

"Police chiefs claim that they have been swamped by government legislation that is putting mounting pressure on the service and tying up officers with unnecessary paperwork."

Again an old issue that this government has failed to sort out

We already *have* elected officials who are responsible for overseeing what the Police do, but they're too busy pushing them to reach "targets" to make the politicians look good than to fight crime.

Couldn't agree more, which is why this idea is a good idea. Instead of having to impress the politicians the police will have to impress the public.

[Xaccers]

Originally Posted by scastle

Because I think that at least part of their emphasis would be on solving those crimes that would help the commissioner be re-elected.

Which would have to be crimes that the public want tackled.
If a commissioner spent his time getting the police to tackle crime that the public didn't particularly care about, and ignoring the crimes that the public do want something done about, then do you think the public will keep him in?