RE: Cameras Hailed as Success
Tuesday 11th February 2003
The Government is hailing the widespread introduction of speed cameras as a major success. Department for Transport (DfT) figures published today claim that roads with speed cameras have shown a 35% reduction in deaths as serious injuries.
Transport Secretary Alistair Darling did concede that the increase in deaths and injuries near cameras in Essex was a concern. Figures show that crashes within 500 metres of cameras in Essex rose by 15%. A similar story is true in Thames Valley where the number of incidents was up by 14%.
The revenues from speed cameras are being ploughed back into buying more cameras. Officials at the Department of Transport see the success of the cameras and the amount of revenue being raised as justification to double the number of cameras in use in the years to come.
The statistics do of course demonstrate the beneficial effects of correctly sited cameras, but the large number of badly positioned cameras servicing merely to aggravate motorists get lost in the statistics. Sadly the revenue generating nature of the cameras will merely encourage more cameras in both sensibe locations and silly locations. Has the battle been lost or will this signify the start of a more vigourous campaign by the anti-camera activists?
Links: Dft Stats (Table 1, Table 2)
Cameras Hailed as Success
Double the number of cameras?
The Government is hailing the widespread introduction of speed cameras as a major success. Department for Transport (DfT) figures published today claim that roads with speed cameras have shown a 35% reduction in deaths as serious injuries.
Transport Secretary Alistair Darling did concede that the increase in deaths and injuries near cameras in Essex was a concern. Figures show that crashes within 500 metres of cameras in Essex rose by 15%. A similar story is true in Thames Valley where the number of incidents was up by 14%.
The revenues from speed cameras are being ploughed back into buying more cameras. Officials at the Department of Transport see the success of the cameras and the amount of revenue being raised as justification to double the number of cameras in use in the years to come.
The statistics do of course demonstrate the beneficial effects of correctly sited cameras, but the large number of badly positioned cameras servicing merely to aggravate motorists get lost in the statistics. Sadly the revenue generating nature of the cameras will merely encourage more cameras in both sensibe locations and silly locations. Has the battle been lost or will this signify the start of a more vigourous campaign by the anti-camera activists?
Links: Dft Stats (Table 1, Table 2)
Discussion
Much of the revenue is now going back to the Police so they are all for more cameras. However, the interesting topic doing the rounds currently is the big fall in the numbers of police to be seen on the roads - there is becoming a total reliance on these bloody huge monstrosities (cameras) to take the place of the coppers who are all too busy filling in paperwork. On recent journeys (140 miles to and from London (Wembley) last Sat between hours of 5pm and 1pm saw ONE police car (and we are told to be vigilant about terrorists! - what a bloody joke.) Recently following juggernaut full of wood and pallets that looked about as safe as ***. When the planks and wood started to sail off and smash in the road I called 999 (spent over 5 minutes on mobile - seemed more interested in MY details than what was basically a danger situation. Wont bother next time. Threads on other sites are gathering sim info about falls in numbers of police cars being sited.
Just thought - now I have included the above word 'ter......st' I will probably have my front door smashed in shortly by rapid response police!!!
What a bloody country we live in now - it used to be so good in the wild late 60s/70s to be a car enthusiast, regularly stopped by the police in early hours but actually doing their job, looking for criminals, not persecuting us. Now it's all ruddy cameras and humps and not an ounce of common sense anywhere.
Can you imagine this today? Picked up a Ginetta G15 in Doncaster to drive back to Oxfordshire very late/early morning. Missus driving the 15, while I shoot off in conventional motor expecting her to keep up. She had driven off with no lights(!) and I wonder where she's got to. 10 mins and blue flashing lights as ruddy jam sandwich pulls me in just as I get on motorway: "eehh, she's jooost cummin". Friendly smiles and off they go.
Just beyond Brum, both pulled in by another jam sandwich - "problem officer?" "no, just wanted to have a decker at the car - nice set of wheels -what is it?'" 5 min chat about Ginettas and where we were going, and off we went again.
Where did it all go wrong?
Just thought - now I have included the above word 'ter......st' I will probably have my front door smashed in shortly by rapid response police!!!
What a bloody country we live in now - it used to be so good in the wild late 60s/70s to be a car enthusiast, regularly stopped by the police in early hours but actually doing their job, looking for criminals, not persecuting us. Now it's all ruddy cameras and humps and not an ounce of common sense anywhere.
Can you imagine this today? Picked up a Ginetta G15 in Doncaster to drive back to Oxfordshire very late/early morning. Missus driving the 15, while I shoot off in conventional motor expecting her to keep up. She had driven off with no lights(!) and I wonder where she's got to. 10 mins and blue flashing lights as ruddy jam sandwich pulls me in just as I get on motorway: "eehh, she's jooost cummin". Friendly smiles and off they go.
Just beyond Brum, both pulled in by another jam sandwich - "problem officer?" "no, just wanted to have a decker at the car - nice set of wheels -what is it?'" 5 min chat about Ginettas and where we were going, and off we went again.
Where did it all go wrong?
AAARRRRRRRRRRGHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!
can't find the profanities to describe my anger!!
hands-on-trigger-of-gun... ready and waiting.
they've just announced that they're going to put in cameras near me, on my way to work.. open country road with barely any housing anywhere near it, currently a national limit..
a friend of mine knows exactly where he's going when they appear.. straight to the industrial firework/paintball gun/thermite/black aerosol/expanding insualation foam shop.. to place a bulk order!!!!
can't find the profanities to describe my anger!!
hands-on-trigger-of-gun... ready and waiting.
they've just announced that they're going to put in cameras near me, on my way to work.. open country road with barely any housing anywhere near it, currently a national limit..
a friend of mine knows exactly where he's going when they appear.. straight to the industrial firework/paintball gun/thermite/black aerosol/expanding insualation foam shop.. to place a bulk order!!!!
Call me an old cynic, but I wouldn't trust those stats at all unless I saw the raw data. There aren't that many people killed per year on the UK roads, so dividing that relatively small dataset up into even smaller regional groups and then claiming you can see meaningfull trends and worse still, deviations from that trend on short timescales ... strikes me as bollocks. Of course, they could have calmed my fears and actually made the data mean something by giving some idea of the statistical uncertainty in their numbers ... e,g, say something like 30% +/-5% instead of just quoting their central figures. However my guess is that this would have just highlighted the spurious nature of some of their calculations.
If any body is interested there is a good paper on the statistics on road deaths and serious injures and revenue collection devises (RCD) on the abd.org.net.
Basically, the standard deviation on death and serious injures is much higher than you might imagine. What this means is that although the long term average, say over 10 years, of death and serious injury is falling slowly, the number of deaths and serious injuries per year varies a lot.
The situation in Essex clearly shows the way they manage data, the RCD’s where introduced in 2000 but in 1999 the number of deaths (110) had been very high (the figures for 1997 was 92 and 1998 87), much to every ones surprise the numbers fell in 2000. It did not mean any thing statistically, quite within the normal range of outcomes, but guess what they hailed it a triumph of the RCD in reducing deaths and serious injuries.
So they then had problems preparing the 2001 data, its difficult to see how this statistic would be hard to produce but I had an email from Kelly Fairweather the RCD publicity officer in November 2002 saying the figures where delayed.
Now we have the 2001 and the 2002 figures produced at the same time and guess what we have seen a 25.2 drop in road from 123 in 2001 to 92 in 2002. This is hailed a triumph for RCD.
But notice anything?? Yes the death rate is still higher in 2002 than it was in 1997 and 1998 before the RCD where introduced and the 2001 figure is much higher!!!
Actually the figures mean absolutely nothing they are well within statistical tolerance for the data and signify no meaningful tread. But did that ever stop the RCD brigade.
Basically, the standard deviation on death and serious injures is much higher than you might imagine. What this means is that although the long term average, say over 10 years, of death and serious injury is falling slowly, the number of deaths and serious injuries per year varies a lot.
The situation in Essex clearly shows the way they manage data, the RCD’s where introduced in 2000 but in 1999 the number of deaths (110) had been very high (the figures for 1997 was 92 and 1998 87), much to every ones surprise the numbers fell in 2000. It did not mean any thing statistically, quite within the normal range of outcomes, but guess what they hailed it a triumph of the RCD in reducing deaths and serious injuries.
So they then had problems preparing the 2001 data, its difficult to see how this statistic would be hard to produce but I had an email from Kelly Fairweather the RCD publicity officer in November 2002 saying the figures where delayed.
Now we have the 2001 and the 2002 figures produced at the same time and guess what we have seen a 25.2 drop in road from 123 in 2001 to 92 in 2002. This is hailed a triumph for RCD.
But notice anything?? Yes the death rate is still higher in 2002 than it was in 1997 and 1998 before the RCD where introduced and the 2001 figure is much higher!!!
Actually the figures mean absolutely nothing they are well within statistical tolerance for the data and signify no meaningful tread. But did that ever stop the RCD brigade.
The problem here IMHO is the power of arguments for / against.
The people/groups/organisations that decide on where to put cameras and where to reduce speed limits are ALWAYS going to win. They are the ones in power, with the power and they believe what they are doing is right.
A good example is a stretch of road near me. It use to be a 40 then a NSL for about a mile to the ring road.
No houses, no schools, no bends, just empty road.
Now its all 40mph.
I really believe the local council/police cant be won over. How can you argue AGAINST a lowering of the limit or AGAINST a speed camera. They will always argue the speed kills, slower traffic flows better etc argument.
What can we do, apart from
The people/groups/organisations that decide on where to put cameras and where to reduce speed limits are ALWAYS going to win. They are the ones in power, with the power and they believe what they are doing is right.
A good example is a stretch of road near me. It use to be a 40 then a NSL for about a mile to the ring road.
No houses, no schools, no bends, just empty road.
Now its all 40mph.
I really believe the local council/police cant be won over. How can you argue AGAINST a lowering of the limit or AGAINST a speed camera. They will always argue the speed kills, slower traffic flows better etc argument.
What can we do, apart from
I was disgusted by the BBC's reports on the News at One and BBC East today so have sent a response. I suggest anybody with complaints about their reporting of this article also mails the BBC. PM is normally a good place to start, also give Newsnight a try......
Sir,
Yet more party political broadcasts on behalf of the Labour party today. The article suggesting speed cameras save lives was seriously flawed, there were no questions on why in Essex and the Thames Valley accidents around speed camera sites have increased by 14 and 15 percent respectively. This was according to the government's own, highly dubious figures.
Even BBC East didn't ask about the Essex increase.
Speed cameras represent a significant source of additional revenue, the government claims a reduction in accidents but keeps the raw data a closely guarded secret. Why? Correct positioning of cameras is important, if the data we pay for were made public it would be possible to confirm they are being used for safety and taxation.
Not raising such easy questions indicates poor research and lazy, stupid journalism. I should expect more from the BBC, but I don't.
To save you the bother of checking the facts for your stories I have attached a link to the Dept of Transport website.
I doubt you will reply, let alone read this out. Remember STUPIDITY KILLS.
Carl Pickering
www.dft.gov.uk/pns//pnattach/20030020/2.doc
Sir,
Yet more party political broadcasts on behalf of the Labour party today. The article suggesting speed cameras save lives was seriously flawed, there were no questions on why in Essex and the Thames Valley accidents around speed camera sites have increased by 14 and 15 percent respectively. This was according to the government's own, highly dubious figures.
Even BBC East didn't ask about the Essex increase.
Speed cameras represent a significant source of additional revenue, the government claims a reduction in accidents but keeps the raw data a closely guarded secret. Why? Correct positioning of cameras is important, if the data we pay for were made public it would be possible to confirm they are being used for safety and taxation.
Not raising such easy questions indicates poor research and lazy, stupid journalism. I should expect more from the BBC, but I don't.
To save you the bother of checking the facts for your stories I have attached a link to the Dept of Transport website.
I doubt you will reply, let alone read this out. Remember STUPIDITY KILLS.
Carl Pickering
www.dft.gov.uk/pns//pnattach/20030020/2.doc
robp said: The problem here IMHO is the power of arguments for / against.
The people/groups/organisations that decide on where to put cameras and where to reduce speed limits are ALWAYS going to win. They are the ones in power, with the power and they believe what they are doing is right.
A good example is a stretch of road near me. It use to be a 40 then a NSL for about a mile to the ring road.
No houses, no schools, no bends, just empty road.
Now its all 40mph.
I really believe the local council/police cant be won over. How can you argue AGAINST a lowering of the limit or AGAINST a speed camera. They will always argue the speed kills, slower traffic flows better etc argument.
What can we do, apart from
The greatest crimes are committed in the name of public safety.
I don't remember who said it, but it is true.
The problem is that these council people really believe they're doing us a favor by ignoring facts and persecuting the innocent.
The only thing you can do is vote them out of office. They're still elected officials, right? I'm not a citizen, so I can't vote, but most of you can. The question is, do you? Do you make it clear that you'll only vote for people who support real road safety and not the sort of (to quote a favorite Python sketch) blinkered, philistine pig-ignorance that speed cameras and speed bumps represent?
I'll try that again.
Quote : -"Its is amazing though that they could not dress up essex to show a downward trend."
Could it be that in Essex people have realised that if you get caught speeding you get done, whereas if you jam on your brakes like a loon and someone runs up your a4se they get done. Interesting that the law therefore potentially encourages lunatic driving as long as it is below speed limits.
Cynical I know but the Gov't is run by it's wallet. This response would merely be the population doing the same.
Speed kills my a4se. Crashing kills more like
Quote : -"Its is amazing though that they could not dress up essex to show a downward trend."
Could it be that in Essex people have realised that if you get caught speeding you get done, whereas if you jam on your brakes like a loon and someone runs up your a4se they get done. Interesting that the law therefore potentially encourages lunatic driving as long as it is below speed limits.
Cynical I know but the Gov't is run by it's wallet. This response would merely be the population doing the same.
Speed kills my a4se. Crashing kills more like
A letter on it's way to the Chief of Plods:
To Chief Plod Peter Neyroud
,
My name is Simon Holland; I have lived at the above address for the last seven years with my wife Sandra and our five year old son Samuel. I am an ordinary bloke who concentrates on looking after his family and following the law. Unfortunately after the events of February 28 that all changed.
The reason for writing this letter is because on the 28 of February at 11:24 am this year I was caught in a speed trap on the Marlow Hill coming out of High Wycombe which was positioned in rather bizarre location. The letter below explains how extremely angered I am at an organisation that on the one hand is so sublimely efficient and yet on the other hand outrageously inefficient.
I’m fully aware what the Police stand point will be “you broke the Law Mr Holland” and I’m big enough to accept that, however that argument is no longer acceptable because it is just a cover and that I’m more than aware as you are that there is an hidden agenda.
This speed trap was positioned only a few metres from the 40 mph sign which meant that myself along with the 8 or so other cars were at least travelling at 38 mph just before the 40 mph zone but still in the 30 mph zone. This Hill is precisely .8 of one mile long the 30 mph zone occupies .3 of that starting from the bottom. At the point where the speed trap was set road condition is exactly the as the rest of the road carrying on through the 40 mph zone.
That is the one shining example of efficiency that I have witnessed from the Police in the last seven years, however I’m very sad to say that is it. For the last seven years we have had 14 plus car related crimes committed against my family ranging from car theft to blatant vandalism. By comparison to my speeding offence which was processed in a mere 6 days for the remainder of the offences the Police have done absolutely nothing.
Of course we have attempted to call the Police on several occasions but have had to listen to the following excuses:
• Sorry sir this station is closed
• Sorry sir we do not have the resources
• We do not attend for that type of offence any more
• Are you insured, hear is a crime number just forward that your insurer and make a claim
Read on:
1. Metro Gsi 16v – Broken into 1996 report to Police, screw driver forced into door lock, new door and paint lost no claims
2. Astra 5 door – Stolen report to Police, found and declared write off insurance refused to pay out due to age, we had just picked that up the night before.
3. Metro Gsi 16v – Window wipers bent over.
4. Golf TDi – broken into reported to Police driver’s side widow.
5. Peugeot 406 TDi vandalised – someone ran across bonnet
6. Peugeot 206 TDi vandalised not reported – keyed note: we recall a certain person in the vicinity on that day
7. Peugeot 206 Gti Accident reported – hit outside croft turn in Police would not attend because there as not any injuries irrespective of that the driver had run into me on a perfectly straight road.
8. Peugeot 406 TDi vandalised reported – extensive fire damage from being parked next to a burning car
Note: I remember a person who looked like the duty fire office remarking to me why the alloy wheels were not stolen to me while my car was melting.
9. Peugeot 406 TDi vandalised not reported more scratches appear after parking in the croft
10. Citroen Saxo VTS vandalised not reported – badges stolen
11. Citroen Saxo VTS – not reported, caught a certain ginger haired youth attempting to light a can of Ronson cigarette fuel under my car, chased him off.
12. Peugeot 406 TDi vandalised not reported – Keyed
13. Peugeot 406 TDi vandalised not reported – shot in the boot area by airgun
14. Golf TDi – vandalised not reported - badges stolen and paint scratched
I estimate an extra £3500 for repair and additional expenses.
Therefore in comparison to the glowing statistics on Police web pages my figures read a lot differently, the Police had only solved only 6% of the above crimes which equates to a 94% failure rate, if I were not responsible for the 6% it would be a 100% failure rate which is poor by any ones standards.
It’s clear that the Police have made certain decisions regarding which crime their interested in and its people like me “Joe public” who are consistently being put on the receiving end and not real offenders who laugh in face of this countries laws that both this Government and Police are no longer in control of.
You only have to browse Police, government and web sites such as www.abd.org.uk/ and relate that to the local area to realise there are huge discrepancies in these so-called policies for crime and traffic.
The Croft
Take for example the Croft in Maidenhead, a small street plagued with crime, which only recently had several car windows smashed. One car in particular with three windows smashed. Of course the Police failed to turn out, the incident did get into Maidenhead Advertiser after enraged residents were forced to speak up because lack of Police action.
Both the Police and the Council have known about the croft for a long time but what have they done:
1. Repair the street lamps including the first lamp that’s been leaning over for the last seven years.
2. Improved the car parking
3. Carry out more Patrols
4. Create an alternative route to ease the pressure
Absolutely not apart from spend thousands on a Millennium Fountain for the park which was vandalised the very next day. This has been eye saw since.
Car racing between the mini rounds about late are night, jumping the Bridge lights or drag racing up the hill are the norm for the Croft/Norden Road
Car parked on the path blocking front doors and restricting access for the emergency services.
Maidenhead Roads
Safety = Speed Cameras (or is that Safety Cameras) but where is it, take for example the A4 just beyond the Wooten way mini-round-about, this reduces to 30 mph after the mini round about where children are walk to school and then returns to 40 mph as soon as the A4 hits town, its baffling where the logic is but there is a speed camera in the middle of the 30 mph zone and another setup on a parallel road just driver get any ideas about trying to avoid them. In practise this means you can do 40 mph past the kids walking to school but not past the cameras, also in the 20 feet between the speed sign to the mini-round-about the speed limit is set to 40 mph and of course through town where people walk.
Norden Road – Noreys Drive, it used to be 40 mph but then changed to 30 mph and for time displayed temporary but informative “Change of speed limit” signs these have now disappeared altogether but their long term counterparts have not appeared, so where are they and what is the limit?
Cox green slip road joining the A404 heading toward High Wycombe is set to 30 mph is impossible speed to join the 404 during rush-hour.
Cox Green Traffic calming speed bump, these are designed in such away that it is possible to avoid them but not without using both lanes, which is exactly what happened to me. I had to brake very hard on a wet surface to avoid an oncoming driver dodging around them but had not accounted for my presence.
I sat in chamber of commerce meeting last year in Bracknell where the Chief Constable gave a speech along with the usual security update, but spent near enough his whole whining about manpower and how his officer kept leaving only to break once to answer a question regarding speeding fines to say that Cameras would control all traffic.
I communicated the Thesa May he Maidenhead and Windsor Member of Parliament who said it was the government skewing funds away from the Themes Valley Police.
Summary
This all means that any small crimes that are committed against me and my family are acceptable and that as long “I’m insured” as the Police now advise we will be “OK” but if I travel up the Marlow Hill a mere few miles over limit the Police will be there and ready to hound me until I pay. The Police must be rolling in funds on the one hand they have saved thousands by not investigating the crimes committed against my family over the years and yet in a few short seconds made around £660 pounds from normal motorist.
I know that the police have no intension of supporting me at the moment regarding crime but as soon as I step into my car their waiting. Perhaps all the Chief Constables should go sort Tony Blair out that’s next time he is in this country of course
Regards
To Chief Plod Peter Neyroud
,
My name is Simon Holland; I have lived at the above address for the last seven years with my wife Sandra and our five year old son Samuel. I am an ordinary bloke who concentrates on looking after his family and following the law. Unfortunately after the events of February 28 that all changed.
The reason for writing this letter is because on the 28 of February at 11:24 am this year I was caught in a speed trap on the Marlow Hill coming out of High Wycombe which was positioned in rather bizarre location. The letter below explains how extremely angered I am at an organisation that on the one hand is so sublimely efficient and yet on the other hand outrageously inefficient.
I’m fully aware what the Police stand point will be “you broke the Law Mr Holland” and I’m big enough to accept that, however that argument is no longer acceptable because it is just a cover and that I’m more than aware as you are that there is an hidden agenda.
This speed trap was positioned only a few metres from the 40 mph sign which meant that myself along with the 8 or so other cars were at least travelling at 38 mph just before the 40 mph zone but still in the 30 mph zone. This Hill is precisely .8 of one mile long the 30 mph zone occupies .3 of that starting from the bottom. At the point where the speed trap was set road condition is exactly the as the rest of the road carrying on through the 40 mph zone.
That is the one shining example of efficiency that I have witnessed from the Police in the last seven years, however I’m very sad to say that is it. For the last seven years we have had 14 plus car related crimes committed against my family ranging from car theft to blatant vandalism. By comparison to my speeding offence which was processed in a mere 6 days for the remainder of the offences the Police have done absolutely nothing.
Of course we have attempted to call the Police on several occasions but have had to listen to the following excuses:
• Sorry sir this station is closed
• Sorry sir we do not have the resources
• We do not attend for that type of offence any more
• Are you insured, hear is a crime number just forward that your insurer and make a claim
Read on:
1. Metro Gsi 16v – Broken into 1996 report to Police, screw driver forced into door lock, new door and paint lost no claims
2. Astra 5 door – Stolen report to Police, found and declared write off insurance refused to pay out due to age, we had just picked that up the night before.
3. Metro Gsi 16v – Window wipers bent over.
4. Golf TDi – broken into reported to Police driver’s side widow.
5. Peugeot 406 TDi vandalised – someone ran across bonnet
6. Peugeot 206 TDi vandalised not reported – keyed note: we recall a certain person in the vicinity on that day
7. Peugeot 206 Gti Accident reported – hit outside croft turn in Police would not attend because there as not any injuries irrespective of that the driver had run into me on a perfectly straight road.
8. Peugeot 406 TDi vandalised reported – extensive fire damage from being parked next to a burning car
Note: I remember a person who looked like the duty fire office remarking to me why the alloy wheels were not stolen to me while my car was melting.
9. Peugeot 406 TDi vandalised not reported more scratches appear after parking in the croft
10. Citroen Saxo VTS vandalised not reported – badges stolen
11. Citroen Saxo VTS – not reported, caught a certain ginger haired youth attempting to light a can of Ronson cigarette fuel under my car, chased him off.
12. Peugeot 406 TDi vandalised not reported – Keyed
13. Peugeot 406 TDi vandalised not reported – shot in the boot area by airgun
14. Golf TDi – vandalised not reported - badges stolen and paint scratched
I estimate an extra £3500 for repair and additional expenses.
Therefore in comparison to the glowing statistics on Police web pages my figures read a lot differently, the Police had only solved only 6% of the above crimes which equates to a 94% failure rate, if I were not responsible for the 6% it would be a 100% failure rate which is poor by any ones standards.
It’s clear that the Police have made certain decisions regarding which crime their interested in and its people like me “Joe public” who are consistently being put on the receiving end and not real offenders who laugh in face of this countries laws that both this Government and Police are no longer in control of.
You only have to browse Police, government and web sites such as www.abd.org.uk/ and relate that to the local area to realise there are huge discrepancies in these so-called policies for crime and traffic.
The Croft
Take for example the Croft in Maidenhead, a small street plagued with crime, which only recently had several car windows smashed. One car in particular with three windows smashed. Of course the Police failed to turn out, the incident did get into Maidenhead Advertiser after enraged residents were forced to speak up because lack of Police action.
Both the Police and the Council have known about the croft for a long time but what have they done:
1. Repair the street lamps including the first lamp that’s been leaning over for the last seven years.
2. Improved the car parking
3. Carry out more Patrols
4. Create an alternative route to ease the pressure
Absolutely not apart from spend thousands on a Millennium Fountain for the park which was vandalised the very next day. This has been eye saw since.
Car racing between the mini rounds about late are night, jumping the Bridge lights or drag racing up the hill are the norm for the Croft/Norden Road
Car parked on the path blocking front doors and restricting access for the emergency services.
Maidenhead Roads
Safety = Speed Cameras (or is that Safety Cameras) but where is it, take for example the A4 just beyond the Wooten way mini-round-about, this reduces to 30 mph after the mini round about where children are walk to school and then returns to 40 mph as soon as the A4 hits town, its baffling where the logic is but there is a speed camera in the middle of the 30 mph zone and another setup on a parallel road just driver get any ideas about trying to avoid them. In practise this means you can do 40 mph past the kids walking to school but not past the cameras, also in the 20 feet between the speed sign to the mini-round-about the speed limit is set to 40 mph and of course through town where people walk.
Norden Road – Noreys Drive, it used to be 40 mph but then changed to 30 mph and for time displayed temporary but informative “Change of speed limit” signs these have now disappeared altogether but their long term counterparts have not appeared, so where are they and what is the limit?
Cox green slip road joining the A404 heading toward High Wycombe is set to 30 mph is impossible speed to join the 404 during rush-hour.
Cox Green Traffic calming speed bump, these are designed in such away that it is possible to avoid them but not without using both lanes, which is exactly what happened to me. I had to brake very hard on a wet surface to avoid an oncoming driver dodging around them but had not accounted for my presence.
I sat in chamber of commerce meeting last year in Bracknell where the Chief Constable gave a speech along with the usual security update, but spent near enough his whole whining about manpower and how his officer kept leaving only to break once to answer a question regarding speeding fines to say that Cameras would control all traffic.
I communicated the Thesa May he Maidenhead and Windsor Member of Parliament who said it was the government skewing funds away from the Themes Valley Police.
Summary
This all means that any small crimes that are committed against me and my family are acceptable and that as long “I’m insured” as the Police now advise we will be “OK” but if I travel up the Marlow Hill a mere few miles over limit the Police will be there and ready to hound me until I pay. The Police must be rolling in funds on the one hand they have saved thousands by not investigating the crimes committed against my family over the years and yet in a few short seconds made around £660 pounds from normal motorist.
I know that the police have no intension of supporting me at the moment regarding crime but as soon as I step into my car their waiting. Perhaps all the Chief Constables should go sort Tony Blair out that’s next time he is in this country of course
Regards
A friend of mine who came over from Germany the other year commented on how amazing it was that our roads are so badly maintained, and our cars (generally ie numpties/reps/boltonboys) so badly driven, yet we have so many shiny new speed cameras, road humps, cycle/bus lanes etc. The German system is so safe and efficient yet it is the antithesis of what this government want for our roads. And they talk of integrated EU policy - what a load of b*ll*cks.
.The numbers in the two tables are pretty well useless. As was mentioned earlier, they don't mention the variance of their 'data'. As well, this is compared to a 2 year trend, what kind of a trend do you get from 2 frickin' years??
Also, you'll notice at the bottom of table 2 there are 3 footnotes that essentially say that 1/3 of their numbers have 'Insufficient data to establish a statistically significant difference'. Yeah, that's not just propaganda then.
I'm just amazed by the crap your government is trying to put you through. Don't let them get away with it!
Gary
Also, you'll notice at the bottom of table 2 there are 3 footnotes that essentially say that 1/3 of their numbers have 'Insufficient data to establish a statistically significant difference'. Yeah, that's not just propaganda then.
I'm just amazed by the crap your government is trying to put you through. Don't let them get away with it!
Gary
Sadly, I'm not convinced that cameras are primarily about revenue. I can easily accept that they're more attractive than real safety-oriented improvements to the road network however.
No, the real purpose of cameras is to get the population accustomed to accepting restrictions on what they can freely do without the intervention of the government in its various guises. It starts off by masquerading as a means of ensuring people don't drive above the existing limit, and then moves on to a reduction in limits (the proposed 40mph limit on B-roads is just an example). Once you accept that, it's only a small step to being compelled to fit a GPS-type device in your car that prevents you from exceeding a posted limit, whatever it might be.
What then? Maybe your car will fail to run if the congestion in a certain town you're trying to enter is judged (by whom?) to be excessive.
Many will see this analysis as being overly cynical. However, given the track record of local and national government in recent years, and their willingness to "spin" anything to their advantage, what evidence do we have to the contrary.
Certainly not, from my experience and others, much to do with what the average guy on the street thinks of as real crime.
What about the 1 million plus unregistered vehicles in the UK? We seem to have the means to track cars in London to levy taxes on them, so why couldn't they be tracked and brought to book for this offence, and those others which almost by definition accompany them (insurance etc)? There are many other examples.
Perhaps my cynicism is reaching unduly high levels now, but you might start to believe that, having lost control of the "real" crime situation, the government are desperate to find something which they can claim as a success.
So what can be done? I wish I knew. Making the voice of the majority heard would be a start. Voting, joining the ABD, writing to your MP may all help to some degree.
Unfortunately in some ways, most of us I suspect have to earn a living and can't devote ourselves full time to the campaign against this onslaught. Those who would advocate this level of control are, by way of contrast, attracted to jobs where deciding what we can and can't do is their way of life.
Feel free to flame me if you think this is a load of codswallop.
No, the real purpose of cameras is to get the population accustomed to accepting restrictions on what they can freely do without the intervention of the government in its various guises. It starts off by masquerading as a means of ensuring people don't drive above the existing limit, and then moves on to a reduction in limits (the proposed 40mph limit on B-roads is just an example). Once you accept that, it's only a small step to being compelled to fit a GPS-type device in your car that prevents you from exceeding a posted limit, whatever it might be.
What then? Maybe your car will fail to run if the congestion in a certain town you're trying to enter is judged (by whom?) to be excessive.
Many will see this analysis as being overly cynical. However, given the track record of local and national government in recent years, and their willingness to "spin" anything to their advantage, what evidence do we have to the contrary.
Certainly not, from my experience and others, much to do with what the average guy on the street thinks of as real crime.
What about the 1 million plus unregistered vehicles in the UK? We seem to have the means to track cars in London to levy taxes on them, so why couldn't they be tracked and brought to book for this offence, and those others which almost by definition accompany them (insurance etc)? There are many other examples.
Perhaps my cynicism is reaching unduly high levels now, but you might start to believe that, having lost control of the "real" crime situation, the government are desperate to find something which they can claim as a success.
So what can be done? I wish I knew. Making the voice of the majority heard would be a start. Voting, joining the ABD, writing to your MP may all help to some degree.
Unfortunately in some ways, most of us I suspect have to earn a living and can't devote ourselves full time to the campaign against this onslaught. Those who would advocate this level of control are, by way of contrast, attracted to jobs where deciding what we can and can't do is their way of life.
Feel free to flame me if you think this is a load of codswallop.
Once again the government demonstrate their willingless to lie and mislead for the sake of raising money. These figures mean absolutely nothing. As soon as a camera is put on a road the amount of traffic plumets as motorists turn to other routes - how could there not be a decrease in accidents when there's a huge drop in traffic. Clearly they should be issuing figures that shows the change in the proportion of accidents to no. of cars per day, but that whould show that cameras cause accidents so they don't.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff