Surrey Police - camera site. EH???
Discussion
Taken from the surrey police site (see below) says we can all look at the info about cameras on the partnership website - fair enough, except you need a sign on and password to get the info! and I cant find any details of how to get one! So it seems you can get all the information you need, but your not allowed to get it. Seems fair! here is the website : http://www.surrey-safecam.org/ or is it just me??
Surrey County Council, Surrey Police, Her Majesty's Courts Service and the Highways Agency have joined together to create the Surrey Safety Camera Partnership, which went live on the 1st April 2005.
A list of safety camera sites can be downloaded from the Surrey Safety Camera Partnership website from May 2005. Alongside the visible safety camera partnership enforcement, the police will continue to carry out speed enforcement at sites of local concern. This enforcement is a police matter, separate from partnerships' safety camera activity.
Transparency and openness are key objectives of the Partnership. All camera routes are clearly signed and cameras and mobile vehicles are highly visible. Activity and progress of the Partnership will be reported regularly to the public ??
Surrey County Council, Surrey Police, Her Majesty's Courts Service and the Highways Agency have joined together to create the Surrey Safety Camera Partnership, which went live on the 1st April 2005.
A list of safety camera sites can be downloaded from the Surrey Safety Camera Partnership website from May 2005. Alongside the visible safety camera partnership enforcement, the police will continue to carry out speed enforcement at sites of local concern. This enforcement is a police matter, separate from partnerships' safety camera activity.
Transparency and openness are key objectives of the Partnership. All camera routes are clearly signed and cameras and mobile vehicles are highly visible. Activity and progress of the Partnership will be reported regularly to the public ??
LongQ said:
Tried the link and got redirected to
www.vi.net/
I got re-directed too, so shut down the browser quick-smart.
Works ok for me. Try this link direct to the map:
www.surrey-safecam.org/fe/default.asp?n1=1&n2=44
Note the number of cameras "to be removed". While it's good that cameras which are "not contributing to road safety" are being removed, we need to be careful. It may be that these are going to be, in the main, those where KSIs have risen. Once such a camera has gone, the overall average stats "for all camera sites" will be dramatically improved.
Thus, by selectively removing cameras the partnerships will be perpetuating their existence through real stats.
We really do need some honest trials rather than before/after figures and selective weeding, don't we!!
www.surrey-safecam.org/fe/default.asp?n1=1&n2=44
Note the number of cameras "to be removed". While it's good that cameras which are "not contributing to road safety" are being removed, we need to be careful. It may be that these are going to be, in the main, those where KSIs have risen. Once such a camera has gone, the overall average stats "for all camera sites" will be dramatically improved.
Thus, by selectively removing cameras the partnerships will be perpetuating their existence through real stats.
We really do need some honest trials rather than before/after figures and selective weeding, don't we!!
Peter Ward said:
Works ok for me. Try this link direct to the map:
www.surrey-safecam.org/fe/default.asp?n1=1&n2=44
Note the number of cameras "to be removed". While it's good that cameras which are "not contributing to road safety" are being removed, we need to be careful. It may be that these are going to be, in the main, those where KSIs have risen. Once such a camera has gone, the overall average stats "for all camera sites" will be dramatically improved.
Thus, by selectively removing cameras the partnerships will be perpetuating their existence through real stats.
We really do need some honest trials rather than before/after figures and selective weeding, don't we!!
Now that link certainly works.
Interesting to see that they are going to remove the camera on the D road at Pyrford. That was around before the joined the scamera club (as with many others - Surrey were anti cameras until a couple of years ago).
Rumour was that a local councillor lived at that spot and persuaded people a camera was required to slow traffic down.
Also interesting to see that it is one of the sites that qualifies for you concerns aired above - more accidents, albeit minor, after installation than before!
The information on the A31 Guildford is crazy. ( Road known as the " Hogs Back " )
It notes that 55% are exeeding the limit east bound, and 60% are exeeding the limit west bound.
It talks about fatal accidents, and it talks about people exeeding the speed limit, but fails to link the two together.
Unfortunately for them, I can tell you the reasons for the accidents, and I can you why the levels are going to go down dramatically on their stats.
The A31 untill last year had a large number of right angle crossings on the dual carrigeway, with traffic going directly over the carrigeway with no lights or roundabouts. This lead every year to people misjudging the speed of traffic, and pulling out in front of people and causing a crash.
These right angle junctions were filled in last year, removing the problem. Deaths will drop dramatically beacause of this.
Whats the betting the Camera Partnership tries to take the credit for this ?
The remaining problems on this road are all enginnering problems, like the joining slip road on the West bound section just after you join from the A3, this is uphill, very short, and used by quarry trucks. Near accidents happen here every hour - none of them speed related.
The camera partnership wants mobile enforcment on this road as it knows 60% of people using it are over the limit, it is a licence to print money.
Utterly disgusted by this.
It notes that 55% are exeeding the limit east bound, and 60% are exeeding the limit west bound.
It talks about fatal accidents, and it talks about people exeeding the speed limit, but fails to link the two together.
Unfortunately for them, I can tell you the reasons for the accidents, and I can you why the levels are going to go down dramatically on their stats.
The A31 untill last year had a large number of right angle crossings on the dual carrigeway, with traffic going directly over the carrigeway with no lights or roundabouts. This lead every year to people misjudging the speed of traffic, and pulling out in front of people and causing a crash.
These right angle junctions were filled in last year, removing the problem. Deaths will drop dramatically beacause of this.
Whats the betting the Camera Partnership tries to take the credit for this ?
The remaining problems on this road are all enginnering problems, like the joining slip road on the West bound section just after you join from the A3, this is uphill, very short, and used by quarry trucks. Near accidents happen here every hour - none of them speed related.
The camera partnership wants mobile enforcment on this road as it knows 60% of people using it are over the limit, it is a licence to print money.
Utterly disgusted by this.
7db said:
Hang on a cotton-picking minute! Aren't .org domaines reserved for non-profit making organisations?
.org is unrestricted so its for anyone who can register it first (within certain bounds)
Interesting, I thougt that it was for non-profit organisations. Most charities tend to use .org ....
It's just another way of Scamera partnerships trying to give off an image of being fluffy, caring people who just think of the children, and don't make any money, no siree.
Imagine if the website was www.kentspeedcameras.co.uk ?
Sounds a bit more business like, even mercenary!
ohopkins said:
The camera partnership wants mobile enforcment on this road as it knows 60% of people using it are over the limit, it is a licence to print money.
Utterly disgusted by this.
Agreed. The biggest danger on the Hog's Back these days seems to be when following someone in lane one they suddenly realise where they are and take a quick left turn, especially heading east. Few of the turns have any length of slip road to them and even if they do the slips are narrow. If you have someone keeping pace alongside in lane 2 you havbe nowhere to go. If there is someone behind you just have to hope they are awake - but the views along there, especially eastbound, can be spectacular so the chances of full attention are slim.
Back in the '60's the mechanics from the local Jag dealership used to, er, 'service' their customer's E Types along there. Nothing like a quick run to clear out the crud left by the daily commute to the station, or so I was told.
There's a good letter in the Surrey Ad this week from a local. He's up in arms about the fact the Surrey Police were nabbing people on the A3 southbound on 7/7 as London workers were fleeing south to see if loved ones were OK.
A good article, and demonstrative of just how utterly shameful, greedy and insensitive these "safety" partnerships are.
A good article, and demonstrative of just how utterly shameful, greedy and insensitive these "safety" partnerships are.
Raify said:
Tried the link and got redirected to
<a href="www.vi.net/">www.vi.net/</a>
I got re-directed too, so shut down the browser quick-smart.
VI net is a harmless site. They're the bods I use to host my firms website.
Interesting that the Partnership going live coincides with the imposition of some of the daftest speed limits outside Oxfordshire. Rafts of NSLs lowered to 50 and 40, 30s extended for miles into the countryside (what the hell is going on on the road from Farnham to Eltham?) and limits being raised just before bends, roundabouts and other hazards.
Would I be overly cynical if I was to link the new Partnership to the new limits?
Would I be overly cynical if I was to link the new Partnership to the new limits?
Only mobile camera I have ever seen in a year living in G'ford was as the A31 came into town after teh A3 split.
The police got my respect because he was stood in the open in a flourescent jacket, giving motorists a chance to see him before the speed trap.
Thats what enforcement is all about, not stealth tacticts.
G
The police got my respect because he was stood in the open in a flourescent jacket, giving motorists a chance to see him before the speed trap.
Thats what enforcement is all about, not stealth tacticts.
G
ohopkins said:Sorry, but I don't recognise your description. The slip road off the A3 (S) onto the Hog's Back forms the inner of two lanes (the outer being the A31 out of Guildford). Accidents here are generally caused by driver failure to match speeds before changing lanes - Streaky
The information on the A31 Guildford is crazy. ( Road known as the " Hogs Back " )
[ ... ]
The remaining problems on this road are all enginnering problems, like the joining slip road on the West bound section just after you join from the A3, this is uphill, very short, and used by quarry trucks. Near accidents happen here every hour - none of them speed related.
PS - I agree with your other comments about the probably drop in accidents - S
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff