Government Partnerships Bombshell
Discussion
I believe this will be in Saturday's Times...
www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2-1858368,00.html
www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2-1858368,00.html
Times online said:
March of speed cameras halted
By Ben Webster, Transport Correspondent
THE relentless advance of speed cameras across Britain is to be halted under government plans to restore confidence in traffic policing, The Times has learnt.
Cameras will no longer be used as revenue-raising devices, and the system of recycling speeding fines to fund increasing numbers of cameras is to be abolished.
Camera partnerships, which include police forces and local authorities, will be ordered to consider every other option for improving safety and will only be allowed to install a camera as a last resort.
Ministers believe that the "cash for cameras" scheme, under which forces keep a proportion of camera fines to pay for more cameras, has resulted in widespread distrust of the speed enforcement system, The Times has been told.
The number of camera fines has increased ten-fold in the past decade, from 200,000 in 1995 to more than two million last year.
The Department for Transport remains convinced that cameras work and will soon publish its annual report on the scheme, showing that cameras save more than 100 lives a year. But the department will also announce reforms to the way inwhich the partnerships are managed and funded.
Revenue from camera fines will be collected centrally and redistributed among the partnership areas for use in all aspects of road safety.
Rather than being restricted to erecting more cameras, the partnerships will be able to use the money to make junctions safer and to improve the visibility of signs and road markings.
No partnership will benefit more than any other from increases in revenue, removing the incentive to focus enforcement where the highest number of drivers can be caught. Motoring groups believe that the partnerships have become self-perpetuating bureaucracies that are more concerned with maintaining financial targets than tackling the least safe roads.
The department wants them to follow the example of Lincolnshire, which has managed to reduce road casualties while issuing fewer tickets.
Whereas most partnerships apply to the department each year to erect more cameras, Lincolnshire has said that it does not need any more devices.
Ministers also approve of the county’s policy of having camera officials working alongside police road safety officers and council highway engineers.
A government source said: "If all partnerships were made to work together in this way they would think much more carefully about the alternatives to cameras.
"We need to have a better deal with motorists to convince them that cameras are not about making money." However, the department is also planning to give partnerships greater flexibility to use cameras where there is a speeding problem but no recent history of crashes. Roads beside schools will be given priority.
Under the existing criteria, fixed cameras can only be installed where there have been at least four crashes involving death or serious injury in the previous three years.
Cameras can be used in areas of "community concern" that have not had the required number of crashes, but only for 15 per cent of the total time they spend enforcing the limit.
The department is planning either to increase that percentage or give police greater freedom to choose how they use the allotted time.
Ministers accept that this will result in a few hundred new camera sites but believe that the removal of existing cameras will mean that the total will remain about 6,000.
There will also be new guidelines on the enforcement of temporary speed limits during roadworks. Partnerships will be encouraged to use digital cameras, which record the average speed between two points.
The department is also preparing to publish independent research refuting claims that the benefits of speed cameras have been exaggerated.
Safe Speed, the anti-camera campaign group, argues that casualty reduction at camera sites is simply the result of the frequency of crashes returning to normal.
However, academics from the University of Liverpool, who previously questioned the benefits of cameras, now accept that they are genuine.
www.timesonline.co.uk/driving
And Brunstrom's successor in ACPO is to push for hidden cameras everywhere, while Brunstrom's parting shot is to recommend cameras in cats eyes.
More government bullshit...they'll change their minds next week. This is just a woolly spin on plans to relax existing rules.
Notice the absence of reference to the fact that vehicle activated signs are more effective than cameras?
More government bullshit...they'll change their minds next week. This is just a woolly spin on plans to relax existing rules.
Notice the absence of reference to the fact that vehicle activated signs are more effective than cameras?
puggit said:
However, academics from the University of Liverpool, who previously questioned the benefits of cameras, now accept that they are genuine.
Interesting. Does this mean finally that there might be an inkkling of some hint of evidence of the existence of a possible benefit? Great.
Now lets get on with seeing what the costs are and comparing them with the benefits...
I'm working on unravelling the reasons and motivations behind the official information release. See: www.safespeed.org.uk/forum/viewtopic.php?t=4624
I have to say, it's looking really rather interesting.
I have to say, it's looking really rather interesting.
puggit said:
I believe this will be in Saturday's Times...
www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2-1858368,00.html
Times online said:
There will also be new guidelines on the enforcement of temporary speed limits during roadworks. Partnerships will be encouraged to use digital cameras, which record the average speed between two points.
Which will cause nothing but driver inattention and traffic bunching.
More lametastic BS from government sources feeling a need to smooth things over with a public that grows more sceptical with each day that passes.
safespeed said:
Smoke and mirrors!.........
Of course - but what's behind the smoke and mirrors?
MMmmh! Good question Paul. ...more Speed humps?......
All they are doing I think is place a central government "bank" between themselves (Partnerships) and the (police and Councils). Maybe in this way they can say that they're NOT simply feeding themselves?..
That it is "centrally" funded...?
Let me see
1) Have to consider other alternatives - like road layout improvements which will always cost more than a camera. So when they do the cost benefit sums we get the answer - camera every time
2) Centrally collection of funds and then redistribution? Based on what principle number of fines maybe? Number of accidents? either way it just means the masters have moved one layer up the managment chain. The Partnerships will still be driven by maximising profit
3) Increasing the 15% limit to allow camera's to placed by where there are no KSI
And there we have it. What's behind this? The revenue's have peaked, this government is billions in debt and we have to pay for it. This will see the increase in camera expansion not reduction - typical new labia spin, typical new labia bullshite.
1) Have to consider other alternatives - like road layout improvements which will always cost more than a camera. So when they do the cost benefit sums we get the answer - camera every time
2) Centrally collection of funds and then redistribution? Based on what principle number of fines maybe? Number of accidents? either way it just means the masters have moved one layer up the managment chain. The Partnerships will still be driven by maximising profit
3) Increasing the 15% limit to allow camera's to placed by where there are no KSI
And there we have it. What's behind this? The revenue's have peaked, this government is billions in debt and we have to pay for it. This will see the increase in camera expansion not reduction - typical new labia spin, typical new labia bullshite.
_VTEC_ said:
I believe this will be in Saturday's Times...
www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2-1858368,00.html
Times online said:
There will also be new guidelines on the enforcement of temporary speed limits during roadworks. Partnerships will be encouraged to use digital cameras, which record the average speed between two points.
Which will cause nothing but driver inattention and traffic bunching
of course it will cause driver bunching, you've got a road thats got a lower limit than normal because of the road works, and the cars will bunch up because of it!
why will the cameras cause driver inattention?......if you drive at the speed limit you'll be ok, or do you find having to drive at a certain speed, and sticking to it for a short didtance impossibly distracting?
streaky said:It gives them an opportunity to fill the piggy bank in an emergency
Cameras can be used in areas of "community concern" that have not had the required number of crashes, but only for 15 per cent of the total time they spend enforcing the limit.
Much more of interest is the item listed under the article---!"Force makes speed point without penalties".
The success of the Lincolnshire police force in Reducing accidents with a minimum number of scams, and defining what other reasons contribute to accidents, and then get other departments involved to solve problems, MUST be the answer.
>> Edited by B 7 VP on Saturday 5th November 12:00
The success of the Lincolnshire police force in Reducing accidents with a minimum number of scams, and defining what other reasons contribute to accidents, and then get other departments involved to solve problems, MUST be the answer.
>> Edited by B 7 VP on Saturday 5th November 12:00
mybrainhurts said:
Notice the absence of reference to the fact that vehicle activated signs are more effective than cameras?
That is in the article on Lincolnshire here
Frankly I avoid Lincolnshire as far as possible, the number of sets of Gatso lines for use in connection with mobile trailer mounted Gatso units means on many roads an overtake is taken heart in mouth. Lincolnshire as the model means we are in for a VERY dreary motoring existence.
I'm with Safespeed there is something behind this. Is it something related to cameras or is it to divert attention from a real nasty.
streaky said:
Cameras can be used in areas of "community concern" that have not had the required number of crashes, but only for 15 per cent of the total time they spend enforcing the limit.
What it means is that Doris who doesn't have a licence and Mabel who does but has no idea of speed assessment together with Reginald who doesn't speed just drives everywhere at 40 can ask for enforcement because of these mad baby eating speed maniacs.
The fact that their impression of speeding drivers is based totally on a hardly silenced scooter, which is rather loud but cannot physically exceed 30 mph and consequently driven everywhere at full throttle is irrelevant.
Of course Reginald will be the first to get nicked.
The 15% comment seems to be in line with the current code of practice which allows covert enforcement away from "official" sites.
Anyway that is my take on it.
eccles said:
I believe this will be in Saturday's Times...
www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2-1858368,00.html
Times online said:
There will also be new guidelines on the enforcement of temporary speed limits during roadworks. Partnerships will be encouraged to use digital cameras, which record the average speed between two points.
Which will cause nothing but driver inattention and traffic bunching
of course it will cause driver bunching, you've got a road thats got a lower limit than normal because of the road works, and the cars will bunch up because of it!
why will the cameras cause driver inattention?......if you drive at the speed limit you'll be ok, or do you find having to drive at a certain speed, and sticking to it for a short didtance impossibly distracting?
Slower speeds are not a prerequisite for traffic bunching. Although, I admit, slower speeds encourage as such. But bunching means cars are closer together and hence more opportunity for a shunt.
re: inattenion, I think you might have answered your own question on this one. With specs covering your average speed this allows very little room for speed fluctuation therefore constant attention to ones speed meter is required. This, unacceptably, is taking my attention from where it belongs. - Outside the car.
I've just had a thought (painful I know) I wonder if the Partners in crime are falling out over the spoils. Maybe some think that they should be getting more and that others are creaming off more than their fair share so have demanded that it go to government first to be redistributed fairly...........the old green eye thing?
Could it simply be that the government are conscious of the growing resentment to the program and are trying to 'nip it in the bud' by reassuring the newly-enlightened and easily swayed that 'yes, things were not right, but we've sorted that now. Move along. Nothing to see here."
Gruffy
Gruffy
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff