News Release... Public concerns on Speeding !!
Discussion
Original Message-----
From: Cllr Colin Dougan [mailto:colin.dougan@surreyheath.gov.uk]
Sent: 05 June 2008 11:06
To: Cllr Colin Dougan
Subject: Partnership Responds To Public Concerns On Speeding
from your county councillor.... and as he said - you've been warned !!
NEWS RELEASE
Partnership Responds To Public Concerns On Speeding
Mobile safety camera enforcement vans will be targeting new sites across Surrey from this week in response to public demand.
The Surrey Safety Camera Partnership has drawn up a list of 14 new sites for exceptional enforcement - sites where public concern about speeding has been voiced but which do not fully meet the agreed criteria for regular core enforcement.
The list was agreed after consultation with Surrey Police's Casualty Reduction Officers, specialist officers with a responsibility for road safety education and enforcement.
The new sites will conform to the Partnership's standard policy of visible enforcement and the sites will be well-signed and vehicles positioned to be highly visible (see attached photo)
The exceptional enforcement sites are:
- * * * *A22 Caterham Bypass, Caterham.
- * * * *A24 Deepdene Avenue / London Road, Dorking.
- * * * *A24 Horsham Road, Holmwood.
- * * * *A25 West Hill / East Hill, Oxted.
- * * * *A30 Egham Bypass, Egham.
- * * * *A240 Reigate Road, Ewell.
- * * * *A246 Epsom Road, West Clandon / East Clandon.
- * * * *A308 Staines Road East, Sunbury.
- * * * *A308 Staines Road West, Sunbury Common.
- * * * *A325 Portsmouth Road, Frimley / Camberley (B3411 Frimley Road - A30 London Road).
- * * * *B290 Epsom Lane North, Tattenham Corner.
- * * * *B382 Old Woking Road, Maybury.
- * * * *B2036 Balcombe Road, Horley.
- * * * *B3007 Weybourne Road, Weybourne.
Partnership Project Manager Duncan Knox said:
"Outside of our core fixed safety camera sites and mobile zones, we often get requests from residents or community representatives to provide speed enforcement at various sites. They do not always meet the necessary qualifying criteria for fixed or mobile enforcement - which targets the worst collision hotspots in the county - so we hope these new exceptional sites will allay some of their fears and send out a warning to speeding motorists that they cannot ignore the concerns of local people."
The Surrey Safety Camera Partnership is made up of four public sector organisations, Surrey County Council, Surrey Police, the Highways Agency and Her Majesty's Court Service (HMCS), who are working together to help cut casualties on Surrey's roads.
ENDS
For more information or interviews, please contact Project Manager, Duncan Knox, on 0208 541 7443, email duncan.knox@surreycc.gov.uk or Communications Manager, Adrian Creek on 01483 519541, email
adrian.creek@surreycc.gov.uk
ypauly said:
public demand?
Probably. NIMBYs dont look at the bigger picture. Nobody wants people speeding down their street, but they are happy to speed along somebody else's street.
Unfortunately, some of them are on here, saying how much they detest cameras then saying they need one because of their own special circumstances.
That way, "special circumstances" = public demand.
Surely, using cameras in residential areas where there's an issue is the kind of placement of which posters on here would approve? I thought the issue with cameras was their placement in places deemed to be for revenue collection? And anyway, they'll probably only catch the complainers and their neighbours anyway
A few of the more loudmouthed locals getting nicked will kill the "public demand" argument stone dead.ERIKTHEVETKING said:
"Outside of our core fixed safety camera sites and mobile zones, we often get requests from residents or community representatives to provide speed enforcement at various sites. They do not always meet the necessary qualifying criteria for fixed or mobile enforcement - which targets the worst collision hotspots in the county
Hahahahahahahahaha *breathe*Hahahahahahahahaa *breathe*
Muahahahahahahahah.....
Edited by Digby on Thursday 5th June 21:21
With reference to the original post, I see the temptation to enforce on the Caterham bypass has finally become too great to resist for the Surrey "safety camera" partnership 
I'd be willing to bet that they set up shop near the southern end of the bypass where two lanes narrow to one in both directions so they can catch those dangerous criminals who speed up a bit to nip past 40mph numpties.
I'm well aware that the road has a rubbish record for accidents (it's a very old section of dual carriageway with a couple of surprisingly sharp turns) but the 50 limit is unnecessarily low outside of peak times, and there is no way they will be able to place a van to cover the most dangerous spot (the roundabout at the northern end) because there is literally nowhere to park the damn thing.
Main causes for accidents along there?
(i) lorries going too fast and losing it on the bends.
(ii) lorries running out of brakes on the downhill stretch before the roundabout.
(iii) "too fast for conditions" in bad weather when the road literally becomes a river and the max safe speed drops to about 30.
(iv) numpties rear-ending queues at the roundabout because they aren't paying attention.
How many of these problems will the talivan solve? None of course, but doubtless they'll be there a lot at quieter times of day because that stretch will make them an absolute mint
I'd be willing to bet that they set up shop near the southern end of the bypass where two lanes narrow to one in both directions so they can catch those dangerous criminals who speed up a bit to nip past 40mph numpties.
I'm well aware that the road has a rubbish record for accidents (it's a very old section of dual carriageway with a couple of surprisingly sharp turns) but the 50 limit is unnecessarily low outside of peak times, and there is no way they will be able to place a van to cover the most dangerous spot (the roundabout at the northern end) because there is literally nowhere to park the damn thing.
Main causes for accidents along there?
(i) lorries going too fast and losing it on the bends.
(ii) lorries running out of brakes on the downhill stretch before the roundabout.
(iii) "too fast for conditions" in bad weather when the road literally becomes a river and the max safe speed drops to about 30.
(iv) numpties rear-ending queues at the roundabout because they aren't paying attention.
How many of these problems will the talivan solve? None of course, but doubtless they'll be there a lot at quieter times of day because that stretch will make them an absolute mint
The Caterham bypass used to be 70 mph a few years back, and is nowhere near houses what so ever - so who is demanding the checks there?
Dorking - 4 lane dual carriage way with artificial low speed limit. Again not a single house near it.
One person has to be "concerned" and all hell breaks loose. Why do they listen to this minority????
Dorking - 4 lane dual carriage way with artificial low speed limit. Again not a single house near it.
One person has to be "concerned" and all hell breaks loose. Why do they listen to this minority????
EU_Foreigner said:
Why do they listen to this minority????
becuase 14 year old youths punching old ladies are a harder target.they punch back yknow
and some of them are nearly 9 stone!
imagine what damage they could do to your recently trimmed boufon ?
I dont blame em tbh, they are afterall just collecting taxes for this failing government and as such should be given some slack, even if they are no longer seen as a respected pillar of society
thewurzel said:
listening to the law abiding majority who support speed enforcement.
And what evidence do you have to support this?I've only ever seen newspaper polls which are 80% + of the view that cameras are there for money making purposes, not safety.
IF they were listening to the majority, then would they not put the cameras where the people who are asking for them want them?
Jasandjules said:
thewurzel said:
listening to the law abiding majority who support speed enforcement.
And what evidence do you have to support this?I've only ever seen newspaper polls which are 80% + of the view that cameras are there for money making purposes, not safety.
IF they were listening to the majority, then would they not put the cameras where the people who are asking for them want them?
Nearly all of his responses to various threads is about how good scameras are, blah blah. IDIOT
He is purely on here to preach the gospel according to Pratnerships - thou shall not speed, ever.
There is no empirical evidence that supports the opinion that scameras have saved lives.
The facts are that scameras cause accidents due to panic braking, are nearly always in the wrong place (M4 anyone?), regarded as revenue generators, have nothing to do with safety, are despised by the majority of the public.
the wurzel = troll, he should be banned.
EU_Foreigner said:
The Caterham bypass used to be 70 mph a few years back, and is nowhere near houses what so ever - so who is demanding the checks there?
That's an NSL piece of road with a couple of places that require a slower speed. It's this sort of 'lowest common denominator' stuff that erodes respect for speed limits and removes yet more personal responsibility (which further damages road safety).Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff