Non speeding accidents used to justify Scameras...
Discussion
Essex Scammers use non speed related crashes to justify Scamming.
here
EADT inquiry into speed camera site
April 18, 2005 07:09
EXCLUSIVE
By Ted Jeory
AN EADT investigation has revealed that none of the serious accidents used to justify deploying new speed cameras on A12 was caused by motorists driving too fast.
The East Anglian Daily Times has obtained, under the Freedom of Information Act, reports compiled by Essex Police into the five accidents used by Essex Safety Camera Partnership to justify its decision to select the A12 near Kelvedon for a mobile speed camera site.
The documents show that in none of the five accidents did the original investigating officers consider "excessive speed for conditions" a likely cause of the collisions.
Instead, the initial reports into the accidents on the northbound stretch of the A12 near Kelvedon revealed other factors, ranging from impaired vision and being under the influence of drugs to the involvement of a foreign driver and reversing without due care and attention.
The revelation has fuelled suspicions among motorists that speed cameras are little more than money-making devices, but the organisation that runs them insisted it had acted according to Home Office guidelines and its main aim was to reduce casualties.
As the EADT revealed last month, the use of speed cameras has been sanctioned on the northbound A12 just after the Kelvedon interchange.
The second of two warning signs has just been installed and the use of mobile speed cameras from the Maldon Road bridge is believed to be imminent.
Although Essex Safety Camera Partnership has previously used speed cameras during temporary roadworks, it will be the first time they will have been deployed on a 70mph road anywhere in Essex.
The controversial move comes after concerns about speeding on the A12 were raised more than a year ago.
In order to satisfy Home Office guidelines to deploy the cameras, bosses at the Essex Safety Camera Partnership – a joint venture between Essex Police, Essex County Council and the Highways Agency – had to meet two conditions.
Firstly, more than one in five vehicles using the stretch of road had to exceed the 70mph limit, with a significant minority going faster than 79mph, and this was satisfied by a speed survey carried out in January 2004.
Secondly, there must had to have been at least two collisions involving death or serious injury along the proposed stretch over a three-year period. Five serious/fatal accidents out of a total of 19 between July 1, 1999, and June 30, 2002, were selected to meet the second condition.
These were accidents on November 18, 1999, March 25, 2000, August 26, 2000, May 8, 2001 and
October 23, 2001 – but the EADT has discovered that none of these was apparently caused by speeding.
Edmund King, executive director of the RAC Foundation, said the EADT's findings had raised "major concerns".
He added: "This really does call into question how these partnerships operate. We are now seeing cameras being put on motorways and dual carriageways, which are our safest roads by a long way.
"Even when there are accidents on them, there are other factors like fog or tailgating, which have nothing to do with excess speed.
"Yet these partnerships and the police are putting all their eggs in one basket by concentrating on speed cameras and that does nothing to stop dangerous driving.
"Traffic police, particularly in Essex, are on the decline and the Government needs to review the way these partnerships work."
A spokeswoman for the Essex Safety Camera Partnership said: "The factors stated on the reports reflect the reporting officer's opinion at the time of the reporting and may not be the result of extensive investigation.
"We can only work within the guidelines that are handed to us. When we're alerted to a speeding problem, we carry out all the checks and that has happened in this case.
"Our aim is not to raise money – we want to see a reduction in speeding and the number of serious and fatal accidents."
An Essex Police officer was operating a mobile speed camera from a lay-by alongside the Hatfield Peverel stretch of the northbound A12 yesterday morning.
A police spokesman said: "Our officers carry out daily patrols on the A12 and they see speeding every day. A significant number of the crashes they deal with have excess speed for the conditions as a contributory factor."
ted.jeory@eadt.co.uk
here
EADT inquiry into speed camera site
April 18, 2005 07:09
EXCLUSIVE
By Ted Jeory
AN EADT investigation has revealed that none of the serious accidents used to justify deploying new speed cameras on A12 was caused by motorists driving too fast.
The East Anglian Daily Times has obtained, under the Freedom of Information Act, reports compiled by Essex Police into the five accidents used by Essex Safety Camera Partnership to justify its decision to select the A12 near Kelvedon for a mobile speed camera site.
The documents show that in none of the five accidents did the original investigating officers consider "excessive speed for conditions" a likely cause of the collisions.
Instead, the initial reports into the accidents on the northbound stretch of the A12 near Kelvedon revealed other factors, ranging from impaired vision and being under the influence of drugs to the involvement of a foreign driver and reversing without due care and attention.
The revelation has fuelled suspicions among motorists that speed cameras are little more than money-making devices, but the organisation that runs them insisted it had acted according to Home Office guidelines and its main aim was to reduce casualties.
As the EADT revealed last month, the use of speed cameras has been sanctioned on the northbound A12 just after the Kelvedon interchange.
The second of two warning signs has just been installed and the use of mobile speed cameras from the Maldon Road bridge is believed to be imminent.
Although Essex Safety Camera Partnership has previously used speed cameras during temporary roadworks, it will be the first time they will have been deployed on a 70mph road anywhere in Essex.
The controversial move comes after concerns about speeding on the A12 were raised more than a year ago.
In order to satisfy Home Office guidelines to deploy the cameras, bosses at the Essex Safety Camera Partnership – a joint venture between Essex Police, Essex County Council and the Highways Agency – had to meet two conditions.
Firstly, more than one in five vehicles using the stretch of road had to exceed the 70mph limit, with a significant minority going faster than 79mph, and this was satisfied by a speed survey carried out in January 2004.
Secondly, there must had to have been at least two collisions involving death or serious injury along the proposed stretch over a three-year period. Five serious/fatal accidents out of a total of 19 between July 1, 1999, and June 30, 2002, were selected to meet the second condition.
These were accidents on November 18, 1999, March 25, 2000, August 26, 2000, May 8, 2001 and
October 23, 2001 – but the EADT has discovered that none of these was apparently caused by speeding.
Edmund King, executive director of the RAC Foundation, said the EADT's findings had raised "major concerns".
He added: "This really does call into question how these partnerships operate. We are now seeing cameras being put on motorways and dual carriageways, which are our safest roads by a long way.
"Even when there are accidents on them, there are other factors like fog or tailgating, which have nothing to do with excess speed.
"Yet these partnerships and the police are putting all their eggs in one basket by concentrating on speed cameras and that does nothing to stop dangerous driving.
"Traffic police, particularly in Essex, are on the decline and the Government needs to review the way these partnerships work."
A spokeswoman for the Essex Safety Camera Partnership said: "The factors stated on the reports reflect the reporting officer's opinion at the time of the reporting and may not be the result of extensive investigation.
"We can only work within the guidelines that are handed to us. When we're alerted to a speeding problem, we carry out all the checks and that has happened in this case.
"Our aim is not to raise money – we want to see a reduction in speeding and the number of serious and fatal accidents."
An Essex Police officer was operating a mobile speed camera from a lay-by alongside the Hatfield Peverel stretch of the northbound A12 yesterday morning.
A police spokesman said: "Our officers carry out daily patrols on the A12 and they see speeding every day. A significant number of the crashes they deal with have excess speed for the conditions as a contributory factor."
ted.jeory@eadt.co.uk
a policeman said:Excess speed for the conditions? Am I right in inferring that the cameras deployed now have an driving conditions algorithm built in? Or is the posted limit only applicable to ideal driving conditions, and anyone who drives at the posted limit in anything other than perfect driving conditions therefore by implication driving at excess speed? If the latter how are we supposed to determine the correct speed for the conditions? Must we use our own judgement?
Our officers carry out daily patrols on the A12 and they see speeding every day. A significant number of the crashes they deal with have excess speed for the conditions as a contributory factor.
I'm confused!
"July 1, 1999 to June 30, 2002" - I wonder what the KSIs were for July 1, 2002 onwards.
"Five serious/fatal accidents out of a total of 19 ... were selected" - I wonder why these five ... especially as they did not involve EVEN "excessive speed for the conditions" (so I presume not over 70 either!).
Be nice for the press to get and print the whole story occasionally.
Streaky
"Five serious/fatal accidents out of a total of 19 ... were selected" - I wonder why these five ... especially as they did not involve EVEN "excessive speed for the conditions" (so I presume not over 70 either!).
Be nice for the press to get and print the whole story occasionally.
Streaky
streaky said:
"July 1, 1999 to June 30, 2002" - I wonder what the KSIs were for July 1, 2002 onwards.
"Five serious/fatal accidents out of a total of 19 ... were selected" - I wonder why these five ... especially as they did not involve EVEN "excessive speed for the conditions" (so I presume not over 70 either!).
Be nice for the press to get and print the whole story occasionally.
Streaky
Speeding 'not a factor' in A12 crashes, yet camera is approved
By David Sapsted
(Filed: 19/04/2005)
Speeding was not a factor in any of the accidents cited to gain government approval for a new speed camera, it was revealed yesterday.
The disclosure heightened suspicions that speed cameras are being driven by financial motives, but also caused concern among motoring organisations that the devices were being used as an easy alternative to taking other measures at accident blackspots.
At the centre of the row is a new camera site on a busy stretch of dual carriageway on the A12 at Kelvedon, near Colchester. The Department of Transport (DoT) gave approval last month after the Essex Safety Camera Partnership made an application on the grounds of five accidents in recent years.
An investigation by the East Anglian Daily Times - which used the Freedom of Information Act to gain access to police records - showed that none of the officers' reports into the crashes listed "excessive speed for conditions" as a factor.
Three of the accidents involved crashes with stationary vehicles and the fourth was a pedestrian who had taken drugs and alcohol and was hit by the wing mirror of a passing lorry. In the fifth, a man was seriously injured when he lost control of his car after a sweeping curve.
Edmund King, executive director of the RAC Foundation, said the findings raised "major concerns". He added: "We are now seeing cameras being put on motorways and dual carriageways, which are our safest roads by a long way. There are other factors like fog or tailgating, which have nothing to do with excess speed. Yet these partnerships and the police are putting all their eggs in one basket by concentrating on speed cameras and that does nothing to stop dangerous driving."
Andrew Howard, head of road safety for the AA Motoring Trust, said: "Speed cameras can be defended because people are getting injured and killed on the roads and something needs to be done about it. But it can be argued that speed cameras are becoming a bit of an easy option for the authorities.
"They are much cheaper than putting an extra lane on a dual carriageway or introducing other measures like improved central barriers to make a road safer."
Essex police insisted yesterday that a follow-up survey had shown drivers regularly far exceeding the speed limit along that stretch of the A12.
Kelly Fairweather, of the Essex Safety Camera Partnership - which comprises Essex police, the county council and the Highways Agency - said the new camera would not be a fixed one, but one that operated at irregular intervals from a van on a bridge over the A12. She added: "This location has been approved as a camera site because it has a very high speeding problem."
A spokesman for the DoT said: "We do not give permission for cameras to be sited in a particular place automatically. It has to be proved that there is a problem with accidents and also with speeding at a site.
"The rules do not state that these serious or fatal injury accidents have to be specifically caused by high speed."
www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2005/04/19/ncam19.xml
Mon Ami Mate said:
A spokesman for the DoT said: "We do not give permission for cameras to be sited in a particular place automatically. It has to be proved that there is a problem with accidents and also with speeding at a site.
"The rules do not state that these serious or fatal injury accidents have to be specifically caused by high speed."
That's the clincher then. Their criteria for camera siting:
- An area where motorists exceeed the speed limit so they make money;
- An area where have been accidents of any kind, including completely non-speed related. These can be used as a weak justification.
The fact that the habitual speeding they're detecting has not led to speed-related accidents seems to completely escape them. Bunch of tossers.
Clearly though, the road is quite safe, at least if your speeding.
Surely this undermines the "safety" partnership logic. The road has LOTS of speeders, yet in the last five years, not ONE accident due to excessive speeding.
However, it has had lots of other accidents that a speed camera, in none of the cases, would have stopped!
Surely that stinks of doing something over nothing (putting up a camera), and then ignoring the real problems clearly evident (bad driving and drunk/drugged up people)
Oh well...
Lets just hope we all stand up and fight for our freedom before we all have chips in our brains monitoring our dreams and thoughts to protect us from ourselves!
Dave
Surely this undermines the "safety" partnership logic. The road has LOTS of speeders, yet in the last five years, not ONE accident due to excessive speeding.
However, it has had lots of other accidents that a speed camera, in none of the cases, would have stopped!
Surely that stinks of doing something over nothing (putting up a camera), and then ignoring the real problems clearly evident (bad driving and drunk/drugged up people)
Oh well...
Lets just hope we all stand up and fight for our freedom before we all have chips in our brains monitoring our dreams and thoughts to protect us from ourselves!
Dave
I have just read this thread, but have recently posted some similarly missleading data from the Wilts Camera Partnership here www.pistonheads.com/gassing/topic.asp?p=2&f=10&t=170930&h=0
I thought that the phrase "Figures correct at time of printing but due to the nature of collision recording they are subject to amendment in the future." was particularly interesting
>> Edited by chim666 on Tuesday 19th April 12:07
I thought that the phrase "Figures correct at time of printing but due to the nature of collision recording they are subject to amendment in the future." was particularly interesting
>> Edited by chim666 on Tuesday 19th April 12:07
It looks to me as if they're playing strictly by the rules. It's just that the rules are wrong.
Notice what is required:
1) Speeding "a problem"
2) Over a threshold of KSIs.
There is nothing to state that (2) has to be caused by (1), and so, lo and behold, the scamera partnerships are off the hook.
Notice what is required:
1) Speeding "a problem"
2) Over a threshold of KSIs.
There is nothing to state that (2) has to be caused by (1), and so, lo and behold, the scamera partnerships are off the hook.
Another interesting 'zero tolerance' view from the Telegraph;
www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml;sessionid=BCI2HBW1IZRIXQFIQMGCM54AVCBQUJVC?xml=/opinion/2005/04/19/dl1903.xml&secureRefresh=true&_reque
Cameras are cash cows
(Filed: 19/04/2005)
The installation of a new speed camera near Colchester, where there have been no speed-related accidents, neatly highlights government policy on the devices.
All the Government has to do to justify speed cameras is to show that there have been at least two accidents involving death or serious injury over a three-year period. That criterion will, of course, cover accident blackspots where dangerous speeding kills people. But it will also cover all sorts of places where speed has nothing to do with the death, like at the Colchester site, where three of the crashes were with stationary vehicles and the fourth involved a drunk pedestrian struck by a passing lorry's wing mirror.
It's a trite phrase, but accidents will happen. To use these non-speed related accidents to justify speed-reducing measures allows only one conclusion, one that the Government denies: it is using cameras as revenue-raising devices.
As if we needed proof of the fact, we also have last week's announcement that, on a stretch of the M4, a zero-tolerance policy has been introduced whereby anyone caught going over 78mph is immediately penalised, where previously the police only bothered booking people if they went 85mph or more.
In New York, a zero-tolerance policy on crime brought about a huge drop in rape, murder and burglary figures with a beneficial effect on everybody in the city. How depressing that, over here, zero-tolerance policies are applied only to the well-intentioned drivers of middle England when they go a shade over the speed limit.
>> Edited by catso on Tuesday 19th April 12:53
www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml;sessionid=BCI2HBW1IZRIXQFIQMGCM54AVCBQUJVC?xml=/opinion/2005/04/19/dl1903.xml&secureRefresh=true&_reque
Cameras are cash cows
(Filed: 19/04/2005)
The installation of a new speed camera near Colchester, where there have been no speed-related accidents, neatly highlights government policy on the devices.
All the Government has to do to justify speed cameras is to show that there have been at least two accidents involving death or serious injury over a three-year period. That criterion will, of course, cover accident blackspots where dangerous speeding kills people. But it will also cover all sorts of places where speed has nothing to do with the death, like at the Colchester site, where three of the crashes were with stationary vehicles and the fourth involved a drunk pedestrian struck by a passing lorry's wing mirror.
It's a trite phrase, but accidents will happen. To use these non-speed related accidents to justify speed-reducing measures allows only one conclusion, one that the Government denies: it is using cameras as revenue-raising devices.
As if we needed proof of the fact, we also have last week's announcement that, on a stretch of the M4, a zero-tolerance policy has been introduced whereby anyone caught going over 78mph is immediately penalised, where previously the police only bothered booking people if they went 85mph or more.
In New York, a zero-tolerance policy on crime brought about a huge drop in rape, murder and burglary figures with a beneficial effect on everybody in the city. How depressing that, over here, zero-tolerance policies are applied only to the well-intentioned drivers of middle England when they go a shade over the speed limit.
>> Edited by catso on Tuesday 19th April 12:53
Just sent em this:
Dear Sir,
With reference to the above subject heading and the story in the East Anglia Daily Times headed:
EADT inquiry into speed camera site
I wish to ask just a few questions.
From reading the article published it is clear to a blind man that none of the accidents used to justify the speed camera placement were actually anything at all to do with speed as a causation factor.
Bearing that fact in mind for just a moment i would wish to draw your attention to a fatal flaw in your logic that would appear to exist.
That fatal flaw is this: As NONE of the accidents reported had speed as a causation factor, HOW ON EARTH can you justify using a SPEED camera to reduce THOSE NON SPEED RELATED ACCIDENTS, when they WERE NOT CAUSED BY SPEED? How will a speed camera have ANY POSITIVE effect on such accidents? Here's a clue: IT WONT!!!!
It would appear that your motives are questionable at the very least, in fact they appear to be downright dishonest.
Your random, blanket bombing and wilfully/woefully incompetent approach to reducing accidents smacks of profiteering at the expense of a proper strategy and of peoples lives.
Obviously you will write back to me (or maybe you wont) to tell me how wonderful you are doing with your "speed camera solves all" ideals.
I would counter by asking you this: Would YOU prescribe an aspirin to cure a broken spine? Even you cannot answer yes...can you? Then why in the name of holy christ do you put up another speed camera to address NON speed related accidents??????? Isnt this more about being seen to do "something" rather than doing the "right thing" and another opportunity to get a cash register into the game plan? You obviously do not KNOW what the "right " thing to do IS, at least not where accident reduction is concerned.
I really do hope you respond in a sensible and rational manner, convincing me as to why you have done this, although i believe it to be well be at odds with the inbuilt stupidity and narrow mindedness of your organisation as a whole.
I do not hold out much hope for the future with people like you in charge of "safety" issues.
Fines UP Deaths UP.
Kindest Regards DF.
Dear Sir,
With reference to the above subject heading and the story in the East Anglia Daily Times headed:
EADT inquiry into speed camera site
I wish to ask just a few questions.
From reading the article published it is clear to a blind man that none of the accidents used to justify the speed camera placement were actually anything at all to do with speed as a causation factor.
Bearing that fact in mind for just a moment i would wish to draw your attention to a fatal flaw in your logic that would appear to exist.
That fatal flaw is this: As NONE of the accidents reported had speed as a causation factor, HOW ON EARTH can you justify using a SPEED camera to reduce THOSE NON SPEED RELATED ACCIDENTS, when they WERE NOT CAUSED BY SPEED? How will a speed camera have ANY POSITIVE effect on such accidents? Here's a clue: IT WONT!!!!
It would appear that your motives are questionable at the very least, in fact they appear to be downright dishonest.
Your random, blanket bombing and wilfully/woefully incompetent approach to reducing accidents smacks of profiteering at the expense of a proper strategy and of peoples lives.
Obviously you will write back to me (or maybe you wont) to tell me how wonderful you are doing with your "speed camera solves all" ideals.
I would counter by asking you this: Would YOU prescribe an aspirin to cure a broken spine? Even you cannot answer yes...can you? Then why in the name of holy christ do you put up another speed camera to address NON speed related accidents??????? Isnt this more about being seen to do "something" rather than doing the "right thing" and another opportunity to get a cash register into the game plan? You obviously do not KNOW what the "right " thing to do IS, at least not where accident reduction is concerned.
I really do hope you respond in a sensible and rational manner, convincing me as to why you have done this, although i believe it to be well be at odds with the inbuilt stupidity and narrow mindedness of your organisation as a whole.
I do not hold out much hope for the future with people like you in charge of "safety" issues.
Fines UP Deaths UP.
Kindest Regards DF.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff