Secret speed camera plan
Discussion
Secret speed cameras plan
By Andrew Gilligan And David Williams, Evening Standard
22 April 2005
Transport for London chiefs have put forward controversial plans to increase the number of speed cameras by up to 37 per cent this year.
Secret papers, leaked to the Evening Standard, make clear that one of the purposes of the move to add up to 180 new fixed camera sites is to "produce a steady daily flow of offences".
The thresholds at which the cameras catch drivers are adjusted to ensure the number of offences collected is kept to "a pre-determined daily level", the documents say.
TfL said today the plans have been refused by the Department-for Transport, which has agreed to 66 new fixed sites this year.
But a TfL spokesman made clear that the rejected sites were "still on our list to come in the future" and would be resubmitted later.
There are 480 fixed speed camera sites in London. The plans obtained by the Standard call for "at least 120" extra sites and reveal that even this ambitious programme "could be accelerated" to 180 extra sites if plans to "outsource" back-office functions go ahead.
The TfL spokesman admitted the wording of the leaked documents was "unfortunate".
He said: "The idea of producing a steady flow of offences is to make sure back-room staff do not get overwhelmed and can deal with the flow. These proposals are about reducing the number of accidents, not increasing revenue."
The plans have caused a major row between TfL and the Metropolitan Police, the main players in the "safety camera partnership" which runs London's traffic cameras.
Top officers in the Met, worried that the cameras are damaging-their relationship with the public, helped block the plans. "There is a wrestle for power within the partnership," said one police source. "We as a police service have always tried to strike a balance between achieving reductions in speeding and accidents and at the same time not alienating the whole community."
The plans show the cameras are projected to make a " surplus", or profit, of £719,650 in the current financial year.
This could rise if the number of drivers paying their fines could be increased above the current 40 per cent. TfL wants to outsource the Met's "inefficient"-offence-processing to Essex Police to increase the rate - another move furiously resisted by Scotland Yard.
Jenny Jones, the Mayor's road safety czar, said police opposition to more cameras was putting lives at risk. "They are putting politics ahead of the importance of the lives of Londoners," she said, adding that 40 deaths and injuries a year could be prevented if the full plans went ahead.
The Met blamed its difficulties in collecting speed fines on a recruitment freeze imposed by the Government.
By Andrew Gilligan And David Williams, Evening Standard
22 April 2005
Transport for London chiefs have put forward controversial plans to increase the number of speed cameras by up to 37 per cent this year.
Secret papers, leaked to the Evening Standard, make clear that one of the purposes of the move to add up to 180 new fixed camera sites is to "produce a steady daily flow of offences".
The thresholds at which the cameras catch drivers are adjusted to ensure the number of offences collected is kept to "a pre-determined daily level", the documents say.
TfL said today the plans have been refused by the Department-for Transport, which has agreed to 66 new fixed sites this year.
But a TfL spokesman made clear that the rejected sites were "still on our list to come in the future" and would be resubmitted later.
There are 480 fixed speed camera sites in London. The plans obtained by the Standard call for "at least 120" extra sites and reveal that even this ambitious programme "could be accelerated" to 180 extra sites if plans to "outsource" back-office functions go ahead.
The TfL spokesman admitted the wording of the leaked documents was "unfortunate".
He said: "The idea of producing a steady flow of offences is to make sure back-room staff do not get overwhelmed and can deal with the flow. These proposals are about reducing the number of accidents, not increasing revenue."
The plans have caused a major row between TfL and the Metropolitan Police, the main players in the "safety camera partnership" which runs London's traffic cameras.
Top officers in the Met, worried that the cameras are damaging-their relationship with the public, helped block the plans. "There is a wrestle for power within the partnership," said one police source. "We as a police service have always tried to strike a balance between achieving reductions in speeding and accidents and at the same time not alienating the whole community."
The plans show the cameras are projected to make a " surplus", or profit, of £719,650 in the current financial year.
This could rise if the number of drivers paying their fines could be increased above the current 40 per cent. TfL wants to outsource the Met's "inefficient"-offence-processing to Essex Police to increase the rate - another move furiously resisted by Scotland Yard.
Jenny Jones, the Mayor's road safety czar, said police opposition to more cameras was putting lives at risk. "They are putting politics ahead of the importance of the lives of Londoners," she said, adding that 40 deaths and injuries a year could be prevented if the full plans went ahead.
The Met blamed its difficulties in collecting speed fines on a recruitment freeze imposed by the Government.
Strikes me that they are desperate for more revenue to fund the installation of SPECS systems as descrbed in DER's link: www.speedcheck.co.uk/index.htm Read the 8 pages under: Speed Cameras - How do drivers respond?
After declaring that Gatso's do not work, the paper goes on to say:
"in very approximate terms a typical Gatso site will caost £45,000 whereas a typical SPECS system will cost around £136,400."
Followed by:
Funding is therefore an issue of great importance in speed camera enforcement schemes."
Going on to cite: "financial problems experienced by local authorities in the past." and urging widespead use of hypothecation.
After which, it says:
"The surveys involved in this project showed that 40 mph urban dual carriageways Can exhibit a high rate of speeding violations and so should be targeted in the current government plans to increase the number of roadside cameras".
Note that it was the number of speeding "violations" that interested them,.....and hence more revenue for their future SPECS systems. NOT the number of of accidents figures on these roads.
From the horses mouth I think!
>> Edited by 8Pack on Saturday 30th April 23:50
After declaring that Gatso's do not work, the paper goes on to say:
"in very approximate terms a typical Gatso site will caost £45,000 whereas a typical SPECS system will cost around £136,400."
Followed by:
Funding is therefore an issue of great importance in speed camera enforcement schemes."
Going on to cite: "financial problems experienced by local authorities in the past." and urging widespead use of hypothecation.
After which, it says:
"The surveys involved in this project showed that 40 mph urban dual carriageways Can exhibit a high rate of speeding violations and so should be targeted in the current government plans to increase the number of roadside cameras".
Note that it was the number of speeding "violations" that interested them,.....and hence more revenue for their future SPECS systems. NOT the number of of accidents figures on these roads.
From the horses mouth I think!
>> Edited by 8Pack on Saturday 30th April 23:50
deltafox said:
This could rise if the number of drivers paying their fines could be increased above the current 40 per cent. TfL wants to outsource the Met's "inefficient"-offence-processing to Essex Police to increase the rate
tfl only want essex plod to deal with it because billericay(sp) scamera center staff dont even look at the pics from the scameras nor the back of the nip's when they are sent in for any excuses that may be valid,they just process them and try to get you to pay up without trying to argue,they dont seem to like sending stuff to court though as i found out to my advantage (yep,advantage!).
they (essex scamera pratnership) took me to court for a scamera pic in 2002 that they said showed that i was doing 40 in a 30 (sunday night,2200,no-one around,no peds,no traffic and a double-parked car right opposite the unmarked scamvan),i pleaded not guilty at the first sitting with the intention of fighting the case by proving that the mobile scamera bastard couldnt have got a proper reading as he took a reading of my speed as i was coming down a hill,he was part-way on the 'up' section of the hill that you have to go up when you got to the bottom of my 'down' bit,so as far as i was concerned they couldnt have got a proper reading without a series of prisms...plus i knew i was only doing 30 as i had already spotted him on the way home after i dropped the wife off at work earlier that evening.
anyway the case was adjourned for 3 weeks for callibration certs,etc to be sent in from the billericay office....suprise,suprise they never sent any so i asked for the case to be thrown out for no evidence (perfectly legal to do according to the cps bloke i spoke to just before going into court). after the cps disclosed that they didnt even know where/when or how fast i was supposedly going when i got scammed,i was allowed to say why i thought it should be thrown out.....
"your honours,when the police pull you over by the side of the road and issue a '7-day wonder',you are expected to produce your documents to a police station within 7 days of being given it otherwise your details are automaticly sent to court and the police expect you to deal with it from there.....the court asked for all the information reg. callibration,wether the cop using the lazer gun was qualified to do so,etc to be sent in to the court for todays continuance and billaricay havnt bothered,infact they havnt even sent a piece of a4 paper into the court with "he was speeding,you know" written on it in crayon.....dont you think that the camera partnership are making a bit of a mockery of not only your honours requests,but this court too?"
the magistrates chatted amoungst themselves,the lady magistrate in the center turned and said "i can see where you are coming from mr *********,in our view we have to throw this case out through lack of evidence....you are free to go."
"but what about the photographic evidence that was recorded on ministry equipment?" replied the cps
"we cannot see any.....so case dismissed" replied the magistrate.
>> Edited by cortinaman on Sunday 1st May 02:19
cortinaman said:
tfl only want essex plod to deal with it because billericay(sp) scamera center staff dont even look at the pics from the scameras nor the back of the nip's when they are sent in for any excuses that may be valid,they just process them and try to get you to pay up without trying to argue,they dont seem to like sending stuff to court though as i found out to my advantage (yep,advantage!).
they (essex scamera pratnership) took me to court for a scamera pic in 2002 that they said showed that i was doing 40 in a 30 (sunday night,2200,no-one around,no peds,no traffic and a double-parked car right opposite the unmarked scamvan),i pleaded not guilty at the first sitting with the intention of fighting the case by proving that the mobile scamera bastard couldnt have got a proper reading as he took a reading of my speed as i was coming down a hill,he was part-way on the 'up' section of the hill that you have to go up when you got to the bottom of my 'down' bit,so as far as i was concerned they couldnt have got a proper reading without a series of prisms...plus i knew i was only doing 30 as i had already spotted him on the way home after i dropped the wife off at work earlier that evening.
anyway the case was adjourned for 3 weeks for callibration certs,etc to be sent in from the billericay office....suprise,suprise they never sent any so i asked for the case to be thrown out for no evidence (perfectly legal to do according to the cps bloke i spoke to just before going into court). after the cps disclosed that they didnt even know where/when or how fast i was supposedly going when i got scammed,i was allowed to say why i thought it should be thrown out.....
"your honours,when the police pull you over by the side of the road and issue a '7-day wonder',you are expected to produce your documents to a police station within 7 days of being given it otherwise your details are automaticly sent to court and the police expect you to deal with it from there.....the court asked for all the information reg. callibration,wether the cop using the lazer gun was qualified to do so,etc to be sent in to the court for todays continuance and billaricay havnt bothered,infact they havnt even sent a piece of a4 paper into the court with "he was speeding,you know" written on it in crayon.....dont you think that the camera partnership are making a bit of a mockery of not only your honours requests,but this court too?"
the magistrates chatted amoungst themselves,the lady magistrate in the center turned and said "i can see where you are coming from mr *********,in our view we have to throw this case out through lack of evidence....you are free to go."
"but what about the photographic evidence that was recorded on ministry equipment?" replied the cps
"we cannot see any.....so case dismissed" replied the magistrate.
they really are a bunch of underhand criminal basts aren't they
cortinaman said:
lotsa stuff
Totally agree with your comments on the Billericay setup, they couldn't give a sh@ if yer doing 1 mph over the limit or 150, all they want is yer credit card number.
Well done for disputing it and getting let off the points + fine, I wish I'd taken mine to court now
>> Edited by JoolzB on Sunday 1st May 10:34
JoolzB said:Now there's an idea. Just replace the VRN on your number-plate with your CC number and make it really easy for them
lotsa stuff
;( - StreakyOnly 40% of people are paying their fines? How do they avoid it? I presume we're talking about valid cases, so that leaves us with:
- unregistered (therefore untraceable)
- invalid address (or they'd send the boys round)
- invalid name (presumably this would be enough?)
- just refusing to pay, ignoring NIP, letters, etc (and somehow being let off at the end of it all?)
It does seem very strange to me. We spend ages talking about the difficulty of fighting back when we have a just case, yet it seems 60% of London drivers caught speeding achieve it with no trouble at all.
Anyone have more details?
- unregistered (therefore untraceable)
- invalid address (or they'd send the boys round)
- invalid name (presumably this would be enough?)
- just refusing to pay, ignoring NIP, letters, etc (and somehow being let off at the end of it all?)
It does seem very strange to me. We spend ages talking about the difficulty of fighting back when we have a just case, yet it seems 60% of London drivers caught speeding achieve it with no trouble at all.
Anyone have more details?
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff