Essex scamp's, oh how they squirm...

[deltafox]

Have been having a bit of email correspondence with these particular lot for a few days now regarding the usage of speed cameras on the A12 to treat non speed related accidents..(god youll live to hate that phrase soon! )

Heres the ding dong battle so far, with two falls and a submission i believe to my good self...
It all started the other week with this:

To: [e-mail]
Subject: Non speed related accidents and speed cameras.

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
rganisation 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.

Their reply came thus, and it was a revelation!:

"Kelly Fairweather HT Safety Cameras Communication Manager" <[e-mail]> Add to Address Book
To: "'x'" <[e-mail]>
Subject: RE: Non speed related accidents and speed cameras.
Date: Wed, 20 Apr 2005 15:51:06 +0100

Thank you for your recent e-mail to the Essex Safety Camera Partnership's web site.

I'm not sure where you have got your information from but the fines in Essex and accidents are not up, as you state.

The number of fixed penalties being paid in Essex has been reducing steadily since 2002, even though the amount of cameras has increased. Further information on finances can be found on <a href="http://www.essexsafetycameras.co.uk">www.essexsafetycameras.co.uk</a> under the partnership section then click on finances.

Essex has been operating safety cameras as one part of the wider road safety strategy since the early 1990's.

The Essex Safety Camera Partnership tries to deter speeding and jumping red-lights in an effort to reduce the number of casualties on the roads, as part of the wider road safety strategy.

Kelly Fairweather

Safety Camera Communications Manager

01245 437786

Internal Ext: 51786
<a href="http://www.essexsafetycameras.co.uk">www.essexsafetycameras.co.uk</a>




They then decided to send me this:

Kelly Fairweather HT Safety Cameras Communication Manager" <[e-mail]> Add to Address Book
To: "'x'" <deltaf22000>
Subject: Recall: Non speed related accidents and speed cameras.
Date: Wed, 20 Apr 2005 15:53:52 +0100


Kelly Fairweather HT Safety Cameras Communication Manager would like to recall the message, "Non speed related accidents and speed cameras.".

Then this came:

Kelly Fairweather HT Safety Cameras Communication Manager" <[e-mail]> Add to Address Book
To: "'x'" <deltaf>
Subject: RE: Non speed related accidents and speed cameras.
Date: Wed, 20 Apr 2005 15:57:41 +0100

Thank you for your recent e-mail to the Essex Safety Camera Partnership's web site.

The number of fixed penalties being paid in Essex has been reducing steadily since 2002, even though the amount of cameras has increased. Further information on finances can be found on <a href="http://www.essexsafetycameras.co.uk">www.essexsafetycameras.co.uk</a> under the partnership section then click on finances.

Essex has been operating safety cameras to deter speeding and jumping red-lights in an effort to reduce the number of casualties on the roads as one part of the wider road safety strategy since the early 1990's.

Kind Regards
Kelly Fairweather
Safety Camera Communications Manager
01245 437786
Internal Ext: 51786
<a href="http://www.essexsafetycameras.co.uk">www.essexsafetycameras.co.uk</a>




Amazing replies arent they? Answers ALL my points too!

Some time later and after a few bevvies i retort.......


Wed, 20 Apr 2005 09:00:14 -0700 (PDT)
From: "x" <[e-mail]> Add to Address Book
Subject: RE: Non speed related accidents and speed cameras.
To: "Kelly Fairweather HT Safety Cameras Communication Manager" <[e-mail]>


Dear Miss Fairweather,

Thank you for your 3 responses.

I am unsure as to why those responses contain no
substantive mention of the subject matter i enquired
about.
Your responses were all related to the financial state
of your organisation, numbers of fines etc and
indicated no interest in safety issues at all.
I can assume from such a response,-correction 3
responses, that the financial status of Essex speed
camera partnership is of paramount importance over
road safety then?

My questions focused specifically on what positive
effect a speed camera will have on the outcome of
accidents such as those mentioned in the newspaper
article-ie NON speed related and why it was deemed
suitable to put up a speed camera to combat these
kinds of non speed related accidents.
You have attempted to divert from giving me a proper
answer for reasons unknown.

I would ask you to consider again giving a
comprehensive assement as to -Why it was deemed
logical to install a speed camera to address non speed
related accidents?

If i may remind you of the following:
From the Institute of Highway Incorporated Engineers
in an assessment of road safety practices carried out
in August 2004 which states and then recommends:
"There is growing concern amongst the public and media
about the siting and operation of speed cameras"

And also:

"In order to maintain public confidence, cameras
should continue to be sited ONLY (their emphasis)
where speed related accidents have occurred"

Thank you for your time, i look forward to settling
this matter.

Regards DF.


A short time later a garbled message from a battered and confused "comms manager" came through, addressed to me via someone elses name:


Kelly Fairweather HT Safety Cameras Communication Manager" <[e-mail]> Add to Address Book
To: "'x'" <deltaf>
Subject: RE: Non speed related accidents and speed cameras.
Date: Thu, 21 Apr 2005 08:46:22 +0100


Dear Mr Levett [i dont know who this is! DF]

I apologise if you received three e-mails yesterday, I certainly did not mean to send you three e-mails but there have been some problems with my e-mail.

New safety camera locations in Essex are identified in line with the government rules and guidance. The Department for Transports Handbook of rules and guidance for the national safety camera programme in England and Wales, is available to download on our web site <a href="http://www.essexsafetycameras.co.uk">www.essexsafetycameras.co.uk</a> under the partnership section then click on DFT handbook.

This site selection criterion includes a serious accident history and a speeding problem.

Research shows that safety cameras in Essex have helped to reduce the frequency of personal injury collisions by 23% at safety camera locations and have also helped to reduce the number of vehicles exceeding the speed limit by 25% at new locations. This research, The National Safety Camera Programme, three year evaluation report, can be read on the Department for Transports web site <a href="http://www.dft.gov.uk">www.dft.gov.uk</a> and there is a link to it from <a href="http://www.essexsafetycameras.co.uk">www.essexsafetycameras.co.uk</a>

We also receive a large amount of requests for camera enforcement in Essex and the vast majority of drivers in Essex support the use of safety cameras to reduce casualties and want to see more things done to reduce speeds.

If you wish to view the recent public attitude survey of drivers in Essex (over 3,000 drivers were interviewed) please see <a href="http://www.essexsafetycameras.co.uk">www.essexsafetycameras.co.uk</a> under the Public section.

If you are interested in finding out more information about speed and road safety please visit <a href="http://www.thinkroadsafety.gov.uk">www.thinkroadsafety.gov.uk</a>

I hope this helps in your enquiry.

Kind Regards

Kelly Fairweather
Safety Camera Communications Manager
01245 437786
Internal Ext: 51786

<a href="http://www.essexsafetycameras.co.uk">www.essexsafetycameras.co.uk</a>

Somewhat bemused by the responses thus far i persist:

Thu, 28 Apr 2005 01:11:20 -0700 (PDT)
From: "x" <deltaf>
Subject: RE: Non speed related accidents and speed cameras.
To: [e-mail]

Dear Miss Fairweather,

I recently sent the questions below but have not
recieved any indication of a satisfactory response.

My questions are perfectly reasonable and as such i
wish a satisfactory and pertinent reply to them.
If i hear no more from you on this matter within 2
days of this email, i will presume you to have placed
me on an "ignore" list.

My original email is as below.

The last response you sent me was addressed to a Mr
"Levett".
It was interesting to read such a response as clearly
it was a standard reply type much like the original
you sent to me.

I STILL have not recieved a satisfactory response as
to why a speed camera is deemed capable of preventing
NON speed related accidents!
I appreciate you may be having problems with your
email, however, that simply does not explain the lack
of a direct answer to a direct question.

I will ask my questions again, here:
I wish to know why it was deemed logical to apply a
speed camera to a NON speed related accident site?
How can such a speed camera have ANY POSITIVE outcome
on accidents that are NOT being caused by speed?
How can it PREVENT NON SPEED related accidents??

I *DO NOT* wish to know what "other drivers think" or
what " Our surveys says" or even " What the DFT says",
i wish to know who,and preferably WHY its deemed
acceptable to use a speed camera to address NON speed
related accidents.

Before you next respond, i would ask you to consider
carefully,the following:
As a road safety organisation you are publicly
accountable for the actions you perform. The public
have an absolute RIGHT to know if the actions you
people perform are enhancing or detracting from THEIR
safety on our roads.

I look forward to your response.

Regards DF.

At this point the "communications manager" has lost the will to communicate, and so a more knowledgeable individual is brought forward to try and bluff me:

"Harris, Andrew R" <[e-mail]> Add to Address Book
To: "'deltaf
CC: "'Kelly Fairweather HT Safety Cameras Communication Manager'" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Non speed related accidents and speed cameras
Date: Thu, 28 Apr 2005 13:12:30 +0100


DF,

I have been forwarded an email by my colleague, Kelly Fairweather,
following
an exchange of emails you have been having with her about the above
subject.
If I may, I would like to try and explain the issues to you in greater
detail.

Firstly, may I point out that I am a very experienced road safety
engineer
have been involved in accident investigation and prevention for over
twenty
years and as a result I am very familiar with accident reporting, the
circumstances leading to accidents and the limitations of the data that
is
recorded in police records.

I assume from your correspondence that you are referring to the report
in
the East Anglian Daily Times last week, or a subsequent follow-up by
another
media organisation, in which it stated for a site the Essex Safety
Camera
Partnership (ESCP) will shortly be introducing on the A12 that "none of
the
officers' reports into the crashes listed 'excessive speed for
conditions'
as a factor". This fact is not disputed.

However, what needs to be understood is that road crashes are events in
which there are many factors that influence not only the initial
impact,
which is most often between 2 or more vehicles, but also the outcome in
terms of the injuries sustained by the vehicle occupants. It is a fact
that
not all factors involved in the circumstances leading to an accident
are
mentioned on police accident records so it is not possible to say in
the
case of the A12 accidents (or any other site for that matter) that a
vehicle
travelling in excess of the speed limit was not a factor in any of the
crashes. However, at the time of reporting, the officer concerned may
have
felt that "excessive speed" was not, in his or her opinion, one of the
most
important factors but that does not mean it did not occur. The officer
has
a limitation on the number of contributory factors that can be used in
conjunction with any accident and his or her judgement will have been
affected by the evidence at the scene of the crash, the availability of
independent witnesses, the level of investigation that ensued etc. It
also
needs to be borne in mind that some 15% of crashes are reported to a
police
station by one of the parties involved and it is not possible in many
cases
for the police to confirm or otherwise the accuracy of the information
being
presented to them for the accident record.

Having taken these factors into consideration, it is normal practice
when
identifying sites for safety cameras, or any other type of accident
remedial
work, to use information within accident records that is likely to be
the
most accurate.

KSI accidents (accidents in which one or more road users were killed or
seriously injured) are more likely to be recorded when impact speeds
are
higher and this is entirely consistent with the Government's criteria
for
identifying camera sites (I believe Kelly has informed you where this
can be
found on the Essex SCP's website). You may interested in the following
information, which supports my view:

"Research published by the Department for Transport; Excessive speed as
a
contributory factor to personal injury road accidents, Jonathan
Mosedale and
Andrew Purdy, Department for Transport, September 2004 showed that
excessive
speed was a factor in many crashes.
The key conclusions in the Mosedale and Purdy study are that:
* the police recorded excessive speed as a contributory factor in 12%
of all
personal injury collisions. This aggregate of all collisions was made
up of:

* excessive speed as a factor in 11% of slight injury collisions;
* 18% of serious injury collisions; and
* 28% of fatal injury collisions.
* at 28%, excessive speed was the most frequently recorded factor for
fatal
injury collisions (followed by 'Behaviour -
careless/thoughtless/reckless'
at 21%);
* excessive speed was more significant again as a factor in accidents
precipitated by motorbikes. Here it was a factor in 21% of all personal
injury collisions, breaking down into 15% of slight injury collisions,
29%
of serious injury collisions and 49% of fatal collisions".

However, to ensure that cameras are sited to have the greatest
potential benefit in terms of lower speeds and hence casualty reduction, it is very important to understand that the Government's criteria also requires
Partnership's to demonstrate that there is sufficient evidence of speeding vehicles at a proposed camera site and this is gathered by undertaking a speed survey. The survey undertaken on the A12 demonstrated a sufficient
level of non-compliance with the speed limit and it is this evidence together with the KSI record that justifies the use of a camera on this stretch of road.

This approach to identifying camera sites is successful and this is confirmed by the three-year evaluation report which Kelly has mentioned to you in a previous reply.

I hope this reply gives you a better understanding of the process that
the
Essex SCP is required to undertaken when identifying camera sites.
Please
come back to me if I need to clarify any of the points I have made.

Regards

Andrew Harris
Project Manager
Essex Safety Camera Partnership

OOh the big guns are now after me! Not content with the complete Non-answers ive recieved, i still feel it necessary to have another bite of the er "cherry":

Thu, 28 Apr 2005 08:44:37 -0700 (PDT)
From: "x" <deltaf>
Subject: Re: Non speed related accidents and speed cameras
To: "Harris, Andrew R" <[e-mail]>

Hi Andrew, Thanks for that email.

Again, i have to ask how a speed camera can prevent
crashes that are occurring at below the speed limits
or where speed wasnt a cause, such as those referred
to in the article?

This question is to my mind pivotal in determining
their effectiveness for most all situations as im sure
you are aware that most accidents (the percentage
eludes me at this time) occur within the prescribed
speed limits.
If someone tells me that a speed camera cured cancer,
then id want to know "HOW", im sure you would also.
Its that simple.

It seems to me that there is a degree of "cover up"
and damage limitation occurring here, as theres simply
no other explanation for the lack of a pertinent,
direct and substantial response to what is after all,
an entirely reasonable question. Would you not agree?
Its certainly what i would conclude if i were an
observer to these exchanges.

I respect your experience as a road engineer, i
respect your opinions even if i dont concur entirely
with them.
I do NOT however respect a road "safety" strategy that
appears to be based on a knee jerk reaction, that
reaction being to install speed cameras to address non
speed related crashes.
Such logic is unfathomable, it is deeply flawed and of
concern to most right minded people.

As an example; You sir, are out shopping, looking for
a new bathroom suite.......... in Radio Shack. I do
not think you will find it there, do you?

The same twisted logic has been applied in response to
crashes that were not reported by the Police
investigators ( who better to make that judgement?)
to have been speed related. It therefore follows that
a speed camera will not have any positive effect upon
such crashes. It may well create more crashes, has
that been considered i wonder?
Clearly that is not understood by the person
responsible for this fiasco.
Its more i believe, a case of being seen to do
something, rather that actually doing the "right"
thing.
My questions remain (still) unanswered for the time
being then.

In closing, i would have to say that the person/s
responsible for siting such cameras given the obvious
failed logic of the situation, must be either
incompetent, a fool, a fraud or all of the above.

I am hopeful that an answer to my questions is likely
to be more forthcoming from your good self.

Kind regards DF.

And then:

Harris, Andrew R" <[e-mail]> Ad
To: "'deltaf'" >
Subject: RE: Non speed related accidents and speed cameras
Date: Tue, 3 May 2005 09:31:34 +0100


DF,

Thanks for your reply. I will attempt to clarify the issues you have raised but I feel I have already answered many of your questions, may be not in the
direct and simple way that you would like but it is a complex subject and I feel you deserve to be made aware of all the relevant issues your questions
raise. I can assure you there is not a cover-up or damage limitation in my previous email but I have tried to give you the benefit of my considerable
experience in this area.

With regard to your first paragraph, I have to point you to the fourth
paragraph of my previous email - it quite clearly states that there are
many
factors involved in road accidents so it is not possible to deduce with
certainty that the crashes on the A12 occurred at a speed below the
speed
limit or that excessive speed was not a factor. These factors may have
been
present but not reported. This is why a speed survey is taken to support the accident data. One of the elements of the Government's criteria for
identifying potential safety camera sites states that there must be evidence that at least 20% of vehicles are exceeding the speed limit, this was the
case with the A12 site. If at least 20% of vehicles are exceeding the speed limit is it not reasonable to expect at least 20% of accidents involve one of these vehicles?

It is the Government's requirement that the approach that I have described is applied to all potential safety camera locations. This approach works
and is confirmed by the independent evaluation report published by the Department for Transport (DfT) last year. If you wish to question the site
selection criteria or refer to the evaluation report please approach the DfT. Their details can be found on the Essex SCP's website or go to
<a href="http://www.dft.gov.uk">www.dft.gov.uk</a> and follow the road safety link or the THINK! Link if you want more general information about speed-related issues.

As Project Manager for the Essex SCP, it is one of my responsibilities to ensure that potential camera sites identified by the Partnership and submitted to the DfT for approval meet the Government's criteria. If a site is identified in which there is clear evidence in the accident record that the collisions occurred at a speed below the speed limit and/or that
excessive speed was not a factor, I agree with you that a camera will not
prevent these crashes. Sites of this type are not promoted for camera enforcement. Other forms of accident remedial measures will be considered
by the relevant highway authority.

To answer a couple more of your points:

- it is true that the behaviour adopted by a few drivers whereby, instead
of keeping within the speed limit, they reduce their vehicle's speed suddenly on the approach to a camera can and do create a small number of
accidents. However, it is at a level that is vastly outweighed by the
accident savings obtained from using cameras;

- the point I was making about the 15% of crashes that are reported to a police station is that excessive speed is even more likely to be
under-reported. I doubt someone reporting an accident in this way would admit to exceeding the speed limit. Hence, this is another reason why
other factors are taken into account when identifying camera sites.
I hope I have answered more of your concerns.
Regards

Andrew Harris
Project Manager
Essex Safety Camera Partnership

I appear to be going round in circles here, yet persist i must, the truth IS out there! :

Tue, 3 May 2005 04:47:58 -0700 (PDT)
From: "x" <deltaf>
Subject: RE: Non speed related accidents and speed cameras
To: [e-mail]

Hi again Andrew, thanks for that in-depth response, i
appreciate your efforts.

If i may, id like to respond to a couple of the points
you addressed and raised.

Quote AH:"it is not possible to deduce with
certainty that the crashes on the A12 occurred at a
speed below the
speed
limit or that excessive speed was not a factor. These
factors may have
been
present but not reported. "

I find this to be rather a curious statement!
It is equally not possible to deduce with certainty
that the accidents on the A12 WERE attributable to
speed either. Surely youd agree with me? So why site
speed cameras to address an "uncertain" cause?

Accident investigators are extremely thorough and
competent personnel, and i find it very hard to
believe theyd miss such an important factor of
causation such as excessive speed or simply not bother
to report it.
Without any corroborative evidence to back up your
conclusion, i cant see how the camera can be
justified. Not at least on the basis presented anyway.


In respect of your other statements.

Quote AH: "One of the elements of the Government's
criteria
for
identifying potential safety camera sites states that
there must be
evidence
that at least 20% of vehicles are exceeding the speed
limit, this was
the
case with the A12 site. If at least 20% of vehicles
are exceeding the
speed
limit is it not reasonable to expect at least 20% of
accidents involve
one
of these vehicles?"

An entirely unreasonable assumption i believe Andrew.
The basis for such an assumption would be...?
Exceeding the speed limit =20% of vehicles causing a
crash?
Thats not accurate in the least. I have a copy of an
article written by a Superintendent Sue Warren dated
20 may 04, titled "The Road Safety Toolbox" ill
include part of the relevant text here.

OCTOBER 2003 TO MARCH 2004 CHANGES FROM LAST MONTHS
REPORT
Primary Causes of collision Total KSI collisions % of
all KSI collisions Position in last report Change in %
collisions affected
Wrong course / positioning 27 11.7% 1st -0.9%
Too fast for prevailing conditions 22 9.5% 2nd -0.2%
Crossing road heedless of traffic 20 6.9% 5th +0.4%
No apparent cause 16 6.9% 3rd -0.4%
Alcohol / drugs 16 6.9% 6th +1.2%
Turning right injudiciously 14 6.1% 3rd -1.2%
Slippery road (Weather) Wet 11 4.8% 7th -0.1%
Misjudged distance from other vehicle 10 4.3% 7th
-0.6%
Exceeded speed limit 7 3.0% 9th -0.2%
Misjudged speed of other vehicle 7 3.0% - -
Grand Total 150

As you can see, exceeding a speed limit comes in at
9th in the causation factor listed, thats a mere 3%
and no place even close to 20%.



Quote AH:" If a
site
is identified in which there is clear evidence in the
accident record
that
the collisions occurred at a speed below the speed
limit and/or that
excessive speed was not a factor, I agree with you
that a camera will
not
prevent these crashes. Sites of this type are not
promoted for camera
enforcement."

So we finally got the answer i was looking for, im
glad to see you agree with me on this point.
All we have to find out now is: Are the accidents on
the A12 a result of exceeding the limit/excessive
speed?
The investigators report suggested not, yet you seem
to suggest otherwise, can you say why you think either
the reports are incomplete or otherwise wrong?

Quote AH: "it is true that the behaviour adopted by a few
drivers whereby,
instead
of keeping within the speed limit, they reduce their
vehicle's speed
suddenly on the approach to a camera can and do create
a small number
of
accidents"

As you can see from Superintendent Sue Warrens
partially quoted document that i included earlier,
exceeding a speed limit is at most only responsible
for 3% of accidents; Bearing that in mind, Just what
is wrong with exceeding the speed limit, as long as
its safe and prudent to do so?

Quote AH:"However, it is at a level that is vastly
outweighed by the
accident savings obtained from using cameras"

Im a little disturbed by this part of your reply.
You seem to be suggesting that accidents that do occur
due to the cameras presence are of really little
consequence because of all the alleged "prevented
accidents" that the camera has supposedly produced.
Can you clarify that please?

Quote AH: "the point I was making about the 15% of
crashes that are reported to
a
police station is that excessive speed is even more
likely to be
under-reported. I doubt someone reporting an accident
in this way
would
admit to exceeding the speed limit."

Im not convinced by this part of your argument at all.

Itd be quite easy for a trained accident investigator
to determine whether an accident was caused by a
driver speeding or not. Skid mark lengths,position, or
"lack of" etc etc, regardless of a drivers
protestations to the contrary.

Quote AH:"Hence, this is another reason why
other
factors are taken into account when identifying camera
sites."

Itd matter significantly if the accidents are directly
caused by speeding though, wouldnt it?
This is really your only *valid* justification for
placing a speed camera in any position at all isnt it?
Regardless of what rules the dft allow or how you cut
the cake, unless these accidents were directly
attributable to speeding drivers then your reasons for
siting speed cameras on the A12 are FALSE, they are
FLAWED. They HAVE to be!
I can see this quite clearly, so can others.

I have one final question before i close this email
for you.

How does a £60 fine and 3 penalty points in the post
two weeks after the "offence" contribute in any way to
road safety at the TIME the "offence" was comitted and
at its location?

I hope youll forgive me for being so long winded in
this reply Andrew but i felt it necessary to try to be
at least as thorough as your good self.
I look forward to your response.

Kind Regards DF.

And breathe! Advantage Df i believe! But wait! Theres a response coming through!:
This ones a little haphazard as he quoted me then put his initials next to the ones he thought deserved further response to:

"Harris, Andrew R" <[e-mail]> Add to Address Book
To: "'x'" <deltaf>
Subject: RE: Non speed related accidents and speed cameras
Date: Tue, 3 May 2005 14:00:39 +0100

DF,

Thanks for your reply. Where I feel it appropriate and I am not
answering
questions I feel I have already provided an in-depth explanation for, I
have
placed my initials and answered your points, particularly where you
have
asked for clarification.

Regards

Andrew Harris
PM
Essex Safety Camera Partnership

-----Original Message-----
From: x [mailto:deltaf]
Sent: 03 May 2005 12:48
To: [e-mail]
Subject: RE: Non speed related accidents and speed cameras


Hi again Andrew, thanks for that in-depth response, i appreciate your
efforts.

If i may, id like to respond to a couple of the points
you addressed and raised.

Quote:"it is not possible to deduce with
certainty that the crashes on the A12 occurred at a
speed below the
speed
limit or that excessive speed was not a factor. These
factors may have
been
present but not reported. "

I find this to be rather a curious statement!
It is equally not possible to deduce with certainty
that the accidents on the A12 WERE attributable to
speed either. Surely youd agree with me? So why site
speed cameras to address an "uncertain" cause?

AH - You are questioning the Government's criteria - as I have already
stated if you wish to do this please contact them direct through the
channels I have suggested.

Accident investigators are extremely thorough and
competent personnel, and i find it very hard to
believe theyd miss such an important factor of
causation such as excessive speed or simply not bother
to report it.

AH - Agreed - but I referred to the reporting police officer which is
not
the same as an accident investigator. I believe the Essex Police
Accident
Investigators only attend the scene of accidents where life threatening
injuries may have been sustained.

Without any corroborative evidence to back up your
conclusion, i cant see how the camera can be
justified. Not at least on the basis presented anyway.


In respect of your other statements.

Quote: "One of the elements of the Government's
criteria
for
identifying potential safety camera sites states that
there must be
evidence
that at least 20% of vehicles are exceeding the speed
limit, this was
the
case with the A12 site. If at least 20% of vehicles
are exceeding the
speed
limit is it not reasonable to expect at least 20% of
accidents involve
one
of these vehicles?"

An entirely unreasonable assumption i believe Andrew.
The basis for such an assumption would be...?
Exceeding the speed limit =20% of vehicles causing a
crash?
Thats not accurate in the least. I have a copy of an
article written by a Superintendent Sue Warren dated
20 may 04, titled "The Road Safety Toolbox" ill
include part of the relevant text here.

OCTOBER 2003 TO MARCH 2004 CHANGES FROM LAST MONTHS
REPORT
Primary Causes of collision Total KSI collisions % of
all KSI collisions Position in last report Change in %
collisions affected
Wrong course / positioning 27 11.7% 1st -0.9%
Too fast for prevailing conditions 22 9.5% 2nd -0.2%
Crossing road heedless of traffic 20 6.9% 5th +0.4%
No apparent cause 16 6.9% 3rd -0.4%
Alcohol / drugs 16 6.9% 6th +1.2%
Turning right injudiciously 14 6.1% 3rd -1.2%
Slippery road (Weather) Wet 11 4.8% 7th -0.1%
Misjudged distance from other vehicle 10 4.3% 7th
-0.6%
Exceeded speed limit 7 3.0% 9th -0.2%
Misjudged speed of other vehicle 7 3.0% - -
Grand Total 150

As you can see, exceeding a speed limit comes in at
9th in the causation factor listed, thats a mere 3%
and no place even close to 20%.

AH - Please refer to question 4 on page 14 of the attached link as it
gives
more information about the involvement of contributory factors in road
accidents
<a href="http://www.dft.gov.uk/stellent/groups/dft_rdsafety/documents/page/dft_rdsafe">www.dft.gov.uk/stellent/groups/dft_rdsafety/documents/page/dft_rdsafe</a>
ty_507638.pdf

Quote:" If a
site
is identified in which there is clear evidence in the
accident record
that
the collisions occurred at a speed below the speed
limit and/or that
excessive speed was not a factor, I agree with you
that a camera will
not
prevent these crashes. Sites of this type are not
promoted for camera
enforcement."

So we finally got the answer i was looking for, im
glad to see you agree with me on this point.
All we have to find out now is: Are the accidents on
the A12 a result of exceeding the limit/excessive
speed?
The investigators report suggested not, yet you seem
to suggest otherwise, can you say why you think either
the reports are incomplete or otherwise wrong?

Quote: "it is true that the behaviour adopted by a few
drivers whereby,
instead
of keeping within the speed limit, they reduce their
vehicle's speed
suddenly on the approach to a camera can and do create
a small number
of
accidents"

As you can see from Superintendent Sue Warrens
partially quoted document that i included earlier,
exceeding a speed limit is at most only responsible
for 3% of accidents; Bearing that in mind, Just what
is wrong with exceeding the speed limit, as long as
its safe and prudent to do so?

Quote:"However, it is at a level that is vastly
outweighed by the
accident savings obtained from using cameras"

Im a little disturbed by this part of your reply.
You seem to be suggesting that accidents that do occur
due to the cameras presence are of really little
consequence because of all the alleged "prevented
accidents" that the camera has supposedly produced.
Can you clarify that please?

AH - I did not suggest that accidents that may have occurred owing to
the
presence of a camera are of little consequence. Every accident would
involve personal injuries to at least one or more road users and
clearly I
do not feel they are of little consequence. What I said was the
number of
personal injury accidents recorded where the presence of a camera may
have
been a factor is at a very low level when compared to the savings
obtained
from the provision of camera enforcement. As you will be aware the
savings
produced by camera enforcement are contained in the DfT's evaluation
report
I have referred to previously.


Quote: "the point I was making about the 15% of
crashes that are reported to
a
police station is that excessive speed is even more
likely to be
under-reported. I doubt someone reporting an accident
in this way
would
admit to exceeding the speed limit."

Im not convinced by this part of your argument at all.

Itd be quite easy for a trained accident investigator
to determine whether an accident was caused by a
driver speeding or not. Skid mark lengths,position, or
"lack of" etc etc, regardless of a drivers
protestations to the contrary.

AH "I believe it is Essex Police practice not to send investigators to
the
scene of accidents reported at a police station".

Quote:"Hence, this is another reason why
other
factors are taken into account when identifying camera
sites."

Itd matter significantly if the accidents are directly
caused by speeding though, wouldnt it?
This is really your only *valid* justification for
placing a speed camera in any position at all isnt it? Regardless of
what
rules the dft allow or how you cut the cake, unless these accidents
were
directly attributable to speeding drivers then your reasons for siting
speed
cameras on the A12 are FALSE, they are FLAWED. They HAVE to be! I can
see
this quite clearly, so can others.

I have one final question before i close this email
for you.

How does a £60 fine and 3 penalty points in the post
two weeks after the "offence" contribute in any way to
road safety at the TIME the "offence" was comitted and
at its location?

I hope youll forgive me for being so long winded in
this reply Andrew but i felt it necessary to try to be
at least as thorough as your good self.
I look forward to your response.

Kind Regards DF.

After a bit of head scratching another one wends its way scamwise....:

Tue, 3 May 2005 07:02:51 -0700 (PDT)
From: "x" <deltaf> Add to Address Book
Subject: RE: Non speed related accidents and speed cameras
To: [e-mail]


Hi again Andrew, thanks for your quick response.

Andrew, you stated that im questioning the governments
criteria; I am not at all. Its is not the government
who decides where a speed camera is sited, it is
yourselves.
If the camera is sited to deal with non speed related
accidents, as it appears to be in the case of the A12,
then i cannot question the DFT,as theyre not
responsible, i have to question those who decided to
site it there to deal with a speed unrelated problem
in the first place.

Thank you for the DFT link to the pdf: ive seen it
before; Why do you think im still asking questions?
The answer is because it has little to offer im
afraid.

Regarding the accidents happening at speed camera
sites due to the siting of the camera:

Although not attributable to yourself personally, it
would seem that general policy is to ignore any
accidents caused by cameras and keep quiet about them
so as not to discredit the speed camera programme
itself.
Clearly this is an unacceptable situation.
If a camera has caused even one accident then people
should be made aware of it, do you not agree?
If as a result of siting cameras on the A12 (to
address the non speed related accidents) a death,
directly attributable to the speed camera should
occur, then what would be the partnerships position on
its claimed "lifesaving" function be?
Would it be removed or just allowed to stay put?

I noticed you failed to respond to my final question,
and can only assume you missed it, hidden as it was at
the bottom of the page, so ill re-ask here it if i
may:
How does a £60 fine and 3 penalty points in the post
two weeks after the "offence" contribute in any way to
road safety at the TIME the "offence" was comitted and
at its location?

I wish to thank you for your patience and for
responding to my requests, your answers thus far have
been "enlightening" to say the least.

Kind Regards DF

I didnt think he'd come back with anything at this point but he did although he's obviously flagging.....:

"Harris, Andrew R" <[e-mail]> Add to Address Book
To: "'x'" <deltaf>
Subject: RE: Non speed related accidents and speed cameras
Date: Tue, 3 May 2005 17:16:39 +0100


DF,

Not wishing to prolong the debate any further about the A12 site as I
have
made the Partnership's position clear and I respect your differing view
but
I thought I would point out, although it may be a mute point, that the
Partnership is not siting cameras on the A12 as you suggest. The
reality is
that one of the Partnership's mobile speed camera enforcement vehicles
will
be situated at regular intervals on the Kelvedon Road overbridge and
will be
enforcing the maximum speed limit for traffic travelling in the
Colchester
direction only. The opposing track did not meet the Government's
criteria.

You will also be aware that the Partnership will not be operating below
the
ACPO guideline speed of the speed limit + 10% + 2mph so only those
vehicles
travelling significantly above the speed limit will be detected.
However,
with the amount of publicity this site has attracted in the media the
Partnership hopes that no vehicles are detected.

With regard to your final question about the fine and points - it does
not,
but then neither does any punishment (e.g. drink driving, driving
without
due care, shop lifting, theft etc) - the punishment always follows a
certain period of time after an offence was committed but it is
intended to
act as a deterrent for the future. The effect on road safety is that
it is
anticipated that anyone detected and penalised for exceeding the speed
limit
by a significant amount will be more likely to change behaviour and
adhere
to speed limits in the future. Failure to do so could result in the
ultimate loss of a driving licence. This is where the road safety
benefit
will accrue.

Regards

Andrew Harris
PM
Essex SCP

As of now i havent put my parting shot over their bows as im still considering a suitable jugular to go for...i have a cunning plan tho...





































>>> Edited by deltafox on Tuesday 3rd May 22:49

>>> Edited by deltafox on Tuesday 3rd May 22:52

[puggit]

Good luck DeltaF, but I'm going to bed

[deltafox]

puggit said:

Good luck DeltaF, but I'm going to bed

Pmsl! No staying power...
Sleep tight.

[princeperch]

thats certainly dedication - credit to you

[viggen114]

andrew said:

but then neither does any punishment (e.g. drink driving, driving without due care, shop lifting, theft etc) - the punishment always follows a certain period of time after an offence was committed but it is intended to act as a deterrent for the future.

Well then, throw the PACE argument his way. If they stick to the guidelines as he says they do, then why not on speeding. All his examples require the attendance of an officer, the deterrent, the punishment follows sometime after due to a wait for a court date.



Why is the bottomline always

Andrew said:

ultimate loss of a driving licence. This is where the road safety benefit will accrue

what about the other 97% (you can calculate the percentage in whatsoever manner you choose) of accidents.

[Peter Ward]

Credit to the guy for continuing to respond to your emails. But I do wonder how he manages to sleep at night, offering as justification only "you can't say they're not caused by speed just because nobody said they were"!

[streaky]

Interesting correspondence, full of half-truths and evasions. A small criticism if I may; except when quoting a third party I would suggest you do not say "speed over the limit/excessive speed". The reference to "excessive speed" as a cause of accidents, vis: "The key conclusions in the Mosedale and Purdy study are that: the police recorded excessive speed as a contributory factor in 12% of all personal injury collisions." does not necessarily indicate that the speed was in excess of the posted limit. This is an important distinction. 5 mph could very well be 'excessive speed' when driving in fog and on ice while approaching an unknown hairpin bend with an unguarded drop on the outside.

Of course, the only way in which we will ever be able to debunk the justification for many (possibly most) scameras is to have access to the details of each accident, at least including the location, weather and road conditions, type of vehicles involved, estimated speed and direction of travel of each vehicle, whether the drivers knew the road, the police investigators' primary causation factor(s) and that the causes of death were directly attributable to the accident (to eliminate the "bus driver's heart attack caused the crash that killed his passengers" scenario).

Streaky

>> Edited by streaky on Wednesday 4th May 14:44

[deltafox]

Peter Ward said:

Credit to the guy for continuing to respond to your emails. But I do wonder how he manages to sleep at night, offering as justification only "you can't say they're not caused by speed just because nobody said they were"!

A point he also makes himself! Something i intend to go back to today..

Scamera manager said:

I assume from your correspondence that you are referring to the report in the East Anglian Daily Times last week, or a subsequent follow-up by another media organisation, in which it stated for a site the Essex Safety Camera Partnership (ESCP) will shortly be introducing on the A12 that "none of the officers' reports into the crashes listed 'excessive speed for conditions' as a factor". This fact is not disputed.

[deltafox]

So i sent this out as my final, lets hope it wakes him up!

Wed, 4 May 2005 01:18:17 -0700 (PDT)
From: "x" <deltaf> Add to Address Book
Subject: RE: Non speed related accidents and speed cameras
To: [e-mail]


Hi Andrew, Ive had a few thoughts since your last
email that could do with a little further
clarification.

In your first email you stated the following:

Quote:"I assume from your correspondence that you are
referring to the report
in
the East Anglian Daily Times last week, or a
subsequent follow-up by
another
media organisation, in which it stated for a site the
Essex Safety
Camera
Partnership (ESCP) will shortly be introducing on the
A12 that "none of
the
officers' reports into the crashes listed 'excessive
speed for
conditions'
as a factor". This fact is not disputed."

Youll notice the very last sentence says that
excessive speed for conditions wasnt a factor, its not
disputed by you.

A bit later on you appear to cast doubt on the
investigators reports though.

Quote "the officer concerned may
have
felt that "excessive speed" was not, in his or her
opinion, one of the
most
important factors but that does not mean it did not
occur."

You obviously believe otherwise even though you state
that you concur with the reporting officers
conclusions and even though you appear to have no
proof to back up such a belief.

Could you clafiry that point please?

You go on to state:
Quote:"It
also
needs to be borne in mind that some 15% of crashes are
reported to a
police
station by one of the parties involved and it is not
possible in many
cases
for the police to confirm or otherwise the accuracy of
the information
being
presented to them for the accident record."

That i agree may happen, but you cannot surely just
make up a case for an enforcement site based on
information you dont have as appears to be the case
here on the A12?
In the case of the A12, even you dont dispute that
excessive speed was the cause of the accidents, so i
cant see why a camera/camera van will have any
positive effect on the types of accidents (the non
speed related ones) occurring here.
I dont follow the logic im afraid.


In your last email you state:
Quote:"The
reality is
that one of the Partnership's mobile speed camera
enforcement vehicles
will
be situated at regular intervals on the Kelvedon Road
overbridge and
will be
enforcing the maximum speed limit for traffic
travelling in the
Colchester
direction only. The opposing track did not meet the
Government's
criteria."

Again, why? Its NOT addressing the problem! Its a knee
jerk reaction to make it appear that *something* is
being done to pacify those who "want to see something
done". The fact that its NOT going to prevent the
types of accidents we are concerned about seems to
escape your reasoning.
Let me put this to you.

If in the course of your enforcement activities on
Kelvedon Road overbridge a NON speed related accident
occurs *right in front* of the enforcement vehicle,
will you then :
A) Consider the enforcement a success.
B) Consider the enforcement a failure.
C) Consider a different and targetted strategy to deal
with the REAL cause.
D) Just ignore it and pretend it didnt happen.

In my opinion Speed camera partnerships are playing on
uninformed peoples misconceptions of danger, accident
causation, remedies to a problem and playing up the
supposed benefits of speed enforcement via speed
camera activities.
I will either prove to be wrong in the coming months
or vindicated by what ive written above, as will you.

Can you afford to continue to keep getting it SO very
very wrong? Because the victims of such a blantant
misuse of this kind of blinkered policy cannot. Theyre
dying because of incompetence, gross negligence in
addressing the REAL, NOT the perceived causes of
accidents and positive camera "spin".

Just one last thing. You stated that enforcement will
take place in the one direction only; does that mean
if someone is exceeding the limit the other way, say a
drugged or drunk driver, they wont be targetted?

Thanks for your time Andrew. You have been by far the
most responsive of Camera managers i have corresponded
with. However, given the tools you appear to have as
opposed to the problem youre trying to fix with them,
i wouldnt wish your job on anyone as its doomed to
failure based on what ive learned in our brief
exchanges.

Kind regards DF.

[Flat in Fifth]

Not had chance to fully wade through DeltaF "Letters from Essex" column.[1]

The bit that leapt out of Mr Atkinsglobal stuff was

"The officer has a limitation on the number of contributory factors that can be used in conjunction with any accident"

then he uses that to justify that just because excess speed wasn't recorded in the records, doesn't mean to say that it wasn't a cause.

Afaik up to 4 causation factors are reported, each with a confidence code suffix as to certainty this was a factor.

So 4 (Four) isn't enough then? Yes it is appreciated that collisions are very complicated events, but just hiding the facts behind bluster does not do anyone any favours.

For example, a partnership known to me includes a particular collision in its justifications. This is despite the plod evidence to the coroner including "the cause of the collision was in no way due to excess speed above or below the permitted limit."

FiF

[1] I'll read more of the Letters from Essex later. Do you think the beeb would be interested. That chap Alistair Cooke used to do something similar as I recall.

[Flat in Fifth]

Blood and stomach pills, just pasted all this lot into Word so can read more easily, 34 blooming pages, can't you sleep DeltaF????

[superflid]

Scamera arse said:

"It also needs to be borne in mind that some 15% of crashes are reported to a police station by one of the parties involved and it is not possible in many cases for the police to confirm or otherwise the accuracy of the information being presented to them for the accident record."

I thought that scamera positions were chosen by the number of KSI's, which would normally involve BiB at the scene, not minor bumps reported later by motorists.

Their rules

Keep it up Delta.



>> Edited by superflid on Wednesday 4th May 10:18

[Raify]

Jees, I'm a pedantic basrd !

After reading that huge debate, all that sticks in my mind is the spelling mistake from the Scameraship.

What is a mute point anyway?

[Flat in Fifth]

Raify said:

What is a mute point anyway?

Isn't when you forget to put a full stop at the end of a sentence.

I'm easily confused......

[thub]

A very important point they choose to keep silent?

[omitchell]

a point which he feels will be ignored, i think...

[Jewhoo]

Mate, that's awesome, keep up the good work

It's funny, isn't it (or should that be dangerous ), how they keep telling you in a variety of different ways that speeding cars cause accidents, even when it is clearly demonstrated to them that this is not the case!

Typical argument:

Speed kills people
No it doesn't
Yes it does
What about drink drivers?
Speed really kills people
What about drug drivers
Speed really does kill people, you know
What about over-age drivers?
If they kill, they must be speeding
What about under-limit accidents?
Caused by speeding, that's why cameras are there
Why do you put cameras where there are few crashes?
Speed kills people
Can you justify why you do that?
Speed really kills people......
AAAAARGH
Drive under the limit, you won't crash

[deltafox]

Flat in Fifth said:

Blood and stomach pills, just pasted all this lot into Word so can read more easily, 34 blooming pages, can't you sleep DeltaF????

I slept like a log last night matey!
Hopefully its THEY who wont get much sleep.

Regarding the other lot i was attempting to ensnare: Its all gone very quiet on their side when i asked how they got the van to the other side of the road without breaking traffic rule 108 (iirc).......and it was going so well from them...Ill post up the mails to and from (if you can stand it ) in a short time.

Get writing!

[WildCat]

Und - they are all clones - don't it read like Steviebabes ist moonlighting there....


Und all partook of same beans und lentil stew too... before responding to ya!

Und the same unanswered questions. evasions, drivel, und failure to read original und address each point logically...

Ist cloning.... ist invasion of body snatchers ... ist twilight zone.....

Or the terminally otherwise unemployable are all brainwashed before starting. Certainly pyschometric test if used - would be to determine the right person for job - und none appear to be out of top drawer here. Must be a specific criteria....

[off_again]

Is it me or does this "project manager" for the SCP not actually work for the SCP but Atkins Global?

So, they have a contractor on board doing their research and justification. Isnt that a conflict of interests? How much is this contactor / consultant making out of the SCP? Is it jobs for the boys?

For further info on Atkins see:

www.atkinsglobal.com/