Speed cameras removed in West Midlands
Discussion
From today's Times: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2-1665429,00.html
[quote=Times]Police remove ten speed cameras over safety fears
By Ben Webster, Transport Correspondent
A Police force is dismantling ten speed cameras and removing film from another 50 after the first official admission that badly positioned devices could undermine road safety.
West Midlands Police has found after a review of all its cameras that many fail to comply with strict government rules on where they can be located. The force is expected to be the first of many to remove devices after the Government ordered a national audit of Britain’s 6,000 speed cameras.
The cameras being removed in the West Midlands were installed before the rules on siting were tightened in 2000.
Three were found to break guidelines that cameras must be visible from at least 60m (200ft) away. Two were obscured by a bridge and one was hidden behind a road sign.
A spokesman for the West Midlands Casualty Reduction Partnership, which includes the police and seven local authorities, said that motorists had been braking suddenly after spotting the cameras too late.
“We recognise that there is a potential safety hazard from sudden braking if you can’t see the camera,” he said.
Several other cameras were removed because the road layout had changed or the highway authority had used some other method to slow vehicles. In two cases a dangerous crossroads had been replaced by a roundabout. In another, traffic lights had been installed on an open stretch of road.
The partnership spokesman said that West Midlands had also decided to switch off cameras at locations where there had been no injury in a traffic collision in three years.
Under the Department for Transport’s rules, cameras can be positioned on roads only where there have been at least four collisions involving death or serious injury within a one-kilometre stretch in the previous three years. Once the camera is installed, it can remain indefinitely even if there are no further collisions.
Camera supporters argue that this is sensible because collisions might occur again if the camera were removed. But West Midlands has decided that it cannot justify fining drivers when there have been no recent casualties.
The spokesman said that sites where there had been no collisions for four years would be reviewed to see whether the cameras could be removed. “We hope our approach will convince motorists that we only have cameras where there is a road safety problem,” he said.
Paul Smith, founder of anti-camera campaign Safe Speed, welcomed the initiative and called on other forces to copy it. “We hope this is the beginning of the end for cameras . . . Motorists have been fined more than £700 million since the early 1990s but the roads haven’t got safer.”
Meanwhile, several speed camera partnerships are being forced to delay plans to install hundreds more cameras because the Department for Transport has yet to approve them. Some of the partnerships suspect that the department is beginning to doubt the effectiveness of cameras. Last month the department commissioned a two-year research project to investigate claims that the fall in road casualties at camera sites was due more to the random nature of crashes than to drivers slowing.[/quote]
What I find "a little surprising" (not) is that 50 cameras will be left in place but without film. Without the stats that the Partnerships refuse to provide on accidents/NIPs per camera, we won't know which ones, will we? But even so, this does seem to suggest there's a change in the air. And it's good that Paul's got another quote without any T2k bods to offer any opposing view.
[quote=Times]Police remove ten speed cameras over safety fears
By Ben Webster, Transport Correspondent
A Police force is dismantling ten speed cameras and removing film from another 50 after the first official admission that badly positioned devices could undermine road safety.
West Midlands Police has found after a review of all its cameras that many fail to comply with strict government rules on where they can be located. The force is expected to be the first of many to remove devices after the Government ordered a national audit of Britain’s 6,000 speed cameras.
The cameras being removed in the West Midlands were installed before the rules on siting were tightened in 2000.
Three were found to break guidelines that cameras must be visible from at least 60m (200ft) away. Two were obscured by a bridge and one was hidden behind a road sign.
A spokesman for the West Midlands Casualty Reduction Partnership, which includes the police and seven local authorities, said that motorists had been braking suddenly after spotting the cameras too late.
“We recognise that there is a potential safety hazard from sudden braking if you can’t see the camera,” he said.
Several other cameras were removed because the road layout had changed or the highway authority had used some other method to slow vehicles. In two cases a dangerous crossroads had been replaced by a roundabout. In another, traffic lights had been installed on an open stretch of road.
The partnership spokesman said that West Midlands had also decided to switch off cameras at locations where there had been no injury in a traffic collision in three years.
Under the Department for Transport’s rules, cameras can be positioned on roads only where there have been at least four collisions involving death or serious injury within a one-kilometre stretch in the previous three years. Once the camera is installed, it can remain indefinitely even if there are no further collisions.
Camera supporters argue that this is sensible because collisions might occur again if the camera were removed. But West Midlands has decided that it cannot justify fining drivers when there have been no recent casualties.
The spokesman said that sites where there had been no collisions for four years would be reviewed to see whether the cameras could be removed. “We hope our approach will convince motorists that we only have cameras where there is a road safety problem,” he said.
Paul Smith, founder of anti-camera campaign Safe Speed, welcomed the initiative and called on other forces to copy it. “We hope this is the beginning of the end for cameras . . . Motorists have been fined more than £700 million since the early 1990s but the roads haven’t got safer.”
Meanwhile, several speed camera partnerships are being forced to delay plans to install hundreds more cameras because the Department for Transport has yet to approve them. Some of the partnerships suspect that the department is beginning to doubt the effectiveness of cameras. Last month the department commissioned a two-year research project to investigate claims that the fall in road casualties at camera sites was due more to the random nature of crashes than to drivers slowing.[/quote]
What I find "a little surprising" (not) is that 50 cameras will be left in place but without film. Without the stats that the Partnerships refuse to provide on accidents/NIPs per camera, we won't know which ones, will we? But even so, this does seem to suggest there's a change in the air. And it's good that Paul's got another quote without any T2k bods to offer any opposing view.
This is tremendous news. Not April the 1st again is it?
Next thing you know, someone will be saying radical stuff like improving driver training and having more traffic police on the roads will get the accident figures tumbling in the way they were prior to this "speed kills" nonsense.
Andy
Next thing you know, someone will be saying radical stuff like improving driver training and having more traffic police on the roads will get the accident figures tumbling in the way they were prior to this "speed kills" nonsense.
Andy
los angeles said:
Over here the state police leave dummy cop cars at strategic places in the countryside, and sometimes, fibreglass motorbike cops perched on their bikes, goggles and all, at the side of freeways to fool you into watching your speed. I presume the real guys are in a local diner enjoying coffee and a Dunkin' Donut.
That was tried this side of the pond a few years back - cardboard cutouts of BiB strategically placed.
IIRC it worked quite well but IMO its something you can only do from time to time as familiarity breeds contempt...
Excellent stuff. More ammunition to fire at the SCP wasters in my force.
Incidentally, does anyone know where you can get those wind-up signs about cameras? You know the ones with the speed camera logo with something like "Government Cash Machines" etc...
The SCP in my force has started trying to pretend they have a use in the fight against crime, just because they've managed to catch a handful of scrotes on their cameras. I need to stick an appropriate sign on these posters!
Incidentally, does anyone know where you can get those wind-up signs about cameras? You know the ones with the speed camera logo with something like "Government Cash Machines" etc...
The SCP in my force has started trying to pretend they have a use in the fight against crime, just because they've managed to catch a handful of scrotes on their cameras. I need to stick an appropriate sign on these posters!
Does this mean that Jamieson lied to parliament? 
xxplod - you'll find some at www.abd.org.uk, there's a link 'just for laughs' or something
xxplod - you'll find some at www.abd.org.uk, there's a link 'just for laughs' or something
"Incidentally, does anyone know where you can get those wind-up signs about cameras? You know the ones with the speed camera logo with something like "Government Cash Machines" etc... "
www.abd.org.uk/speed_camera_signs.htm
www.abd.org.uk/speed_camera_signs.htm
xxplod said:
Excellent stuff. More ammunition to fire at the SCP wasters in my force.
Incidentally, does anyone know where you can get those wind-up signs about cameras? You know the ones with the speed camera logo with something like "Government Cash Machines" etc...
The SCP in my force has started trying to pretend they have a use in the fight against crime, just because they've managed to catch a handful of scrotes on their cameras. I need to stick an appropriate sign on these posters!
A little trip the ABD website will have you sorted, DIY print your own off page or something.
I'd like one that says "£afety £ameras?"
Sorry to bang on about this folks, but I feel this is important enough to draw attention to this whenever possible.
Yes, but even this report did not include effects from…….
article said:
Last month the department commissioned a two-year research project to investigate claims that the fall in road casualties at camera sites was due more to the random nature of crashes than to drivers slowing
Yes, but even this report did not include effects from…….
article said:Speed cameras always get full credit for reducing accidents, even though the other new safety features are actually responsible; the effects of the latter are never factored in or documented.
Several other cameras were removed because the road layout had changed or the highway authority had used some other method to slow vehicles. In two cases a dangerous crossroads had been replaced by a roundabout. In another, traffic lights had been installed on an open stretch of road.
Also,
However, drivers will continue to panic brake when spotting them, thereby still causing accidents. This will be justification enough for the partnerships to turn them back on again.
So while switching off cameras seems like good news, it’s actually a fiendishly clever investment by the partnerships in favour of themselves. How devious is that?
article said:But.....
A spokesman for the West Midlands Casualty Reduction Partnership, which includes the police and seven local authorities, said that motorists had been braking suddenly after spotting the cameras too late.
article said:So they are gonna switch off the cameras – hurrah!
The partnership spokesman said that West Midlands had also decided to switch off cameras at locations where there had been no injury in a traffic collision in three years.
However, drivers will continue to panic brake when spotting them, thereby still causing accidents. This will be justification enough for the partnerships to turn them back on again.
So while switching off cameras seems like good news, it’s actually a fiendishly clever investment by the partnerships in favour of themselves. How devious is that?
xxplod said:
Excellent stuff. More ammunition to fire at the SCP wasters in my force.
Incidentally, does anyone know where you can get those wind-up signs about cameras? You know the ones with the speed camera logo with something like "Government Cash Machines" etc...
The SCP in my force has started trying to pretend they have a use in the fight against crime, just because they've managed to catch a handful of scrotes on their cameras. I need to stick an appropriate sign on these posters!
the ABD website I think ; you can print them out from the web page & laminate them.
xxplod said:
Excellent stuff. More ammunition to fire at the SCP wasters in my force.
You might like to point them at the case of Michelle Gunshon.
Her car was snapped twice by cameras shortly after she went missing. Car later found with her blood. Driver, male, not identifiable. A name bandied about in connection with was someone staying at same pub who also went missing, but the cameras were no use whatsoever.
xxplod said:
Excellent stuff. More ammunition to fire at the SCP wasters in my force.
Incidentally, does anyone know where you can get those wind-up signs about cameras? You know the ones with the speed camera logo with something like "Government Cash Machines" etc...
The SCP in my force has started trying to pretend they have a use in the fight against crime, just because they've managed to catch a handful of scrotes on their cameras. I need to stick an appropriate sign on these posters!
Not heard a plod talk about the SCP's like this before, maybe I've just not read the right threads. Not taking the pi*s are you ?
Adam Warwick said:
Safety Cameras: Experiences from an English Partnership
Presentation for SRSF October 2003
Speed cameras, as many motorists will know, are not a new phenomenon. They were introduced to the UK in 1992 as a measure for identifying speeding motorists along major road networks.Deltafox said:. The original cameras were covert, as too were the mobile camera units, and the operation was run solely by the Police services with a view to identifying and prosecuting speeders.
And here i was thinking they were for safety purposes..."we dont want to catch you...etc etc
In 1999 the Association of Chief Police Officers (ACPO) invited Police Forces to submit letters of interest in the Cost Recovery Scheme.
Forces were invited to form partnerships and submit a formal bid to take part in a pilot scheme aimed at developing a camera site selection and deployment strategy with the express purpose of tackling collisions resulting from speeders or red light jumpers.
Partnerships were to consist of Highway Authorities, Police, and Magistrates Courts. The Crown Prosecution Service and Health Authorities were also encouraged to become involved.Deltafox said:
And so the greedy partnerships as we know them today were born.
The fundamentals of this process are that the fine monies paid by speeders and red light offenders are "netted off" and returned to the respective Partnership to pay for all the operational costs incurred. This includes purchase of new equipment, personnel, education, publicity, and a whole host of other activities specifically aimed at reducing the number of casualties on our roads. In short, fine money is reinvested into improving road safety.
Deltafox said:
Subsequently proven to have been entirely an ineffective scheme,with deaths and injuries UP everywhere and alienating swathes of drivers against the police. Good job guys!
Initial research carried out in the pilot schemes suggested that the Partnership areas saw, on average, a decrease in casualties being killed or seriously injured (KSI) at camera locations of 35%1. The success of the cost recovery scheme in these areas resulted in an invitation being made to other areas to join the second-phase inauguration of Partnerships.
Deltafox said:
Not quite that straightforward Mr Warwick as evidenced in the camera site being debated in this thread.
The West Midlands Experience
In October 2002 a group of ten agencies submitted their Operational Case for the cost recovery scheme. The agencies included the seven Local Authorities within the region, West Midlands Police, the Highways Agency and the Magistrates Court Committee. These agencies constitute the West Midlands Casualty Reduction Partnership (WMCRP).
The West Midlands is a unique proposition; we have 7150km of road, with more than 1 million people trying to get to work everyday, coupled with more than 500,000 commuters and 500,000 children trying to get to school2. Unlike London, by far the most favored method of travel is the car, accounting for up to 70%3 of travel-to-work journeys.
Last year more than 13,0004 people were killed or injured on our roads— that's one person every hour of every day. The Partnerships primary aim is to reduce the number of KSI on our roads by at least 300 over the next five years. Our strategy is based on the "three E's"— Engineering, Enforcement and Education. Camera enforcement provides the catalyst for education and publicity, which will ultimately lead to a change in driver behaviour towards the use of more appropriate speeds.
The Operation
The WMCRP is adopting a "private sector" approach to its work. To this end the operation is based on research:
Camera deployment is based on a "red, amber, green" strategy, whereby the sites suffering highest KSI figures, red sites, receive most enforcement.
We have carried out research into the effectiveness of empty camera housings, "dummy" flash, and fully operational cameras.
Choice of equipment, personnel and operational development is based on evidence and research from other Partnerships.
Publicity and Education
The WMCRP recognize both the need to gain public understanding and support for the project, and also the need to educate motorists to the dangers of speeding. Consequently the Partnership has invested in several initiatives:
Public research into the effectiveness of cameras and signage.
Statistical research into the most "at risk" road users, both those being fined for speeding and those being injured and killed on the road5.
A significant market research project into the effectiveness of campaign materials on our target markets, and guidance on possible future campaigns6.
Our unique position as a regional, if not national, transport hub poses significant problems in that, while we have a large indigenous motoring population, there is also a significant commuter belt that stretches many kilometers beyond our borders. A key problem is how to reach everybody:
The WMCRP, along with seven other Partnerships, make up the Midlands regional area7. We are combining resources in order to carry out a large-scale marketing campaign, which is the first of its kind in England, in terms of size and structure. We are carrying out a large pre-campaign research project, which will drive the development of TV, radio and supportive materials. We are also carrying out post-market research to gauge the effectiveness of the campaign. If this "pilot" is successful it could be used as a template for joint ventures in other regions.
The WMCRP is also one of the first Partnerships to employ exclusively committed Education Officers8, whose specific remit is to go into community groups, driver associations, local businesses and schools, to provide guidance, support and develop training programmes specifically aimed at improving driver awareness as to the dangers of speed.
Summary
The use of safety cameras should be viewed in a two-tier strategy; reducing casualties, and promoting road safety.(-DF-My emphasis added) The presence of the camera itself acts as a beacon to road users that other people have been injured or killed along that stretch of road as a result of speed.
Deltafox said:
So how does the above camera relate to these accidents caused AFTER the camera was installed? Would you say that speed was the problem, the camera, or something else???
Cameras persuade drivers to obey the speed limit by penalizing them, thereby minimizing the chance of further speed-related collisions.Deltafox said:
Proven NOT to be the case as evidenced by the constant rise in fines/drivers being caught. More fines =more drivers being penalised. Less fines = less drivers speeding/being caught.
However, the camera itself can also be viewed as a catalyst, which enables the Partnership to provide education and community support for improved safety on the roads.
Publicity and particularly education are the key areas if we are to ultimately have a positive effect on driver behaviour but these are often seen as secondary to the camera itself. If Partnerships can pool resources and work collectively towards casualty reduction, we can begin to make real inroads into improving our roads for all people.
Adam Warwick
Communications & Support Officer
West Midlands Casualty Reduction Partnership
10th Floor Operations
Lloyd House
Colmore Circus Queensway
BIRMINGHAM
B4 6NQ
(t) 0121 626 5232
(f) 0121 626 5013
(m) 07909 872 864
(e) wmsafetycameras@west-midlands.police.uk
(w) www.wmsafetycameras.co.uk
>> Edited by deltafox on Saturday 25th June 10:15
busa_rush said:
Excellent stuff. More ammunition to fire at the SCP wasters in my force.
Incidentally, does anyone know where you can get those wind-up signs about cameras? You know the ones with the speed camera logo with something like "Government Cash Machines" etc...
The SCP in my force has started trying to pretend they have a use in the fight against crime, just because they've managed to catch a handful of scrotes on their cameras. I need to stick an appropriate sign on these posters!
I'd be quite surprised if the BiB are really pro Scamera in general. If for no other reason that it's attacking the skills of their job. Scameras replace Trafpol, PSCOs replace BiB, and wasn't there some sort of warden plan announced by f**kwitsoc recently ?
Not heard a plod talk about the SCP's like this before, maybe I've just not read the right threads. Not taking the pi*s are you ?
I am not entirely anti-camera. They do have a place in enforcement in certain circumstances. I am against the SCPs for a number of reasons.
1. Fundamentally they rely upon motorists being law-abiding people, who fill in their NIPs and pay their £60. The underclass of motorists who drive "pool cars" uninsured, unlicensed/disqualified, drunk/drugged, who have been shown to cause a hugely disproportionate number of accidents simply laugh at cameras.
2. The SCPs return their profit to the treasury. This means that Police Oficers are directly assisitng in raising money for the treasury, which in simply wrong. If the money raised could be spent on e.g. driver education programmes or other local priorities I would be far happier.
Overall, the SCPs will always trot out drivel such as if nobody broke the speed limit then we'd no longer exists etc... This is nonsense. A colleague of mine who is a traffic officer received an NIP for doing 70mph in a 60 mph zone. Last year my wife recieved an NIP for 70 mph on a quiet dual carriageway which had had its limit reduced to 60 mph.
This has little to do with safety and everything to do with revenue generation.
Of the three E's which underpin roads policing, Education, Engineering and Enforcement, far too little is spent on the first two. I would like to see motorists would break limits by a lower margin, being offered a days course (paid for instead of the fine) about speed awareness. This would boost public confidence in the work of the SCPs and would do far more to reduce casualties.
I could rattle on, but as far as BiBs go, the majority hate the SCPs as much as anybody else.
1. Fundamentally they rely upon motorists being law-abiding people, who fill in their NIPs and pay their £60. The underclass of motorists who drive "pool cars" uninsured, unlicensed/disqualified, drunk/drugged, who have been shown to cause a hugely disproportionate number of accidents simply laugh at cameras.
2. The SCPs return their profit to the treasury. This means that Police Oficers are directly assisitng in raising money for the treasury, which in simply wrong. If the money raised could be spent on e.g. driver education programmes or other local priorities I would be far happier.
Overall, the SCPs will always trot out drivel such as if nobody broke the speed limit then we'd no longer exists etc... This is nonsense. A colleague of mine who is a traffic officer received an NIP for doing 70mph in a 60 mph zone. Last year my wife recieved an NIP for 70 mph on a quiet dual carriageway which had had its limit reduced to 60 mph.
This has little to do with safety and everything to do with revenue generation.
Of the three E's which underpin roads policing, Education, Engineering and Enforcement, far too little is spent on the first two. I would like to see motorists would break limits by a lower margin, being offered a days course (paid for instead of the fine) about speed awareness. This would boost public confidence in the work of the SCPs and would do far more to reduce casualties.
I could rattle on, but as far as BiBs go, the majority hate the SCPs as much as anybody else.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff