RE: Government blocks new Gatsos
Friday 15th July 2005
Not as effective as is claimed?The Government is blocking the installation of some 500 new speed cameras, as signs that their effectiveness is doubted starts to emerge. Among the questions being asked is whether the speed camera bodies properly considered alternatives to cameras, such as remodelling road junctions or putting up warning signs.
Government blocks new Gatsos
Doubts emerge about scameras' safety effectiveness
Not as effective as is claimed?
According to a report in today's Times, camera partnerships, which involve the police and local governments, have been told to install no new cameras. The policy review is being overseen by Transport Minister Stephen Ladyman, who has allegedly been snapped several times by speed cameras, and at one point was a nine-point offender.
The reports suggests that the erection of cameras has in many cases been prompted by the concern of staff working for speed camera partnerships to ensure their own salaries were paid. As a result, the Department of Transport's concern is that the stats may have been twisted in order to produce the right results -- something that Safe Speed campaigner Paul Smith highlighted in yesterday's story about the M4 motorway's cameras not causing crashes.
Smith is reported to have said that he was "delighted that the department appears to be realising that it has used bogus statistics to justify more cameras.”
Links
- Discussion is ongoing here
- Related story
Discussion
Alleluja!
And now rise speed limits to 90 mph where it is sensible
move speed cameras where they are REALLY needed (schools and hospitals)
clean up the roads from speedbumps, obstacles to make traffic FLOW (yes FLOW!). Keeping cars more on the road rise only the chances of an accident creating more congestion and unnecessary risk, damages and aggro
take care of the road properly with new paving where needed
re-adjust traffic lights timing in a sensible way
make London more car friendly after the terrorist attacks
bring to account those camera "partnerships" and those responsible for placing cameras in location for economic purpose only
bring to account those politicians and civil servants that have ARTIFICIALLY make a misery driving for no good reason whatsoever
cancel bus lanes once and for all
praise those cops who patrol the roads in those areas with NO speed cameras
REWARDS motorists for keeping a clean licence and push with insurance companies to further reduce premiums for GOOD DRIVERS. It is only fair
A67
And now rise speed limits to 90 mph where it is sensible
move speed cameras where they are REALLY needed (schools and hospitals)
clean up the roads from speedbumps, obstacles to make traffic FLOW (yes FLOW!). Keeping cars more on the road rise only the chances of an accident creating more congestion and unnecessary risk, damages and aggro
take care of the road properly with new paving where needed
re-adjust traffic lights timing in a sensible way
make London more car friendly after the terrorist attacks
bring to account those camera "partnerships" and those responsible for placing cameras in location for economic purpose only
bring to account those politicians and civil servants that have ARTIFICIALLY make a misery driving for no good reason whatsoever
cancel bus lanes once and for all
praise those cops who patrol the roads in those areas with NO speed cameras
REWARDS motorists for keeping a clean licence and push with insurance companies to further reduce premiums for GOOD DRIVERS. It is only fair
A67
Found this related link on the Times page...
It appears that the Pratnerships have been manipulating their statistics. Well I didn't see that coming!
Original Times story for this thread here
Ministers looking into regression to the mean here
Well done Paul Smith
It appears that the Pratnerships have been manipulating their statistics. Well I didn't see that coming!
Original Times story for this thread here
Ministers looking into regression to the mean here
Times said:
Flawed safety claims checked
By Ben Webster
MINISTERS have ordered a study into the validity of claims that speed cameras reduce deaths and serious injuries by 40 per cent. The Department for Transport has used research showing a sharp decline in casualties at camera sites to justify the rise in fines.
But officials now admit privately that the fall may be simply the normal recovery that would be expected after a peak in crashes known as “regression to the mean”. Cameras can be installed only where there have been a spate of serious crashes. Under the law of averages, it is unlikely that the number of crashes would continue at the same rate.
Mervyn Stone, Emeritus Professor of statistics at University College London, said: “I am deeply sceptical of the data that has been concocted to support the increase in cameras.”
He said that the best method of assessing the impact of cameras would be to select two dangerous roads and install cameras on one but not on the other. But families of people killed by speeding drivers on roads without cameras might sue.
Well done Paul Smith
Let's not wet ourselves with excitement just yet. Knowing governments, this could just be a red herring to make us think they are listening when in actual fact they are going to go the other way in 6 months time. Remember...
Until Scameraship behaviour is properly monitored it won't make much difference anyway.
Cheshire Scam manager said:
We have now decided to use cameras there anyway because we just can’t wait any longer.
Until Scameraship behaviour is properly monitored it won't make much difference anyway.
At last.
What? They can't wait any longer? If the road is that dangerous, why not have police patrolling more? A Trafpol sat on that road would be 100x more effective at sorting the problems.
Were they ALL speed related? Would a camera really help, or would it just catch lots of 45mph in 40mph type people causing no hazard whatsoever, but making a lot of money for the scameraships?
While the odd driver doing something silly or going at totally inappropriate speeds would still probably have an accident, just not near the camera...
Or why not re-engineer the road if it's that dangerous? Surely a camera doesn't solve the inherent problem with the road...
It's funny to see the ACPO and Partnerships squirming now. Their self-justified money grabbing lies are coming back to haunt them now!
Dave
>> Edited by Mr Whippy on Friday 15th July 11:44
Times Online said:
Three people died recently in two collisions on a road in Cheshire which had already had enough crashes to qualify for a camera. Lee Murphy, manager of the Cheshire partnership, said that the deaths had happened in May, six months after he had applied to the department for permission to begin mobile camera enforcement. “We were still waiting for a response when the accidents happened. We have now decided to use cameras there anyway because we just can’t wait any longer.”
What? They can't wait any longer? If the road is that dangerous, why not have police patrolling more? A Trafpol sat on that road would be 100x more effective at sorting the problems.
Were they ALL speed related? Would a camera really help, or would it just catch lots of 45mph in 40mph type people causing no hazard whatsoever, but making a lot of money for the scameraships?
While the odd driver doing something silly or going at totally inappropriate speeds would still probably have an accident, just not near the camera...
Or why not re-engineer the road if it's that dangerous? Surely a camera doesn't solve the inherent problem with the road...
It's funny to see the ACPO and Partnerships squirming now. Their self-justified money grabbing lies are coming back to haunt them now!
Dave
>> Edited by Mr Whippy on Friday 15th July 11:44
This would explaion the sudden rash of new cameras in my area then - get in before the 6 month moratorium restricts cash flow for the year.
Presumably relocation of a unit to a slightly different location nearby with better revenue generation potential would not be covered by the delay!
Presumably relocation of a unit to a slightly different location nearby with better revenue generation potential would not be covered by the delay!
I live close to the Cheshire road in question and would agree that it is re-engineering, not cameras that would make the difference. It's a dual carriageway going down a steep hill and at the bottom it narrows to one lane and there is a crossroads. I assume they didn't put traffic lights or a roundabout because they would be brake-testing lorries that had come down the hill (that could end it tears) - what it really needs is to be a flyover with slip roads, but that was oviously too expensive for them. Someone has paid though...
A cautious cheer.
"...The reports suggests that the erection of cameras has in many cases been prompted by the concern of staff working for speed camera partnerships to ensure their own salaries were paid..."
Surely not.
P.S. comments please from recent "new" contributors telling us that "speed kills". Come on. Where are you?
"...The reports suggests that the erection of cameras has in many cases been prompted by the concern of staff working for speed camera partnerships to ensure their own salaries were paid..."
Surely not.
P.S. comments please from recent "new" contributors telling us that "speed kills". Come on. Where are you?
I think with £40,000,000,000 coming from road users pockets every year, we should at least get re-engineered roads in accident blackspots BEFORE any other measure.
Even then, scamera partnerships don't seem to like the 5 years each side rule, preferring to do a 3 months each side rule with cherry picked and manipulated data
We really get ripped off don't we. And they wonder why road deaths are not falling significantly over many years!
Dave
Even then, scamera partnerships don't seem to like the 5 years each side rule, preferring to do a 3 months each side rule with cherry picked and manipulated data
We really get ripped off don't we. And they wonder why road deaths are not falling significantly over many years!
Dave
why protect staff in the scamera parternships?
No more income? Sorry, lose your nice job at last!
what about Rover or Clark's? Those were real jobs and now even the last factory making these great British shoes is relocating to some emerging market... and all the workers here are fired.
Should we protect scamera parasites that do not provide real added value to the economy or genuine private workers that pay their taxes and make Britain really proud?
Shame on these politicians, shame on them
A67
No more income? Sorry, lose your nice job at last!
what about Rover or Clark's? Those were real jobs and now even the last factory making these great British shoes is relocating to some emerging market... and all the workers here are fired.
Should we protect scamera parasites that do not provide real added value to the economy or genuine private workers that pay their taxes and make Britain really proud?
Shame on these politicians, shame on them
A67
You can add to the Times debate here:
www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,564-1695386,00.html
BUT!!! strongly recommend only sensible and well considered entries... ranting and obsenities will act against...
www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,564-1695386,00.html
BUT!!! strongly recommend only sensible and well considered entries... ranting and obsenities will act against...
Why not pay partnerships on the basis of reduction of deaths and serious injuries?
Of course deaths and serious injuries would need to be counted separately to avoid some of the data manipulation for which these organisations are rightly infamous.
Better still, abolish them and have more Police instead.
Of course deaths and serious injuries would need to be counted separately to avoid some of the data manipulation for which these organisations are rightly infamous.
Better still, abolish them and have more Police instead.
You must all realise that this has got NOTHING to do with trying to rationalise the use of Scameras, or the fact that they are not an effective road safety device and everything to do with the political perception that they are not popular and that a hell of alot more people like and drive their cars than support vociferous minority car hating pressure/lobby groups! (phew)
This is political instinct kicking in, not actual rational thought. The answers to improved road safety and rational (and possibly condition variable) speed limits are as far away as usual.
This is political instinct kicking in, not actual rational thought. The answers to improved road safety and rational (and possibly condition variable) speed limits are as far away as usual.
This whole farce arises because the partnerships are financed by the fines they collect. It creates just a teensy weensy little conflict of interest. Wouldn't be surprised if the original ingenious plan was drawn up by a bunch of management consultants just out of their nappies.
Markets forces and competition are excellent motivators to get people off their arses. It's a nice balance of carrot and stick.
In the public sector you have to provide an artificial structure to try to achieve the same thing. Clearly it is both necessary and very difficult. Fortunately UK Plc is constantly trying different methods and we therefore have an ever growing list of how not to do it ... viz inappropriate performace targets that lead docotors and teachers to become professional target achievers rather than effective doctors and teachers, published performace measures that confuse and mislead the public, bullshit pseudo market forces that don't replicate real competition and just create bureaucracy ... PPP, Railtrack, SCPs.
To hell with these attempts at objective performance measurements. You need to assess performance by taking a big picture view based on experience and common sense. The Audit Commission do a pretty good job working along those sorts of lines and I wish they were used as a model for auditing other State activities. If the State needs to do something, make it the responsibility of a Departement with a Minister at the top, not some unaccountable pseudo-independent quango or agency. Accept the frightening truth that you are asking civil servants to achieve something. Assess them on their performace and give the auditors some teeth ... let them dish out punishments and rewards sufficient to motivate people.
Markets forces and competition are excellent motivators to get people off their arses. It's a nice balance of carrot and stick.
In the public sector you have to provide an artificial structure to try to achieve the same thing. Clearly it is both necessary and very difficult. Fortunately UK Plc is constantly trying different methods and we therefore have an ever growing list of how not to do it ... viz inappropriate performace targets that lead docotors and teachers to become professional target achievers rather than effective doctors and teachers, published performace measures that confuse and mislead the public, bullshit pseudo market forces that don't replicate real competition and just create bureaucracy ... PPP, Railtrack, SCPs.
To hell with these attempts at objective performance measurements. You need to assess performance by taking a big picture view based on experience and common sense. The Audit Commission do a pretty good job working along those sorts of lines and I wish they were used as a model for auditing other State activities. If the State needs to do something, make it the responsibility of a Departement with a Minister at the top, not some unaccountable pseudo-independent quango or agency. Accept the frightening truth that you are asking civil servants to achieve something. Assess them on their performace and give the auditors some teeth ... let them dish out punishments and rewards sufficient to motivate people.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff