Response from "safety camera" site.
Discussion
After sending them an email, i got back this interesting response, well i think its interesting....
Many thanks for your recent email.
Safety cameras do not detect innocent motorists, only offenders. Home
Office
studies show that serious traffic offenders can often be serious
criminal
offenders as well. Because of this, the Partnership pays for two
full-time
police officers to follow up on instances where motorists do not pay
their
speeding fines. These are additional resources, which do not detract
from
normal policing duties. The enquiries they make, instigated by camera
activations, have identified vehicle thieves, uncovered forged
documents and
helped to identify those involved in crime, including disqualified
drivers.
This is, of course, in addition to the cameras' role in reducing road
casualties and crashes.
The cameras are not an 'easy way to raise money'. The Partnership is
not
interested in catching drivers speeding, we just want them to stop
speeding.
If you are a careful driver, you care about your own personal safety,
as
well as that of others, and therefore adhere to the speed limit, you
will
not fund this initiative and you will have nothing to worry about. Only
drivers breaking the law by speeding will pay, and for them the
solution is
easy - stick to the speed limit.
Safety cameras are placed where they will reduce casualties and help
save
lives, not where they might generate revenue. Strict Government rules
state
that we can only site cameras on roads with a history of speed-related
crashes in which people have been killed or seriously injured. But
safety
cameras are part of much wider casualty reduction activities carried
out to
reduce vehicle speeds. When considering appropriate measures, planners
will
always assess whether engineering methods or improved signing are
likely to
be effective in the first instance.
The term 'safety camera' is used to encompass both speed and traffic
signal
enforcement cameras. There is significant evidence that they have a
highly
beneficial effect on road safety. On 11 February 2003, the DfT
announced
that deaths and serious injuries have fallen by 35% on roads where
safety
cameras have been in operation.
These findings come from an independent report (commissioned by the
Department for Transport) of the two-year pilot scheme where eight
areas
(Cleveland, Essex, Lincolnshire, Northamptonshire, Nottingham, South
Wales,
Strathclyde and Thames Valley) were allowed to re-invest some of the
money
from speeding fines into the installation of more cameras and increased
camera use (essentially what we are now doing in Kent too).
The report found that:
* There was a 35% reduction in people killed or seriously injured at
camera
sites, compared to long-term trend. This equates to about 280 people.
* There was a 14% reduction in personal injury accidents at camera
sites,
equating to about 510 fewer accidents.
* There was a 56% reduction in the number of pedestrians being killed
or
seriously injured at camera sites.
* There were 4% fewer people killed or seriously injured across the
pilot
areas. * This equates to about 530 fewer people killed or seriously
injured.
The Kent & Medway Safety Camera Partnership's telephone survey was
conducted
in November 2002 across Kent in Ashford, Shepway, Canterbury, Thanet,
Dover,
Swale, Medway, Maidstone, Sevenoaks, Gravesham, Dartford, Tunbridge
Wells
and Tonbridge & Malling. The number of interviews per area was
proportionate
to that area's percentage of the total Kent population. The sample
comprised
1,000 Kent residents aged 17+, non of whom rode a motorcycle as their
main
mode of transport as they were the subject of another survey. Those
interviewed included a mix of drivers and non-drivers (77.3% said they
drove
regularly). The respondents broadly reflected the Kent population with
47.7%
(477 respondents) being male and 52.3% (523 respondents) being female.
Some
76.5% (765 respondents) lived in towns or cities; the remaining 23.5%
(235
respondents) lived in villages or remote rural locations. In terms of
age,
the sample divided as follows: 11.7% (117 respondents) were aged 17-24;
34%
(340 respondents) were aged 25-44; 33% (330 respondents) were aged
45-65;
21.1% (211 respondents) were aged 65+. Just 0.2% (2 respondents)
refused to
disclose their age bracket.
Our campaign aims to encourage drivers to drive at speeds appropriate
to the
road and traffic conditions. In the example you quote even 15mph may
have
been too fast for the prevailing circumstances. There is no safe limit
- we
ask drivers to travel at appropriate speeds.
As stated by TRL, not only was speed an identified factor in a
substantial
proportion (15%) of accidents considered in TRL Report 323, but speed
also
increases the impact of many of the other factors that contribute to
accidents, so the overall contribution of inappropriate speed is very
much
larger. The TRL article also explains that there is a substantial body
of
direct evidence relating speed to accidents (as presented in TRL
Reports
421, 511, 215, 452). The point is that there is clear evidence that
reducing speeds will result in a marked reduction in accidents and save
a
large number of lives. That is the fundamental message that we are
giving.
I hope this answers your questions but please don't hesitate to contact
me
if you have any further queries.
With best wishes,
LORRAINE COLLINS
Communications Officer
Kent & Medway Safety Camera Partnership
Many thanks for your recent email.
Safety cameras do not detect innocent motorists, only offenders. Home
Office
studies show that serious traffic offenders can often be serious
criminal
offenders as well. Because of this, the Partnership pays for two
full-time
police officers to follow up on instances where motorists do not pay
their
speeding fines. These are additional resources, which do not detract
from
normal policing duties. The enquiries they make, instigated by camera
activations, have identified vehicle thieves, uncovered forged
documents and
helped to identify those involved in crime, including disqualified
drivers.
This is, of course, in addition to the cameras' role in reducing road
casualties and crashes.
The cameras are not an 'easy way to raise money'. The Partnership is
not
interested in catching drivers speeding, we just want them to stop
speeding.
If you are a careful driver, you care about your own personal safety,
as
well as that of others, and therefore adhere to the speed limit, you
will
not fund this initiative and you will have nothing to worry about. Only
drivers breaking the law by speeding will pay, and for them the
solution is
easy - stick to the speed limit.
Safety cameras are placed where they will reduce casualties and help
save
lives, not where they might generate revenue. Strict Government rules
state
that we can only site cameras on roads with a history of speed-related
crashes in which people have been killed or seriously injured. But
safety
cameras are part of much wider casualty reduction activities carried
out to
reduce vehicle speeds. When considering appropriate measures, planners
will
always assess whether engineering methods or improved signing are
likely to
be effective in the first instance.
The term 'safety camera' is used to encompass both speed and traffic
signal
enforcement cameras. There is significant evidence that they have a
highly
beneficial effect on road safety. On 11 February 2003, the DfT
announced
that deaths and serious injuries have fallen by 35% on roads where
safety
cameras have been in operation.
These findings come from an independent report (commissioned by the
Department for Transport) of the two-year pilot scheme where eight
areas
(Cleveland, Essex, Lincolnshire, Northamptonshire, Nottingham, South
Wales,
Strathclyde and Thames Valley) were allowed to re-invest some of the
money
from speeding fines into the installation of more cameras and increased
camera use (essentially what we are now doing in Kent too).
The report found that:
* There was a 35% reduction in people killed or seriously injured at
camera
sites, compared to long-term trend. This equates to about 280 people.
* There was a 14% reduction in personal injury accidents at camera
sites,
equating to about 510 fewer accidents.
* There was a 56% reduction in the number of pedestrians being killed
or
seriously injured at camera sites.
* There were 4% fewer people killed or seriously injured across the
pilot
areas. * This equates to about 530 fewer people killed or seriously
injured.
The Kent & Medway Safety Camera Partnership's telephone survey was
conducted
in November 2002 across Kent in Ashford, Shepway, Canterbury, Thanet,
Dover,
Swale, Medway, Maidstone, Sevenoaks, Gravesham, Dartford, Tunbridge
Wells
and Tonbridge & Malling. The number of interviews per area was
proportionate
to that area's percentage of the total Kent population. The sample
comprised
1,000 Kent residents aged 17+, non of whom rode a motorcycle as their
main
mode of transport as they were the subject of another survey. Those
interviewed included a mix of drivers and non-drivers (77.3% said they
drove
regularly). The respondents broadly reflected the Kent population with
47.7%
(477 respondents) being male and 52.3% (523 respondents) being female.
Some
76.5% (765 respondents) lived in towns or cities; the remaining 23.5%
(235
respondents) lived in villages or remote rural locations. In terms of
age,
the sample divided as follows: 11.7% (117 respondents) were aged 17-24;
34%
(340 respondents) were aged 25-44; 33% (330 respondents) were aged
45-65;
21.1% (211 respondents) were aged 65+. Just 0.2% (2 respondents)
refused to
disclose their age bracket.
Our campaign aims to encourage drivers to drive at speeds appropriate
to the
road and traffic conditions. In the example you quote even 15mph may
have
been too fast for the prevailing circumstances. There is no safe limit
- we
ask drivers to travel at appropriate speeds.
As stated by TRL, not only was speed an identified factor in a
substantial
proportion (15%) of accidents considered in TRL Report 323, but speed
also
increases the impact of many of the other factors that contribute to
accidents, so the overall contribution of inappropriate speed is very
much
larger. The TRL article also explains that there is a substantial body
of
direct evidence relating speed to accidents (as presented in TRL
Reports
421, 511, 215, 452). The point is that there is clear evidence that
reducing speeds will result in a marked reduction in accidents and save
a
large number of lives. That is the fundamental message that we are
giving.
I hope this answers your questions but please don't hesitate to contact
me
if you have any further queries.
With best wishes,
LORRAINE COLLINS
Communications Officer
Kent & Medway Safety Camera Partnership
The most interesting thing is that they believe speeders to be involved in other "criminal" activities!
Nice to know that they think that, isnt it?
They also quote 15% accidents caused by speed,source,TRL, but on their site they keep repeating the one third lie...
In addition they say they are trying to make drivers drive at "appropriate" speeds.
Ive since responded by asking if its appropriate to drive at 120 mph on a clear motorway on a sunny bright day.
Lets see what comes back!
Nice to know that they think that, isnt it?
They also quote 15% accidents caused by speed,source,TRL, but on their site they keep repeating the one third lie...
In addition they say they are trying to make drivers drive at "appropriate" speeds.
Ive since responded by asking if its appropriate to drive at 120 mph on a clear motorway on a sunny bright day.
Lets see what comes back!
deltaf said: The most interesting thing is that they believe speeders to be involved in other "criminal" activities!
Nice to know that they think that, isnt it?
But Deltaf, surprisingly they are. They have scant regard for any law. Traffic law is the least of their considerations.
I have picked up many criminals and got good detections from them because they came to my attention through their disregard for speed limits or other rules which had they adhered to would have seen them pass by unnoticed.
In addition they say they are trying to make drivers drive at "appropriate" speeds.
Ive since responded by asking if its appropriate to drive at 120 mph on a clear motorway on a sunny bright day.
Lets see what comes back!
I think you know what the answer will be
These findings come from an independent report (commissioned by the
Department for Transport) of the two-year pilot scheme where eight
areas
(Cleveland, Essex, Lincolnshire, Northamptonshire, Nottingham, South
Wales,
Strathclyde and Thames Valley) were allowed to re-invest some of the
money
from speeding fines into the installation of more cameras and increased
camera use (essentially what we are now doing in Kent too).
The report found that:
* There was a 35% reduction in people killed or seriously injured at
camera
sites, compared to long-term trend. This equates to about 280 people.
* There was a 14% reduction in personal injury accidents at camera
sites,
equating to about 510 fewer accidents.
* There was a 56% reduction in the number of pedestrians being killed
or
seriously injured at camera sites.
* There were 4% fewer people killed or seriously injured across the
pilot
areas. * This equates to about 530 fewer people killed or seriously
injured.
Hvae they worked out why Northampton's fatalities in the last year have risen by 28% then? Must be the 'safety' cameras working...
I dont follow that train of thought Madcop.
Thats like saying people who wear leather are more likely to be into bondage.
Its a generalisation and an assumption.
To be quite honest with ya, id rather have a copper pull me over and tell me why i shouldnt be doing "x" speed, than some gray shitebox on a pole just flashing away at all and sundry.
Ive never had a speeding ticket (yet!) despite exceeding limits almost everywhere, and ive never been in trouble with the police.
So i kinda resent being tarred with a brush that i dont deserve.
Im no criminal, ive always kept off that side of things, probably cos i enjoy speeding too much!
There seems to be an element of replacing officers with gatsos, as if they can do the same job....they bloody cant!
Give me a copper anyday!
Edited to say, I cant think of anyone id rather be nicked by than you M8!
>> Edited by deltaf on Thursday 27th February 14:04
Thats like saying people who wear leather are more likely to be into bondage.
Its a generalisation and an assumption.
To be quite honest with ya, id rather have a copper pull me over and tell me why i shouldnt be doing "x" speed, than some gray shitebox on a pole just flashing away at all and sundry.
Ive never had a speeding ticket (yet!) despite exceeding limits almost everywhere, and ive never been in trouble with the police.
So i kinda resent being tarred with a brush that i dont deserve.
Im no criminal, ive always kept off that side of things, probably cos i enjoy speeding too much!
There seems to be an element of replacing officers with gatsos, as if they can do the same job....they bloody cant!
Give me a copper anyday!
Edited to say, I cant think of anyone id rather be nicked by than you M8!
>> Edited by deltaf on Thursday 27th February 14:04
"The cameras are not an 'easy way to raise money'. The Partnership is
not
interested in catching drivers speeding, we just want them to stop
speeding."
If they don't want to catch the people in the act of speeding then why do they take the photographs of those vehicles that are speeding.
IMHO if you're driving on a road you don't know particularly well and you see even a road sign suggesting that scameras are in operation then this is usaully enough to calm most motorists. So why don't they just leave white vans( completed with flourescent strips) parked all over the place but without the cameras inside them? Ok they won't catch anybody and they won't make any money but it will still slow everybody down??
not
interested in catching drivers speeding, we just want them to stop
speeding."
If they don't want to catch the people in the act of speeding then why do they take the photographs of those vehicles that are speeding.
IMHO if you're driving on a road you don't know particularly well and you see even a road sign suggesting that scameras are in operation then this is usaully enough to calm most motorists. So why don't they just leave white vans( completed with flourescent strips) parked all over the place but without the cameras inside them? Ok they won't catch anybody and they won't make any money but it will still slow everybody down??
The other point is that the figures for safety improvement include cameras at traffic lights. Hopefully everyone agrees that jumping lights is a stupid thing, and highly likely to result in an accident.
What are the figures for improvements in accident rates between speed cameras and traffic light cameras? Could it be that the traffic light cameras are preventing the accidents, whereas the speed ones make no difference?
What are the figures for improvements in accident rates between speed cameras and traffic light cameras? Could it be that the traffic light cameras are preventing the accidents, whereas the speed ones make no difference?
Quote:
Strict Government rules state that we can only site cameras on roads with a history of speed-related
crashes in which people have been killed or seriously injured.
Strange then, that there are cameras on newly-opened roads. Drove along the new road/bypass around Silverstone yesterday, guess what was on both sides of a new dual carriageway..........
Strict Government rules state that we can only site cameras on roads with a history of speed-related
crashes in which people have been killed or seriously injured.
Strange then, that there are cameras on newly-opened roads. Drove along the new road/bypass around Silverstone yesterday, guess what was on both sides of a new dual carriageway..........
DeltaF,
I think the question that you asked them should not have been "if its appropriate to drive at 120 mph on a clear motorway on a sunny bright day",
but instead
"Would these "safety" cameras catch you doing 70MPH on a motorway in very think fog / ice when it is clearly inappropriate?"
If these cameras do truly measure safety then then they should get people driving at inappropriate speeds for the conditions UNDER the speed limit as well.
Good reply from them. Very government of them. :|
I think the question that you asked them should not have been "if its appropriate to drive at 120 mph on a clear motorway on a sunny bright day",
but instead
"Would these "safety" cameras catch you doing 70MPH on a motorway in very think fog / ice when it is clearly inappropriate?"
If these cameras do truly measure safety then then they should get people driving at inappropriate speeds for the conditions UNDER the speed limit as well.
Good reply from them. Very government of them. :|
soulpatch
You've hit the nail on the head. Any camera makes no allowances for any of the other variables that are involved.
A Good example would be that most of us would like to see more cameras outside schools etc, but the cameras don't take into account time of day, so you have to do 30mph or less, whether its 3pm or 3am, raining, foggy bright sunshine or whatever. Much more thought needs to be put into enforceable variable limits on ALL roads to take into account things such as time and driving conditions, and I include motorways within this.
You've hit the nail on the head. Any camera makes no allowances for any of the other variables that are involved.
A Good example would be that most of us would like to see more cameras outside schools etc, but the cameras don't take into account time of day, so you have to do 30mph or less, whether its 3pm or 3am, raining, foggy bright sunshine or whatever. Much more thought needs to be put into enforceable variable limits on ALL roads to take into account things such as time and driving conditions, and I include motorways within this.
This is one of my arguments against cameras. In my area there is an excellent stretch of dual-carriageway with a unreasonably low 40 mph limit. It does have houses on one side but there is a separate access road whilst the central reservation is about 40 feet wide - get the piucture? Everyone used to drive it at around 50 (ignoring the 40 limit) until some stupid idiot wrote himself and his girlfriend off at a speed estiamted to be in excess of 100mph. Since then we have been plagued by "Revenue Collection Vans" and now they have planted 2 x "Scameras". My point is that morons like this are oblivious to the law and probably on drugs so neither the half-wits who sit in the "Safety Partnership" van all day nor the cameras would not have prevented these deaths. Therefore they serve no purpose other than to collect revenue.
madcop said: They have scant regard for any law. Traffic law is the least of their considerations.
Rich...
RichB said:This is one of my arguments against cameras. In my area there is an excellent stretch of dual-carriageway with a unreasonably low 40 mph limit. It does have houses on one side but there is a separate access road whilst the central reservation is about 40 feet wide - get the piucture? Everyone used to drive it at around 50 (ignoring the 40 limit) until some stupid idiot wrote himself and his girlfriend off at a speed estiamted to be in excess of 100mph. Since then we have been plagued by "Revenue Collection Vans" and now they have planted 2 x "Scameras". My point is that morons like this are oblivious to the law and probably on drugs so neither the half-wits who sit in the "Safety Partnership" van all day nor the cameras would not have prevented these deaths. Therefore they serve no purpose other than to collect revenue.
madcop said: They have scant regard for any law. Traffic law is the least of their considerations.
well said Rich
I can't wait until our "protectors" introduce a ban on walking on cracks in the pavement.
Cameras and fines will of course be appropriate.
Quite a large number of people trip and injure themselves when walking on pavements so if it saves just one person it will be worth it.
And any that are caught ignoring the rules are quite likely to have committed other crimes, because that's the type of people they are.
Cameras and fines will of course be appropriate.
Quite a large number of people trip and injure themselves when walking on pavements so if it saves just one person it will be worth it.
And any that are caught ignoring the rules are quite likely to have committed other crimes, because that's the type of people they are.
Grrrrrr ! gnashing of teeth. Lying b'stards !!
Why the Talivans on quality roads? duhhhh.. bit obvious, the quote;- "cameras are often sited on road where a high level of non-complience is noted, rather than roads of high accident rate" (source: Essex Police) may explain the reasoning.
C
Why the Talivans on quality roads? duhhhh.. bit obvious, the quote;- "cameras are often sited on road where a high level of non-complience is noted, rather than roads of high accident rate" (source: Essex Police) may explain the reasoning.
C
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff