Some half interesting pap here.

[Deltafox]

www.dft.gov.uk/stellent/groups/dft_rdsafety/documents/page/dft_rdsafety_611263.hcsp

[sevener]

6. Speed Policy update
6.1 Mike Fawcett explained that a lot of work had been carried out on the effectiveness of cameras. Although the Year 4 camera report by UCL / PA Consulting was expected in June, this had been delayed, primarily because the work on regression to mean had not been carried out before. The Department doesn't know if the criteria for camera locations is absolutely right and Ian Duncan wrote to partnerships explaining that approval of new fixed camera locations is on hold. Once the Year 4 camera report is received, the Department will consider the implications and whether to tweak criteria for camera location. This is also an opportunity to consider whether anything else needs to be done and the linkage with guidance on setting local speed limits.

[tigger1]

Thought it was interesting that Ladyboy was too busy to turn up...apart from that all I saw was "blah blah blah, we're not listening!"

[desktopcarl]

Well, while the above quote is interesting the next one down is a corker, where do they find these muppets?:

"6.1.2 Brian Goodwin said that although he didn't disagree that research was required, he felt that the announcement putting approval of new fixed camera locations on hold sent out messages that were difficult to manage. He felt that there were significant effects on local authority plans for casualty reduction and the finances of partnerships. He felt that the current criteria should have remained until the research was carried out and he would have appreciated advance warning of the decision."

So, it's perfectly acceptable to set up cameras without any supporting research, but not stop them because there's some evidence that they do harm? It's a little like approving a new drug without testing and at the point that people's toes start falling off, wanting to get more eveidence that there's a problem before you stop giving it?