Retired PC comments on speed cameras
Discussion
A letter in this month's Motor Industry Magazine sheds further confirmatory light on speed cameras.
I'm not sure he's right about fatacs not happening at camera sites, but surely he's right about the revenue-earning message. We need more people willing to tell the outside world what really goes on in these "safety camera partnerships".
Is he right about 'general purpose' officers driving traffic cars?
Paul Brooks letter said:
...I worked for 30 years as a traffic policeman and when I retired I was asked if I'd like a job on the Road Safety Unit (speed cameras). Even after 30 years I found that I was still somewhat naive, in that I thought cameras were there for a worthy purpose.
I walked out of the job after just 10 days when a young lady in admin asked me how many motorists had been caught on a particular camera. When I said 420, her reply threw me: "Oh, great we can buy some more equipment". At that moment it became quite clear that the cameras were not for road safety, but for making money....
It is true that at the location of each speed camera, serious and fatal collisions do not occur, but in my previous police force in the north west of England, where there is a high percentage of speed cameras, fatal and serious collisions have risen considerably in places away from the camera sites. So what good are the cameras other than to raise revenue?
At last the Government appears to be doing something about this and has asked for the reintroduction of traffic police, which ... no longer exist except on the motorways. Yes, they drive around in what look like traffic cars but they are 'general purpose' officers rather than the specialists in what was the Traffic Branch.
Hopefully this new initiative (what goes around comes around) will help reduce the number of fatal collisions. After all, the worst thing in the world is not dealing with the collision, but telling the family.
I walked out of the job after just 10 days when a young lady in admin asked me how many motorists had been caught on a particular camera. When I said 420, her reply threw me: "Oh, great we can buy some more equipment". At that moment it became quite clear that the cameras were not for road safety, but for making money....
It is true that at the location of each speed camera, serious and fatal collisions do not occur, but in my previous police force in the north west of England, where there is a high percentage of speed cameras, fatal and serious collisions have risen considerably in places away from the camera sites. So what good are the cameras other than to raise revenue?
At last the Government appears to be doing something about this and has asked for the reintroduction of traffic police, which ... no longer exist except on the motorways. Yes, they drive around in what look like traffic cars but they are 'general purpose' officers rather than the specialists in what was the Traffic Branch.
Hopefully this new initiative (what goes around comes around) will help reduce the number of fatal collisions. After all, the worst thing in the world is not dealing with the collision, but telling the family.
I'm not sure he's right about fatacs not happening at camera sites, but surely he's right about the revenue-earning message. We need more people willing to tell the outside world what really goes on in these "safety camera partnerships".
Is he right about 'general purpose' officers driving traffic cars?
Peter Ward said:
A letter in this month's Motor Industry Magazine sheds further confirmatory light on speed cameras.
I'm not sure he's right about fatacs not happening at camera sites, but surely he's right about the revenue-earning message. We need more people willing to tell the outside world what really goes on in these "safety camera partnerships".
Is he right about 'general purpose' officers driving traffic cars?
Paul Brooks letter said:
...I worked for 30 years as a traffic policeman and when I retired I was asked if I'd like a job on the Road Safety Unit (speed cameras). Even after 30 years I found that I was still somewhat naive, in that I thought cameras were there for a worthy purpose.
I walked out of the job after just 10 days when a young lady in admin asked me how many motorists had been caught on a particular camera. When I said 420, her reply threw me: "Oh, great we can buy some more equipment". At that moment it became quite clear that the cameras were not for road safety, but for making money....
It is true that at the location of each speed camera, serious and fatal collisions do not occur, but in my previous police force in the north west of England, where there is a high percentage of speed cameras, fatal and serious collisions have risen considerably in places away from the camera sites. So what good are the cameras other than to raise revenue?
At last the Government appears to be doing something about this and has asked for the reintroduction of traffic police, which ... no longer exist except on the motorways. Yes, they drive around in what look like traffic cars but they are 'general purpose' officers rather than the specialists in what was the Traffic Branch.
Hopefully this new initiative (what goes around comes around) will help reduce the number of fatal collisions. After all, the worst thing in the world is not dealing with the collision, but telling the family.
I walked out of the job after just 10 days when a young lady in admin asked me how many motorists had been caught on a particular camera. When I said 420, her reply threw me: "Oh, great we can buy some more equipment". At that moment it became quite clear that the cameras were not for road safety, but for making money....
It is true that at the location of each speed camera, serious and fatal collisions do not occur, but in my previous police force in the north west of England, where there is a high percentage of speed cameras, fatal and serious collisions have risen considerably in places away from the camera sites. So what good are the cameras other than to raise revenue?
At last the Government appears to be doing something about this and has asked for the reintroduction of traffic police, which ... no longer exist except on the motorways. Yes, they drive around in what look like traffic cars but they are 'general purpose' officers rather than the specialists in what was the Traffic Branch.
Hopefully this new initiative (what goes around comes around) will help reduce the number of fatal collisions. After all, the worst thing in the world is not dealing with the collision, but telling the family.
I'm not sure he's right about fatacs not happening at camera sites, but surely he's right about the revenue-earning message. We need more people willing to tell the outside world what really goes on in these "safety camera partnerships".
Is he right about 'general purpose' officers driving traffic cars?
Traffic cars are traffic cars, general patrol cars are general patrol cars. Each branch has it's own fleet, that are not identically equipped.
If you mean if it's say a 5 series BMW is it definitely a traffic car, then no it is not.
It may be, it may not be.
Odd that he thinks accidents don't occur at speed camera sites and yet I have read of about three deaths this year which are/were directly attributed to the braking for the Scamera....
But he was also pretty dumb IMHO to think that after 30 years in the force as a traffic officer that "speed kills" and therefore "speed cameras" are purely life saving. Did he not do his advanced driving and lots of emergency calls at speeds well in excess of the limit, but still didn't scythe down a classroom full of sprogs each time??!?!?!
But he was also pretty dumb IMHO to think that after 30 years in the force as a traffic officer that "speed kills" and therefore "speed cameras" are purely life saving. Did he not do his advanced driving and lots of emergency calls at speeds well in excess of the limit, but still didn't scythe down a classroom full of sprogs each time??!?!?!
deva link said:
Paul Brooks letter said:
...fatal and serious collisions have risen considerably in places away from the camera sites.
That's a dangerous comment - guess what's coming next from certain quarters?
Proves cameras work! Although potentially all it proves is that it was an unlucky period before the camera and now it has reverted to a lucky period. Isn't that what Safespeed call regression to the mean?
arrogant ex-rat said.... said:
Yes, they drive around in what look like traffic cars but they are 'general purpose' officers rather than the specialists in what was the Traffic Branch.
Uses the phrase 'General Purpose' like it's some of degrading position to be a frontline response team Officer, who has to be a 'specialist' in EVERY field of Policing....
Hollywood Wheels said:
arrogant ex-rat said.... said:
Yes, they drive around in what look like traffic cars but they are 'general purpose' officers rather than the specialists in what was the Traffic Branch.
Uses the phrase 'General Purpose' like it's some of degrading position to be a frontline response team Officer, who has to be a 'specialist' in EVERY field of Policing....
I would have hung fire on that post HW for someone is sure to add:
...and master of none.
dvd
At the risk of being confrontational I am troubled by Hollywood Wheels' use of the word arrogant. Sorry HW nowt personal.
I cite the case of Humberside who more or less disbanded the specialist traffic policing section, everyone deployed onto community policing. for want of a better word. Then they found that the specialist traffic policing skills had eroded so much that they needed to reverse the decision. At one point people were even failing the regular check drives.
I think Mt Brooks makes a fair point.
I wondered if his "general" remark was an oblique swipe at the HATOs and forthcoming events yet to be announced.... oops hush my mouth.
edited typos
Edited by Flat in Fifth on Saturday 23 December 08:38
No offence taken at all FiF, always enjoy reading your posts. You are of course right about the loss of certain 'specilaist' skills. I still believe that he wasn't referring to HATO's etc though, I still believe it was an arrogant swipe at the response team Officer. It seems to be an attitude displayed by a small minority of Traffic Officers who have been in the Dept too long. Fortunately the younger guys remain keen, and are always quick to turn up and help their colleagues...
Peter Ward said:
I'm not sure he's right about fatacs not happening at camera sites, but surely he's right about the revenue-earning message.
But how often are the cameras located at the scene of a fatal accident? Nearby maybe. But not often at the scene since the many, probably most, of the locations are more than likely not condusive to siting a camera - let alone one that will make a good financial return on the investment.
That the number of accidents at the camera location may be zero after installation does not provide us with any information about the number of accidents there before it was installed. Although we are supposed to infer that it does.
Then of course there will be the nearby regression to the mean effect.
And the deployment of mobile units which, presumably, are primarily intended to be deterrents for local people who know of the location and money raisers from those passing through who would probably have no idea (absent some sort of database device) that the site was at a dangerous location.
There are 3 cameras near me that could probably claim not to have seen any fatalities since they were erected. Mind you as far as I can tell there were none before either. Half a mile up the road, yes, but not at the site. That's not a typo, 3 cameras (or at least housings) within 200mtrs. Bound to be hugely successful really - unless a single accident would count against all three of them ...
LongQ said:
Peter Ward said:
I'm not sure he's right about fatacs not happening at camera sites, but surely he's right about the revenue-earning message.
But how often are the cameras located at the scene of a fatal accident? Nearby maybe. But not often at the scene since the many, probably most, of the locations are more than likely not condusive to siting a camera - let alone one that will make a good financial return on the investment.
That the number of accidents at the camera location may be zero after installation does not provide us with any information about the number of accidents there before it was installed. Although we are supposed to infer that it does.
Then of course there will be the nearby regression to the mean effect.
And the deployment of mobile units which, presumably, are primarily intended to be deterrents for local people who know of the location and money raisers from those passing through who would probably have no idea (absent some sort of database device) that the site was at a dangerous location.
There are 3 cameras near me that could probably claim not to have seen any fatalities since they were erected. Mind you as far as I can tell there were none before either. Half a mile up the road, yes, but not at the site. That's not a typo, 3 cameras (or at least housings) within 200mtrs. Bound to be hugely successful really - unless a single accident would count against all three of them ...
I am sure that Bath and NE Somerset will hapily boast about the safety of the Batheaston By pass.
On the day that the new dual carriageway was opened it had a 50 limit and 3 cameras.
KER-CHING ££££££££££££££££££
There wasn't even a road to have an accident on before.
Edited by odyssey2200 on Monday 8th January 17:25
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff