Thursday 1st February 2007

New scamera rules: inadequate

Safe Speed analyses speed camera guidance for local authorities

---

Controlled by your local council?

Road safety campaign Safe Speed has come up with what it called a critical guide to the new speed camera rules, following the switching of responsibility for them from national to local government -- see link below for full story:

• The 'National Safety Camera Programme' has been wound up. (para 3)
• Responsibility moves away from Department for Transport, where the speed camera issue has become 'too hot to handle'. However Safe Speed asserts that DfT remain fully liable. (para 4)
• Cameras must remain visible. (para 5)
• Basic policy to remain the same -- camera locations to be evidence-based. Safe Speed said the evidence remains very poor indeed, neglecting side effects completely. Safe Speed said it has a list of 30 negative side effects. (para 8)
• The Department claims a 42 per cent reduction in deaths ands serious injuries.  Safe Speed said the claim is largely or entirely 'Regression to the mean' effect. See Appendix H of the report in question (see link below). (para 10)
• The DfT discounts regression to the mean effects. Safe Speed called this "very weasel words. If they won't put a number to the 'substantial benefit' provided by speed cameras - and they won't - how do they know if there's any benefit at all?" (para 11)
• Speed limits to be reviewed locally: Safe Speed called the new speed limit guidance flawed and deadly and said it was founded on 'bad science'. (para 12)
• DfT called for better meshing of cameras with other initiatives. Safe Speed called that weasel words for spending less on cameras and more on other things. (para 19)
• Local authorise should look at other alternatives before installing a camera, repeating the idea that 'engineering is the first choice solution'. (para 21)
• Authorities should collect stats before palcing a camera -- 'recommended' = no longer 'required'. Of course if a camera is placed where there have been no crashes, then crashes can only go up. No wonder the Department no longer wishes to collect data on a national basis. (para 22)
• Vehicle activated signs (VAS) are known to be more effective than speed cameras, and many times more cost effective. It remains to be seen how much of the grant cash will be spent on VAS instead of cameras. (para 24)
• Speed Indicator Devices (SID) are cheaper than VAS. (para 25)
• DfT stresses the need to figure out how to deal with the massive number of courts cases when a camera goes up. (para 27)
• The DfT doesn't want to dictate conditions to be met for the use of cameras. In other words, the DfT denies its responsibility. (para 28)
• Speed cameras with limits at roadworks should be considered -- even though the DfT's own research in TRL595 shows that cameras in such locations are associated with an increase in crashes.(para 31)
• 20mph zones need to be self-enforcing because it takes too much driver attention to attempt to maintain 20mph by using the speedo. (para 34)
• Full visibility must be maintained. "The Department expects" but no suggestion of any possible sanction for non-compliance. (para 39)
• Any monitoring should consider the effect of ‘regression-to-mean’. Welcomed, but we don't expect the local partnerships to comply as they never have before. (para 59)
• The DfT will stop collecting stats on cameras. It doesn't want national data because of the potential effects on the speed camera story. (para 60)

The Department for Transport's circular on the issue is on the web -- see link below.

Links

• Department for Transport Circular on localising speed cameras
• Related story: Speed camera control goes local?

[rbryant]

How does this happen? In spite of Safe Speed and others best efforts, the problem gets worse and the facts and science are ignored. I got a NIP through my letterbox yesterday for 36 mph on Gravel Hill near Croydon - dual carriageway and used to be mainly 40 mph. Everybody does what I do which is go up the hill at 45 and slow to 30 for the camera, which involves taking your eyes off the road and is definitely adding to the risks of that bit of road. 45 mph is safe as judged by 99% of the motorists on that road, traffic permitting. The law is held in complete contempt by those 99%.

Have read Pepipoo and intend to demand my legal rights.

[Philbes]

You know the camera is there and they still caught you??? Did you have a lapse of memory? Stil, I'm sorry you are 'being done' in what sounds from your description like an unreasonably low speed limit.

[safespeed]

rbryant said:

How does this happen? In spite of Safe Speed and others best efforts, the problem gets worse and the facts and science are ignored.

Not at all, actually. This is DfT in full retreat.

Camera funds are CAPPED for the next 4 years.

The 'ring fence' on camera funds has been REMOVED and the vultures are already circling. Actually two fences are down - the new 'road safety grants' aren't even limited to road safety, let alone speed cameras.

And expect to see camera partnerships 'loaded up' with other responsibilities. Mobile phone driving and uninsured driving are high on the list. My guess is that we'll get announcements on 1st April.

We're going to see quite a sharp decline in speed camera activity over the next couple of years on the basis of existing announcements. And there's much more to come.

What's missing is DfT admitting to complete failure of their policies. But don't worry - we'll not stop firing on them in their dishonourable retreat.

[cjbolter]

Hey Guys, does the lack of response to such serious matters indicate that "they" are winning, that we the silent majority are so finally overwhelmed by shite "new labour" crap that we no longer bother to even respond ??.
vbr CJA.

[PhantomPH]

CJ - I thought exactly that! Normally a speeding article has comments immediately, that then run on for pages and pages. It's almost like we are becoming so utterly disenchanted with the whole thing - almost resigned - that 'we' have just started shaking our head and moving on in a 'its all been said before' kind of fashion.

SafeSpeed - how does this legislation affect the mobile SCAM vans, or the b'stards who hide in bushes or just around corners with hand-held devices? Are they un-affected? If so, are we likely to see a decline in fixed camera locations and an increase in mobile sneaks?

P~

[Mista_V]

cjbolter said:

Hey Guys, does the lack of response to such serious matters indicate that "they" are winning, that we the silent majority are so finally overwhelmed by shite "new labour" crap that we no longer bother to even respond ??.
vbr CJA.

Well we see so many articles on scameras I think the majority now understand that they are being assaulted in the rear by the government, they do what they like, charge what the like, tax and fine who they like and we're only gonna sit and moan about it rather than throw a few molotovs so we may aswell just get on with our lives.

[safespeed]

PhantomPH said:

SafeSpeed - how does this legislation affect the mobile SCAM vans, or the b'stards who hide in bushes or just around corners with hand-held devices? Are they un-affected? If so, are we likely to see a decline in fixed camera locations and an increase in mobile sneaks?

It's carve up of funding. All sorts of speed camera activity will decline. The decline, so far, isn't going to be fast enough, but at least things are moving in the right direction at last.

[PhantomPH]

Suppose that's decent news. I have absolutely no issue with some decent research and implementation in ways which improve road safety - particularly in front of schools or places with high foot-traffic (I am thinking of the 'high street' where people can wander out of the grocers into the road) but this blind attitude of safety=low speed=no accidents=peace, love and happiness, is infuriating.

Low speed DOES NOT equal road safety. (the car doing 40mph in a 60mph limit last night causing all sorts of traffic snarl-ups behind him, is evidence of that!)

P~

[chris_crossley]

safespeed said:

PhantomPH said:

SafeSpeed - how does this legislation affect the mobile SCAM vans, or the b'stards who hide in bushes or just around corners with hand-held devices? Are they un-affected? If so, are we likely to see a decline in fixed camera locations and an increase in mobile sneaks?

It's carve up of funding. All sorts of speed camera activity will decline. The decline, so far, isn't going to be fast enough, but at least things are moving in the right direction at last.

You can't expect the decline to be speedy. They may get penalty points

Sorry, had to be flippant....

[beasto]

In other words, cameras are an integral part of a self-serving bureaucratic culture determined to ignore reality, rather than give up control or income.

[daver]

The latest piece of bullshit I saw the other day was a scamera van in new livery, sorry, propaganda.

Not a 'Safety Camera' vehicle any more. A "Casualty Reduction Unit", apparently.

Well, I thought this was new. Maybe it's not. Maybe I've been so busy being a Safe Driver with my nose pressed onto the speedo that I haven't been able to look through the windscreen for long enough to notice it before.

[Nostrils]

Why is the motorist being targeted so much! Thats is all I seem to read is "We need some money for some no-mark legislation for the no-marks in society because their human rights are being violated, bla bla bla" "But where on earth can we get such sums?" "The Motorists, thats who, they are so stupid to drive through all the hundreds of detector device types we have, we will be quids in!"

I am sick of having to constantly watch out for mobile, fixed, hidden devices that will either smell you (Westminster Jobsworths!), photograph you, check where you are driving to amongst all the other things we have to look out for as motorists....

...Holland have gone even further.....we wont be able to have a crap without getting permission and "pay as you go"

Its Bollards!

[nobleguy]

safespeed said:

rbryant said:

How does this happen? In spite of Safe Speed and others best efforts, the problem gets worse and the facts and science are ignored.

Not at all, actually. This is DfT in full retreat.

Camera funds are CAPPED for the next 4 years.

The 'ring fence' on camera funds has been REMOVED and the vultures are already circling. Actually two fences are down - the new 'road safety grants' aren't even limited to road safety, let alone speed cameras.

And expect to see camera partnerships 'loaded up' with other responsibilities. Mobile phone driving and uninsured driving are high on the list. My guess is that we'll get announcements on 1st April.

We're going to see quite a sharp decline in speed camera activity over the next couple of years on the basis of existing announcements. And there's much more to come.

What's missing is DfT admitting to complete failure of their policies. But don't worry - we'll not stop firing on them in their dishonourable retreat.

Keep it up safespeed. I think the majority of the nation are behind you on this.

[rbryant]

Keep it up safespeed. I think the majority of the nation are behind you on this.

Will second that, glad to hear it is a retreat - looking forward to watch them being shot down as they retreat. Especially if accidents start to decline!! Think of that and the weasle words they will attempt in self-justification.

[nobleguy]

rbryant said:

Keep it up safespeed. I think the majority of the nation are behind you on this.

Will second that, glad to hear it is a retreat - looking forward to watch them being shot down as they retreat. Especially if accidents start to decline!! Think of that and the weasle words they will attempt in self-justification.

I would laugh and laugh!
To be honest I think we may simply have hit the plateau in terms of road deaths and no amount of initiatives, cameras or traffic police will get the rate down much further.
I hope I'm wrong...