Example of how badly cameras are used

[p290 kvp]

This morning B4525. This road already has two fixed cameras. One is well placed at a blind junction the other is placed in a useless position - just before a 90 degree bend which you can't drive quickly around anyway.

The road has an very dangerous crossroads and also a small village with an Esso station - which people obviously pull away from.

So where do you think plod stick a mobile camera unit? Oh yes that will be on the longest straight then!!! Why? Why do they do this?

Instead of protecting people in the 40 limited village or the crossroads they go for the easy target.

[gfun]

I asked for any of the Bib to answer this last week - but none replied.

Bib are human and have family so they would use the equipment to keep people safe?

As the above is true - It can't be their choice - so who picks the spot and on what criteria?

[james_j]

Come on you camera-loving lurkers!

Answer the question - how do you justify this and many other camera locations? Answer please....where are you......?

[icamm]

Come on guys you do read this furom don't you? In that case you will know that the BiB have no control over were camera vans are used. This is all down to your local "Safety Camera Partnership". I would suggest a stiff letter of complaint copied to your local paper and Chief Constable.

[p290 kvp]

Well why don't the local plod have control over the use of their cameras?

That has to be utter rubbish - I mean what ever the partnership with whoever the local police must surely have an input?

[toad_oftoadhall]

p290 kvp said:

Well why don't the local plod have control over the use of their cameras? That has to be utter rubbish - I mean what ever the partnership with whoever the local police must surely have an input?

Yeah. My points all came from plod with minimal involvemtn of the courts.

The woodstock camera has a police crest on it.

Police forces *are* involved in this.

[Richard C]

I ahve been zapped by that blasted camera but the number plate does get hellishly dirty in January doesn't it.

I did not know about the police crest.

[toad_oftoadhall]

Richard C said:

I ahve been zapped by that blasted camera but the number plate does get hellishly dirty in January doesn't it.

Got an elderly (vicar) relative.

I always ride at it to try and trigger it.

To think the great defender of freedom (WC) came for a few huindred yards away... Disgrace...

[will crash]

james_j said:

Come on you camera-loving lurkers! Answer the question - how do you justify this and many other camera locations? Answer please....where are you......?

All camera locations in the MET have to had at least 3 Killed or serious injury RTA`s in the previous 3 years as an absolute minimum.
The site is then looked at by a Police Officer and either approved or binned. When I was workingin the camera unit I binned 99% of Safety Partnership sites due to the fact they were awful and the figures didn`t tally up.
hence the vast majority of sites are chosen by the Old BIll.

[Peter Ward]

icamm said:

...you will know that the BiB have no control over were camera vans are used...

But isn't each police force an equal partner in its local Partnership? Surely the police don't just roll over and allow the anti-car lobby groups to dictate to them?

[Richard C]

will crash said:

All camera locations in the MET have to had at least 3 Killed or serious injury RTA`s in the previous 3 years as an absolute minimum

The North Wales Police/ Arrive Alive scum claim to use the same criteria. But in their latest propoganda glossy they show maps with red stars indicating many crashes in 3 years. Then they say Why are we targeting these routes .....35 people were killed or seriously injured on some B road in the last 3 years. Then they break it down and of the routes they mention, they admit 0 people were killed and 35 people were slightly injured or in some cases a few people in the total were seriously injured. But on only 1 route of 5 mentioned one person was killed but those of us who live here know that that death had NOTHING to do with speed. And they say 4 persons per week are killed on N Wales roads ..........and in 1 in 3 cases speed was a contibuting factor.

Lies Damn lies and deceit underwritten by the ratepayer. I will be taking this up with Micheson the gross very soon.

[bluepolarbear]

will crash said:

All camera locations in the MET have to had at least 3 Killed or serious injury RTA`s in the previous 3 years as an absolute minimum.

Of course these don't have to be speed related, the accidents can occur within 4km of the camera site and the defination of KSI includes injurys which if incured at home would result in an expletive and a plaster being applied.

Camera's have a very localised effect on speed and accidents rates ie hundreds of yards beyond that there is no evidence of safety improvements.

[Mrs Fish]

hello Martin, welcome to PH

[will crash]

bluepolarbear said:

will crash said: All camera locations in the MET have to had at least 3 Killed or serious injury RTA`s in the previous 3 years as an absolute minimum. Of course these don't have to be speed related, the accidents can occur within 4km of the camera site and the defination of KSI includes injurys which if incured at home would result in an expletive and a plaster being applied. Camera's have a very localised effect on speed and accidents rates ie hundreds of yards beyond that there is no evidence of safety improvements.

I don`t know where you obtained your information but it is very dubious.
RTA`s which are not speed related are NOT considered....FACT.
RTA`s which occur 4kms away from a proposed site are NOT considered....FACT
KSI means Killed or Seriously Injured (a life changing effect on the individual concerned) We do not consider cut fingers or headaches....FACT.
Whilst fixed cameras have only a localised effect on traffic, this can be dealt with by mobile cameras, which again, have to comply with the same criteria as fixed sites.
I hope this now puts you in a position where your opinions are based on facts!!

[cortinaman]

well here is one for you:-

i have just this minute finished talking to the cleaners who have come in and on the way in to work they were walking along when they saw smoke ahead of them and as they got closer a woman was running down the road screaming "call the fire brigade!" and they then saw flames coming from a car that was imbedded into the back of someones house along with several p*ssed up young women who were the ex-occupants of said car (still holding their bottles of booze,typical essex birds eh!)

according to the cleaner who lives there,the roads around that area are used alot by p*ssheads and speeders (as is courtauld road,where i work!) and neither the scamera partnership or the police EVER sit around there (or here) with a radar gun,talivan or even an anpr van even though the roads are used as a race track by boy/girl racers and accidents happen quite frequently due to driver error or (mainly) booze.we had another accident a week ago in which a young guy lost control of his feckarse,spun round twice and ended up hitting a post and a fence injuring the passenger (dislocated shoulder) and giving the girl in the back cuts n bruises,this was due to going way too fast for the weather conditions and the fact that there is a negative camber on the corner that he didnt suspect...we had another accident a few months ago,a sierra came around the bend just down from work,the p*ssed driver didnt even try to take the corner and went up the kirb,up the embankment,went through the air (taking out bushes and small tree's with it)then the car spun over and landed on its roof in the carpark.the passenger got out and was more worried about his mobile phone and the driver was trapped inside until the fire brigade cut him out some time later.

please explain to me why this is allowed to happen regardless and yet 5 camera's are placed on the a127 within a mile and a half of the 40 limit yet i dont remember more than 1 accident in the last 18 months on that stretch bad enough to count on the ksi stats.why not put the scamera's where the bloody things are actually needed?....realy,i would love to know as the silly bint at essex scamera partnership just fobbs you off with irrelevent bullsh*t when you ask her a genuine question.

wasnt it hitler's s.s that was only answerable to the fuhrer??,the essex scamera partnerships public relations dept are obviously from the same mould.

>> Edited by cortinaman on Saturday 11th October 03:53

[p290 kvp]

Will - To have a rule that allows cameras to be placed with 4kms of a serious crash site means you could place one pretty much anywhere.

The road that I meantioned at the begining of this tread is has had 39 injuries in 3 years. Not good. However I will bet my mortgage that not a single soul has been lost where the mobile camera was.

This road has had many shunts but most involve HGV's that try and take a short cut via this B road.

[Tafia]

will crash said:

bluepolarbear said: will crash said: All camera locations in the MET have to had at least 3 Killed or serious injury RTA`s in the previous 3 years as an absolute minimum. Of course these don't have to be speed related, the accidents can occur within 4km of the camera site and the defination of KSI includes injurys which if incured at home would result in an expletive and a plaster being applied. Camera's have a very localised effect on speed and accidents rates ie hundreds of yards beyond that there is no evidence of safety improvements. I don`t know where you obtained your information but it is very dubious. RTA`s which are not speed related are NOT considered....FACT. RTA`s which occur 4kms away from a proposed site are NOT considered....FACT KSI means Killed or Seriously Injured (a life changing effect on the individual concerned) We do not consider cut fingers or headaches....FACT. Whilst fixed cameras have only a localised effect on traffic, this can be dealt with by mobile cameras, which again, have to comply with the same criteria as fixed sites. I hope this now puts you in a position where your opinions are based on facts!!

Will crash,

It seems the folk in North Wales would not agree with your "facts".

Here 'routes' are chosen, not just sites. A 'route' can be several miles long but the scamera vans are placed anywhere along that route, usually where, as a policeman told me, breaking the limit by a few miles an hour would be quite safe under some conditions.

Further, if you believe that scameras cause folks to slow down and thus save lives, how come Brunstrom is predicting a rise in speeding tickets to 3 million. If often-hidden scameras slowed drivers, he would be predicting less not more. Simple really.

And if cameras save lives, why is it that since nearly all police forces joined the scamersa scheme following the lies told about the unsuccessful camera trial in 1999/2000, fatalities have been higher in both 2001 and 2002?

[porsche944]

will crash said:

All camera locations in the MET have to had at least 3 Killed or serious injury RTA`s in the previous 3 years as an absolute minimum.

I would question that logic at two locations (off the top of my head) in Central London:

1. Outside Tate Britian on Millbank - no junction, no pedestrian crossing etc, just a straight, wide road with a 40 limit.

2. The M4 between Heathrow and Hammersmith, about six cameras in a two(?) mile stretch that strangely has a 40 limit to it (section of motorway with a bus lane and a 40 limit????).

Just a thought over lunch...

[squirrelz]

LOL - I thought the title was about baldy cameras!

Capture Captain Combover......