Minister orders speed camera review
Discussion
This should please everyone here 
>>> Edited by knowley on Tuesday 27th January 11:24
TimesOnline said:- www.timesonline.co.uk breaking news section
Every one of Britain's estimated 6,000 speed cameras are being reviewed to ensure they are in the right place for saving lives. Road Safety Minister David Jamieson has asked all relevant partners involved in running cameras up and down the country to check they meet Department of Transport criteria. The news comes just days after Home Secretary David Blunkett appeared to contemplate changes in speeding laws.
>>> Edited by knowley on Tuesday 27th January 11:24
This from the council concerning the Batheaston camera
"You are right, the DfT guidelines for Safety Camera installation is indeed a recorded accident history as stated however the SCP are permitted to enforce sites which do not meet this criteria but have a high recorded history of repeated excess speed provided they utilise no more than 15% of their time. Sites such as Batheaston were historical sites, as most of the Gatso sites are, which were installed in the very early days of cameras before the guidelines were introduced. Many of them have now been decommissioned because they do not meet any of the current guidelines however some, such as this one, do have a speeding problem and have been retained under the 15% rule."
??
>> Edited by dmsims on Tuesday 27th January 11:47
"You are right, the DfT guidelines for Safety Camera installation is indeed a recorded accident history as stated however the SCP are permitted to enforce sites which do not meet this criteria but have a high recorded history of repeated excess speed provided they utilise no more than 15% of their time. Sites such as Batheaston were historical sites, as most of the Gatso sites are, which were installed in the very early days of cameras before the guidelines were introduced. Many of them have now been decommissioned because they do not meet any of the current guidelines however some, such as this one, do have a speeding problem and have been retained under the 15% rule."
??
>> Edited by dmsims on Tuesday 27th January 11:47
This government see reviews and inquiries as an excuse for doing nothing about something, and waiting for some fuss to die down.
Examples:
Hutton inquiry: Allows the PM to refuse to answer any question, and then when the report is released will (no doubt) only answer about things in it. Of course, this is after having set the terms of reference for the inquiry...
One of the "leading" Labour rebels in the uni-fees thing has recently reverted to supporting the Gov, following an assurance that there will be a "review" of how it affects middle-income households. Well, he's easily pleased isn't he? I can imagine a precis of this review now: "Yes, it will affect them. Quite badly. Ho hum". He's just bottling it, imho. He ought to refuse to vote for until he's seen the results of the review, if he finds the proposed ligislation so unsavoury.
Examples:
Hutton inquiry: Allows the PM to refuse to answer any question, and then when the report is released will (no doubt) only answer about things in it. Of course, this is after having set the terms of reference for the inquiry...
One of the "leading" Labour rebels in the uni-fees thing has recently reverted to supporting the Gov, following an assurance that there will be a "review" of how it affects middle-income households. Well, he's easily pleased isn't he? I can imagine a precis of this review now: "Yes, it will affect them. Quite badly. Ho hum". He's just bottling it, imho. He ought to refuse to vote for until he's seen the results of the review, if he finds the proposed ligislation so unsavoury.
I agree with whatever. I also suspect that they have already decided on the outcome based on the comment made that "the evidence we have seen so far shows they are working within the guidelines".
So they will have a review to let everything settle down and then announce that the scamera partnerships are doing it properly apart from a few "unusual" cases.
So they will have a review to let everything settle down and then announce that the scamera partnerships are doing it properly apart from a few "unusual" cases.
james j said:
Don't get too excited, look at who has been tasked to do the reviewing...
Not totally true - i'm waiting for our accident data from 2003 (probably won't get it till April though), then we'll re-examine all our sites in the city - I know which road i've got my eye on with a view to removing them....
Kurgis said:
Don't get too excited, look at who has been tasked to do the reviewing...
Not totally true - i'm waiting for our accident data from 2003 (probably won't get it till April though), then we'll re-examine all our sites in the city - I know which road i've got my eye on with a view to removing them....
Without being cynical Kurgis, how honest do you think the accident data is....? Civilian (Civil Service)Partnerships, who need to see speed in accidents to continue their existance, compiling accident reports ........
Dubious I do think .....
Almost a Red Herring.
It's the mobile scamera vans, frequently sited in contravention of DOT/Home office guidelines that are issuing the majority of tickets in my area. Aided of course by the mostly illogical mass reduction in speed limits to many of the non urban roads.
DAZ
>> Edited by dazren on Wednesday 28th January 16:28
It's the mobile scamera vans, frequently sited in contravention of DOT/Home office guidelines that are issuing the majority of tickets in my area. Aided of course by the mostly illogical mass reduction in speed limits to many of the non urban roads.
DAZ
>> Edited by dazren on Wednesday 28th January 16:28
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff