RE: Camera guidance is 'a blunder'
Wednesday 1st February 2006
Why is this here?The Department for Transport (DfT) yesterday published new rules for speed camera partnerships. And, according to road safety campaign Safe Speed, they're still wrong.
Camera guidance is 'a blunder'
Speed camera site rules are wrong: campaign
Why is this here?
That's because, said the campaign, sites where it is officially dangerous to speed are still excluded from consideration as potential camera locations.
Safe Speed said that it first revealed the so-called 'rules blunder' in January 2004. The DfT selects sites where responsible motorists are speeding and excludes sites where no responsible motorists are speeding. Because of this, cameras don't enforce speed limits in, say, narrow village high streets, where they would catch the occasional nutter. They only enforce in places where driving in excess of the speed limit is seen by drivers as safe and appropriate.
It is this that causes the widespread perception that speed cameras are in the wrong places, said Safe Speed.
Campaign founder Paul Smith said: "The incompetence and mismanagement behind the speed camera programme is breathtaking. They have misused speed cameras to the point that public confidence has evaporated.
"This blunder ensures that the misuse will continue. Cameras may only be placed only placed where routine speeding is safe. The continual confusion between safe behaviour and legal behaviour is misdirecting everyone's road safety efforts. We must encourage safe behaviours rather than those that are merely legal.
"The speed camera programme is to road safety what a hammer is to clock repair -- it's blunt and heavy and does far more harm than good. "The only answer now is to remove all speed cameras from UK roads, and rebuild road safety based on psychologically effective policies.
"Appendix H of the 4th year report (published December 15th 2005 by DfT) suggests that speed camera effectiveness has been overestimated by 400 per cent, and even that has not considered the wide ranging deadly side effects. When the side effects are eventually evaluated it will become clear how many people are dying due to the fatally flawed policy."
Image courtesy www.speedcam.co.uk
Discussion
Ooh, risky positioning of the camera there, putting it on a right-hand bend means drivers can see it before hand, good job that extra-wide sign was put right behind it to divert attention!
Interesting assertion by the article, wouldn't mind seeing some evidence backing it up. How do we know that they are all responsible. Is flouting the law responsible?
In fact, the whole article could use some evidence to support Mr. Smiths statements, otherwise it seems a little dogmatic and one-sided. While we all agree that scameras are cynically misused, just jumping up and down and spouting vitriolic doctine isn't going to do anything about it. Reasoned argument backed up by facts is what's needed.
PH said:
The DfT selects sites where responsible motorists are speeding
Interesting assertion by the article, wouldn't mind seeing some evidence backing it up. How do we know that they are all responsible. Is flouting the law responsible?
In fact, the whole article could use some evidence to support Mr. Smiths statements, otherwise it seems a little dogmatic and one-sided. While we all agree that scameras are cynically misused, just jumping up and down and spouting vitriolic doctine isn't going to do anything about it. Reasoned argument backed up by facts is what's needed.
Andrew D said:
Ooh, risky positioning of the camera there, putting it on a right-hand bend means drivers can see it before hand, good job that extra-wide sign was put right behind it to divert attention! PH said:
The DfT selects sites where responsible motorists are speeding
Interesting assertion by the article, wouldn't mind seeing some evidence backing it up. How do we know that they are all responsible. Is flouting the law responsible?
In fact, the whole article could use some evidence to support Mr. Smiths statements, otherwise it seems a little dogmatic and one-sided. While we all agree that scameras are cynically misused, just jumping up and down and spouting vitriolic doctine isn't going to do anything about it. Reasoned argument backed up by facts is what's needed.
If you want the facts, read pauls research on www.safespeed.org.uk There's about 30,000 hours worth of research there. See you in a few weeks
The Government are hardly likely to insist on only putting speed camera's where they are ONLY needed are they??? Afterall, just think of the money they'd lose.
All these papers and studies are just so they look like they are on the side of the Britsh motorist, when really they couldn't give a
. Money, money, money, that's all they care about. 
All these papers and studies are just so they look like they are on the side of the Britsh motorist, when really they couldn't give a
. Money, money, money, that's all they care about. Andrew D said:
Ooh, risky positioning of the camera there, putting it on a right-hand bend means drivers can see it before hand, good job that extra-wide sign was put right behind it to divert attention! PH said:
The DfT selects sites where responsible motorists are speeding
Interesting assertion by the article, wouldn't mind seeing some evidence backing it up. How do we know that they are all responsible. Is flouting the law responsible?
In fact, the whole article could use some evidence to support Mr. Smiths statements, otherwise it seems a little dogmatic and one-sided. While we all agree that scameras are cynically misused, just jumping up and down and spouting vitriolic doctine isn't going to do anything about it. Reasoned argument backed up by facts is what's needed.
www.safespeed.org.uk/rules.html
The article hits the nail right on the blunt end. I'd welcome a camera in my village where it is impossible to drive safely at more than 20 mph whereas I bitterly resent the line of scameras that have recently sprung up along the nearby dual carriageway where I haven't seen an accident in 15 years.
BliarOut said:So if the reader wants supporting data he has to complain about it's absence, and then he's directed to it; is that how it works? Most undecided readers aren't going to seek out and trawl through "30,000 hours worth" of research, they'll just dismiss the article as a tirade and move on. And without winning over people to the author's viewpoint, the passage doesn't serve any purpose other than making the author feel better for having a good rant.
If you want the facts, read pauls research on www.safespeed.org.uk
PH said:Besides, it might be difficult to obtain conclusive, impartial data that supports the above quote, especially as "responsibility" is the mother of all normative asssessments.
The DfT selects sites where responsible motorists are speeding
Well...whatever your point of view, let's face facts. Cameras are here to stay, and they aren't going anywhere, ever. Most cameras are somewhere they shouldn't be, with the sole purpose and intent of creating huge amounts of revenue, and cheesing people off, pure and simple!!
Cameras should be outside schools, hospitals, small villages and genuine accident hotspots both pedestrian and vehicle on vehicle, with the sole purpose of reducing accidents and saving lives.
So... all the ranting and raving, complaining and griping and debating on the planet won't make the goverment change its mind or make them go away unless.... All drivers in the UK stand up together...each and everyone of us, and genuinely protest. But that won't happen will it...
We are all so accustomed to being told what to do and accepting it, that we just let it happen!!! So...until the numbers unite, stand up together and with one voice.. "PROTEST!!!", it will just go on...and on...and on....and on... Nuff said!!!
Cameras should be outside schools, hospitals, small villages and genuine accident hotspots both pedestrian and vehicle on vehicle, with the sole purpose of reducing accidents and saving lives.
So... all the ranting and raving, complaining and griping and debating on the planet won't make the goverment change its mind or make them go away unless.... All drivers in the UK stand up together...each and everyone of us, and genuinely protest. But that won't happen will it...
We are all so accustomed to being told what to do and accepting it, that we just let it happen!!! So...until the numbers unite, stand up together and with one voice.. "PROTEST!!!", it will just go on...and on...and on....and on... Nuff said!!!
Andrew D said:
Most undecided readers aren't going to seek out and trawl through "30,000 hours worth" of research, they'll just dismiss the article as a tirade and move on. And without winning over people to the author's viewpoint, the passage doesn't serve any purpose other than making the author feel better for having a good rant.
30,000 hours is an exaggeration. (Not my exaggeration.) I'm guessing it's up around 15,000 hours now, but that includes campaigning as well as research.
The original release went out with full references. See:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/SafeSpeedPR/message/13
scoobiewrx said:
Well...whatever your point of view, let's face facts. Cameras are here to stay, and they aren't going anywhere, ever. Most cameras are somewhere they shouldn't be, with the sole purpose and intent of creating huge amounts of revenue, and cheesing people off, pure and simple!!
Cameras should be outside schools, hospitals, small villages and genuine accident hotspots both pedestrian and vehicle on vehicle, with the sole purpose of reducing accidents and saving lives.
So... all the ranting and raving, complaining and griping and debating on the planet won't make the goverment change its mind or make them go away unless.... All drivers in the UK stand up together...each and everyone of us, and genuinely protest. But that won't happen will it...
We are all so accustomed to being told what to do and accepting it, that we just let it happen!!! So...until the numbers unite, stand up together and with one voice.. "PROTEST!!!", it will just go on...and on...and on....and on... Nuff said!!!
The call for protest is good. And it would bring things to a head faster. But we've got them beaten on the 'speed and safety' argument and the truth will prevail. Cameras will be scrapped.
I wouldn't DREAM of putting a camera outside a school. Have you seen this: www.safespeed.org.uk/speedo.html
safespeed said:
Most undecided readers aren't going to seek out and trawl through "30,000 hours worth" of research, they'll just dismiss the article as a tirade and move on. And without winning over people to the author's viewpoint, the passage doesn't serve any purpose other than making the author feel better for having a good rant.
30,000 hours is an exaggeration. (Not my exaggeration.) I'm guessing it's up around 15,000 hours now, but that includes campaigning as well as research.
The original release went out with full references. See:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/SafeSpeedPR/message/13
My exaggeration, sorry. I'm a slow reader
Most people of reasonable intelligence can of course work out that it's not even a mistake ('blunder') - how strange (not) that cameras are placed for maximum revenue. (This is why mainly accident-free drivers are being caught.)
I expect the camera businesses are choking that they're not allowed to conceal them, although ad hoc laser traps are often hidden to maximise the hit rate.
It has to be couched in terms of it being a "blunder" I suppose so as not to turn off those who are perhaps in doubt and may be put off by stronger commentary.
I expect the camera businesses are choking that they're not allowed to conceal them, although ad hoc laser traps are often hidden to maximise the hit rate.
It has to be couched in terms of it being a "blunder" I suppose so as not to turn off those who are perhaps in doubt and may be put off by stronger commentary.
They really had something there, didn't they? 
james_j said:
Most people of reasonable intelligence can of course work out that it's not even a mistake ('blunder') - how strange (not) that cameras are placed for maximum revenue. (This is why mainly accident-free drivers are being caught.)
I expect the camera businesses are choking that they're not allowed to conceal them, although ad hoc laser traps are often hidden to maximise the hit rate.
It has to be couched in terms of it being a "blunder" I suppose so as not to turn off those who are perhaps in doubt and may be put off by stronger commentary.
There really is a belief at the DfT that 'if more people are speeding it must be more dangerous'. Of course the opposite is true. In truth the more people who are 'speeding' the fewer hazards there are.
Couple that with the belief that 'cameras will change driver behaviour' and you can start to understand how and why they blunder.
safespeed said:
There really is a belief at the DfT that 'if more people are speeding it must be more dangerous'. Of course the opposite is true. In truth the more people who are 'speeding' the fewer hazards there are.
Couple that with the belief that 'cameras will change driver behaviour' and you can start to understand how and why they blunder.
I can't believe that they really are that stupid.
However, I can perfectly believe that they think we're stupid enough to believe it.
Andrew D said:
So if the reader wants supporting data he has to complain about it's absence, and then he's directed to it; is that how it works? Most undecided readers aren't going to seek out and trawl through "30,000 hours worth" of research, they'll just dismiss the article as a tirade and move on.
PH said:
The DfT selects sites where responsible motorists are speeding
Besides, it might be difficult to obtain conclusive, impartial data that supports the above quote, especially as "responsibility" is the mother of all normative asssessments.
Difficult = impossible.
SafeSpeed said:
Cameras may only be placed only placed where routine speeding is safe.
And where did this come from? Another Safespeed lie (or 'opinion')?
As for www.safespeed.org.uk/speedo.html, I can't believe I've spent 5 minutes reading such abject drivel.
Safespeed - what happened to the peer review? And plenty of remarks here about cameras just being there for revenue. Do you support that view too?
SafeSpeed said:
That's because, said the campaign, sites where it is officially dangerous to speed are still excluded from consideration as potential camera locations
Having now read the DfT document (anyone else other than Safespeed bothered to do that?) I am absolutely at a loss as to how you come to the above conclusion.
Specifically, your press release says;
Safespeed said:
Department for Transport (DfT) has published new rules for speed camera partnerships today. Unbelievably, sites where it is 'dangerous to speed' are
still excluded.
with the bold text in quotes. Yet if I search the entire DfT document, those words are not used at all.
What exactly do you mean by using the quotation marks? Is this an actual quote? Where from?
>> Edited by spnracing on Wednesday 1st February 22:38
Forums | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff