is safe speed spreading bull
Discussion
This is the text of a response prepared by Dr Marion Sinclair (boss of a Safety Cameras Partnership) about text origanating from Paul Smith's wed pages - interesting reading
Who is bull shhhhh who ?
_______________________________________________________
Your email that was sent to Sir George Young has been forwarded to the Constabulary for their comment, and then onto me as Project Manager for the Partnership. We recognise this extract from the SafeSpeed website, SafeSpeed being a small group of vehemently anti-speed camera lobbyists who have been working over the past year and a half to undermine government efforts to reduce road casualties through a managed roll-out of speed enforcement across the country. I raise this simply by way of introduction - the proponents of this website clearly have there own agenda and it is no surprise that they will be hosting comments of this nature on their web-page. Unfortunately they have not bothered to check the accuracy of much of the contents of the statement that was supplied.
I have been asked to address the contents of the article and comment. It is probably best to do that systematically, on a comment by comment basis.
15th May 2003 Hampshire has 16 cameras. None of them yet work'.
This is correct in that by the 15th of May the cameras themselves were not yet operating as we were still in the middle of testing the processes and systems. As I said in the media in the run-up to the launch of the cameras, we would be applying a moratorium on the use of the cameras for some weeks, to ensure that there would be no problems with processing the offences. It also gave the public some time to get used to the sight of the cameras before we started filming speed offences through them, which we believed would be the fair thing to do.
"In the first week of April 11,000 cars passed the sites and the infringement rate was set at 40 mph. Since only 18 cars, yes 18 of 11,000 were speeding by that measure, the plans to send drivers doing 36-40 a letter asking for compliance and a leaflet only have been scrapped."
Two major inaccuracies here. One - there was never a proposal to set enforcement thresholds at anything OTHER than the same levels we already used on our mobile routes. This Constabulary adheres to the ACPO guidelines for speed enforcement, and it had been agreed in mid-2002 that fixed cameras and mobile cameras would continue to be set at these levels (from 36 mph in 30 mph zone, 47 mph in 40 zone etc).
Secondly, the figures quoted here are both partial and incorrect. We had data from only 3 of the camera units by the first of April, indicating figures for three sites that simply bear no match for the figures quoted here. All of the sites that we use cameras at have are required to have at least 20 percent of vehicles exceeding the speed limit prior to enforcement. We expect to see a significant reduction in that level as soon as a camera is installed, particularly in the first few weeks after installation. If this data had indeed been collected (though the data that I have bears no resemblance to these figures) it would have indicated a good reduction in excessive speed, and would thus have been something for us to have been pleased with. But I can state categorically that no data of this sort was ever used to determine threshold levels, as these had been agreed by the Partnership, under the guidance of the Police, months before fixed cameras were a reality in Hampshire and the Isle of Wight.
"The safety camera partnership that runs the things is growing at one hell of a rate. They employ a statistician and a press officer. More employees planned. They have so much money from mobile camera enforcement, even they are embarrassed. They are spending it flat out to minimise returning it to government. Next big project to try to soak it up is to pay for a new traffic super garage (circa 2m). Web site being built too."
The writer was correct in recording that a data analyst, media officer and web-site had been funded through the Partnership. What he/she fails to report that all three are requirements of all Safety Camera Partnerships. We are obliged to employ a data analyst to ensure that the data we use is correct and up-to-date. We are obliged to employ a press officer and host a website because education is one of our key areas or responsibility and the rules of the national Safety Camera Partnerships insists that we adopt one.. The only other staff brought on to the Partnership have been police officers to assist with speed enforcement, our key business, or clerks to process tickets - both legitimate spends. We have never been 'embarrassed' by the revenue - our growth in ticket numbers over the course of the year was extremely modest. By that stage, in fact, there had not yet been any increase, and so the accusation that we were embarrassed is simply fantasy. Our ambition, however, is not to see an increase in ticket numbers or revenue, but on the contrary to get to a point where the numbers of speeding motorists falls at all our sites to the extent that we have achieved what we set out to do - reduce speeding and speed-related casualties on our routes.
The Safety Camera Partnership is not able to contribute financially in any way to any of our Partners for any activates not directly related to Safety Camera enforcement. There is no way that we would be able, let alone interested, in funding a Roads Policing Unit "garage".
"One of the many big deceits is the criteria for the cameras at 4 x KSI on the site over a 3 year period. Nobody is supposed to realise that the KSIs to make the site qualify are mostly not speed related. The partnership is (sic) a very vested interest with a different tack to the police. Only self interest of more cameras and building the empire."
Again, this is full of half truths and inaccuracies. Yes the criteria do require 4 KSI accidents over three years but the criteria also require speed data to ensure that there is a significant speed problem at that site - at least 20 percent of vehicles exceeding the speed limit and 85th percentiles have to be at ACPO levels or above. Both of these are reliable indicators of excessive speed. Together the speed and casualty criteria are considered to have a natural cause-effect relationship. This Partnership applies a more accurate test, however - we do a detailed analysis of every accident to determine primary and secondary causes, and will exclude any site at which fewer that one-third of all accidents were potentially speed related. That way we can ensure that speed enforcement will reduce casualties at that site, which is our primary objective. It means that we have far fewer cameras than a number of other Partnerships, but we have the certainty that they have been located based on the best intelligence possible. We do not use a different tack from the police - the Police are our leading Partner in the Partnership and we follow police processes and protocols in every way. Every one of our operational decisions has been made following consultation with senior police officers and is in line with standard police practice. This includes, and is well illustrated, in our use of enforcement thresholds which has already been addressed.
"The Supt of Portsmouth had 12 x NIPs land on his desk for police cars yesterday!"
I can confirm that we do, routinely, get a number of emergency vehicles on our cameras. Where records indicate that they were on legitimate business and the excessive speed had been unavoidable they are duly cancelled. Where they were not the offence notice is served on the driver in exactly the same way as it would be for any other member of the public. I can only surmise that the writer feels that extra leniency should be applied to police officers, which is something that we would not agree to.
"We now have an official target of turning the 33,000 annual tickets into 120,000."
This is entirely untrue. We do not work to targets related to numbers of tickets or revenue, only to the 2010 targets relating to the reduction of casualties on our roads.
"They have also got permission subject to certain criteria to have covert filming of some roads" This is again entirely incorrect. This has never been raised, let alone debated, in this Partnership. I understand that one other Partnership has used covert operations to address their motorcycle fatality problem but this has not been a policy that has been adopted in Hampshire and the Isle of Wight. Neither is it 'in the pipeline'. We have gone to great lengths to explain to the public that we want them to be aware of where cameras are because that will help reduce speeds and casualties. Why would we jeopardise all that good will by doing covert operations?
"Almost all of us in my traffic office are anti-camera, at least in the form they are taking. As always the need to get rid of the cash or find something new to spend it on continues. Another analyst post created, a traffic sgt to interface between police and partnership, media person and some grasscrete to park the vans on. All our of middle England's pay-packet."
Once again - incorrect. No new media person, no new analyst. One of each is enough thank you. We have no urgency to spend money - every bit of expenditure is planned for a year in advance and all of it has to be justified to the Department or Transport in advance. All expenditure is audited specifically to ensure than no unnecessary or inappropriate costs are being incurred. The funds for the Partnership are coming only from revenue that is generated by drivers exceeding the speed limit. That has a natural justice about is. The answer - to those who want to see the end of Safety Camera Partnerships - is very simple - don't speed. Not only will we be delighted because road deaths and serious accidents will come down, but so will they, and Safety camera Partnerships will become redundant. A win-win situation.
Overall, the tone of this letter sounds like it comes from someone with a grudge. We know that not all of the public supports speed enforcement, although our own research indicates that 86% of the public support the use of cameras to reduce casualties, and the BBC research found the level to be in the region of 75%. However we have to accept that there will always be an element of the media that is hostile to what we do, and similarly that not all the employees within our Partner organisations will fully agree with speed enforcement. Given that this was a SafeSpeed web-page article I suspect that the whole intention of the article was to add weight behind the pressure to stop speed enforcement completely across the UK, and allow drivers to choose their own 'safe' speed. That is the fundamental belief of the Safe Speed group. For your information the SafeSpeed Webpage clearly states: "We believe that the Government, the DfT and their subcontractors are conspiring to mislead the public about the nature of road dangers....The Advertising Standards Authority recently ruled that "speed cameras save lives" was legitimate and permissible claim, but they were misled and we are trying to set that straight". They are obviously wanting to show that Safety Cameras Partnerships are either unnecessary or corrupt, and the writer of this article clearly had the same motive. It is interesting to note that there have been no further contributions to that websiste by this writer since July 2003, and I can only assume that he/she has since got to know more accurate details about that Partnership and has no more mistruths to add. What I hope has happened is that he/she has come to see the very real difference we are making to road safety, and how carefully we go about our business, and has become one of the growing numbers of our supporters across the county.
In conclusion, let me make the point that evidence nationally, internationally and locally shows that speed and red-light camera enforcement reduces the number of accidents. An independent study of the eight pilot Safety Camera Partnerships, which was published by the DfT in February 2003, shows a 35% reduction in the number of people killed or seriously injured at camera locations and a 56% reduction in the number of pedestrian casualties at camera locations. Our latest figures show that on our mobile routes last year (April 2002 to March 2003) there was a 22 percent reduction in personal injury accidents and a 28 percent reduction in serious or fatal injuries. We are extremely careful to carry out our enforcement in the most intelligent and moderate way possible, and I believe our attention and care is paying off.
Dr Marion Sinclair
Never a clever move to try to score points from someone's grammar (so I'm going to do it 
) :
Is the partnership not a singular entity ?
>> Edited by margo on Thursday 1st April 09:23
) : Dr Marion Sinclair said:
"The partnership is (sic) a very vested interest with a different tack to the police. Only self interest of more cameras and building the empire."
Is the partnership not a singular entity ?
>> Edited by margo on Thursday 1st April 09:23
pwig said:
least 20 percent of vehicles exceeding the speed limit and 85th percentiles have to be at ACPO levels or above.
Anyone spot the deliberate mistake?
There isn't one.
For example:
Speed limit = 70
85th %ile = 90
50th %ile = 70
The 85 %ile is in excess of the ACPO level (10% + 3) and more than 20% of vehicles are travelling in excess of the speed limit.
(Of course, if the 85 %ile is more than the ACPO level this would tend to suggest that the speed limit has been incorrectly set and/or local circumstances are not being adequately indicated to road users)
PetrolTed said:
Given the volume of information on Paul's site, I suspect there are going to be innaccuracies. To suggest that he's trying to undermine road safety is a cheap shot though.
He's exposed the fact that we're in a propoganda war and that facts should be given great scrutiny.
Not only that, he states very clearly on SafeSpeed that if any figures or facts are shown to be wrong or inaccurate he will update them. Not something you see on Scamera sites...
Not read the whole article yet, but from what I have read so far, it does seem that this particular SCP is looking to try and avoid the mistakes of others....which has to be a good thing. However, there still remains several unanswered questions and inaccuracies (as pointed out previously). This still does point me towards some form of conspiracy to try and bamboozle / confuse the public.
I am sure there are good SCP's and bad ones too - but while they remain unaccountable to the public, can walk through the APCO / DoT guidelines and they lie about statistics - then I am afraid they must still go. Put the control back into the hands of the police forces (accountability and focused responses) with independent auditing of the statistics (no hiding behind this 35% reduction in casualties figure!) with consistent and complementary programmes for education and support....
Until then, I am afraid all SCP's have a self-interest in maintaining the status quo and deceiving us with lies and statistics. Like I said, this one might be one of the "better" ones, but its still set-up incorrectly and they are all still tarred with the same brush.....ALL SCP's MUST GO....
I am sure there are good SCP's and bad ones too - but while they remain unaccountable to the public, can walk through the APCO / DoT guidelines and they lie about statistics - then I am afraid they must still go. Put the control back into the hands of the police forces (accountability and focused responses) with independent auditing of the statistics (no hiding behind this 35% reduction in casualties figure!) with consistent and complementary programmes for education and support....
Until then, I am afraid all SCP's have a self-interest in maintaining the status quo and deceiving us with lies and statistics. Like I said, this one might be one of the "better" ones, but its still set-up incorrectly and they are all still tarred with the same brush.....ALL SCP's MUST GO....
PetrolTed said:
Given the volume of information on Paul's site, I suspect there are going to be innaccuracies. To suggest that he's trying to undermine road safety is a cheap shot though.
He's exposed the fact that we're in a propoganda war and that facts should be given great scrutiny.
Propaganda war is right!
Go down to relative's wedding anniversary bash every year. Said "puss cat" lives in Cambs.
A14 - truvelos every 1/4 mile at one point. Speed limit - 70mph. They allow PEDESTRIANS to cross this road!
(Little gaps in dual carriageway and hazard triangle - which are nowhere near said truvelos! 
Looked at the Pratnership's website for talivan activity. Site gave target areas - and even justified it ---- by saying there had been 187 deaths on this very day in 2000, 2001, 2002, and 2003.
That's some death toll on that day - even spread out at so many per date in question! Well, given that the WildCat clan all tootled down the road in question on those very dates - and have been doing so since 1985 - how come not one member of the family (and there are 32 of us plus kittens - not jesting about big family!
) saw any accident, were not held up after any accident, never saw any accident report on "Look East", never read any accident report in local or national newspaper (and that kind of death toll would have been "Sunsational" at least!). Relativce in question is medic. Colleagues were not called back to local hospitals to deal with major influx of casualties, not did the transplant folk receive any "candidates for organ donation" Have written to pratnership asking for proof - given that the "facts" given on their site were questionable - not received response yet!
Propaganda war - all facts should be given proper scrutiny. Of course, there will be flaws in our arguments - but given the above blatant exaggeration from the other side, non-existant negotiation, Pratnerships having differing standards and tolerances on "persecutions" - meaning that points on licences become part of post code lottery, and general whitewashing on part of the pro-lobby, it would seem that the flaws in our argument are minor by comparison!
margo said:
Never a clever move to try to score points from someone's grammar (so I'm going to do it
"The partnership is (sic) a very vested interest with a different tack to the police. Only self interest of more cameras and building the empire."
Is the partnership not a singular entity ?
It is, yes - but a partenrship HAS a vested interest, it is not one itself. So it wasn't a clever move was it?
WildCat said:
Looked at the Pratnership's website for talivan activity. Site gave target areas - and even justified it ---- by saying there had been 187 deaths on this very day in 2000, 2001, 2002, and 2003.
Been down that very stretch of road many times and to have a death toll of 187 a day is pretty stunning! My god that makes tens of thousands per year!!! Ok, maybe they mean injuries...... that must be it - but then again, do the Police turn out to these too? They must spend all of their time attending road accidents - or is it that they have got their figures completely wrong and they are up their own arse? Surely not - they wouldnt lie to us would they? They are protecting us from dangerous drivers and death..... well they must be right, mustnt they?
DR MARION ---- DR OF WHAT?. WE NEED REAL DOCTORS NOT PRTEND ONES WHO DONT LIVE IN THE REAL WORLD .WHY DO WE NEED A DOCTOR FOR SCAMMERAS ?.OH YES ITS SO THEY CAN DOCTOR THE FIQURES !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
JUST GOT BACK FROM SPAIN AND NOT A CAMERA IN SITE ARE WE THE ONLY REAL TURKEYS IN THE OVEN?.
JUST GOT BACK FROM SPAIN AND NOT A CAMERA IN SITE ARE WE THE ONLY REAL TURKEYS IN THE OVEN?.
deltaf said:
Only 18 out of 11000 were speeding....why the cameras then?
I KNOW who I believe, and it aint no speed scam quango!
Presumably the partnership would answer 'because the speed cameras are seen to reduce the number of speeding motorists.'. You can't have it both ways:
1) Speed cameras are revenue generating devices and do not slow people down
&
2) Speed cemeras that do not catch many people should be removed/shouldn't be there.
Darren.
I particularly like...
(my italics)
If they do a "detailed analysis of every accident", where exactly does "potentially speed related" sneak into it? Surely a detailed analysis of events that have already happened would be able to provide something just a touch more precise than this? In fact, why stop at a third? Surely every single accident is "potentially speed related" by its very nature, in the same way that every fall is "gravity related". Doesn't help much in establishing causes though does it?
Talk about weasel words!
>> Edited by BlackStuff on Thursday 1st April 16:11
marion sinclair said:
This Partnership applies a more accurate test, however - we do a detailed analysis of every accident to determine primary and secondary causes, and will exclude any site at which fewer that one-third of all accidents were potentially speed related.
(my italics)
If they do a "detailed analysis of every accident", where exactly does "potentially speed related" sneak into it? Surely a detailed analysis of events that have already happened would be able to provide something just a touch more precise than this? In fact, why stop at a third? Surely every single accident is "potentially speed related" by its very nature, in the same way that every fall is "gravity related". Doesn't help much in establishing causes though does it?
Talk about weasel words!
>> Edited by BlackStuff on Thursday 1st April 16:11
BlackStuff said:
I particularly like...
marion sinclair said:
This Partnership applies a more accurate test, however - we do a detailed analysis of every accident to determine primary and secondary causes, and will exclude any site at which fewer that one-third of all accidents were potentially speed related.
(my italics)
If they do a "detailed analysis of every accident", where exactly does "potentially speed related" sneak into it? Surely a detailed analysis of events that have already happened would be able to provide something just a touch more precise than this? In fact, why stop at a third? Surely every single accident is "potentially speed related" by its very nature, in the same way that every fall is "gravity related". Doesn't help much in establishing causes though does it?
Talk about weasel words!
>> Edited by BlackStuff on Thursday 1st April 16:11
It's actually quite simple really, they lie by saying speed is a factor in 1/3rd of all accidents, therefore by applying this 1/3rd bit to the sites they can justify any camera by saying that 1/3 rd were 'potentially' speed-related.
Of course we all know that excessive/inappropriate speed is a primary factor in maybe 3% of accidents and that driver error is usually the problem, so let's ignore that
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff