Let battle commence...
Discussion
Finally got round to emailing Herts SCP with my concerns. This was sent over two weeks ago :-
Dear Sir/Madam
I was wondering if you could help answer some queries I have regarding
safety cameras in Garston / North Watford? Your website quotes the
following regarding camera positioning :-
"Static camera sites can only be positioned on a section of road where there
has been a minimum of eight personal injury collisions within a three year
period of which four must be fatal and/or serious collisions". (1)
I would be grateful if you could provide me (if possible) with the figures
relating to the following static camera sites :-
SC00301 / SC00302 / SC00303 / SC00306 / SC00308 / SC00309
Could you please also clarify whether these guidelines relate to individual
cameras or merely allow multiple cameras to be sited on said "section of
road"? Also, what does "a section of road" constitue in terms of distance?
Furthermore, I would also be grateful if you could explain the logic of
siting camera SC00303 AFTER the staggered First Avenue / Sheepcot Lane /
A412 junction - a junction that has witnessed more than its fair share of
accidents (although I'd argue most were due to driver inattention and not
speed). Surely this camera would be far more effective were it sited BEFORE
the junction, thus slowing vehicles down prior to the combined hazards of
two side turnings, a pedestrian crossing, a bus stop and a retirement home?
I fail to see the safety benefit of slowing vehicles down after such a
concentration of hazards. Shutting the stable door after the horse has
bolted, surely?
Finally, does the Hertfordshire road safety policy (either current or future) include further use of vehicle activated warning signs? Transport Research Laboratory studies have found these signs to be more effective than normal safety cameras in reducing vehicle speed (2), yet they are in a definite minority on our roads. I am aware of four such signs within my local area, compared to no less than 16 safety cameras. This only serves to fuel the increasing cynicism regarding the proliferation of safety cameras being less about safety and more about revenue generation.
Yours faithfully
Hornet
(1) www.hertsdirect.org/environment/trans/rsu/driving/safetycameras/
(2) www.trl.co.uk/static/dtlr/pdfs/548summary.pdf
Just sent them this, copied to our local Conservative candidate :-
Dear Sir/Madam
I am still awaiting a response to my email on 16th May, which raised queries regarding the recently installed safety cameras on the A412 in Garston. I note that these cameras still do not have identification numbers displayed.
The camera at the First Avenue / St Albans Road junction (SC00303) remains my primary concern. I simply cannot see how placing a camera AFTER a busy junction can be of any benefit from a safety standpoint.
I also note that the Hertfordshire Safety Camera Partnership website makes no mention of 2003 casualty figures - are these available? I would be genuinely interested to compare them to other Partnership areas, many of whom are claiming their operations a success despite alarming increases in fatalities.
I await your response with interest.
Yours Faithfully
Hornet
Anyone dealt with this mob before?
Dear Sir/Madam
I was wondering if you could help answer some queries I have regarding
safety cameras in Garston / North Watford? Your website quotes the
following regarding camera positioning :-
"Static camera sites can only be positioned on a section of road where there
has been a minimum of eight personal injury collisions within a three year
period of which four must be fatal and/or serious collisions". (1)
I would be grateful if you could provide me (if possible) with the figures
relating to the following static camera sites :-
SC00301 / SC00302 / SC00303 / SC00306 / SC00308 / SC00309
Could you please also clarify whether these guidelines relate to individual
cameras or merely allow multiple cameras to be sited on said "section of
road"? Also, what does "a section of road" constitue in terms of distance?
Furthermore, I would also be grateful if you could explain the logic of
siting camera SC00303 AFTER the staggered First Avenue / Sheepcot Lane /
A412 junction - a junction that has witnessed more than its fair share of
accidents (although I'd argue most were due to driver inattention and not
speed). Surely this camera would be far more effective were it sited BEFORE
the junction, thus slowing vehicles down prior to the combined hazards of
two side turnings, a pedestrian crossing, a bus stop and a retirement home?
I fail to see the safety benefit of slowing vehicles down after such a
concentration of hazards. Shutting the stable door after the horse has
bolted, surely?
Finally, does the Hertfordshire road safety policy (either current or future) include further use of vehicle activated warning signs? Transport Research Laboratory studies have found these signs to be more effective than normal safety cameras in reducing vehicle speed (2), yet they are in a definite minority on our roads. I am aware of four such signs within my local area, compared to no less than 16 safety cameras. This only serves to fuel the increasing cynicism regarding the proliferation of safety cameras being less about safety and more about revenue generation.
Yours faithfully
Hornet
(1) www.hertsdirect.org/environment/trans/rsu/driving/safetycameras/
(2) www.trl.co.uk/static/dtlr/pdfs/548summary.pdf
Just sent them this, copied to our local Conservative candidate :-
Dear Sir/Madam
I am still awaiting a response to my email on 16th May, which raised queries regarding the recently installed safety cameras on the A412 in Garston. I note that these cameras still do not have identification numbers displayed.
The camera at the First Avenue / St Albans Road junction (SC00303) remains my primary concern. I simply cannot see how placing a camera AFTER a busy junction can be of any benefit from a safety standpoint.
I also note that the Hertfordshire Safety Camera Partnership website makes no mention of 2003 casualty figures - are these available? I would be genuinely interested to compare them to other Partnership areas, many of whom are claiming their operations a success despite alarming increases in fatalities.
I await your response with interest.
Yours Faithfully
Hornet
Anyone dealt with this mob before?
girlracer said:
good work Hornet... let us know what happens.
Bugger all if their current lack of response is anything to go by! I'm giving them the benefit of the doubt for now, as they don't seem anything like as rabid as some of the other partnerships. That said, their "Press Coverage" section contains one article. ONE. Guess what it is? "Debunking speed camera myths". Same garbage that Essex have on their page I think.
puggit said:
Hornet - isn't Watford a Tory area? It always was when I lived nearby.
Don't think so - Thought Clair Ward was the MP and I'm sure she's Labour. To be honest I copied the Tory guy on the email because of the slightly more motorist friendly rumblings coming from them lately. He replied to me last night, which was pretty quick! Sent him a more detailed email outlining my concerns and suggesting that Herts SCP would have contacted me in considerably less than three weeks had I triggered one of their cameras
Told him I thought the SCPs were unaccountable, subject to a glaring conflict of interest and spiralling out of control.
[CitizenSmithmodeon]
POWER TO THE PEOPLE!
[/CitizenSmithmodeoff]
hornet said:
Any news Hornet?
Nope. Not a sausage. Doesn't surprise me in the slightest really. Maybe I should set off a Gatso...at least that way they'd write to me!
Why not try, getting someone to hold a paper placard in front of the Gatso, completely filling the field of view, saying: "ANSWER MY BLOODY E-MAIL" Then speed by it at 50mph!
8Pack said:Probably get arrested for "obstructing a police officer in the execution ...", in that, (a) you prevented the camera taking a photograph of the offending vehicle, and (b) you did willfully encourage members of the SCP to divert from their task of demanding money with menaces from the Queen's subjects so as to fill the Chancellor's coffers (aka "bottomless pit in the accounts") merely to answer a question from a nonentity (i.e. a tax-payer)
cacatous said:
Any news Hornet?
Nope. Not a sausage. Doesn't surprise me in the slightest really. Maybe I should set off a Gatso...at least that way they'd write to me!
Why not try, getting someone to hold a paper placard in front of the Gatso, completely filling the field of view, saying: "ANSWER MY BLOODY E-MAIL" Then speed by it at 50mph!
- StreakyGassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff