Durham police chief v ersus the Scameraships
Discussion
In case your firewall prevents access to the link, herewith the relevant texts:
Streaky
The Journal said:
Police chief's attack
Jun 16 2004
By Neil Mckay, The Journal
A North police chief is on a collision course with Government policymakers after accusing roadside speed camera supporters of "deliberately trying to mislead" over their effectiveness.
The controversial comments by County Durham Chief Constable Paul Garvin came on the day Transport Secretary Alistair Darling claimed casualties at fixed camera sites have fallen by 40pc - preventing over 100 deaths per year.
But Mr Garvin said: "The pro-camera lobby, and a lot of the safety partnerships, deliberately misquote the statistics to try and mislead people to try and justify their position.
"I think it is disingenuous if we are really intent on reducing casualties on the road - as opposed to enforcing speed limits and dishing out lots of tickets."
Mr Garvin estimates the number of accidents caused by speeding at between 3pc and 4pc - far less than those caused by drivers who are tired or drunk.
The chief constable said that more accidents are caused by poor driving
habits than simply speed limits being broken.
But Mr Darling argued that figures from across Britain show 100 fewer deaths and more than 700 fewer people seriously injured last year following the introduction of fixed cameras.
The number of pedestrians killed or seriously injured, he said, fell by 35pc.
He says the average speed of traffic at new camera sites fell by around 2.4 miles per hour.
He added: "These figures prove that cameras save lives. The number of people speeding has come down and there has been a significant reduction in deaths and injuries at camera sites."
Durham is one of only a handful of forces in Britain which does not use static speed cameras.
The force uses mobile speed cameras on 17 routes across the county, while police patrol cars also catch speeding motorists.
In contrast, there are static speed cameras at 48 sites across the Northumbria force area.
Ray King, safety camera project manager for Speed for Life, a partnership between Northumbria Police, local councils, magistrates' courts and the Highways Agency, said: "I would not wish to comment on what Paul Garvin said. The new figures are for forces which have had fixed cameras for three years.
"We have had them for one year and it is too early to say how successful they have been, but we have seen an 11pc casualty reduction during that period.
"All our new fixed cameras are located at known collision hotspots where there is a history of people being killed or seriously injured.
"Safety cameras are not the answer to all our problems on the road, but they do have an important role to play, if they can encourage us all to change our attitudes towards speeding."
Mr Garvin countered: "More accidents are caused by inattention, drink driving, or nowadays, more by driving under the influence of drugs.
"And these statistics adopted by certain forces show a woolly area regarding the proximity of speed cameras.
"Some statistics are taken from an area 20 metres from a camera and others from a two-kilometre radius."
But Mr Garvin insisted: "This force is not soft on speeding motorists. Our officers issue 7,000 speeding tickets a year. We adopt an intelligence-led approach by looking at persistent offenders and also targeting drink and drug driving and bad driving.
"Perhaps the Government should be held accountable for the fact that they have not agreed to fund the upgrading of the A66. That would save many more lives than speed cameras. The speed cameras issue is not a point of principle, it is a fact that they are pointless."
==
Government hits back
The Government hit back at speed camera critics yesterday by publishing figures showing the devices were considerably reducing deaths and serious injuries.
Produced by University College London, the statistics showed that deaths and serious injuries had fallen by an average of 40pc at camera sites in the three years to mid-2003.
This was the equivalent of 100 fewer deaths a year - a figure hailed by Transport Secretary Alistair Darling, and safety and environment groups. But the anti-camera group the Safe Speed Road Safety Campaign said the figures were "deeply flawed", while the Association of British Drivers said the UK's road-death reduction rate was far lower than that of some European countries.
As many as 42 police force areas in England, Scotland and Wales are now in the Government's camera partnership scheme in which money raised goes towards new cameras, with the Treasury receiving any surplus.
The report also showed:
There were 870 fewer people killed or seriously injured per year;
There was a 33pc fall in injury accidents - 4,030 fewer per year;
The number of vehicles speeding at new camera sites dropped by 71pc;
79pc of people surveyed supported the use of cameras to reduce casualties;
The benefit to society through casualties saved was about £221m a year;
Mr Darling said: "These figures prove that cameras save lives."
The Association of Chief Police Officers said the report showed that cameras did and could save lives, while the AA Motoring Trust said that motorists needed to be reminded that cameras were about safety and not revenue.
==
Chief's figures
Mr Garvin said his figures show that in 2002 there were 1,900 accidents on the road in his force area, which covers the whole of County Durham and Darlington.
Of those, less than 3pc, or one in 35, were caused by speeding. He added that the force target in County Durham, of reducing road accidents by 40pc by 2010, is "on target to achieve by 2006."
Northumbria Police advocate the use of fixed speed cameras and points to the success of reducing accidents on the notorious A1 Stannington bypass south of Morpeth. There is currently a 50mph limit while a major road safety scheme is constructed. A spokesman said : "When the roadworks there are completed and the limit is increased to 70mph we will remove the cameras."
Streaky
xxplod said:
Not heard of Mr. Garvin until now. What a top bloke. Full marks for putting his head above the parapet and talking complete sense.
Here's a couple he prepared earlier:
www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2003/12/07/ncam07.xml
www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2003/11/28/ncam228.xml
Lock me up someone quick!!!!8Pack said:
Just noticed!
"The benefit to society through casualties saved was around £221 million" and here's me thinking it was ALL about SAFETY!! Curious statement to make.
The benefit would have been to Government expenditure! Now that's the REAL goal isn't it?
Yes, but those figures are bullshit.
They include fixed costs that remain in place whether road casualties come in or not.
[quote=The Article said]Instead of installing speed cameras, he has embarked on an intensive education campaign among 17 and 18-year-olds and those who have been involved in accidents to improve their driving skills.[quote]
Give the man medal for this alone
I was thinking about writing to my MP today but I will definatly do it now!
Paul, if you are reading this - Don't let the b
ds grind you down!
Give the man medal for this alone
I was thinking about writing to my MP today but I will definatly do it now!
Paul, if you are reading this - Don't let the b
ds grind you down! The thing that really bothers me about the whole issue is the spin attached to the Government soundbites. When you casually read "870 fewer people killed and seriously injured" you think "oh, must be working then". What they don't say, obviously, is that the overall death rate is fairly static, meaning that even if cameras ARE preventing accidents at certain spots, MORE accidents are happening elsewhere to keep the total constant. They're not reducing death, they're just changing who gets killed, all the while raking in the cash - a quite brilliant scam when you thik about it. Very much like some of the anti drug policies where councils issue ASBOs to stop junkies hanging around on the street. Result? One area gets cleaned up, but the problem just shifts next door, then the whole cycle starts again. Exactly the same thing is happening with cameras - they're not saving anyone, they're just shifting the problem somewhere else. The only solution I can see is either cameras everywhere or no cameras anywhere.
Someone with a high profile needs to be pressuring Darling to explain a) the increase in fatalities away from camera sites and (perhaps more importantly) b) what is he doing about it? His comments are deliberately misleading the public.
Someone with a high profile needs to be pressuring Darling to explain a) the increase in fatalities away from camera sites and (perhaps more importantly) b) what is he doing about it? His comments are deliberately misleading the public.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff