Drivers' body calls for end to scamera secrecy
Camera Partnerships must come clean on real causes of accidents says ABD
Road safety group the Association of British Drivers today called on the UK's Camera Partnerships to end their culture of secrecy. The ABD believes that Camera Partnerships are potentially covering up causes of accidents and trying to avoid damaging scrutiny that would show exceeding speed limits is not their main cause.
Government guidelines on camera placement state that any accident, no matter what the cause, can be used to justify a camera -- even if it doesn't involve speed in excess of the speed limit. Camera partnerships are allowed to place cameras up to 5km from accident sites. That is why the ABD wants to see all camera partnerships publish detailed, basic data on their Web sites including:
- The causes of each crash (this data is available from forms completed at crash sites by police officers), including how many are caused by exceeding a posted limit
- The number of accidents per annum per camera site for five years before installation and to date, split by slight, serious and fatal crashes
- The revenue raised by each camera
- The distance between the accidents that have justified the camera's placement and the camera itself
- Details of engineering work carried out at the same time as camera installation
"We simply can't get real figures out of the partnerships," says Mark McArthur-Christie, the Association's Road Safety Spokesman. "When we ask for hard data we're just fobbed off with stonewalling, buck-passing, excuses and irrelevant averages." The Association has found that accident causation data or real results are seldom released by camera partnerships - in fact, they appear not to know what causes the crashes they use to justify camera placement.
In recent correspondence with the Speed Camera Partnership for Avon, Somerset and Gloucestershire, the ABD attempted to find out the causes of the 17 accidents which led to a wide, clear, newly-built dual-carriageway being posted at 50 mph with the limit enforced with cameras. In its three-month correspondence, The Association was variously referred to W S Atkins, Highways Maintenance, the Highways Authority, the police and finally back to the Camera Partnership. Despite one camera being removed and then later replaced some months later, the Partnership even claimed "we are not aware of any removal, replacement or re-siting of this camera." The ABD has still not been given the causes of the accidents.
In fact, in a final letter, the Partnership wrote "Contributory factors (to accidents) are subjective, and not all accidents will have details filled out by the police…" The Partnership seemed either not to know what causes accidents that are used to justify their cameras or are simply refusing to tell the public, said the ABD.
"Road deaths are rising nationally and we need to get the truth on cameras - fast. It's time for the public to see the real data that shows cameras are not working, not spun averages and statistical manipulation," says Brian Gregory, ABD Chairman. He continues, "When all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail. The only weapons the partnerships have are the cameras that fund their continued existence, so they're presented as a catch all safety solution. But if they've nothing to hide, let's see them publish the real figures - they should have the data at their fingertips."
The public are entitled to have access to the raw data (Not manipulated and meaningless statistics) to ensure that they are not being mislead.
Based on the information I have seen, the scameraships have an awful lot to cover up.
lunarscope said:
It could easily be argued that the managers of a large number of these 'Safety' Partnerships are guilty of 'malfeasance'.
Aye I was wondering how to accuse a certain plod of 'misfeasance in public office' when he insists on telling us deaths are down due to nearly 6000 cameras when we all know that 2003 saw the highest number of fatals since the the extremist socialists came to power.
jamesc said:
Plunkett was speaking to the Super's conference today and claimed cameras reduced accidents and deaths by 40%. He was boasted that in 1930 there were 7000 deaths with 2 million cars. And now there 3500 deaths and 30 million cars. Plunkett told the police that this was due to their hard work and the cameras! Has he not noticed that cars have actually become safer!
He has dificulty there...he can only sniff them....
jamesc said:
Plunkett was speaking to the Super's conference today and claimed cameras reduced accidents and deaths by 40%. He was boasted that in 1930 there were 7000 deaths with 2 million cars. And now there 3500 deaths and 30 million cars. Plunkett told the police that this was due to their hard work and the cameras! Has he not noticed that cars have actually become safer!
Of course there's a straight line joining those 2 points and the only causes of improvement in 74 years has been harder work by the police and the introduction of cameras......not.
mrmaggit said:
You are never going to get an answer from a civil servant that is liable to cost them a cushy job, regardless of whether that answer is in the publics interest or not.
That's, I'm sure the main problem.
They know they are on rocky ground as far as justification for their whole existence.
It's going to be difficult to extract them from their cushy job where money just flows in without effort.
They will try hard to maintain the moral high ground for as long as they can get away with it.
8Pack said:
Does anybody actually know who the partners are in a Speed Camera Partnership?
So far as I know, they are the police and local council, but who else?
Typically you'll find the local Magistrates' Court (where you'll go to get prosecuted if you contest a ticket), the local councils, the Police and sometimes the local NHS trust as well. I've seen some sites quoting the CPS too.
So there you have it - the people who nick you, the people who prosecute you and the people to whom you'd plead your case if you thought you weren't guilty. A neat little one-stop-shop.
MMC said:
danhay said:
Does anybody actually know who the partners are in a Speed Camera Partnership?
So far as I know, they are the police and local council, but who else?
Typically you'll find the local Magistrates' Court (where you'll go to get prosecuted if you contest a ticket), the local councils, the Police and sometimes the local NHS trust as well. I've seen some sites quoting the CPS too.
So there you have it - the people who nick you, the people who prosecute you and the people to whom you'd plead your case if you thought you weren't guilty. A neat little one-stop-shop.
It isn't the magistrates Courts, it is the Magistrates Court Service - the people who provide the building and staff who administer the fines etc. The Magistrates are not allowed to be a partner, that wouldn't be fair now would it?
I haven't seen the CPS on the board of any.
So not quite the one-stop-shop you state!
SteveCallaghan said:
8Pack said:
danhay said:
Does anybody actually know who the partners are in a Speed Camera Partnership?
So far as I know, they are the police and local council, but who else?
Typically you'll find the local Magistrates' Court (where you'll go to get prosecuted if you contest a ticket), the local councils, the Police and sometimes the local NHS trust as well. I've seen some sites quoting the CPS too.
So there you have it - the people who nick you, the people who prosecute you and the people to whom you'd plead your case if you thought you weren't guilty. A neat little one-stop-shop.
It isn't the magistrates Courts, it is the Magistrates Court Service - the people who provide the building and staff who administer the fines etc. The Magistrates are not allowed to be a partner, that wouldn't be fair now would it?
I haven't seen the CPS on the board of any.
So not quite the one-stop-shop you state!
But Liebchen - come now - they are encouraged to toe the party line - are they not?
SteveCallaghan said:
8Pack said:
danhay said:
Does anybody actually know who the partners are in a Speed Camera Partnership?
So far as I know, they are the police and local council, but who else?
Typically you'll find the local Magistrates' Court (where you'll go to get prosecuted if you contest a ticket), the local councils, the Police and sometimes the local NHS trust as well. I've seen some sites quoting the CPS too.
So there you have it - the people who nick you, the people who prosecute you and the people to whom you'd plead your case if you thought you weren't guilty. A neat little one-stop-shop.
It isn't the magistrates Courts, it is the Magistrates Court Service - the people who provide the building and staff who administer the fines etc. The Magistrates are not allowed to be a partner, that wouldn't be fair now would it?
I haven't seen the CPS on the board of any.
So not quite the one-stop-shop you state!
I understand - please correct me if I am wrong - that the Clerk is emplyed my the Magistrates Court Service. And its the clerk who effectively controls the court - "advising" the moron magistrates of what they should accept and what not to accept.
Sean
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff