BBC Radio Sheffield at 4:45pm Today
Discussion
I'm on BBC Radio Sheffield today, head to head with Alan Brailey from the South Yorkshire camera partnership talking about this press release:
============================
Motorists back safety cameras
South Yorkshire motorists have given overwhelming backing to the use of safety cameras to curb speeding on local roads.
A survey of over 1,000 drivers carried out by South Yorkshire Police Authority revealed significant support for the safety camera campaign.
Eighty-seven per cent of the drivers taking part in the Police Talk survey thought there were likely to be fewer accidents on roads covered by safety cameras. And 73 per cent thought that the main aim of the cameras was to save lives.
Significantly, 81 per cent of motorists believed that the cameras were meant to encourage people to stick to the speed limit – not punish them.
The findings have been welcomed by South Yorkshire Safety Camera Partnership, which is responsible for the network of roadside and static cameras on the county’s road network.
“It is very heartening to hear that most drivers believe we want to make our roads safer – not that we are simply out to make money,” said the partnership’s communications manager Alan Brailey.
“The fact is that we are not allowed to make a profit. All we want to do is make our roads safer by encouraging drivers to consider their speed and stay within the legal limits.”
Last year, 65 people were killed and 683 seriously injured on South Yorkshire roads.
The study found that a majority of drivers - 66 per cent – believed that speed was a key factor in a majority of accidents. And 75 per cent of drivers thought that safety cameras should be supported as a way of reducing casualties.
Sixty two per cent thought that dangerous drivers were more likely to be caught because of cameras. And a majority of all respondents felt that catching speeding drivers should be a medium or high priority.
Eighty-seven per cent thought that cameras should be highly visible – in line with the policy of South Yorkshire Safety Camera Partnership.
The high-profile campaign uses bright yellow camera housings and publishes a list of active camera locations at the partnership website, www.safetycamera.org.
Continues/
Alan added: “We want to make speeding as socially unacceptable as drink-driving. If the support revealed by this survey continues, there is every chance that we can achieve that goal.”
The South Yorkshire findings come after an national independent study found that 79 per cent of people asked supported the use of cameras to reduce casualties - and that the benefit to society through reduced casualties is about £221 million per year.
Ends
=========================
I'm looking forward to it.
============================
Motorists back safety cameras
South Yorkshire motorists have given overwhelming backing to the use of safety cameras to curb speeding on local roads.
A survey of over 1,000 drivers carried out by South Yorkshire Police Authority revealed significant support for the safety camera campaign.
Eighty-seven per cent of the drivers taking part in the Police Talk survey thought there were likely to be fewer accidents on roads covered by safety cameras. And 73 per cent thought that the main aim of the cameras was to save lives.
Significantly, 81 per cent of motorists believed that the cameras were meant to encourage people to stick to the speed limit – not punish them.
The findings have been welcomed by South Yorkshire Safety Camera Partnership, which is responsible for the network of roadside and static cameras on the county’s road network.
“It is very heartening to hear that most drivers believe we want to make our roads safer – not that we are simply out to make money,” said the partnership’s communications manager Alan Brailey.
“The fact is that we are not allowed to make a profit. All we want to do is make our roads safer by encouraging drivers to consider their speed and stay within the legal limits.”
Last year, 65 people were killed and 683 seriously injured on South Yorkshire roads.
The study found that a majority of drivers - 66 per cent – believed that speed was a key factor in a majority of accidents. And 75 per cent of drivers thought that safety cameras should be supported as a way of reducing casualties.
Sixty two per cent thought that dangerous drivers were more likely to be caught because of cameras. And a majority of all respondents felt that catching speeding drivers should be a medium or high priority.
Eighty-seven per cent thought that cameras should be highly visible – in line with the policy of South Yorkshire Safety Camera Partnership.
The high-profile campaign uses bright yellow camera housings and publishes a list of active camera locations at the partnership website, www.safetycamera.org.
Continues/
Alan added: “We want to make speeding as socially unacceptable as drink-driving. If the support revealed by this survey continues, there is every chance that we can achieve that goal.”
The South Yorkshire findings come after an national independent study found that 79 per cent of people asked supported the use of cameras to reduce casualties - and that the benefit to society through reduced casualties is about £221 million per year.
Ends
=========================
I'm looking forward to it.
Well I live in Sheffield and no one asked me.
My limited experience. The talivans in Sheffield have amber lights on and look like maintainance vehicles. A sign with police camera on is usually placed in front of the van.
3 roads with speed cameras. Sheffield to Stocksbridge road, 2 fatal crashes in the last 6 monts. 40 mph has camera. Then its opens out to NSL, no more cameras, 2 fatals.
Sheffield to Fox House road, camera actualy palced fairly well before x roads on a NSL but 1 fatal accident 1 mile away before camera and another after in almost the same place.
Rivellin Valley Road. Favourite talivan location. 30 to 40 limit as road moves from suburban to rural. One camera placed around a bend but does slow traffic for junction. BUT the other side of said junction at least 3 fatals. No camera, perhaps cos its on a straigh and a camera would be easy to see?
My limited experience. The talivans in Sheffield have amber lights on and look like maintainance vehicles. A sign with police camera on is usually placed in front of the van.
3 roads with speed cameras. Sheffield to Stocksbridge road, 2 fatal crashes in the last 6 monts. 40 mph has camera. Then its opens out to NSL, no more cameras, 2 fatals.
Sheffield to Fox House road, camera actualy palced fairly well before x roads on a NSL but 1 fatal accident 1 mile away before camera and another after in almost the same place.
Rivellin Valley Road. Favourite talivan location. 30 to 40 limit as road moves from suburban to rural. One camera placed around a bend but does slow traffic for junction. BUT the other side of said junction at least 3 fatals. No camera, perhaps cos its on a straigh and a camera would be easy to see?
Alan said:
Alan added: “We want to make speeding as socially unacceptable as drink-driving. If the support revealed by this survey continues, there is every chance that we can achieve that goal
Doing 35 in a 30 zone or 90 in a 70 zone (excluding other factors) is about as socially unacceptable as driving after drinking pop!!!
I live in Sheff too, I also was not asked. Even if I had been the questions, reading between the lines, seem to be the standard DfT Agree/Disagree statements, which are so slanted as to be basically worthless as a means of obtaining the thoughts of thos questionned (i.e it's nigh on impossible not to appear to agree with all aspects of scameras)
Paul, it'd be great if you could get the wording of their questionaire. Normally these things are worded the way stats are used, i.e. ambiguously to enable the questioners to bend the truth to fit their propaganda...any chance???? And good luck wit the prog...
I'm regularly in Sheff and I know of another Gatso hidden behind a bridge on a downhill stretch of a road near the scum housing estate (named in one of yorkshire police proh´gs recently)...no sorry I don't know the name of the road, was just shown it by a supplier when there.....
apparently it catches around 20 twoced vehicles a day!!!
I'm regularly in Sheff and I know of another Gatso hidden behind a bridge on a downhill stretch of a road near the scum housing estate (named in one of yorkshire police proh´gs recently)...no sorry I don't know the name of the road, was just shown it by a supplier when there.....
apparently it catches around 20 twoced vehicles a day!!!
JMGS4 said:
Paul, it'd be great if you could get the wording of their questionaire.
The DfT requires the camera partnerships to pose 8 standard questions on a regular basis. Those questions are discussed here:
www.safespeed.org.uk/survey.html
Professor Stone called them "a loaded instrument" and accused them of "disgraceful positive bias":
www.safespeed.org.uk/stone.html
How I would have answered those questions.
1) Fewer accidents are likely to happen where cameras are installed
No, drivers seeing a camera are likely to brake suddenly and without warning when seeing a camera and be distracted from the road ahead.
2) Cameras mean that dangerous drivers are now more likely to get caught
No, even dangerous drivers can see and if they see a camera they are likely to brake suddenly and without warning and not be photographed.
3) Cameras are an easy way of making money out of motorists
Yes, because camera's cannot be argued against they are an unthinking machine that cannot understand or take photographs of the mitigating circumstances surrounding the photo taken. No agruement can be won against them.
4) Cameras are meant to encourage drivers to keep to the limits, not punish them
Drivers have always kept to the limits, I doubt if there are more speeding drivers around now as a percentage of the population driving than there was 30 years ago. Thus adding a revenue stream like speed cameras you are punishing drivers who may only ever go above 30 (35mph perhaps) once in their driving life just when a camera snaps them, that's punishment.
5) The primary aim of safety cameras is to save lives
No the primary aim of saftey camera's is to do a lazy job of policing speeding and getting paid for the privilidge of doing so. If the aim is to save lives then the money spent on cameras and systems needs to spent on the roads which are in an appaling state and will cause many accidents.
6) The use of safety cameras should be supported as a method of reducing casualties
I have seen no evidence of such, again I point to the quality of the roads. Getting the potholes, large cracks and poorly maintained traffic light systems fixed will significantly reduce road casualties.
7) There are too many cameras in our local area
One camera is too many. The public does not see any advantage of having a camera looking at a road in the vague hope it might take a photo of someone doing 2mph over the legal limit, we are concerned about visible policing and petty crimes, the bobby on the beat. Police presence in the right place at the right time can be reassuring to some people, particularly the elderly so lets spend more money recruiting police and training them so that we can all live in a safer place.
1) Fewer accidents are likely to happen where cameras are installed
No, drivers seeing a camera are likely to brake suddenly and without warning when seeing a camera and be distracted from the road ahead.
2) Cameras mean that dangerous drivers are now more likely to get caught
No, even dangerous drivers can see and if they see a camera they are likely to brake suddenly and without warning and not be photographed.
3) Cameras are an easy way of making money out of motorists
Yes, because camera's cannot be argued against they are an unthinking machine that cannot understand or take photographs of the mitigating circumstances surrounding the photo taken. No agruement can be won against them.
4) Cameras are meant to encourage drivers to keep to the limits, not punish them
Drivers have always kept to the limits, I doubt if there are more speeding drivers around now as a percentage of the population driving than there was 30 years ago. Thus adding a revenue stream like speed cameras you are punishing drivers who may only ever go above 30 (35mph perhaps) once in their driving life just when a camera snaps them, that's punishment.
5) The primary aim of safety cameras is to save lives
No the primary aim of saftey camera's is to do a lazy job of policing speeding and getting paid for the privilidge of doing so. If the aim is to save lives then the money spent on cameras and systems needs to spent on the roads which are in an appaling state and will cause many accidents.
6) The use of safety cameras should be supported as a method of reducing casualties
I have seen no evidence of such, again I point to the quality of the roads. Getting the potholes, large cracks and poorly maintained traffic light systems fixed will significantly reduce road casualties.
7) There are too many cameras in our local area
One camera is too many. The public does not see any advantage of having a camera looking at a road in the vague hope it might take a photo of someone doing 2mph over the legal limit, we are concerned about visible policing and petty crimes, the bobby on the beat. Police presence in the right place at the right time can be reassuring to some people, particularly the elderly so lets spend more money recruiting police and training them so that we can all live in a safer place.
Note the wording: drivers felt, drivers believed etc. What good is that as a basis for a rational road safety strategy? Facts, not emotion, are what's needed. Let's debate on the facts rather than nn% of drivers believe something they've been fed propaganda about for the last 7 years.
einion yrth said:Indeed. This has happened before, the Lancs scamerati had a headline on their website, speed cameras are effective despite increase in road deaths. What are these folk on? Not the same planet as the rest of us for sure.
Yes deaths in South Yorkshire have gone up, but the cameras are working, otherwise it would have been worse.
Bugger....only just seen this and missed it.
Brailey has only recently been appointed. the local paper gave him some space to spout, then invited me to shoot him down the following week.
Very satisfying to see my piece go in on the same day as the retiring Chief Con got two whole pages of coverage..........
Including a declaration that cameras are A Bad Thing.
Brailey has only recently been appointed. the local paper gave him some space to spout, then invited me to shoot him down the following week.
Very satisfying to see my piece go in on the same day as the retiring Chief Con got two whole pages of coverage..........
Including a declaration that cameras are A Bad Thing.
Also live in Sheffield and not been asked.
They hide a mobile scamera at Grenoside crossroads in what I feel should be at least a forty (although you always see flowers on a lamppost.
Latest trick is to have a black box on a tripod on one side of road and scamera van hidden on otherside of road so you can only see front wheel.
Late last week in Rotherham small van ?astramax parked in layby rear towards traffic with one back window missing and camera pointing out, made a point of travelling by reaaalllyyy sloooowwwlllyyy, but again nearly hidden by its aspect. Fair enough this was at 11am outside a school but the blighters should have been inside.
They hide a mobile scamera at Grenoside crossroads in what I feel should be at least a forty (although you always see flowers on a lamppost.
Latest trick is to have a black box on a tripod on one side of road and scamera van hidden on otherside of road so you can only see front wheel.
Late last week in Rotherham small van ?astramax parked in layby rear towards traffic with one back window missing and camera pointing out, made a point of travelling by reaaalllyyy sloooowwwlllyyy, but again nearly hidden by its aspect. Fair enough this was at 11am outside a school but the blighters should have been inside.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff