New review of scameras as crash rates fail to fall
Discussion
I don't know how to copy in articles in the stylish way that othe PHers do, so a straight cut and paste is below.
Three things to say about it:
(i) Great. Marvellous to see recognition that scameras aren't achieving their purported purpose;
(ii) Shame there appears to be no realisation that the self-financing nature of the Scamming Partnerships is in large part a cause of the above / of the futility of so many scamera sites. Perhaps at least a tighter application of criteria for scamera sites may reduce / reverse their proliferation despite that non-realisation;
(iii) Most illogically, one of the requirements for a new scamera site is evidence that >20% of drivers are speeding at the site, with scameras one solution, along with chicanes (!). What about increasing the speed limit (if appropriate) at such locations????? Surely all those drivers are speeding because they judge it to be safe, after all!
Article from the Telegraph below:
New review of speed cameras as crash rates fail to fall
By Paul Marston, Transport Correspondent, Dail Telegraph (Filed: 05/11/2004)
A review of all 5,500 speed camera locations was ordered by the Government yesterday only five months after a previous inquiry.
Alistair Darling, the Transport Secretary, told the local authority-police partnerships which run camera schemes that they must reassess the sites to see whether the equipment was still justified.
The RAC has welcomed the camera review
The action, seen by motoring groups as a pre-election "sweetener", reflects dissatisfaction with the initial exercise, which was based on partnerships' own evaluations of whether they had complied with regulations. The review suggested that accident rates had remained constant or increased at about a quarter of sites following the cameras' introduction.
Mr Darling said partnerships must now ascertain in particular whether cameras needed to be retained on roads where good safety records had been achieved, and also where installation appeared to have had no effect on reducing crashes.
He also insisted that the reviews – which he wanted to become annual events – include the 250 "legacy" sites, where police-funded cameras existed before the self-financing partnership schemes came in.
The revised rules make clear that partnerships will be required to carry out "statistically robust" speed surveys before any new cameras can be installed.
They will not be permitted unless studies conducted over a minimum of three days show that at least 20 per cent of vehicles are speeding, and 15 per cent exceeding the limit by 10 per cent plus 2mph.
A further test must also be undertaken to ascertain that no cost-effective engineering alternative, such as chicanes or changes to road markings, could be implemented.
The accident criteria are unchanged. For fixed-camera sites there must have been at least four collisions involving serious injury or death per kilometre covered by the camera during the past 36 months. For mobile equipment, the test is two collisions.
The rules reaffirm that police can locate cameras at any location, provided they do not seek to recover the cost from Whitehall under the partnership scheme.
A 60-page handbook sets out what partnerships can reclaim from the £80 million a year generated by camera fines. As well as staff and equipment, such costs can include spending on publicity and "driver education" campaigns as well as attendance at relevant conferences.
The RAC Foundation welcomed the move. Edmund King, its executive director, said: "At specific sites, cameras have been very effective. But across the board serious accidents have increased and the policy as a whole is not really working.
"Too often these partnerships do not even consider engineering solutions to safety problems, and turn to cameras just because they can reclaim the cost."
Three things to say about it:
(i) Great. Marvellous to see recognition that scameras aren't achieving their purported purpose;
(ii) Shame there appears to be no realisation that the self-financing nature of the Scamming Partnerships is in large part a cause of the above / of the futility of so many scamera sites. Perhaps at least a tighter application of criteria for scamera sites may reduce / reverse their proliferation despite that non-realisation;
(iii) Most illogically, one of the requirements for a new scamera site is evidence that >20% of drivers are speeding at the site, with scameras one solution, along with chicanes (!). What about increasing the speed limit (if appropriate) at such locations????? Surely all those drivers are speeding because they judge it to be safe, after all!
Article from the Telegraph below:
New review of speed cameras as crash rates fail to fall
By Paul Marston, Transport Correspondent, Dail Telegraph (Filed: 05/11/2004)
A review of all 5,500 speed camera locations was ordered by the Government yesterday only five months after a previous inquiry.
Alistair Darling, the Transport Secretary, told the local authority-police partnerships which run camera schemes that they must reassess the sites to see whether the equipment was still justified.
The RAC has welcomed the camera review
The action, seen by motoring groups as a pre-election "sweetener", reflects dissatisfaction with the initial exercise, which was based on partnerships' own evaluations of whether they had complied with regulations. The review suggested that accident rates had remained constant or increased at about a quarter of sites following the cameras' introduction.
Mr Darling said partnerships must now ascertain in particular whether cameras needed to be retained on roads where good safety records had been achieved, and also where installation appeared to have had no effect on reducing crashes.
He also insisted that the reviews – which he wanted to become annual events – include the 250 "legacy" sites, where police-funded cameras existed before the self-financing partnership schemes came in.
The revised rules make clear that partnerships will be required to carry out "statistically robust" speed surveys before any new cameras can be installed.
They will not be permitted unless studies conducted over a minimum of three days show that at least 20 per cent of vehicles are speeding, and 15 per cent exceeding the limit by 10 per cent plus 2mph.
A further test must also be undertaken to ascertain that no cost-effective engineering alternative, such as chicanes or changes to road markings, could be implemented.
The accident criteria are unchanged. For fixed-camera sites there must have been at least four collisions involving serious injury or death per kilometre covered by the camera during the past 36 months. For mobile equipment, the test is two collisions.
The rules reaffirm that police can locate cameras at any location, provided they do not seek to recover the cost from Whitehall under the partnership scheme.
A 60-page handbook sets out what partnerships can reclaim from the £80 million a year generated by camera fines. As well as staff and equipment, such costs can include spending on publicity and "driver education" campaigns as well as attendance at relevant conferences.
The RAC Foundation welcomed the move. Edmund King, its executive director, said: "At specific sites, cameras have been very effective. But across the board serious accidents have increased and the policy as a whole is not really working.
"Too often these partnerships do not even consider engineering solutions to safety problems, and turn to cameras just because they can reclaim the cost."
Heebee said:
Surely any step in the right direction is to be applauded, even if it's only a little shuffle?
Ideally, yes. But if it just turns out to be a little window-dressing with good pre-election soundbites then it's worse than neutral because it removes media pressure from the real issues.
charltm said:
I suppose the other thing to note is that the article was from the Telegraph, not the Guardian, so was probably coming from a slightly more motorist-friendly standpoint than Darling may have been...
Here's the Grauniad's take on it...
www.guardian.co.uk/uk_news/story/0,3604,1343949,00.html
charltm said:
Remarkably balanced!
Still can't believe that those in govt don't seem to think that if a lot of people are speeding it's probably because it's safe...
Look, they've just lost the vote on devolution in the north, and they're already talking about how the votes in Wales and Scotland were against devolution "the first time". What sensible people want and what the gov't wants to impose are two different things.
Streetcop said:
I did a camera van training day the other day.......really enjoyed it, I have to say....
Some of the drivers who were speeding past...just didn't have a clue....(observation skills very much questionable)...
It does make you turn evil as the day moved on...I ended up like:
Fantastic contribution
huge cost
no lives saved
probably loads of stress caused
this activity is almost as parasitic as being a member of the royal family.
Streetcop said:
I did a camera van training day the other day.......really enjoyed it, I have to say....
Some of the drivers who were speeding past...just didn't have a clue....(observation skills very much questionable)...
It does make you turn evil as the day moved on...I ended up like:
Sorry mate, I think you might need to take a leaf from Dibbles book. Maybe these drivers were watching where they were going not trying to spot a cunningly concealed, unmarked van full of expensive gear.
I got clocked the other day on that part of the A14 that merges into the A1, busy watching out for a couple of idiots who didn't know where they were going, I accelerated and overtook a potential nightmare to find myself in full view of a camera trap. I fail to see any relevance to the situation, I fail to understand the dogged determination to believe this helps, I despair at the depth of political brainwashing and I raise my middle finger in defiance to any fecker who advocates the use of scameras to reduce accidents. You are all fiddling while Rome burns
why are the scamera vans designed to look like breakdown vans? never understood that..
there was one on the A4123 by work the other day silver, red and yellow reflective stripes.. i slowed to see what was going on to find a mondeo swerving to avoid my slowing a55...
Entrapment me thinks..
and i dont think much i can tell you
there was one on the A4123 by work the other day silver, red and yellow reflective stripes.. i slowed to see what was going on to find a mondeo swerving to avoid my slowing a55...
Entrapment me thinks..
and i dont think much i can tell you
What struck me whilst reading Chaltm's post was: How do we get rid of, not so much the camera's, as, the dinasour of the scameraships?
Once born, these self perpetuating, self interested monsters are going to fight tooth and nail for life, even if the ones who gave them life, ultimately (for their own survival) think they should die!
Has an unstopable monster been created?
Once born, these self perpetuating, self interested monsters are going to fight tooth and nail for life, even if the ones who gave them life, ultimately (for their own survival) think they should die!
Has an unstopable monster been created?
nonegreen said:
I did a camera van training day the other day.......really enjoyed it, I have to say....
Some of the drivers who were speeding past...just didn't have a clue....(observation skills very much questionable)...
It does make you turn evil as the day moved on...I ended up like:
Fantastic contribution
huge cost
no lives saved
probably loads of stress caused
this activity is almost as parasitic as being a member of the royal family.
Hey....I was on time and a half...(for 8 hours..)
...
I'm not rich enough to turn that money down...
Streetcop said:
Streetcop said:
I did a camera van training day the other day.......really enjoyed it, I have to say....
Some of the drivers who were speeding past...just didn't have a clue....(observation skills very much questionable)...
It does make you turn evil as the day moved on...I ended up like:
Fantastic contribution
huge cost
no lives saved
probably loads of stress caused
this activity is almost as parasitic as being a member of the royal family.
Hey....I was on time and a half...(for 8 hours..)
Like we said, Its all about revenue.
Streetcop said:
Streetcop said:
I did a camera van training day the other day.......really enjoyed it, I have to say....
Some of the drivers who were speeding past...just didn't have a clue....(observation skills very much questionable)...
It does make you turn evil as the day moved on...I ended up like:
Fantastic contribution
huge cost
no lives saved
probably loads of stress caused
this activity is almost as parasitic as being a member of the royal family.
Hey....I was on time and a half...(for 8 hours..)
I'm sure there are plenty of other immoral but legal ways of earning money.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff