Straight from the horse's mouth
Discussion
From Northumbria Scam...
So, a speed nazi rings up the NSCP and claims that there are speeding cars outside their house. NSCP turn up, low and behold, there are cars travelling safely above the speed limit. From teh above quote they are allowed to spend 15% of their time at sites where cars are speeding in order to prevent accident blackspots.
Not wanting to state the bleedin' obvious, but if cars are speeding and there are currently no accidents, how will it become an accident blackspot? How can a mobile van prevent accidents that aren't happening?
Who thinks I should get on their case about this?
NSCP said:
the partnership is allowed to spend 15% of deployment time at sites of genuine public concern where there is a speeding problem in order to avoid that location becoming a collision hotspot in the future
So, a speed nazi rings up the NSCP and claims that there are speeding cars outside their house. NSCP turn up, low and behold, there are cars travelling safely above the speed limit. From teh above quote they are allowed to spend 15% of their time at sites where cars are speeding in order to prevent accident blackspots.
Not wanting to state the bleedin' obvious, but if cars are speeding and there are currently no accidents, how will it become an accident blackspot? How can a mobile van prevent accidents that aren't happening?
Who thinks I should get on their case about this?
WildCat said:
Thought they were supposed to take a look-see or audit thingy or risk assess before they deployed?
Ist what I read on LanCAH££re site - but then have seen other dodgy claims and suspect stats - so cannoth believe them on this either..
Perhaps you could send e-mail to clarify?
Dahling Wildcat,
'tis all here >> Scam Manual
See Sections 3.3-3.5 which defines categories of sites
3.3.1 Core Sites
3.3.2 Exceptional Sites
3.3.3 Roadworks.
3.4 Non programme sites ie bib enforcement
3.5 Covert enforcement
For 3.3.2 the text says
2. exceptional sites – sites that have not been approved as core sites but where partnerships are undertaking speed camera enforcement for reasons that may include:
• community concern - where the local community requests the partnership enforce at a particular site because traffic speeds there are causing concern for road safety
• collision frequency - where a site has a high incidence of PIC, but insufficient KSI collisions to meet the criteria, but where there is wellfounded
concern that a failure to reduce speeds or red-light running at this site will result in future increases in KSI collisions, including fatalities
• engineering factors - where roads (or parts of roads) do not meet minimum engineering requirements. Enforcement at such sites should be a short-term measure only until the local authority rectifies the
problem.
The programme board would not expect exceptional sites on roads with 70 mph speed limits unless there were a clear and defensible road-safety reason, based on a casualty or collision history for example as detailed above. Partnerships are required to notify the programme office where such sites are operated.
The 15% of time is a maximum limit and should not be seen as a target for partnerships to meet.
Partnerships are required to keep a clear audit trail to evidence time spent at core sites and time spent at exceptional sites.
Enforcement time at roadworks sites is excluded from the 15% calculation.
Also for 3.5 covert enforcement.
Alongside the visible camera enforcement supported through the safety camera programme, there can be situations where the police judge that covert
enforcement is necessary to deal with exceptional situations, such as where extreme car drivers or motorbike riders are prepared to reconnoitre roads for any cameras, including mobiles, before using them illegally for high-speed racing.
Covert enforcement is a police matter, separate from partnerships’ safety camera activity.
end quote.
I know of covert enforcement sites where there hasn't been an "extreme car driver or motorbike rider" ever. Just people wondering why the NSL dual is now a 50.
I speak as I find, and what I find re our local SCAMPs stinks of whiffy fish.
FiF
Flat in Fifth said:"wellfounded concern" - I wonder what criteria are used to found the concern well.
[ ... ]
2. exceptional sites – sites that have not been approved as core sites but where partnerships are undertaking speed camera enforcement for reasons that may include:
...
• collision frequency - where a site has a high incidence of PIC, but insufficient KSI collisions to meet the criteria, but where there is wellfounded
concern that a failure to reduce speeds or red-light running at this site will result in future increases in KSI collisions, including fatalities
"future increases in KSI collisions" - if there is a zero history, statistics suggest there will be an increase (at some time in the future). Indeed, the presence of the scamera may well cause the increase ... a self-fulfilling prophecy?
Streaky
They just do what the 
they like.
Entering into any discussion is a pointless exercise...since they just do what the they like.
The only way to solve the problem is to disband the SCPs, raze their offices to the ground, destroy all their equipment, and offer all the staff mining holidays in Siberia. Upon their return issue them all with Asbos requiring that they all remain at least three hundred yards from each other to prevent them ever forming another organisation.
Then employ a division of Trafpol to do the job and root out the really dangerous drivers.
they like. Entering into any discussion is a pointless exercise...since they just do what the
they like. The only way to solve the problem is to disband the SCPs, raze their offices to the ground, destroy all their equipment, and offer all the staff mining holidays in Siberia. Upon their return issue them all with Asbos requiring that they all remain at least three hundred yards from each other to prevent them ever forming another organisation.
Then employ a division of Trafpol to do the job and root out the really dangerous drivers.
Don said:
They just do what the
Entering into any discussion is a pointless exercise...since they just do what the
And you get "these are guidelines" smugly quoted back at you, despite the manual title including the word "Rules"
Rules definition: An authoritative, prescribed direction for conduct, especially one of the regulations governing procedure in a legislative body or a regulation observed by the players in a game, sport, or contest.
Except it's NOT a game, nor a sport and no sodding contest.
/rant
sorry about that folks.
Nurse, where are my pills?
Don said:
They just do what the
Entering into any discussion is a pointless exercise...since they just do what the
The only way to solve the problem is to disband the SCPs, raze their offices to the ground, destroy all their equipment, and offer all the staff mining holidays in Siberia. Upon their return issue them all with Asbos requiring that they all remain at least three hundred yards from each other to prevent them ever forming another organisation.
Then employ a division of Trafpol to do the job and root out the really dangerous drivers.
That about sums it up.
The first problem has arisen.
NSCP manager Ray King appears to have no e-mail address. There are no e-mail contact details anywhere on the site, or indeed, on the web.
I have found a different address for some bird who obviously runs the site on their behalf, so I've requested contact details....
NSCP manager Ray King appears to have no e-mail address. There are no e-mail contact details anywhere on the site, or indeed, on the web.
I have found a different address for some bird who obviously runs the site on their behalf, so I've requested contact details....
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff