Brunstroms plea for scamera sites to be extended...
Discussion
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2-1808811,00.html
Police chief's plea for speed camera sites to be extended
By Ben Webster, Transport Correspondent
BRITAIN’S most senior traffic policeman is seeking to change the rules on where speed cameras can be sited in order to enforce the limit on thousands of additional roads.
[b]Richard Brunstrom, Chief Constable of North Wales, will announce today at the Association of Chief Police Officers (Acpo) that he is standing down as head of roads policing.[/b]
In a valedictory interview with The Times, Mr Brunstrom admitted that he had failed to foresee the strength of public opposition to cameras and should have taken steps to reassure drivers that they were not simply money-making devices.
He has been lampooned by anti-camera campaigners for overseeing the huge growth in the number of cameras. There are now 6,000 sites and more than two million drivers were caught last year.
Mr Brunstrom remains convinced that cameras improve road safety and said he was working with the Department for Transport to reform the rules to allow far greater flexibility on where they can be used. He said a meeting last week of the Safety Camera Board, which includes the police and the Department for Transport, had discussed ending the requirement that fixed cameras can be installed on a road only after four crashes involving death or serious injuries. Mobile cameras can be used after two crashes.
Mr Brunstrom said: “Parents often write to us and ask us to put a camera outside a school because the traffic is so dangerous. It’s very difficult to write back and say, ‘Please let us know when your son is killed and then we can consider putting a camera there’.”
He said the board was considering allowing cameras to be used at sites where there had been crashes which resulted in only slight injuries.
There were 38,000 deaths or serious injuries last year and 246,000 slight injuries.
Mr Brunstrom said: “If we changed the criteria to include slight injuries then the likelihood is we would have more camera sites. There is an emerging consensus that the time is now right to discuss revising the rules.” But he said he remained opposed to random placement of cameras because that would erode public confidence in the fairness of the system. “We don’t intend to have cameras strapped to every lamppost. There will be a lot more flexibility perhaps about where cameras are used but there won’t necessarily be more cameras. We could use existing mobile cameras to enforce the new sites or we could put more camera housings up but have fewer cameras in them.”
He said the rules were also likely to be eased to allow cameras to be used over much longer stretches of road. Mr Brunstrom said he was stepping down from his Acpo role “because it’s time someone else had a go. It’s always a mistake to stay beyond your sell-by date”.
The leading contender to replace him is Med Hughes, Chief Constable of South Yorkshire. Mr Hughes is also a passionate advocate of speed cameras despite having two speeding convictions.
Mr Brunstrom said he regretted that he had not acted more quickly to introduce speed-awareness courses as an alternative to penalty points. “We didn’t anticipate the continuing refusal by some people and some sections of the media to accept that cameras are not a stealth tax, but are about making roads safer.
“With hindsight, we could have taken the non-confrontational approach of offering courses to demonstrate that we are not after people’s money.”
Police chief's plea for speed camera sites to be extended
By Ben Webster, Transport Correspondent
BRITAIN’S most senior traffic policeman is seeking to change the rules on where speed cameras can be sited in order to enforce the limit on thousands of additional roads.
[b]Richard Brunstrom, Chief Constable of North Wales, will announce today at the Association of Chief Police Officers (Acpo) that he is standing down as head of roads policing.[/b]
In a valedictory interview with The Times, Mr Brunstrom admitted that he had failed to foresee the strength of public opposition to cameras and should have taken steps to reassure drivers that they were not simply money-making devices.
He has been lampooned by anti-camera campaigners for overseeing the huge growth in the number of cameras. There are now 6,000 sites and more than two million drivers were caught last year.
Mr Brunstrom remains convinced that cameras improve road safety and said he was working with the Department for Transport to reform the rules to allow far greater flexibility on where they can be used. He said a meeting last week of the Safety Camera Board, which includes the police and the Department for Transport, had discussed ending the requirement that fixed cameras can be installed on a road only after four crashes involving death or serious injuries. Mobile cameras can be used after two crashes.
Mr Brunstrom said: “Parents often write to us and ask us to put a camera outside a school because the traffic is so dangerous. It’s very difficult to write back and say, ‘Please let us know when your son is killed and then we can consider putting a camera there’.”
He said the board was considering allowing cameras to be used at sites where there had been crashes which resulted in only slight injuries.
There were 38,000 deaths or serious injuries last year and 246,000 slight injuries.
Mr Brunstrom said: “If we changed the criteria to include slight injuries then the likelihood is we would have more camera sites. There is an emerging consensus that the time is now right to discuss revising the rules.” But he said he remained opposed to random placement of cameras because that would erode public confidence in the fairness of the system. “We don’t intend to have cameras strapped to every lamppost. There will be a lot more flexibility perhaps about where cameras are used but there won’t necessarily be more cameras. We could use existing mobile cameras to enforce the new sites or we could put more camera housings up but have fewer cameras in them.”
He said the rules were also likely to be eased to allow cameras to be used over much longer stretches of road. Mr Brunstrom said he was stepping down from his Acpo role “because it’s time someone else had a go. It’s always a mistake to stay beyond your sell-by date”.
The leading contender to replace him is Med Hughes, Chief Constable of South Yorkshire. Mr Hughes is also a passionate advocate of speed cameras despite having two speeding convictions.
Mr Brunstrom said he regretted that he had not acted more quickly to introduce speed-awareness courses as an alternative to penalty points. “We didn’t anticipate the continuing refusal by some people and some sections of the media to accept that cameras are not a stealth tax, but are about making roads safer.
“With hindsight, we could have taken the non-confrontational approach of offering courses to demonstrate that we are not after people’s money.”
Brustrom said:A smokescreen. None of us would object to cameras outside schools, but while talking this talk, he will quietly arrange for cameras to be placed on roads miles away from schools where people are likely to drive fast because such roads offer the right conditions to go fast.
“Parents often write to us and ask us to put a camera outside a school because the traffic is so dangerous. It’s very difficult to write back and say, ‘Please let us know when your son is killed and then we can consider putting a camera there’.”
I would object to placing cameras outside schools.
They are of limited use and potentially dangerous.
How many of these schools where parents want cameras have been subject to any kind of Police study? Just on the say so of a parent he wants to put up a scamera. The road around the school may be dangerous, but what if the problem is not speed of traffic? What good is the scamera then?
We had somone killed at my secondary school in the car park by a car doing approx, 10mph.
The local primary school is a nightmare because of parents parking anywhere and kids jumping out of and in between cars and onto the road, add to that stressed parents late for whatever and it going to be dangerous. but what use is the scamera? bugger all.
They are of limited use and potentially dangerous.
How many of these schools where parents want cameras have been subject to any kind of Police study? Just on the say so of a parent he wants to put up a scamera. The road around the school may be dangerous, but what if the problem is not speed of traffic? What good is the scamera then?
We had somone killed at my secondary school in the car park by a car doing approx, 10mph.
The local primary school is a nightmare because of parents parking anywhere and kids jumping out of and in between cars and onto the road, add to that stressed parents late for whatever and it going to be dangerous. but what use is the scamera? bugger all.
He's right when he suggests the rules for locating cameras are stupid. Regardless of whether or not you think cameras are effective, waiting for accidents to occur at a particular spot is a crazy way of measuring the riskiness of a road. These rules seem to have been concocted to convince the general public that the cameras' locations are justified. They've clearly failed to do that, so it is hard to see what purpose they now serve.
If they want to convince us that speed cameras (a) work and (b) are not being used to raise revenue, they need to take three steps.
(1) Remove the conflict of interest caused by fines being used to fund safety camera partnerships.
(2) Record and publish the cause and circumstances of all KSI crashes methodically.
(3) Locate cameras only in the immediate vicinity of sections of road where speeding can be shown to be inappropriate either by a track record of crashes of that type, or where a risk assesment of the road predicts that this is likely, but only when the camera can be demonstrated to be the most effective solution (i.e. where cheaper options like more signs are deemed to be ineffective, or re-engineering of the road is deemed to be too expensive).
If they want to convince us that speed cameras (a) work and (b) are not being used to raise revenue, they need to take three steps.
(1) Remove the conflict of interest caused by fines being used to fund safety camera partnerships.
(2) Record and publish the cause and circumstances of all KSI crashes methodically.
(3) Locate cameras only in the immediate vicinity of sections of road where speeding can be shown to be inappropriate either by a track record of crashes of that type, or where a risk assesment of the road predicts that this is likely, but only when the camera can be demonstrated to be the most effective solution (i.e. where cheaper options like more signs are deemed to be ineffective, or re-engineering of the road is deemed to be too expensive).
ATG said:
He's right when he suggests the rules for locating cameras are stupid. Regardless of whether or not you think cameras are effective, waiting for accidents to occur at a particular spot is a crazy way of measuring the riskiness of a road. These rules seem to have been concocted to convince the general public that the cameras' locations are justified. They've clearly failed to do that, so it is hard to see what purpose they now serve.
If they want to convince us that speed cameras (a) work and (b) are not being used to raise revenue, they need to take three steps.
(1) Remove the conflict of interest caused by fines being used to fund safety camera partnerships.
(2) Record and publish the cause and circumstances of all KSI crashes methodically.
(3) Locate cameras only in the immediate vicinity of sections of road where speeding can be shown to be inappropriate either by a track record of crashes of that type, or where a risk assesment of the road predicts that this is likely, but only when the camera can be demonstrated to be the most effective solution (i.e. where cheaper options like more signs are deemed to be ineffective, or re-engineering of the road is deemed to be too expensive).
Hear, hear!
I believe the outcome of that will be that the amount of crashes caused by excess speed over the speed limit will be around 3% (figures from statistics so far). Far more crashes are due to excessive speed *under* the speed limit of the road.
The real answer to solve the problem is to raise the standard of driving and road awareness. The secondary thing to do would be to re-engineer such problem roads.
However, that is a long process and would not make any money, and would not have immediate results for the government, and thus would not self-fund the wages bill for the scamera partnerships... I wonder what will happen!
mybrainhurts said:
South Yorks CC is up to replace him.
He told the local paper he wants more cameras....
All hidden......
This proves how money led the system is. The perfect camera would be one which makes no money, as people have been 100% compliant to the speed limit.
If the camera goes of then the system has failed, as it means that the car is still breaking the limit (and apparantly putting themselves in danger)!
In a valedictory interview with The Times, Mr Brunstrom admitted that he had failed to foresee the strength of public opposition to cameras and should have taken steps to reassure drivers that they were not simply money-making devices.
That's evidence of a typical Labouresque (Leninist?) mentality.
Everyone's against it, but they just don't understand, so I'll carry on anyway because I'm right. What an absolute ar$eh0le.
That's evidence of a typical Labouresque (Leninist?) mentality.
Everyone's against it, but they just don't understand, so I'll carry on anyway because I'm right. What an absolute ar$eh0le.
james_j said:
In a valedictory interview with The Times, Mr Brunstrom admitted that he had failed to foresee the strength of public opposition to cameras and should have taken steps to reassure drivers that they were not simply money-making devices.
That's evidence of a typical Labouresque (Leninist?) mentality.
Everyone's against it, but they just don't understand, so I'll carry on anyway because I'm right. What an absolute ar$eh0le.
Typical of the current gang in government who appear to be busy wrecking private car use by all means available.
KB_S1 said:
I would object to placing cameras outside schools.
They are of limited use and potentially dangerous.
Just for a moment let's ignore the fact that camera's outside schools could only be useful IF there were a lot of cases of children being killed or seriously injured purely because they are in collision with a car exceeding the speed limit by some margin - and the figures suggest this is not the case, especially since the figures for all child pedestrian KSI's continue to reduce - there might still be some benefit to allowing them to be installed there.
At least it would eat into the budget and perhaps prevent a few being installed elsewhere. In fact perhaps it should be encouraged that every school should have at least 2 cameras (one for each direction) outside every possible entrance.
paulhol said:
im sure they would whip the school sited scameras down sharpish when a few kids get knocked down because the drivers are fixated on their speedos
I agree. At a local secondary school a kid was run over a few years ago. It is on a road which is open on both sides, and absolutely straight for 3/4 mile. If you drive past at 3.30 you will *every* time see kids run into the road to cross it despite a crossing being erected, and worse that that kids walking side by side with one, and even two(!!) walking side by side actually IN the road, with the flow of traffic!
At times like that you literally have to have eyes all around you, and to be frank if you can get to 30mph every experienced driver would know that is too fast.
If as much money was spent on educating the standard of drivers and other road users, deaths WILL fall.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff