Cameras in Dorset ....
Discussion
www.thisisbournemouth.co.uk/dorset/bournemouth/news/BOURN_NEWS_NEWS14.html
SPEED cameras have cost Dorset motorists almost £1.5 million in just eight months, new statistics have shown.
The 23,733 drivers captured on film flouting speeding restrictions from August 1 last year until March 31 this year have paid fines totalling £1,423,980.
The number of crashes at camera sites has fallen by 18 per cent. But the Daily Echo can reveal that the total number of road accidents across the county has actually risen from 4,665 to 4,721, with seven more lives lost.
Revenue generated from the controversial Dorset Safety Camera Partnership scheme, which employs about 50 full-time and temporary staff, virtually matched the £1,423,392 running costs.
Defending the partnership, project manager Pat Garrett said: "Lives are being saved. This means we are getting it right in relation to where cameras are being sited.
"The running costs sound like a lot of money. But when a scheme is being set up there are high costs involved. Installing one complete camera system costs £25,000."
Almost 30,000 drivers were detected during the eight-month period. Seventy-six per cent paid £60 fines while three per cent opted to go to court.
"Included in the 24 per cent of drivers who did not pay up were emergency vehicles and motorists travelling at more than 25 mph over the speed limit who automatically went to court," added Mr Garrett.
"The reason that running costs and revenue generated are virtually the same is because we put an operational case together based on what is needed to try to reduce the number of casualties on Dorset's roads.
"It is a case of balancing our books from a business point of view - we do not set targets of enforcement. Running costs are likely to increase next year before gradually falling."
Mr Garrett revealed plans to increase the number of fixed cameras across the county by nine - to 45.
The number of red-light sites will remain at 17 while mobile sites will be reduced from 73 to 68.
"We want to have all 45 fixed cameras operational as soon as practically possible.
"Motorists should never assume they are not working."
Commenting on speed camera critics, he said: "All the flak is worthwhile it if we can continue to save lives. It must be remembered that the people who complain are those caught breaking the law."
Mr Garrett warned that disgruntled drivers caught damaging cameras would be brought before the courts.
"It's a horrendous thing to do, whether you agree or disagree with safety cameras, because it is putting other road users at risk. There are a number of on-going investigations in Dorset."
The partnership is now planning to target 16- to 18-year-olds. "We are now preparing our operational case for 2004/2005," said Mr Garrett.
"While enforcement will remain a major part of our strategy to reduce casualties, we will be placing greater emphasis on education."
Speed cameras - the real truth. See Saturday's Daily Echo and website.
THE FACTS
· In eight months, 23,733 drivers nabbed by cameras
· Almost £1.5m in fines matched by same running costs
· But Dorset crash numbers are rising
www.thisisbournemouth.co.uk/dorset/bournemouth/news/BOURN_NEWS_NEWS13.html
FEW subjects have sparked more heated debate among motorists than speed cameras.
In recent years many disgruntled Daily Echo readers have put pen to paper to voice their rage over the ominous yellow roadside boxes many have grown to despise.
Others have felt compelled to write in their favour, convinced that speed traps are a necessary evil.
As a growing number of cameras continue to make their presence felt, hitting law-breaking motorists hard in the pocket, some have even vented their anger on the devices themselves.
In one week alone in October two speed cameras were torched in Bournemouth.
Across the country hundreds have been burnt, pulled down or had their lenses spray painted.
A Norwich driver has been jailed for one year for attempted arson and several prosecutions are pending in Dorset.
Plans to install CCTV cameras to identify angry motorists who vandalise speed cameras have not been ruled out here.
The long-awaited publication of Dorset Safety Camera Partnership's first financial figures showing that the county's drivers paid almost £1.5 million for fines in just eight months is bound to fuel even greater controversy.
Project manager Pat Garrett has defended the scheme's running costs of almost £1.5 million, stressing that crashes at camera sites have fallen by 18 per cent and lives are being saved.
But Dorset police figures for the corresponding period show the number of collisions on the county's roads rose from 4,665 to 4,721, with seven more lives lost.
The conflicting statistics will, no doubt, be studied closely by speed camera critics who claim they actually cause accidents.
In September Surrey Police Chief Superintendent Bill Harding branded cameras "a recipe for disaster."
He said speedsters braked sharply to avoid detection and claimed over-reliance on cameras could lead to police failing to catch criminals and reduce their ability to inform drivers about safe driving practices.
Chief Superintendent Harding is not alone in his views.
Last month Autocar magazine, in association with the RAC Foundation, concluded that speed cameras are "a £150 million failure."
Following extensive research into the camera debate, Autocar editor Steve Sutcliffe said: "They do not deter drivers from speeding, are remarkably unsuccessful at saving lives and may well cause accidents of their own.
"Their presence has meant the removal of police from our roads so thousands of serious driving offences now go undetected.
"Cameras could even be putting lives at risk because the police now rely too much on them to catch speedsters, more drunk and drugged drivers and insurance fraudsters are going undetected and there are more defective vehicles on our roads.
"Autocar has discovered that while the number of speeding drivers caught by cameras has risen four-fold to more than one million since 1996, there has been less than a five per cent reduction in the number of road deaths."
With plans to increase the number of fixed cameras in Dorset from 36 to 45, the Camera Partnership is adamant that speed traps are here to stay.
"The message is getting across that excess and inappropriate speed kills and seriously injures," said Mr Garrett. "We are now preparing our operational case for 2004/2005.
"If we could have achieved a reduction in casualties without issuing a single speeding ticket it would have been fantastic.
"But the fact remains that there are still far too many people driving too fast on our roads and an important element of encouraging them to slow down is enforcement."
Only time will tell if the end will justify the means.
SPEED cameras have cost Dorset motorists almost £1.5 million in just eight months, new statistics have shown.
The 23,733 drivers captured on film flouting speeding restrictions from August 1 last year until March 31 this year have paid fines totalling £1,423,980.
The number of crashes at camera sites has fallen by 18 per cent. But the Daily Echo can reveal that the total number of road accidents across the county has actually risen from 4,665 to 4,721, with seven more lives lost.
Revenue generated from the controversial Dorset Safety Camera Partnership scheme, which employs about 50 full-time and temporary staff, virtually matched the £1,423,392 running costs.
Defending the partnership, project manager Pat Garrett said: "Lives are being saved. This means we are getting it right in relation to where cameras are being sited.
"The running costs sound like a lot of money. But when a scheme is being set up there are high costs involved. Installing one complete camera system costs £25,000."
Almost 30,000 drivers were detected during the eight-month period. Seventy-six per cent paid £60 fines while three per cent opted to go to court.
"Included in the 24 per cent of drivers who did not pay up were emergency vehicles and motorists travelling at more than 25 mph over the speed limit who automatically went to court," added Mr Garrett.
"The reason that running costs and revenue generated are virtually the same is because we put an operational case together based on what is needed to try to reduce the number of casualties on Dorset's roads.
"It is a case of balancing our books from a business point of view - we do not set targets of enforcement. Running costs are likely to increase next year before gradually falling."
Mr Garrett revealed plans to increase the number of fixed cameras across the county by nine - to 45.
The number of red-light sites will remain at 17 while mobile sites will be reduced from 73 to 68.
"We want to have all 45 fixed cameras operational as soon as practically possible.
"Motorists should never assume they are not working."
Commenting on speed camera critics, he said: "All the flak is worthwhile it if we can continue to save lives. It must be remembered that the people who complain are those caught breaking the law."
Mr Garrett warned that disgruntled drivers caught damaging cameras would be brought before the courts.
"It's a horrendous thing to do, whether you agree or disagree with safety cameras, because it is putting other road users at risk. There are a number of on-going investigations in Dorset."
The partnership is now planning to target 16- to 18-year-olds. "We are now preparing our operational case for 2004/2005," said Mr Garrett.
"While enforcement will remain a major part of our strategy to reduce casualties, we will be placing greater emphasis on education."
Speed cameras - the real truth. See Saturday's Daily Echo and website.
THE FACTS
· In eight months, 23,733 drivers nabbed by cameras
· Almost £1.5m in fines matched by same running costs
· But Dorset crash numbers are rising
www.thisisbournemouth.co.uk/dorset/bournemouth/news/BOURN_NEWS_NEWS13.html
FEW subjects have sparked more heated debate among motorists than speed cameras.
In recent years many disgruntled Daily Echo readers have put pen to paper to voice their rage over the ominous yellow roadside boxes many have grown to despise.
Others have felt compelled to write in their favour, convinced that speed traps are a necessary evil.
As a growing number of cameras continue to make their presence felt, hitting law-breaking motorists hard in the pocket, some have even vented their anger on the devices themselves.
In one week alone in October two speed cameras were torched in Bournemouth.
Across the country hundreds have been burnt, pulled down or had their lenses spray painted.
A Norwich driver has been jailed for one year for attempted arson and several prosecutions are pending in Dorset.
Plans to install CCTV cameras to identify angry motorists who vandalise speed cameras have not been ruled out here.
The long-awaited publication of Dorset Safety Camera Partnership's first financial figures showing that the county's drivers paid almost £1.5 million for fines in just eight months is bound to fuel even greater controversy.
Project manager Pat Garrett has defended the scheme's running costs of almost £1.5 million, stressing that crashes at camera sites have fallen by 18 per cent and lives are being saved.
But Dorset police figures for the corresponding period show the number of collisions on the county's roads rose from 4,665 to 4,721, with seven more lives lost.
The conflicting statistics will, no doubt, be studied closely by speed camera critics who claim they actually cause accidents.
In September Surrey Police Chief Superintendent Bill Harding branded cameras "a recipe for disaster."
He said speedsters braked sharply to avoid detection and claimed over-reliance on cameras could lead to police failing to catch criminals and reduce their ability to inform drivers about safe driving practices.
Chief Superintendent Harding is not alone in his views.
Last month Autocar magazine, in association with the RAC Foundation, concluded that speed cameras are "a £150 million failure."
Following extensive research into the camera debate, Autocar editor Steve Sutcliffe said: "They do not deter drivers from speeding, are remarkably unsuccessful at saving lives and may well cause accidents of their own.
"Their presence has meant the removal of police from our roads so thousands of serious driving offences now go undetected.
"Cameras could even be putting lives at risk because the police now rely too much on them to catch speedsters, more drunk and drugged drivers and insurance fraudsters are going undetected and there are more defective vehicles on our roads.
"Autocar has discovered that while the number of speeding drivers caught by cameras has risen four-fold to more than one million since 1996, there has been less than a five per cent reduction in the number of road deaths."
With plans to increase the number of fixed cameras in Dorset from 36 to 45, the Camera Partnership is adamant that speed traps are here to stay.
"The message is getting across that excess and inappropriate speed kills and seriously injures," said Mr Garrett. "We are now preparing our operational case for 2004/2005.
"If we could have achieved a reduction in casualties without issuing a single speeding ticket it would have been fantastic.
"But the fact remains that there are still far too many people driving too fast on our roads and an important element of encouraging them to slow down is enforcement."
Only time will tell if the end will justify the means.
The scam has to stop somewhere, lets all start voting for a change, Im sure we can kick out some of the councillors & those that influence & put those in with some savvy.
What amazes me is Dorset are putting "the most dangerous" cycle lanes around the outside lanes of roundabouts (have you tried cycling round em?) as if to help raise the casualty figures still further. Yet they are happy to rake in cash when its easy money.
An angry dorset resident
What amazes me is Dorset are putting "the most dangerous" cycle lanes around the outside lanes of roundabouts (have you tried cycling round em?) as if to help raise the casualty figures still further. Yet they are happy to rake in cash when its easy money.
An angry dorset resident
)Nice disclaimer too, absolves them from telling the truth too:
Disclaimer
The material on this website is designed to provide information regarding the location and rationale for the implementation of safety cameras in Dorset.
While care is taken in the compilation of the information, Dorset Safety Camera Partnership, its employees, contractors, partners and agents will not be held responsible for any loss, damage or inconvenience caused as a result of the use of, or inability to use this site or any material contained within it, or from any action or decision taken as a result of using this site. No liability is accepted for any inaccuracy or error within these pages, nor does it constitute legal or other professional advice.
>> Edited by deltaf on Monday 8th December 14:45
Disclaimer
The material on this website is designed to provide information regarding the location and rationale for the implementation of safety cameras in Dorset.
While care is taken in the compilation of the information, Dorset Safety Camera Partnership, its employees, contractors, partners and agents will not be held responsible for any loss, damage or inconvenience caused as a result of the use of, or inability to use this site or any material contained within it, or from any action or decision taken as a result of using this site. No liability is accepted for any inaccuracy or error within these pages, nor does it constitute legal or other professional advice.
>> Edited by deltaf on Monday 8th December 14:45
streaky said:
The partnership is now planning to target 16- to 18-year-olds. "We are now preparing our operational case for 2004/2005"
How HTF will the "safety cameras" discriminate between 16 to 18 year-olds and those over 18? - Streaky
If Blunkett has his way we'll all have ID cards from the day we are born ....... either that or the Dorset Police will stop every young driver they see.
Just sent them this.....
Hi, ive just been browsing through your site and have noticed the following anomalies.
Home page:"
Speed is the major cause of collisions on our roads."
Here you state that its "the major cause".
How is that possible? TRL323 reports speed as a causal factor at 7%, that means that 93% of accidents are'nt caused by speed.
West midlands accident review (compiled by the police authority) states 4% of accidents speed related (not caused) from years 1999 thru 2002....
Thats hardly a majority, IS IT?
How do you explain the anomaly? Please dont refer to your disclaimer for faulty info, as if you do it will show you to be the alternative part of my heading, and in any case, id expect you to at least verify info before posting it on your site.
Also on the home page:" Statistics show lives are saved by cameras"
Really? Hows about this for a statistic: "the total number of road accidents across the county has actually risen from 4,665 to 4,721, with seven more lives lost."(source Daily Echo)
So speed cameras save lives do they? Proof, based on the above would seem somewhat lacking, wouldnt you say?
In fact its your "safety" cameras and your failed policies that have claimed the lives of the extra seven people!
Hows it feel to be responsible for seven extra deaths because of your incompetent stance on road safety?
Also taken from your site:
Fundamental principles
Honesty and openness - Partnership aims and objectives will be communicated openly with all internal and external audiences. The geographical focus of our efforts will be communicated in a variety of media including radio, internet technology, the press, and by our attending events.
In the event of NO coherent responses from yourselves on the poits ive raised, i shall disclose all correspondence to the press and the public will then pass their own judgements on you. I shall wait 7 calendar days from today before doing so in order to give you time to respond.
Kindest regards
Hi, ive just been browsing through your site and have noticed the following anomalies.
Home page:"
Speed is the major cause of collisions on our roads."
Here you state that its "the major cause".
How is that possible? TRL323 reports speed as a causal factor at 7%, that means that 93% of accidents are'nt caused by speed.
West midlands accident review (compiled by the police authority) states 4% of accidents speed related (not caused) from years 1999 thru 2002....
Thats hardly a majority, IS IT?
How do you explain the anomaly? Please dont refer to your disclaimer for faulty info, as if you do it will show you to be the alternative part of my heading, and in any case, id expect you to at least verify info before posting it on your site.
Also on the home page:" Statistics show lives are saved by cameras"
Really? Hows about this for a statistic: "the total number of road accidents across the county has actually risen from 4,665 to 4,721, with seven more lives lost."(source Daily Echo)
So speed cameras save lives do they? Proof, based on the above would seem somewhat lacking, wouldnt you say?
In fact its your "safety" cameras and your failed policies that have claimed the lives of the extra seven people!
Hows it feel to be responsible for seven extra deaths because of your incompetent stance on road safety?
Also taken from your site:
Fundamental principles
Honesty and openness - Partnership aims and objectives will be communicated openly with all internal and external audiences. The geographical focus of our efforts will be communicated in a variety of media including radio, internet technology, the press, and by our attending events.
In the event of NO coherent responses from yourselves on the poits ive raised, i shall disclose all correspondence to the press and the public will then pass their own judgements on you. I shall wait 7 calendar days from today before doing so in order to give you time to respond.
Kindest regards
Deltaf,
Nice letter! I'd be VERY interested to see any reply.
On the subject of accidents down 18% at camera sites, yet up overall, some of you may not know that there's a very very simple statistical explanation for that apparent anomoly. It's called "regression to the mean" and you can read about it here:
www.safespeed.org.uk/rttm.html
It's well worth talking the time to understand the effect - most claims of speed camer effectiveness depend on it.
Best Regards,
Paul Smith
Safe Speed
www.safespeed.org.uk
Nice letter! I'd be VERY interested to see any reply.
On the subject of accidents down 18% at camera sites, yet up overall, some of you may not know that there's a very very simple statistical explanation for that apparent anomoly. It's called "regression to the mean" and you can read about it here:
www.safespeed.org.uk/rttm.html
It's well worth talking the time to understand the effect - most claims of speed camer effectiveness depend on it.
Best Regards,
Paul Smith
Safe Speed
www.safespeed.org.uk
- StreakyGassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff