Durham chief constable, Paul Garvin standing firm
Discussion
Force in row over speed cameras
Static speed cameras are not used in Durham
A police force in the north-east of England has been told to rethink its anti-speed camera policy after a rise in the number of road deaths.
Road Safety Minister David Jamieson said Durham Police must explain why more people were being killed and injured on its roads.
The force has just one static speed camera and focuses on mobile and hand-held cameras instead.
But last year 42 people died on County Durham's roads - an increase of 56% on the previous year.
Mr Jamieson has told Chief Constable Paul Garvin to look again at his controversial policy.
The force has said it considers the figure a "blip" and remains confident its approach of using mobile and hand-held cameras is a more effective long-term solution to speeding.
But Mr Jamieson said: "The chief of police would perhaps have to explain to local people why it is from 2001-2002 casualties in terms of deaths and serious injuries, and particularly those to children, it is actually one of the few areas where they are going up rather than down.
"I think perhaps they need to re-examine their policy to see if some of those casualties can be reduced by installing safety cameras.
"He will have to explain why deaths are rising in this area."
Simply looking at speed cameras as the panacea to all evils, in my view, is not the way of doing things
Mr Jamieson said static speed cameras had cut road deaths and serious injuries by 35%.
And most "sensible" motorists backed their use.
He added: "When we see the figures on how we are reducing deaths, particularly amongst children, the vast majority of motorists who drive safely and carefully know that is good sense."
The Durham force has set up a Casualty Reduction Partnership, which it says relies less on the use of speed cameras and more on education and promotion of road safety issues.
Chief constable Paul Garvin said: "What we find is that there is not a single location within the county where you could say speed cameras would be useful in addressing a road casualty problem.
"We are still seeing the level of road casualties in County Durham are 33% below the national average.
"I sympathise with every person who is a victim or family of a road accident in this county or anywhere.
"But I am trying to put my resources to the best use to reduce road casualties.
News link here: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/3305719.stm . Atb Derek
>>> Edited by Winnebago Nut on Monday 22 December 08:47
Static speed cameras are not used in Durham
A police force in the north-east of England has been told to rethink its anti-speed camera policy after a rise in the number of road deaths.
Road Safety Minister David Jamieson said Durham Police must explain why more people were being killed and injured on its roads.
The force has just one static speed camera and focuses on mobile and hand-held cameras instead.
But last year 42 people died on County Durham's roads - an increase of 56% on the previous year.
Mr Jamieson has told Chief Constable Paul Garvin to look again at his controversial policy.
The force has said it considers the figure a "blip" and remains confident its approach of using mobile and hand-held cameras is a more effective long-term solution to speeding.
But Mr Jamieson said: "The chief of police would perhaps have to explain to local people why it is from 2001-2002 casualties in terms of deaths and serious injuries, and particularly those to children, it is actually one of the few areas where they are going up rather than down.
"I think perhaps they need to re-examine their policy to see if some of those casualties can be reduced by installing safety cameras.
"He will have to explain why deaths are rising in this area."
Simply looking at speed cameras as the panacea to all evils, in my view, is not the way of doing things
Mr Jamieson said static speed cameras had cut road deaths and serious injuries by 35%.
And most "sensible" motorists backed their use.
He added: "When we see the figures on how we are reducing deaths, particularly amongst children, the vast majority of motorists who drive safely and carefully know that is good sense."
The Durham force has set up a Casualty Reduction Partnership, which it says relies less on the use of speed cameras and more on education and promotion of road safety issues.
Chief constable Paul Garvin said: "What we find is that there is not a single location within the county where you could say speed cameras would be useful in addressing a road casualty problem.
"We are still seeing the level of road casualties in County Durham are 33% below the national average.
"I sympathise with every person who is a victim or family of a road accident in this county or anywhere.
"But I am trying to put my resources to the best use to reduce road casualties.
News link here: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/3305719.stm . Atb Derek
>>> Edited by Winnebago Nut on Monday 22 December 08:47
The chief constable was interviewed on the radio last week. Apparently one of the reasons for the statistical blip is that the previous year they had Foot & mouth Disease there. The amount of traffic was massively reduced meaning fewer accidents. So the increase the next year was largely due to traffic levels returning to normal.
- StreakyThis idiot is the Labour MP for Plymouth Devonport. He wrote such a load of bollocks in the local paper (Herald) a couple of weeks ago, that I felt compelled to write a letter in, and it actually got top spot in the "Postbag" section.
I don't have the original article to hand, but it was the usual "All hail to speed camera's for they really do stop small children running out into the roads". The quote that really annoyed me was "Where people are being knocked down, it is due to speed...". A big thanks to the ABD and Safespeed, both of which are a mine of usefull information.
"It is with some disappointment that I read MP David Jamiesons views in the article "Cameras DO save lives - MP". It seems that governments road safety campaign is focusing on speeding to the cost of all other road safety initiatives. This despite speeding being a minor contributory factor to the number of accidents on the roads every year (as shown by the independent TRL323 report, speeding was a contributory cause in just 7.3% of RTA's).
Whilst I fully agree that effective anti-speeding measures should be taken in high risk area's, such as those around schools, simply reducing the speed of the traffic is not enough. From a young age I was rigorously educated to the dangers of roads and traffic, both by my parents and community police in my primary school. Today this level of education seems to be sadly missing if the number of children playing on and around roads is any indication to go by.
David Jamieson generalised "Where people are being knocked down, it is due to speed...". You can't fault his statement, if cars (and out excuse for public transport) all travelled at zero mph, no more children would be knocked down. So do we enforce lower and lower speeds until pedestrians are overtaking the cars, or better educate children that roads are not places for playing?
Speed camera's may have their place, but they are not and never will be a solution to RTA's. Until 1993 the annual death rate from RTA's was steadily reducing due in the main to improvements in road engineering and car safety. In 1993 this decline was quickly halted,
and the death rate has leveled out at around 3400 deaths per year. Around this time the "speed kills" road safety policy was introduced, backed by misleading publicity, reduced speed limits, numerous speed cameras and a consequential loss of patrols by skilled traffic police. Not only have death rates actually risen in real terms, there are now more untaxed, uninsured and unroadworthy vehicles on our roads than ever before, not to mention a drink driving problem that is at it highest level since 1990.
The solution is glaringly obvious. More police back on the roads, better education and less focus on speed cameras."
>> Edited by Mr2Mike on Monday 22 December 13:45
I don't have the original article to hand, but it was the usual "All hail to speed camera's for they really do stop small children running out into the roads". The quote that really annoyed me was "Where people are being knocked down, it is due to speed...". A big thanks to the ABD and Safespeed, both of which are a mine of usefull information.
"It is with some disappointment that I read MP David Jamiesons views in the article "Cameras DO save lives - MP". It seems that governments road safety campaign is focusing on speeding to the cost of all other road safety initiatives. This despite speeding being a minor contributory factor to the number of accidents on the roads every year (as shown by the independent TRL323 report, speeding was a contributory cause in just 7.3% of RTA's).
Whilst I fully agree that effective anti-speeding measures should be taken in high risk area's, such as those around schools, simply reducing the speed of the traffic is not enough. From a young age I was rigorously educated to the dangers of roads and traffic, both by my parents and community police in my primary school. Today this level of education seems to be sadly missing if the number of children playing on and around roads is any indication to go by.
David Jamieson generalised "Where people are being knocked down, it is due to speed...". You can't fault his statement, if cars (and out excuse for public transport) all travelled at zero mph, no more children would be knocked down. So do we enforce lower and lower speeds until pedestrians are overtaking the cars, or better educate children that roads are not places for playing?
Speed camera's may have their place, but they are not and never will be a solution to RTA's. Until 1993 the annual death rate from RTA's was steadily reducing due in the main to improvements in road engineering and car safety. In 1993 this decline was quickly halted,
and the death rate has leveled out at around 3400 deaths per year. Around this time the "speed kills" road safety policy was introduced, backed by misleading publicity, reduced speed limits, numerous speed cameras and a consequential loss of patrols by skilled traffic police. Not only have death rates actually risen in real terms, there are now more untaxed, uninsured and unroadworthy vehicles on our roads than ever before, not to mention a drink driving problem that is at it highest level since 1990.
The solution is glaringly obvious. More police back on the roads, better education and less focus on speed cameras."
>> Edited by Mr2Mike on Monday 22 December 13:45
Nice one Mr2Mike.
I just got a reply from Paul Teverson who is David Jamieson's Research/Parliamentary Assistant:
David.Jamieson_MP@dft.gsi.gov.uk
I just got a reply from Paul Teverson who is David Jamieson's Research/Parliamentary Assistant:
Paul Teverson said:So the correct address which he forwarded to was:
I am forwarding this email to the Department for Transport again as it has been sent to the wrong address for the second time.
Regards,
Paul Teverson
David.Jamieson_MP@dft.gsi.gov.uk
puggit said:
Nice one Mr2Mike.
I just got a reply from Paul Teverson who is David Jamieson's Research/Parliamentary Assistant:
Paul Teverson said:
I am forwarding this email to the Department for Transport again as it has been sent to the wrong address for the second time.
Regards,
Paul Teverson
So the correct address which he forwarded to was:
David.Jamieson_MP@dft.gsi.gov.uk
So Mr Jamieson MP is not going to reply but one of his civil servants will!
puggit said:Well why the hell didn't he tell you the FIRST time that you had sent it too the wrong address? Plus. it can't have been totally the wrong address if it reached his research assistant.
Nice one Mr2Mike.
I just got a reply from Paul Teverson who is David Jamieson's Research/Parliamentary Assistant:
Paul Teverson said:
I am forwarding this email to the Department for Transport again as it has been sent to the wrong address for the second time.
Regards,
Paul Teverson
So the correct address which he forwarded to was:
David.Jamieson_MP@dft.gsi.gov.uk
Strange, isn't it, how there is no call by the revenue camera installers to rethink their policy, when there is a clear rise in acidents / deaths after the installation of cameras? Coupled with the fact that, it's mainly accident-free drivers who are getting caught by the revenue cameras.
james_j said:That's because their figures never actually show this. They always seem to be able to provide statistics that disprove even the local Police official figures.
Strange, isn't it, how there is no call by the revenue camera installers to rethink their policy, when there is a clear rise in acidents / deaths after the installation of cameras? Coupled with the fact that, it's mainly accident-free drivers who are getting caught by the revenue cameras.
What they haven't realised is that if you get 12 points in three years you get banned. If you are banned, you are not supposed to be on the road. If you are not on the road, you cannot be done for speeding, so they have no chance of any income from either speeding fines, or, more importantly from fuel and excise duty.
Long term, the entire plan is self-defeating, from the point of raising revenue. However, as a short term money-raising effort, it will work. Whats the odds of a re-alignment of offences say 6 months before the election?
Or am I being cynical again?
Long term, the entire plan is self-defeating, from the point of raising revenue. However, as a short term money-raising effort, it will work. Whats the odds of a re-alignment of offences say 6 months before the election?
Or am I being cynical again?
mrmaggit said:
What they haven't realised is that if you get 12 points in three years you get banned. If you are banned, you are not supposed to be on the road. If you are not on the road, you cannot be done for speeding, so they have no chance of any income from either speeding fines, or, more importantly from fuel and excise duty.
Long term, the entire plan is self-defeating, from the point of raising revenue. However, as a short term money-raising effort, it will work. Whats the odds of a re-alignment of offences say 6 months before the election?
Or am I being cynical again?
bizarrly this could be the best plan to rid us of cameras.
everyone avoid getting caught for a month or two, the cameras funding go bankrupt, deaths remain the same, cameras removed "as no lives saved" (subline ; not rainsing enough money.
stooz said:
bizarrly this could be the best plan to rid us of cameras.
everyone avoid getting caught for a month or two, the cameras funding go bankrupt, deaths remain the same, cameras removed "as no lives saved" (subline ; not rainsing enough money.
Problem is that most revenue doesn't come from the like of PH'ers who are probably more observant than average on the road and probably will slow down in time for cameras. We're all probably slightly better informed as to likely patterns of behaviour of talivans etc.
It's the average Joe who is getting caught. Generally of course they cough up their fine and because they are not serial offenders they just admit fair cop and pay the fines.
Does anyone have any validated statistics on the number of serious injuries caused by RTAs? The Pro-Scamera groups quote a 35% reduction in KSIs at Scamera sites, while the publicly available figures show a fairly steady 3400 deaths p.a. since Scameras were introduced. Surely there must be some way to obtain the injuries-alone figures for comparison purposes?
Winnebago Nut said:
Mr Jamieson said static speed cameras had cut road deaths and serious injuries by 35%.
And most "sensible" motorists backed their use.
What?? So any motorist that doesn't back the use of speed cameras isn't regarded as sensible and therefore their views don't count?
Basically they are only taking the view of their supporters and calling anyone who doesn't support them a lunatic driver.
This seems to one of their main lines of defence, ie you're either with us or against us, and if you're against us then by default you're a child killing lunatic driver.
I dispair.
On a different note the claim that scameras reduce KSI and RTA's by up to 35% at camera sites is a statistic that was generated by comparing locations that had suffered bad accident rates one year then installing a camera the next. Although the accident rates fell there was no indication that this was due to the camera. FOr this statistic to be valid you would need a "control" road which had also suffered a bad accident rate and then monitor it (without a camera) over the course of the year. It could well be that if there are no accidents at the control site the next year then you cannot claim that cameras made the difference at the camera'd site.
Also scamera partnerships could also find a normally safe stretch of road which had suffered a couple of "freak" accidents and then plonk a camera down. In this instance there would be a reduction anyway due to the lack of the freak (one off) accident the next year.
And last but not least the 35% statistic was taken from a few cameras NOT the whole force (I think). So they could well have cherry picked the best performing cameras.
All in all, its a very dodgy statistic.
Andy
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff