15 percent rule ?
Discussion
Does anyone know the source document for this rule ? (in light of contradictory high level statements)
From SCP:
You are right, the DfT guidelines for Safety Camera installation is indeed a recorded accident history as stated however the SCP are permitted to enforce sites which do not meet this criteria but have a high recorded history of repeated excess speed provided they utilise no more than 15% of their time. Sites such as Batheaston were historical sites, as most of the Gatso sites are, which were installed in the very early days of cameras before the guidelines were introduced. Many of them have now been decommissioned because they do not meet any of the current guidelines however some, such as this one, do have a speeding problem and have been retained under the 15% rule.
From SCP:
You are right, the DfT guidelines for Safety Camera installation is indeed a recorded accident history as stated however the SCP are permitted to enforce sites which do not meet this criteria but have a high recorded history of repeated excess speed provided they utilise no more than 15% of their time. Sites such as Batheaston were historical sites, as most of the Gatso sites are, which were installed in the very early days of cameras before the guidelines were introduced. Many of them have now been decommissioned because they do not meet any of the current guidelines however some, such as this one, do have a speeding problem and have been retained under the 15% rule.
Its part of the guidelines which govern "membership" of the netting off scheme (ie the ability of the SCP to retain monies to fund further camera's.
The "official" line is that all camera's are at accident blackspots, 4 accidents etc but the guidelines allow 15% to be anywhy the can raise cash from regardless as to have safe the road is.
I would write back and ask as a safety partnership why would they want to divert funds and effort to any site which does not have a safety problem. Why not move these "legacy" sites to where "the children are being mowed down by nutter car drivers"
>> Edited by bluepolarbear on Thursday 26th February 07:44
The "official" line is that all camera's are at accident blackspots, 4 accidents etc but the guidelines allow 15% to be anywhy the can raise cash from regardless as to have safe the road is.
I would write back and ask as a safety partnership why would they want to divert funds and effort to any site which does not have a safety problem. Why not move these "legacy" sites to where "the children are being mowed down by nutter car drivers"
>> Edited by bluepolarbear on Thursday 26th February 07:44
In todaysDailyMail,page 15, Micheal Howard pledged to rip out all cameras that were placed to raise revenue, not for saving lives. At the next election I will be voting Tory, but if they get into power I will not be holding my breath.
In the meanwhile Mr Howard, if you know we are being fleeced why are you not are you not publicly f***ing Tony Boy Blunder Blair over it at Prime Minister's question time?
In the meanwhile Mr Howard, if you know we are being fleeced why are you not are you not publicly f***ing Tony Boy Blunder Blair over it at Prime Minister's question time?
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff