Norfolk Casualty Reduction under fire...
Discussion
www.en24.co.uk/content/news/Story.asp?Brand=ENONLINE&Category=NEWS&ItemId=NOED30+Mar+2004+12%3A35%3A34%3A933
Full text from Eastern Evening News - 30 March 2004;
Speed cameras - the truth
A SCATHING report today revealed some of Norfolk's speed cameras could have been wrongly sited.
The investigation, carried out by Norfolk police, found that in some cases the data used to justify the siting of cameras was questionable, while on other occasions it was simply unavailable — because it had been shredded.
The findings, to be presented to members of the county's police authority, are a major blow to the Norfolk Casualty Reduction Partnership, which must prove a need for cameras at a particular site.
Currently the partnership, a coalition set up in 2001 including the police, the county council planning and transportation department, health bosses and magistrates, has 18 fixed sites in the county, including nine "legacy" sites from the mid 1990s, and 72 stretches of road covered by mobile cameras.
The Department for Transport has issued strict guidelines, which must be followed before fixed cameras are installed.
These are:
That there must have been four fatal or serious injury collisions there in the last three years.
That speed was a factor in some or all of these.
At least 20 per cent of drivers are exceeding the speed limit.
The new audit has so far looked at six fixed sites, three proposed fixed sites and 20 mobile ones.
But it found that much of the data about accidents that has been used to justify sites has been destroyed.
This is in line with police policy, but the report stated: "There is a reasonable expectation that the partnership team should have acquired and retained records relating to collisions which they used to justify the siting of safety cameras. This has not been the case and as a consequence, it has not been possible in many instances to make conclusive comments."
Of the first nine fixed sites, there was not enough data to comment on their siting and no evidence was found of an ongoing review.
Of the nine later sites, six of which were reviewed, the report criticised the interpretation of the data that had led to them being installed.
In a damning indictment of the team that runs the partnership, the report also found: "There is a lack of documentary accountability for the reasoning and justification underpinning the decision making for camera siting. This reflects some lack of managerial robustness in the operation of the scheme."
NCRP manager Barry Parnell said: "We can't really comment on the report at this time without seeing exactly what sites they are talking about.
"All the sites have been submitted to and approved by the Department for Transport."
He would not comment on whether any cameras would be moved or whether changes would have to be made to the partnership's management.
"This report will be discussed at length by the partnership," he added.
The report is due to be considered by members of Norfolk's Police Authority next Tuesday and could prompt major changes in the way speed cameras are run.
The report recommends that authority members reconsider their position in the partnership.
Authority chairman Jim Wilson said the partnership needed to be made more accountable.
"We as an authority are concerned that confidence in the police is being eroded over something which neither the authority nor the Chief Constable has any direct control.
"What needs to change is that, in the way the police are accountable to their police authority and the county council departments to the county council itself, there needs to be an accountable body interposed between the partnership and the public."
Cameras have long been accused of not being accountable and, by extension, of being more to do with raising revenue than reducing accidents.
Funds raised from fines on speeding motorists are used to pay for the NCRP with any surplus going to the Treasury's coffers in Whitehall.
The new report will further undermine the public's faith in them.
Earlier this month, Norfolk County Council's scrutiny committee expressed concern about the "secret and unaccountable nature" of the partnership.
In January, the Evening News revealed some of the county's worst accident blackspots were not monitored by cameras while other locations with a less severe accident record, such as Grapes Hill, were snaring dozens of motorists every day.
Nearly 40,000 motorists were caught on speed cameras in Norfolk in 2003, a rate of 760 a week.
Full text from Eastern Evening News - 30 March 2004;
Speed cameras - the truth
A SCATHING report today revealed some of Norfolk's speed cameras could have been wrongly sited.
The investigation, carried out by Norfolk police, found that in some cases the data used to justify the siting of cameras was questionable, while on other occasions it was simply unavailable — because it had been shredded.
The findings, to be presented to members of the county's police authority, are a major blow to the Norfolk Casualty Reduction Partnership, which must prove a need for cameras at a particular site.
Currently the partnership, a coalition set up in 2001 including the police, the county council planning and transportation department, health bosses and magistrates, has 18 fixed sites in the county, including nine "legacy" sites from the mid 1990s, and 72 stretches of road covered by mobile cameras.
The Department for Transport has issued strict guidelines, which must be followed before fixed cameras are installed.
These are:
That there must have been four fatal or serious injury collisions there in the last three years.
That speed was a factor in some or all of these.
At least 20 per cent of drivers are exceeding the speed limit.
The new audit has so far looked at six fixed sites, three proposed fixed sites and 20 mobile ones.
But it found that much of the data about accidents that has been used to justify sites has been destroyed.
This is in line with police policy, but the report stated: "There is a reasonable expectation that the partnership team should have acquired and retained records relating to collisions which they used to justify the siting of safety cameras. This has not been the case and as a consequence, it has not been possible in many instances to make conclusive comments."
Of the first nine fixed sites, there was not enough data to comment on their siting and no evidence was found of an ongoing review.
Of the nine later sites, six of which were reviewed, the report criticised the interpretation of the data that had led to them being installed.
In a damning indictment of the team that runs the partnership, the report also found: "There is a lack of documentary accountability for the reasoning and justification underpinning the decision making for camera siting. This reflects some lack of managerial robustness in the operation of the scheme."
NCRP manager Barry Parnell said: "We can't really comment on the report at this time without seeing exactly what sites they are talking about.
"All the sites have been submitted to and approved by the Department for Transport."
He would not comment on whether any cameras would be moved or whether changes would have to be made to the partnership's management.
"This report will be discussed at length by the partnership," he added.
The report is due to be considered by members of Norfolk's Police Authority next Tuesday and could prompt major changes in the way speed cameras are run.
The report recommends that authority members reconsider their position in the partnership.
Authority chairman Jim Wilson said the partnership needed to be made more accountable.
"We as an authority are concerned that confidence in the police is being eroded over something which neither the authority nor the Chief Constable has any direct control.
"What needs to change is that, in the way the police are accountable to their police authority and the county council departments to the county council itself, there needs to be an accountable body interposed between the partnership and the public."
Cameras have long been accused of not being accountable and, by extension, of being more to do with raising revenue than reducing accidents.
Funds raised from fines on speeding motorists are used to pay for the NCRP with any surplus going to the Treasury's coffers in Whitehall.
The new report will further undermine the public's faith in them.
Earlier this month, Norfolk County Council's scrutiny committee expressed concern about the "secret and unaccountable nature" of the partnership.
In January, the Evening News revealed some of the county's worst accident blackspots were not monitored by cameras while other locations with a less severe accident record, such as Grapes Hill, were snaring dozens of motorists every day.
Nearly 40,000 motorists were caught on speed cameras in Norfolk in 2003, a rate of 760 a week.
hornet said:We only have Jamieson's word for what the SCPs said ... and who believes anything that one of Bliar's ministers says? Answers in felt-tip pen on the head of a pin to "The Grauniad" - Streaky
Hang on. The SCPs recently told HM Gov that "all of our cameras are legit, honest". Assuming Norfolk was one of the SCPs involved, they were lying. That surely is far more serious than the actual cameras themselves?
JMGS4 said:
This can't be right .... the government said recently that all cameras were correctly placed!
But only because the Scamera Partnerships lied to them in the first place and said that they were all correctly placed (to protect their incomes) the damned liars/thieves!!!!
Note the smiley ... I was being saracastic
bumpkin Yesterday (08:34)
it's funny how the mobile camera appears outside Lotus as the factory is knocking off, also on the A11 on a Friday when all the contractors are going home.
And on a Sunday afternoon following a race meet at Snetterton....
Bumpkin, can you advise their usuall position - on the bridge or acceleration lane onto A11...
Reason I ask is I was recorded at 109mph and plod says he was on bridge - I think he was hiding from traffic on the slip road. If so then he is not conforming to ACPO guideline and case dismissed....
it's funny how the mobile camera appears outside Lotus as the factory is knocking off, also on the A11 on a Friday when all the contractors are going home.
And on a Sunday afternoon following a race meet at Snetterton....
Bumpkin, can you advise their usuall position - on the bridge or acceleration lane onto A11...
Reason I ask is I was recorded at 109mph and plod says he was on bridge - I think he was hiding from traffic on the slip road. If so then he is not conforming to ACPO guideline and case dismissed....
roosevelt said:
We can question all convictions and pending covictions on the basis that it cannot be proved that cameras conform to ACPO guidelines....
Yippee !!
roosevelt said:
If so then he is not conforming to ACPO guideline and case dismissed....
Forget it. The guidelines are just government lies and spin.
They have no bearing on the law.
>> Edited by jeffreyarcher on Friday 2nd April 00:51
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff