Norfolk Camera Safety Partnership in HOT water
Discussion
About a month or so ago, they pushed this big splash in the EDP (this is Norfolk's local paper) about how great the results are. It was a leak of a report.
The two examples cited were this one, and a camera on the A11 which according to their site does not exist.....
The line pushed is something like. In the 3 years prior to the camera there were 7 KSIs here. Since the installation there have been zero. Camera has been there 6 months. You do the maths.
Suffice to say that a head on collision there tomorrow would "prove" that the cameras make it twice as dangerous.
The two examples cited were this one, and a camera on the A11 which according to their site does not exist.....
The line pushed is something like. In the 3 years prior to the camera there were 7 KSIs here. Since the installation there have been zero. Camera has been there 6 months. You do the maths.
Suffice to say that a head on collision there tomorrow would "prove" that the cameras make it twice as dangerous.
autismuk said:
About a month or so ago, they pushed this big splash in the EDP (this is Norfolk's local paper) about how great the results are. It was a leak of a report.
The two examples cited were this one, and a camera on the A11 which according to their site does not exist.....
The line pushed is something like. In the 3 years prior to the camera there were 7 KSIs here. Since the installation there have been zero. Camera has been there 6 months. You do the maths.
Suffice to say that a head on collision there tomorrow would "prove" that the cameras make it twice as dangerous.
But with the camera there will there be one that results in death or serious injury.
How many photographs of a fatal or serious accident has there been taken at a speed camera site. Not many, so why is the claim that they are contributing to accidents so often repeated?
destroyer said:
About a month or so ago, they pushed this big splash in the EDP (this is Norfolk's local paper) about how great the results are. It was a leak of a report.
The two examples cited were this one, and a camera on the A11 which according to their site does not exist.....
The line pushed is something like. In the 3 years prior to the camera there were 7 KSIs here. Since the installation there have been zero. Camera has been there 6 months. You do the maths.
Suffice to say that a head on collision there tomorrow would "prove" that the cameras make it twice as dangerous.
But with the camera there will there be one that results in death or serious injury.
How many photographs of a fatal or serious accident has there been taken at a speed camera site. Not many, so why is the claim that they are contributing to accidents so often repeated?
perhaps becuase the number of road accident related deaths have gone up since their introduction and reliance upon?
roosevelt said:
From above: -
No one from the NCRP was available for comment, but earlier this week its chairman Supt Mark Veljovic said that a strategic review would now look at ways of making the partnership more transparent and accountable to the public, including appointing elected members.
"I am sure my board members will agree I am supportive of any measure designed to show true openness and transparency to the public," he said.
Hmm.....stategic review....transparancy...those "in vouge" words again......There on the slippery slope with this one thats for sure.
Mojo.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff