Kent Scamera / pointless email?

[Raify]

Well,

It's been rather quiet at work for a change today. Another post led me to this: www.kentandmedwaysafetycameras.org.uk/locations.html

So I thought I'd waste 10 mins and email the Scameras about some blatant fine-generating GATSO's in Tunbridge Wells.

here's my email:

Subject: Tunbridge Wells Camera sites
To: [e-mail]
Good morning,

I have been reading your web site regarding the placement of safety cameras with some interest.

I was specifically trying to locate the statistics regarding serious accidents that would warrant a GATSO on a few roads in Tunbridge Wells.

These two particular cameras interested me:
A26 Eridge Road, Tunbridge Wells
• 1 person killed or seriously injured between 1998 and 2000
A264 Pembury Road, Tunbridge Wells
• 4 people killed or seriously injured between 1998 and 2000

Basically, I have two questions.

1. Are there no figures for road accidents since 2000? The figures you quote seem rather out of date.

2. Is one accident in 4 years enough to warrant the installation of a GATSO?

I would not like to make light of any accident that has occurred, as far as I'm concerned 1 death is too many. However, it seems to me that there are quite a few cameras cynically placed, just after limit changes, in order to generate fines (in particular the A264 Pembury Road camera). I have been driving along the A264 for 9 years, and do not consider that spot (where the camera is placed) to be an accident blackspot.
If you have any statistics to prove my rather un-scientific data wrong, I would be very interested to see them / know where I could find them.

Best regards,
____________

Might be interesting, if they even bother to reply.....

[puggit]

She's always replied before - that lass works hard as far as I can tell

Although if the reply will be useful is another question...

[skittle]

The information should be easy to get hold of because they had to confirm to the govt that all the cameras were placed correctly - so they must ahve done the research.

Or is this thinking a little too simplistic??

[Raify]

It appears that the lass does work hard. I was slighlty amazed to receive a reply:

kate moon said:

Dear Nathan, Many thanks for your email. The 1998 - 2000 figures are what we call baseline figures and we place them on the website to show why the cameras were needed. We launched as a Partnership in July 2002 - it was only from this time that the Government issued the guidelines about 4 or more people being killed or seriously injured. (KSI) The Eridge Road camera was installed on 5 December 2000 by Kent County Council - they felt a camera was needed as there had been 14 crashes at this site with the one KSI. Since it was installed there have been no KSIs so the Government felt that it was important that this camera stayed when we came into practice. The Pembury Road camera was installed in March 2002 by KCC. At this site there had been 24 crashes of which 4 were KSIs. Since installation there have been no KSIs, so again it was agreed by the Government to leave the camera at this site. Our whole camera site covers a stretch of 1km and the camera is placed where it will have the best effect. Each local Highway Unit (at Tunbridge Wells Council) is responsible for making sure that each road meets our criteria and look at their own crash records to ensure this is the case. All our camera sites have been approved by the Government and can only be placed at particular crash sites that have a speed related problem. Please contact me if you have any further questions. Kind regards Rachel Moon Communications Officer The Kent & Medway Safety Camera Partnership www.kentandmedwaysafetycameras.org.uk www.nationalsafetycameras.co.uk

I particularly liked:

kate moon said:

Our whole camera site covers a stretch of 1km and the camera is placed where it will have the best effect.

The best effect being the generation of lots of fines The Pembury Road camera is just over the brow of a hill where a 40 limit changes to 30. And she doesn't mention the accident that happened there, when someone panic-braked and crashed into the camera!! (taking it out of action for a month )

edited for sperring mishtakes


>> Edited by Raify on Monday 26th April 12:17

[puggit]

So a camera is justified as there was 1 KSI and now there have been none.

Statistically that isn't worth the bytes used in the email!

[telecat]

Thought there had to be a Number Of Killed (not KSI) before a camera could be installed. Sounds like fudging to me.

[V8 Archie]

telecat said:

Thought there had to be a Number Of Killed (not KSI) before a camera could be installed. Sounds like fudging to me.

KSI is correct I think, but you might be right about a fudge if the implications of this SafeSpeed page represent facts.

[chrisgr31]

Well I heard that the Pembury Road camera was actually hit by a drunk driver who alledged he swerved to avoid a fox. The police believed he fell asleep. Certainly I passed by the site the following morning and there were no skid marks on the road.

I am glad I am not the only person to have written to the Kent Scamera Partnership about the T Wells cameras.

I wonder how many of the accidents near the Eridge Road site were actually lorries hitting the rail bridge, which used to be a regular occurence! The other point to consider is that on the Tunbridge Wells side of that camera is a Pelican Crossing. The Pelican crossing is 75 or 100 yards from a sharp bend. A few years ago the Pelican Crossing was moved further from the bend. I suspect that moving the Pelican Crossing had a far greater impact on the accident figures than the camera. Before it was moved anyone exceeding the limit as they came round the bend had little chance of stopping before the crossing!

[Raify]

chrisgr31 said:

Well I heard that the Pembury Road camera was actually hit by a drunk driver who alledged he swerved to avoid a fox. The police believed he fell asleep. Certainly I passed by the site the following morning and there were no skid marks on the road.

Could well be, I was remebering a post on here ages ago, that claimed that camera was hit by someone panicking. So I've no evidence myself! Basically that camera pisses me off so much, because it's so obviously after a limit change and using the hill to make it hard to spot. If the camera was a quater of a mile away, on Sandrock road ( a road where almost EVERYONE speeds, I've been trying to be diligent about the 30 limit and regularly get tailgated )then I might understand it more. There's a school, and an enourmous line of dangerously parked cars every day. A camera THERE would make sense to me

chrisgr31 said:

I am glad I am not the only person to have written to the Kent Scamera Partnership about the T Wells cameras.

It's just a shame that it won't do any good. They're not elected, and accountable to only spurious statistics.

[chrisgr31]

Raify said:

Basically that camera pisses me off so much, because it's so obviously after a limit change and using the hill to make it hard to spot.

Don't forget it's also about 6 ft behind a large tree. The cynics might suggest its delibrately positioned there to hide it from the approaching motorist!

[Raify]

chrisgr31 said:

Well I heard that the Pembury Road camera was actually hit by a drunk driver who alledged he swerved to avoid a fox.

Forgot to say: to the fox!

[qwicksylva]

I find it interesting how her reply statistics refer to reductions in KSI's and not RTA's. I wonder if the number of RTA's has dropped at these sites - worth asking the question?

Rich

>> Edited by qwicksylva on Thursday 29th April 12:00

[chrisgr31]

qwicksylva said:

I find it interesting how her reply statistics refer to reductions in KSI's and not RTA's. I wonder if the number of RTA's has dropped at these sites - worth asking the question? Rich >> Edited by qwicksylva on Thursday 29th April 12:00

Dunno but plenty of skidmarks around them!

However to be honest it onlly takes a single accident to create the KSI to generate the need for a camera. Take the drunk that hit the camera in Pembury Road, had the camera not been there he would have hit the tree behind it. He hit the camera hard enough to rip it out the ground. That force of impact could have killed him had it been against the tree.

Therefore arguably the camera has saved a life, however if he had killed himself it still wouldn;t have justified a camera as he was drunk.

Incidentially whilst one can applaude the fox I suspect its an imaginary one! :-D

[S Works]

chrisgr31 said:

qwicksylva said: I find it interesting how her reply statistics refer to reductions in KSI's and not RTA's. I wonder if the number of RTA's has dropped at these sites - worth asking the question? Rich >> Edited by qwicksylva on Thursday 29th April 12:00 Dunno but plenty of skidmarks around them! However to be honest it onlly takes a single accident to create the KSI to generate the need for a camera. Take the drunk that hit the camera in Pembury Road, had the camera not been there he would have hit the tree behind it. He hit the camera hard enough to rip it out the ground. That force of impact could have killed him had it been against the tree. Therefore arguably the camera has saved a life, however if he had killed himself it still wouldn;t have justified a camera as he was drunk. Incidentially whilst one can applaude the fox I suspect its an imaginary one! :-D

Camera's don't stop drink drivers and I doubt he'd have been going THAT fast to take a camera off it's pole.

I could come up with 10 sites around TW where camera's would be better sited than both of those.

By the sounds of things the only thing the Pembury Rd camera has stopped is the death of a fox - and at what cost to the tax payer?