A65 Leeds - How many Cameras!
Discussion
As Treasurer for a Local Club I attend a meeting every two weeks. Between the two meetings the A65 between Horsforth and Guiseley has suddenley sprouted about 8 cameras five heading away from Horsforth and three in. I have just requested The stats on this road as the only accident I know of actually occured on the roundabout before it!
Reply about the A65 Between Rawdon and Horsforth. He seems a little "vague " on the number Killed.
> Philip Gwynne "'telecat" A65 between Horsforth and RawdonDate: Thu,
13 May 2004 09:08:09 +0100
>
>Thank you for your enquiry to the safety cameras website.
>
>In the monitoring period 1997-2003 prior to installation of cameras,
>casualty statistics for the A65 at Rawdon were 90 crashes resulting in 12
>fatalities (or near-fatalities) + numerous serious and slight casualties.
>
>The qualifying "threshold" for installation of fixed cameras is
>
> 1. At least 4 fatalities and serious injuries per km in the
>last 3 years
> 2. At least 8 personal injury collisions (serious and slight
>injuries) per km in the last 3 years
> 3. Causation factors show that speeding was a contributory
>factor in some or all collisions - collision sites that are not speed
>related are de-selected
> 4. At least 20% of drivers are exceeding the speed limit
> 5. Excess driving speed must be at least 10% above the speed
>limit plus 2mph (e.g. 35mph in a 30mph zone) for free-flowing traffic
>excluding any rush hour periods.
>
>So you can see that this route more than exceeds these criteria.
>
>Remember, the familiar 'yellow box' speed control safety cameras are only
>located on roads with high numbers of speed related crashes in which people
>have been killed or seriously injured.
>If you see a camera, you are in a casualty danger zone!
>If you like I'll add you to the exclusive list of individuals who receive
>"insider information" on safety camera developments in West Yorkshire.
>
>
>Philip J Gwynne MIPR MCIM
>
>Thank you for your enquiry to the safety cameras website.
>
>In the monitoring period 1997-2003 prior to installation of cameras,
>casualty statistics for the A65 at Rawdon were 90 crashes resulting in 12
>fatalities (or near-fatalities) + numerous serious and slight casualties.
>
>The qualifying "threshold" for installation of fixed cameras is
>
> 1. At least 4 fatalities and serious injuries per km in the
>last 3 years
> 2. At least 8 personal injury collisions (serious and slight
>injuries) per km in the last 3 years
> 3. Causation factors show that speeding was a contributory
>factor in some or all collisions - collision sites that are not speed
>related are de-selected
> 4. At least 20% of drivers are exceeding the speed limit
> 5. Excess driving speed must be at least 10% above the speed
>limit plus 2mph (e.g. 35mph in a 30mph zone) for free-flowing traffic
>excluding any rush hour periods.
>
>So you can see that this route more than exceeds these criteria.
>
>Remember, the familiar 'yellow box' speed control safety cameras are only
>located on roads with high numbers of speed related crashes in which people
>have been killed or seriously injured.
>If you see a camera, you are in a casualty danger zone!
>If you like I'll add you to the exclusive list of individuals who receive
>"insider information" on safety camera developments in West Yorkshire.
>
>
>Philip J Gwynne MIPR MCIM
> Philip Gwynne "'telecat" A65 between Horsforth and RawdonDate: Thu,
13 May 2004 09:08:09 +0100
>
>Thank you for your enquiry to the safety cameras website.
>
>In the monitoring period 1997-2003 prior to installation of cameras,
>casualty statistics for the A65 at Rawdon were 90 crashes resulting in 12
>fatalities (or near-fatalities) + numerous serious and slight casualties.
>
>The qualifying "threshold" for installation of fixed cameras is
>
> 1. At least 4 fatalities and serious injuries per km in the
>last 3 years
> 2. At least 8 personal injury collisions (serious and slight
>injuries) per km in the last 3 years
> 3. Causation factors show that speeding was a contributory
>factor in some or all collisions - collision sites that are not speed
>related are de-selected
> 4. At least 20% of drivers are exceeding the speed limit
> 5. Excess driving speed must be at least 10% above the speed
>limit plus 2mph (e.g. 35mph in a 30mph zone) for free-flowing traffic
>excluding any rush hour periods.
>
>So you can see that this route more than exceeds these criteria.
>
>Remember, the familiar 'yellow box' speed control safety cameras are only
>located on roads with high numbers of speed related crashes in which people
>have been killed or seriously injured.
>If you see a camera, you are in a casualty danger zone!
>If you like I'll add you to the exclusive list of individuals who receive
>"insider information" on safety camera developments in West Yorkshire.
>
>
>Philip J Gwynne MIPR MCIM
>
>Thank you for your enquiry to the safety cameras website.
>
>In the monitoring period 1997-2003 prior to installation of cameras,
>casualty statistics for the A65 at Rawdon were 90 crashes resulting in 12
>fatalities (or near-fatalities) + numerous serious and slight casualties.
>
>The qualifying "threshold" for installation of fixed cameras is
>
> 1. At least 4 fatalities and serious injuries per km in the
>last 3 years
> 2. At least 8 personal injury collisions (serious and slight
>injuries) per km in the last 3 years
> 3. Causation factors show that speeding was a contributory
>factor in some or all collisions - collision sites that are not speed
>related are de-selected
> 4. At least 20% of drivers are exceeding the speed limit
> 5. Excess driving speed must be at least 10% above the speed
>limit plus 2mph (e.g. 35mph in a 30mph zone) for free-flowing traffic
>excluding any rush hour periods.
>
>So you can see that this route more than exceeds these criteria.
>
>Remember, the familiar 'yellow box' speed control safety cameras are only
>located on roads with high numbers of speed related crashes in which people
>have been killed or seriously injured.
>If you see a camera, you are in a casualty danger zone!
>If you like I'll add you to the exclusive list of individuals who receive
>"insider information" on safety camera developments in West Yorkshire.
>
>
>Philip J Gwynne MIPR MCIM
Reply to West Yorks "Safety" Partnership.
Hello Philip,
Thank you for your prompt response. I am confused by your reply however. You state that for Cameras to be installed there must be 4 fatalities and serious injuries Per KM per year. I believe the bench mark is Fatalities not Injuries or "Near" fatalities. Using "KSI" is considered to be tweaking the figures by adding up injuries that would not normally be counted. Also allowing for you not using figures Tweaked I would have these questions.
1. How many of those incidents occurred at speeds below the speed limit, But at an inappropriate speed for the conditions?
2. In the case of incidents where the vehicle was above the speed limit, have many of the incidents had, as there primary cause another factor. I.E. Drink driving, "Joy" riders or inattention on behalf of other road users?
I also find it puzzling that so many GATSO's have been stationed on this road. It seems excessive even if all the reasons given were correct. One appears to be stationed to catch drivers unaware as they enter a "30" limit".
Please also not that one of the cameras appears to face oncoming traffic on the side of the road it is mounted on. This could lead to drivers and riders being temporarily blinded if a Vehicle on the other side "triggers" the unit. Hardly a "Safe" mode of operation!
Hello Philip,
Thank you for your prompt response. I am confused by your reply however. You state that for Cameras to be installed there must be 4 fatalities and serious injuries Per KM per year. I believe the bench mark is Fatalities not Injuries or "Near" fatalities. Using "KSI" is considered to be tweaking the figures by adding up injuries that would not normally be counted. Also allowing for you not using figures Tweaked I would have these questions.
1. How many of those incidents occurred at speeds below the speed limit, But at an inappropriate speed for the conditions?
2. In the case of incidents where the vehicle was above the speed limit, have many of the incidents had, as there primary cause another factor. I.E. Drink driving, "Joy" riders or inattention on behalf of other road users?
I also find it puzzling that so many GATSO's have been stationed on this road. It seems excessive even if all the reasons given were correct. One appears to be stationed to catch drivers unaware as they enter a "30" limit".
Please also not that one of the cameras appears to face oncoming traffic on the side of the road it is mounted on. This could lead to drivers and riders being temporarily blinded if a Vehicle on the other side "triggers" the unit. Hardly a "Safe" mode of operation!
Coincidentally I passed a couple of these cameras yesterday. My Boss lives in Rawden and I drive that way about once a month. One of the cameras is a right PITA because it's just after the junction I turn right out of to join the A65 leaving Rawden village. Some days you can wait minutes to get out of that junction, so you have to be prepared to take any opportunity you can. When I grabbed a chance yesterday and accelerated smartly out of the junction so as not to inconvenience other road users I immediately found I had to take my eyes off the road at this critical moment to make sure I wasn't going to get nabbed by the camera. One more thing to think about, just when you need it least, or perhaps that's why it's there? Surely if they wanted to slow traffic at the junction they'd put it before, not just after?
Regarding the rules on camera placement, this all swings on whether the cameras are operated by a partnership who is claiming some of the costs back under the "revenue hypothecation scheme". If not then they can put them where they like, with or without warning notices, bright paint etc.
But if they are operating under this scheme (which is almost certainly the case), then the qualifications are based on KSI accidents (NOT fatalities) and a history of speeding at the site. The two things to note are that firstly this means there may well not have been any fatalities at all at the camera site, the qualifying accidents might only involve relatively minor injuries which stil qualify as "KSIs" (the definition encompasses a lot!). This explains the apparent paradox we continually hear about where a camera gets erected and all the locals say they can't remember any bad accidents there. Of course they wouldn't remember incidents like little Johnny falling off his bike and breaking his wrist, but that qualifies as a KSI!
Secondly, AFAIA there is no need for there to be any link between the qualifying accidents and speeding - it may well be the case that all the people speeding have done so in safety, and the qualifying KSI accidents were caused by people travelling within the limit.
A cynical person might suggest that the requirement for speeding history at the site is merely to ensure that plenty of people will be caught by the camera! Indeed, as Paul Smith has clearly demonstrated, a high incidence of speeding usually just indicates that the limit is too low and people are speeding simply becuase it is safe to. From an accident prevention point of view it would clearly make more sense to place the cameras where only a small number of people were speeding, as you'd then be pretty sure that all the ones you caught really were the reckless drivers.
Cynical, Moi?
>> Edited by BlackStuff on Thursday 13th May 21:46
Regarding the rules on camera placement, this all swings on whether the cameras are operated by a partnership who is claiming some of the costs back under the "revenue hypothecation scheme". If not then they can put them where they like, with or without warning notices, bright paint etc.
But if they are operating under this scheme (which is almost certainly the case), then the qualifications are based on KSI accidents (NOT fatalities) and a history of speeding at the site. The two things to note are that firstly this means there may well not have been any fatalities at all at the camera site, the qualifying accidents might only involve relatively minor injuries which stil qualify as "KSIs" (the definition encompasses a lot!). This explains the apparent paradox we continually hear about where a camera gets erected and all the locals say they can't remember any bad accidents there. Of course they wouldn't remember incidents like little Johnny falling off his bike and breaking his wrist, but that qualifies as a KSI!
Secondly, AFAIA there is no need for there to be any link between the qualifying accidents and speeding - it may well be the case that all the people speeding have done so in safety, and the qualifying KSI accidents were caused by people travelling within the limit.
A cynical person might suggest that the requirement for speeding history at the site is merely to ensure that plenty of people will be caught by the camera! Indeed, as Paul Smith has clearly demonstrated, a high incidence of speeding usually just indicates that the limit is too low and people are speeding simply becuase it is safe to. From an accident prevention point of view it would clearly make more sense to place the cameras where only a small number of people were speeding, as you'd then be pretty sure that all the ones you caught really were the reckless drivers.
Cynical, Moi?
>> Edited by BlackStuff on Thursday 13th May 21:46
Its not so much that they have put cameras up, it is resedential and there are schools and stuff but its just the number fo them. How on earth can they justify so many cameras, there are 3 in about 600 yards of road at one point 
. This is definately overkill i think, suppose they will justify it by saying that not all cameras will be active so as to leave us guessing and make us stay at the speed limit for the entire stretch of road, however anyone who drives this road in the rush hour will know that if you exceed 30mph you are very lucky indeed!!
. This is definately overkill i think, suppose they will justify it by saying that not all cameras will be active so as to leave us guessing and make us stay at the speed limit for the entire stretch of road, however anyone who drives this road in the rush hour will know that if you exceed 30mph you are very lucky indeed!! Continuing the saga. Rather confusingily Philip(or his lacky) embeds the answer between in My Reply.
Hello Philip,
Thank you for your prompt response. I am confused by your reply
however. You
state that for Cameras to be installed there must be 4 fatalities and
serious
injuries Per KM per year. I believe the bench mark is Fatalities not
Injuries or
"Near" fatalities. Using "KSI" is considered to be tweaking the figures
by
adding up injuries that would not normally be counted. Also allowing
for you
not
using figures Tweaked I would have these questions.
The unit of measurement that we are obliged to use is KSI (killed or
seriously injured). This is defined as a person who is pronounced dead
at
the scene, is dead on arrival at hospital, or who succumbs to their
injuries
within 30 days of the crash.
1. How many of those incidents occurred at speeds below the speed
limit, But
at
an inappropriate speed for the conditions?
The causation factors of all crashes are investigated as part of the
case
for installation of cameras. As stated in my previous email causation
factors must show that speeding was a contributory factor in some or
all
collisions - collision sites that are not speed related are
de-selected.
2. In the case of incidents where the vehicle was above the speed
limit,
have
many of the incidents had, as there primary cause another factor. I.E.
Drink
driving, "Joy" riders or inattention on behalf of other road users?
Yes - previous response applies
I also find it puzzling that so many GATSO's have been stationed on
this
road.
It seems excessive even if all the reasons given were correct.
Every casualty "black spot" is surveyed to determine how many cameras
are
required to help keep drivers safe. Factors taken into consideration
include: line of sight, road topography & layout, numbers and nature of
junctions/traffic lights/pedestrian crossings etc, location of
buildings,
intrusion & environmental factors and similar
One appears to be
stationed to catch drivers unaware as they enter a "30" limit".
Drivers are expected to know the speed limits of the road they are on.
Cameras are there to help keep down speed-related casualties, not to
catch
speeding motorists
Please also not that one of the cameras appears to face oncoming
traffic on
the
side of the road it is mounted on. This could lead to drivers and
riders
being
temporarily blinded if a Vehicle on the other side "triggers" the unit.
Hardly a
"Safe" mode of operation!
Unlikely! I think you're clutching at straws here!!
I look forward to your reply and would like to included on the list.
Thank you, consider it done
Jeremy Hunt
> Philip Gwynne "'telecat@37.com'" A65 between Horsforth and
RawdonDate:
Thu,
13 May 2004 09:08:09 +0100
>
>Thank you for your enquiry to the safety cameras website.
>
>In the monitoring period 1997-2003 prior to installation of
cameras,
>casualty statistics for the A65 at Rawdon were 90 crashes resulting
in 12
>fatalities (or near-fatalities) + numerous serious and slight
casualties.
>
>The qualifying "threshold" for installation of fixed cameras is
>
> 1. At least 4 fatalities and serious injuries per km in
the
>last 3 years
> 2. At least 8 personal injury collisions (serious and
slight
>injuries) per km in the last 3 years
> 3. Causation factors show that speeding was a contributory
>factor in some or all collisions - collision sites that are not
speed
>related are de-selected
> 4. At least 20% of drivers are exceeding the speed limit
> 5. Excess driving speed must be at least 10% above the
speed
>limit plus 2mph (e.g. 35mph in a 30mph zone) for free-flowing
traffic
>excluding any rush hour periods.
>
>So you can see that this route more than exceeds these criteria.
>
>Remember, the familiar 'yellow box' speed control safety cameras
are only
>located on roads with high numbers of speed related crashes in
which people
>have been killed or seriously injured.
>If you see a camera, you are in a casualty danger zone!
>If you like I'll add you to the exclusive list of individuals who
receive
>"insider information" on safety camera developments in West
Yorkshire.
>
>
>Philip J Gwynne MIPR MCIM
>
Evasion appears to be the Key Here! New questions going In.
Hello Philip,
Thank you for your prompt response. I am confused by your reply
however. You
state that for Cameras to be installed there must be 4 fatalities and
serious
injuries Per KM per year. I believe the bench mark is Fatalities not
Injuries or
"Near" fatalities. Using "KSI" is considered to be tweaking the figures
by
adding up injuries that would not normally be counted. Also allowing
for you
not
using figures Tweaked I would have these questions.
The unit of measurement that we are obliged to use is KSI (killed or
seriously injured). This is defined as a person who is pronounced dead
at
the scene, is dead on arrival at hospital, or who succumbs to their
injuries
within 30 days of the crash.
1. How many of those incidents occurred at speeds below the speed
limit, But
at
an inappropriate speed for the conditions?
The causation factors of all crashes are investigated as part of the
case
for installation of cameras. As stated in my previous email causation
factors must show that speeding was a contributory factor in some or
all
collisions - collision sites that are not speed related are
de-selected.
2. In the case of incidents where the vehicle was above the speed
limit,
have
many of the incidents had, as there primary cause another factor. I.E.
Drink
driving, "Joy" riders or inattention on behalf of other road users?
Yes - previous response applies
I also find it puzzling that so many GATSO's have been stationed on
this
road.
It seems excessive even if all the reasons given were correct.
Every casualty "black spot" is surveyed to determine how many cameras
are
required to help keep drivers safe. Factors taken into consideration
include: line of sight, road topography & layout, numbers and nature of
junctions/traffic lights/pedestrian crossings etc, location of
buildings,
intrusion & environmental factors and similar
One appears to be
stationed to catch drivers unaware as they enter a "30" limit".
Drivers are expected to know the speed limits of the road they are on.
Cameras are there to help keep down speed-related casualties, not to
catch
speeding motorists
Please also not that one of the cameras appears to face oncoming
traffic on
the
side of the road it is mounted on. This could lead to drivers and
riders
being
temporarily blinded if a Vehicle on the other side "triggers" the unit.
Hardly a
"Safe" mode of operation!
Unlikely! I think you're clutching at straws here!!
I look forward to your reply and would like to included on the list.
Thank you, consider it done
Jeremy Hunt
> Philip Gwynne "'telecat@37.com'" A65 between Horsforth and
RawdonDate:
Thu,
13 May 2004 09:08:09 +0100
>
>Thank you for your enquiry to the safety cameras website.
>
>In the monitoring period 1997-2003 prior to installation of
cameras,
>casualty statistics for the A65 at Rawdon were 90 crashes resulting
in 12
>fatalities (or near-fatalities) + numerous serious and slight
casualties.
>
>The qualifying "threshold" for installation of fixed cameras is
>
> 1. At least 4 fatalities and serious injuries per km in
the
>last 3 years
> 2. At least 8 personal injury collisions (serious and
slight
>injuries) per km in the last 3 years
> 3. Causation factors show that speeding was a contributory
>factor in some or all collisions - collision sites that are not
speed
>related are de-selected
> 4. At least 20% of drivers are exceeding the speed limit
> 5. Excess driving speed must be at least 10% above the
speed
>limit plus 2mph (e.g. 35mph in a 30mph zone) for free-flowing
traffic
>excluding any rush hour periods.
>
>So you can see that this route more than exceeds these criteria.
>
>Remember, the familiar 'yellow box' speed control safety cameras
are only
>located on roads with high numbers of speed related crashes in
which people
>have been killed or seriously injured.
>If you see a camera, you are in a casualty danger zone!
>If you like I'll add you to the exclusive list of individuals who
receive
>"insider information" on safety camera developments in West
Yorkshire.
>
>
>Philip J Gwynne MIPR MCIM
>
Evasion appears to be the Key Here! New questions going In.
Having considered my reply I came up with this.
Hello Philip,
Again thanks for your prompt response.
Qouting from the DOT Research Paper dated 11 Feb 2003 Seriously Injured
is
"An Injury For Which The Person is detained In Hospital as an
In-Patient, or any
of the following injuries wheather or not the casualty is detained in
Hospital:fractures, concussion, internal injuries, crushings, severe
cuts and
lacerations, severe general shock requiring medical treatment AND
injuries
causing causing death 30 or more days after the accident."
The Capitals are mine. Not quite what you intimate in your reply, which
for the
sake of clarity should not have its replies embedded within MY mail.
On the 13th of May I passed A GATSO facing towards ME on MY side of the
road at
approx 19:50. Before deriding Me have the unit checked. I don't believe
it is
active as road markings are not in place. I will be checking and if
necessary
taking Digital photos of the unit Myself.
If you misunderstood me I apologise, I am asking for the stats that
justify the
GATSO's, not your explanation that they exist. I require the PROOF that
you have
the stats and are prepared to back them up.
The mere existance of the "yellow" boxes is no longer considered Proof
of a
"Incident" zone. These units have now acquired a reputation and You now
have to
prove they are justified. Just because you have within the name
"Safety" no
longer proves that is the usage to which these units is being put. Not
being a
serving Police Officer with experience of road conditions also
undermines any
authority you attempt to glean from the tenuous link you have with West
Yorks
Police.
I look forward to your reply
Jeremy Hunt
Please note if anybody else has views I will gladly moderate and pass on. If you wish to contact direct the address is philip.gwynne@bradford.gov.uk
Hello Philip,
Again thanks for your prompt response.
Qouting from the DOT Research Paper dated 11 Feb 2003 Seriously Injured
is
"An Injury For Which The Person is detained In Hospital as an
In-Patient, or any
of the following injuries wheather or not the casualty is detained in
Hospital:fractures, concussion, internal injuries, crushings, severe
cuts and
lacerations, severe general shock requiring medical treatment AND
injuries
causing causing death 30 or more days after the accident."
The Capitals are mine. Not quite what you intimate in your reply, which
for the
sake of clarity should not have its replies embedded within MY mail.
On the 13th of May I passed A GATSO facing towards ME on MY side of the
road at
approx 19:50. Before deriding Me have the unit checked. I don't believe
it is
active as road markings are not in place. I will be checking and if
necessary
taking Digital photos of the unit Myself.
If you misunderstood me I apologise, I am asking for the stats that
justify the
GATSO's, not your explanation that they exist. I require the PROOF that
you have
the stats and are prepared to back them up.
The mere existance of the "yellow" boxes is no longer considered Proof
of a
"Incident" zone. These units have now acquired a reputation and You now
have to
prove they are justified. Just because you have within the name
"Safety" no
longer proves that is the usage to which these units is being put. Not
being a
serving Police Officer with experience of road conditions also
undermines any
authority you attempt to glean from the tenuous link you have with West
Yorks
Police.
I look forward to your reply
Jeremy Hunt
Please note if anybody else has views I will gladly moderate and pass on. If you wish to contact direct the address is philip.gwynne@bradford.gov.uk
Well I haven't got a reply so sent another enquiry as to what he is doing about the camera and sending me figures to justify the GATSO's
"Well Philip the Camera opposite Carr Lane is still facing the wrong way. I again think given this is a "GATSO" camera with flash it is a hazard for drivers heading away from Horsforth. DO YOU plan to correct the fault or shall we await the inevitable accident?? I am still awaiting the figures to justify these cameras especially the Two that are stationed on a section of the road that has no houses or business's on it. I don't feel a cemetary counts as an abode or business by the way."
"Well Philip the Camera opposite Carr Lane is still facing the wrong way. I again think given this is a "GATSO" camera with flash it is a hazard for drivers heading away from Horsforth. DO YOU plan to correct the fault or shall we await the inevitable accident?? I am still awaiting the figures to justify these cameras especially the Two that are stationed on a section of the road that has no houses or business's on it. I don't feel a cemetary counts as an abode or business by the way."
Interesting. I've contacted Philip myself, and once you get past the usual 'company speak' he dries up. Another intersting point is that when I was casually speaking to a friend of mine who works in said department, I find that he has never heard of Philip Gwynn. So where does this Philip hang out do you reckon?
Having seen the 60's haircut and peaky demeanor of this self promoting idiot(yes that's you Philip if you read these forums) I can believe it. I shall be looking into other means however! And the mail account used is one I have that I don't care about that much!
>> Edited by telecat on Wednesday 2nd June 00:00
>> Edited by telecat on Wednesday 2nd June 00:00
are they even switched on yet?
if u drive from leeds to guiseley u can't see the lenses on the other side of the road cos the trees are overgrown (or at least they were last week)
no lines on the road yet either, i thought they couldn't prosecute without there being lines to judge the distance travelled?
if u drive from leeds to guiseley u can't see the lenses on the other side of the road cos the trees are overgrown (or at least they were last week)
no lines on the road yet either, i thought they couldn't prosecute without there being lines to judge the distance travelled?
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff