This is very disconcerting news, midlife, if this is widespread it makes a mockery of the stats.
Unfortunately, to get this properly looked at would mean you putting your head above the parapet and probably losing your job. How depressing.
|
|
|
The article MLF refers to is
www.honestjohn.co.uk/news/index.htm?news_id=1223
I have referenced it to help trace it when the article inevitable disappears down the page.
I think this a goldenb opportunity for anyone amongst us who sees a yellow GATSO, which we believe is inappropriately located, to be reported.
Here is daft suggestion : As for the specific one in MLF's case, how about him telling HJ or Mark or DD or ND the details, and then one of them reporting the offending camera to ABD.
|
MLF,
Put your head down as suggested. If you try and stand against these n***s you will lose your job and possibly your pension. The chief constable of Durham is already coming under heavy shelling ( and I assume you are not a chief constable).
Leave it to us we will respond.
Regards,
Thommo.
|
|
|
I think this a goldenb opportunity for anyone amongst us who sees a yellow GATSO, which we believe is inappropriately located, to be reported.
Well, that covers most of the ones in Stockport, including one positioned on a bend such that if anyone does trip it, they deserve to be done for dangerous driving rather than speeding...
However, the main thought I had here was: Weren't all new installations supposed to be yellow / visible cameras? I've noticed that Tameside have recently installed quite a few new cameras, all grey and replaced several existing cameras, again with mostly grey apart from the ones near vegetation which are green. Surely at best this is against the spirit of thing, especially as a number of these are in locations where they aren't really appropriate anyway - long, straight roads outside of towns with a 40 limit for example.
|
|
|
|
The safespeed website has an anonymous submission mechanism so you could tell all on there. There seem to be quite a few letters from police officers and magistrates so you would be in good company :-)
teabelly
|
|
I would certainly like to tell someone about mis-placed optical devices in Lincolnshire. The County has an unenviable record of death and injuries this year and many of the devices are sited on wide downhill parts of the dual carriageway A1 in the county. One or two I am aware of certainly are at potentially very serious accident spots. I think a map of the county showing red for fatal accidents and yellow for optical devices would not produce many instances of the colours occuring in one place!
|
|
|
|
A couple of years ago, North Lanarkshire Council joined the scheme whereby they entered this "partnership" that they receive income from the scameras.
One was positioned in Bellshill and I queried why, of all the roads around, did they position it in the one area where there was no housing, no schools and an underpass for pedestrians!
I was told that they had to put one up as part of the initiative and this stretch of the road had the worst accident rate in the area (2 serious accidents).
Now I know for a fact, that one of those accidents involved a police car travelling to a 999 call and crashing on the wrong side of the road!!!!
Does that justify it? Also, am I very cynical why the bypass it leads to is always closed for maintenace and therefore the traffic is diverted along the speed camera road!!
|
In a press release received today, the ABD states:
"In the camera partnerships it is policy to put cameras in places where three or four serious accidents have recently happened. Often this local blip has occurred by chance, and so the cameras cannot be given credit when it is not repeated. This is called "regression to the mean" and it is well recognised amongst qualified statisticians."
The ABD also states:
"If cameras were as successful as Brake claim, and they had been placed in the most dangerous locations as the Government claim, we should have seen a significant fall in fatalities from the beginning. We haven't, so Brake are admitting that cameras have failed for their first ten years of use. If they had been used correctly in the last two years we should have seen a sudden huge fall in the accident statistics in that time. In fact we've started to see a climb, for the first time in 35 years."
HJ
|
Cameras have no effect on what happens where they are not sited, so it makes no sense to blame them for what has happened overall. I have seen no-one dispute the often-quoted statistic that accidents have reduced at camera sites. If this statement is true and accidents are increasing overall, the increase must be at non-camera sites.
The whole idea that a few people have to be killed or injured before certain people will allow anything to be done is ludicrous. What if someone you cared about was one of the statistics? What's wrong with preventing locations becoming blackspots in the first place?
|
So SR basically your arguement is that if the scameras don't work the answer is more scameras?
Your not related to Gordon Brown by any chance?
|
|
|
"I have seen no-one dispute the often-quoted statistic that accidents have reduced at camera sites"
-except at the sites where they haven't:
I can't remember the exact locations (Essex and North London), but last year's statistics showed there were definitely at least two places where the number of accidents had INCREASED after cameras had been sited there.
How on earth can you predict that a location which has no previous record of being a blackspot is going to 'become' one?!
A friend that works in Calderdale told me that the local paper had recently published a 'top 10' of the roads with the highest number of reported accidents in the district. It turned out that "The most dangerous road in Calderdale" was no surprise to him - his office overlooks it and he observes no end of illegal antics from a spectrum of vehicles ranging from those which are surely unregistered and unroadworthy, to incongruous brand-new top-spec Evos, M3s and Imprezas driven by boys apparently just turned 17.
On this road, which has houses along its axis and no end of terraced streets branching off its entire length, is there even a single speed or red-light camera? Nope.
Yet a few miles away, a fairly recent, purpose-built link-road dual carriageway, with no houses nor anything else along its length, uninterrupted central armco, no crossing points and no entry or exit points except at its ends... ...has several gatsos.
No, the siting of many cameras cannot be adequately explained even if 'they' had used a crystal ball, or some dice, to 'predict' where they needed to be deployed to prevent a blackspot developing - they're not random enough. And I don't know how 'they' have the gall to think that we believe their explanations.
|
|
|
|
|
In putting my 2p into this thread I could point out that in the same force area as MLC the council justified reducing a limit and putting SCP into action because of an accident involving TWOCer's under pursuit.
As the county road safety officer said "well one could say it was due to excess speed but even I think that is stretching the point a little!"
|
|
|
|
And NoDosh expresses a kind of surprise at "regular people condoning and cheering the destruction of speed detection equipment"...!! (anarchy in the uk thread)
Who are the REAL perverters of justice?!
|
No, Thommo - don't put words into others' mouths. My point is that you can't blame cameras for what happens elsewhere. The one common factor in all locations is drivers. The answer is for drivers to obey the rules and not cause the problem in the first place, so no need for cameras or any other type of enforcement.
No comment about why people have to be killed or injured before it's allowed to be defined as a blackspot?
tunacat,
You can quote a coupe of sites where they haven't - not exactly representative. I could quote a couple where they have - neither point applies universally. However, it's a fact that if accident rates have gone up generally, you can't automatically assume they have at all camera sites, so the cameras have been ineffective.
I'm not saying you can predict blackspots, but what's wrong with trying to prevent anywhere becoming one, and people being injured or killed in the process?
The point is that cameras should never have been used to control speed at certain locations only - it's drivers who are the problem, not the locations. The easiest way to prevent any location becoming an accident blackspot because of speeding is for drivers not to speed. If camera locations were not known, and the cameras themselves not obvious, they would be more effective. There should be no need to spend £30,000 of taxpayers money every 50 yards to stop people speeding.
While cameras are so obvious, anyone caught by them is either not paying attention or is just plain stupid. Either way, they deserve what they get.
It's obvious who the real "perverters of justice" are. Who's breaking the law - simple!
|
There should be no need to spend £30,000 of taxpayers money every 50 yards to stop people speeding."
Agreed, but something like that would be necessary to completely eradicate it. Much of the 'general level of speeding' is not causing further accidents (merely raising revenue), so that course of action is not necessary. Instead, place cameras at blackspots where speeding IS the cause of accidents. I don't know of anyone who's got a problem with that. But clearly in many parts of the country this is blatantly NOT where they are placed. Why can 'they' not provide a straightforward answer to explain this?
If 'they' are really concerned totally with safety, why oh why should this be a slippery issue?
1) Remove the cameras from wide open stretches of unpopulated rural dual carriageways and the like
2) Install cameras at, and only at, ALL the known accident blackspots
Then let the public openly see the figures for the rates of accidents both at these blackspots, and generally.
If, as I believe we both think and hope, the rates decrease, cameras' true usefulness will have been proved and public faith restored.
Ah, what a blessed relief. Perhaps then we could all stop arguing the toss about the subject and get back to making good progress on trunk roads whilst concentrating on the road ahead instead of our speedos, even if it means we might at times go a few mph faster than what somebody somewhere decreed was the 'limit'.
|
tunacat,
Why should cameras have to be used to indicate an accident blackspot? If there is a problem in a particular location, there are a number of options that can be used. These include physical changes to the layout of the road or junction, increased advance warning signs, road markings, lane restrictions, etc. One of the options that can be used in conjunction with these is the reduction of the speed limit on that stretch of road, and this is clearly posted using a type of sign that everyone is familiar with. This should be enough to alert anyone to the danger - so why should we have to spend further taxpayers money to force people to actually take notice and slow down? It's the careless drivers who cause the original problem, so why should they be allowed to ignore the warnings unless we spend another chunk of taxpayers' money putting up a camera?
James Jameson,
I do not dispute that there are other types of driver and offence that need to be addressed. However, this does not justify ignoring speed as an issue. Why should one offence be ignored just to suit those who happen to be guilty of that offence?
Many other offences cannot be detected by technology, so it makes sense to use technology where appropriate and free up other resources to address the other offences. However, unless someone is doing something obvious wrong the police can't do anything about it without random checks on licences, insurance, etc., and the civil liberties groups would be all over that like a rash.
To use your own logic - if you think that speeding up from some unknown previous speed will reduce accidents, feel free to explain how..... Don't you think that exactly the same "drugged hooden yob" and "driver of uninsured car with no MOT in a dangerous condition" will take advantage of the additional freedom? Would you be happy for these people to be driving around even faster than they do now?
If everyone is so worried about the revenue-rasing activities associated with cameras, why don't they just stick to the limit and remove the revenue stream completely? Is that too simple? Are they too stupid? If the cameras are highly-visible and their locations widely known, and they still manage to get caught, they deserve it.
|
|
|
|
On the topic:
Last year three cameras were installed in Ferry Lane, Walthamsow/Tottenham on a half mile stretch, two in one direction and one in the other.
The road between them runs between a reservoir and a railway line, so absolutely NO chance of joining traffic or pedestrians.
One I can fully justify and have no problem with as it is on the approach to a couple of car parks/trading estate entrances, although accidents have continued unabated despite the camera, so the problem seems to be lack of observation and not speed per se.
One is at the other end where you leave the unobstructed stretch. The road is about fifty feet wide with a ten foot wide hatched line central reservation. You would have to try really hard to hit anything there.
The third is as you join the "unroofed tunnel". Ansolutely no justification and the speed limit could easily be raised to 40mph, 30 and a camera is just an annoyance and everybody accelerates to 40 once past the camera anyway.
That last one must be a sure candidate for scrapping.
|
If anyone thinks that "slowing down" from some unknown previous speed would reduce accidents (somehow), then think about this:
what type of driver do you think is mainly being caught by speed cameras?
The driver of the uninsured car with no MOT in a dangerous condition, the drugged hooden yob etc etc?
No, the man (or woman) most likely to be caught is statistically the safest driver, i.e. with least accidents to his or her name, aged between 45 and 55, married, living outside London and an executive or other professional.
The revenue-hungry authorities have, of course, got it wrong and their propaganda is not believable.
If they wish to reduce accidents they need to completely ignore speed and look at othger causes, but of course that's more difficult and doesn't fit nicely into a one-line easily-remembered solution. Oh, and there's no revenue to be had.
|
|
|
|
Midlife,
I beg you - please get in touch.
I can get this information taken notice of at the highest level.
You can email me at psmith@safespeed.org.uk
On the front page of the Safe Speed web site (2nd group down on the left) you'll find links for anonymous submissions and postal address etc.
I'll email you a phone number by return if you would like to ring.
Best Regards,
Paul Smith
Safe Speed
www.safespeed.org.uk
|
Midlife,
Your post might cause you problems if your boss identifies you, but if he has any real interest in road safety, you should be promoted for your comments.
Any law which generates so much discussion and controversy is clearly unpopular or, quite simply, wrong, for the purpose it was intended.
That the driving public find themselves {more} alienated from the Traffic Police serves neither you or us.
I applaud your guts!
Matt35
|
"That the driving public find themselves {more} alienated from the Traffic Police serves neither you or us."
Trouble is, it's not just traffic police, it rubs off on the whole force.
When you see a blue light behind you don't know if it's Traffic who've spotted a tail light out on your car and is going to pull you on that excuse and then see what else they can find, or if it's your friendly neighbourhood beat bobby.
|
Midlife,
If you wish, e-mail me. I will pass it on anonymously to Paul Smith.
|
|
Thanks for the offer, but I've been in touch directly.
|
|
|
|
"When you see a blue light behind you don't know if it's Traffic who've spotted a tail light out on your car and is going to pull you on that excuse and then see what else they can find"
Well, I beg your pardon, but that is EXACTLY what I do want. If you watch "Traffic Cops" for any length of time, it's just that sort of thing that leads them to (in one case) a drug bust. I want hundreds of Traffic Police on the roads, stopping all the lunatics that I see every day, stopping the people I see undertaking in driving rain on the M3, the people tailgating, the people overtaking on blind bends, the drivers who feel it's Ok to intimidate others.
And yes, they might stop you for a tail light, but if you're polite and reasonable, you'll probably go home a free man. I've told three people their brake lights were out in the past year or so. They all replied "Yeah, I know": They really didn't care. Perhaps with that lack of respect for the law they are the sort of people who might just be prepared to break others.
I hate the fact that there are fewer Traffic Police than before. I've been stopped twice by them, booked once and let off once at 90mph because the motorway was empty, I had my documents and my bike was well-maintained. More power to their elbow.
What I dislike is their replacement by a machine with no judgment and no way of doing anything about the uninsured, untaxed, unlicensed and often banned scrotes pollution our roads: They just MIGHT get stopped for faulty taillights if we had a few more coppers about.
V
|
Hear hear, Vin. Couldn't have put it better myself.
Dear Santa,
I have been a good boy this year and would like more traffic police please.
signed
No Dosh
Aged 33 and 5 months.
ps. Please go past as many speed cameras as possible on Christmas eve so they all run out of film.
|
I wonder if some smarty pants with a motorized sleigh would like to give it a go ;-)
teabelly
|
If they are only put in accident blackspots how come the new road which serves Silverstone from the M1 (can't rememebr the no.) has had speed cameras from day one. If a road is brand new how can it have had any accidents?
Conversely the Stanningley bypass in Leeds has had numerous very serious accidents, they put up two cameras in sensible locations on the Leeds bound carriageway, but one has been missing for most of this year - resulting in locals now passing the camera site in excess of 80mph, before slamming on before the next camera!
|
>>If they are only put in accident blackspots how come the new
>>road which serves Silverstone from the M1 (can't rememebr the
>>no.) has had speed cameras from day one. If a road is brand
>>new how can it have had any accidents?
Going south towards Silverstone from the M1 (its the A43 by the way) there is only one. Its immediately before a junction which crosses right over the A43. Its been there fo a long while and that part of the A43 is nto the new part.
There are two (one each way) on the new part of the A43, but you'd only see these if you were travelling between Silverstone and the M40. They both address the same junction which again crosses completely across the A43.
Whilst that is now a new dual carriageway, it was before a dangerous junciton on a single carriageway.
Of all the stupid cameras around, its difficult to criticise those three.
|
|
|
|
|
|
hi midlife,
this is not only against the law, it's fraud with pecuniary advantage, The law must prevail. If I can assist ask.
rgds
bill
quote
I have also witnessed civilian admin workers altering accident reports, changing the conclusion from actual cause to 'excess speed'. When challenged they replied, "it looks better on the stats". I raised this with a senior officer, but never heard anything again.
|
Definatly agree with Vin on that one, yes id like more traffic police as well please, was once with a friend in his subaru impretza, he wasnt speeding and was pulled over by the police who had followed us for a few miles, they told us lots of subarus had been knecked and they were cracking down on it and therefore checked all his details before letting us carry on, we couldnt have been happier! there should be more of this sort of policing.
|
|
|
|
|
