Safe Speed Forums

- Deaths more than 30 days after the crash

Dear Sirs.
I really do not know how Cumbria "Safety" Camera Partnership has the gall to claim any sort of credit for the reduction in serious injuries, while fatal accidents continue to remain high - proving that they remain ineffective at addressing the real causes of accidents.
For Kevin Tea to then go on to contrast the affect of long term care of victims who survive, and the affect to the NHS, against the grief and shock caused by the loss of a relative, is crass and insensitive! He appears to be suggesting that long term care is more lasting and disturbing than a death, and therefore reducing such injuries is more worthwhile!

The truth is that as time passes, we are seeing less and less older cars, which don't have any of the raft of in car safety measures - such as seatbelt tensioners, air bags, side airbags and impact protection. Look around any carpark, and you will see the number of vehicles fitted with at least one of these safety features is much higher than 4-5 years ago. These are very worthwhile safety features, which would not be fitted unless the manufacturers felt the expense was justified. When in a few accidents, the closing speed is high enough, these features are stretched to the limit, and the catastrophic failure which eventually results inevitably leads to an injury likely to be fatal.

Mr Tea also provides evidence of measures which are more effective than speed cameras at preventing accidents... and has the cheek to include an agency whose only device is the SPEED camera. “We try to target several areas including mobile phones, seatbelts and speed awareness training." and yet the CSCP continue to pointlessly persecute drivers whose affect on the safety of our roads is limited to just 5% of accidents (DfT figures!) with... SPEED cameras, which are NOT safety devices!

Finally, I have to question the accuracy and worth of the market research, which has 66% of respondents agreeing to a questionable statistic - "Fewer accidents happen on roads where cameras are installed" which is the result of cameras being placed where there have been accidents. For instance had a planned camera been placed at Plumpton before the dreadful crash there, it would not have prevented the unfortunate accident from occurring, because as I understand it, the driver was inexperienced, but NOT exceeding the legal speed limit! If a camera was to be placed there now, then Mr Tea could claim that his activities were responsible for preventing further accidents from occurring when this would clearly not be the case! It is called "Return to the Mean" (RTTM) and is akin to claiming that providing more lifeboats prevented further loss of life off Newfoundland from large ocean liners striking icebergs, when clearly the Titanic disaster was a one off event not repeated!

82% of respondents agreed (i.e. did not arrive at that conclusion by themselves) that "safety" cameras should be supported as a method of reducing casualties.Yet DfT figures show illegal speeding is only responsible for 5% of accidents, while speed cameras have seen a 21% fall in traffic police numbers, a fall in prosecutions for Dangerous Driving of 7.4% and prosecutions for Careless Driving halved!! This too should have been brought to the attention of the survey participants.
Worst of all, if the grim reaper himself drove past a camera in excess of the speed limit, HE WOULD NOT BE STOPPED, but allowed to continue on his way, with only a reminder in the post a few days later to remind him!

It all adds up to Fleecing, not Policing, and Mr Tea will be duty bound to defend his well paid job and pension, with statistics (plucked at will by a full time statistition) to bamboozle the public into thinking they are effective!

FIFTYTWO victims have died already this year, MORE than died in 2001, or 2002, before we had SPEED cameras run by the "SAFETY" CAMERA Partnership!

E. Marsh