Safe Speed Forums

from cumberland-news
corrected - S

Hi,
Sorry if the above link doesn't work: I'm not totally comfortable with how to insert website links yet

Anyway, I must confess to having lurked on these forums for a while, but after reading the above article in the Cumberland News today I felt I had to write something, somewhere, to express my complete disgust at the attitude of Cumbria "Safety" Cameras.

It seems that any idea they had of being there to improve safety has gone completely out of the window: for those unaware of what I'm talking about, they are basically saying that they are now allowed to operate anywhere they like within Cumbria and may operate in pairs to counter the "race-away problem" (which would't exist if the cameras weren't there). According to the Cumberland News, they will also stop publishing their operational schedules, the one slightly decent practice they maintained in their first 4 years of operations.

All of this is apparently to "create uncertainty in drivers' minds" about where cameras will be. Any guesses as to how this could possibly be a good thing? As far as I can see, they have now completely abandoned the "we're not out to get you" propaganda and decided that trying to catch people anywhere and everywhere will improve their frankly abysmal record. The first 4 months of this year have been awful for KSI accidents in Cumbria, culminating in April which was one of the worst months EVER with 11 killed. Supposedly if C"S"CP were allowed to operate anywhere this figure would be much less (nope, definitely don't get the logic there).

I'm frankly amazed at how little media coverage this development has received: it really has been sneaked out very stealthily, which one has to assume is in order to make sure as few people as possible are aware so that they can be caught.

It really is another sorry chapter in the tale of the demise of road safety in Cumbria: surely a return to having real police patrols would produce a far greater improvement in road safety (and actually have the support of the average motorist) than trying these ever more contrived ways of catching people going about their business.

I'm sorry for ranting for so long, but I do think this is something that people should make a big deal over because it is such a hopelessly bad thing for Cumbria.

Any thoughts?

I think warning people of their presence was the one chance to potentially mitigate the possible panic reactions of speeding drivers upon seeing a van. Can't see this decreasing figures any more than they have already failed to!

sometimes I want every driver to get a couple of tickets so that the whole farce blows up in the governments face. This might help

_________________
Speed limit sign radio interview. TV Snap Unhappy
“It has never been the rule in this country – I hope it never will be - that suspected criminal offences must automatically be the subject of prosecution” He added that there should be a prosecution: “wherever it appears that the offence or the circumstances of its commission is or are of such a character that a prosecution in respect thereof is required in the public interest”
This approach has been endorsed by Attorney General ever since 1951. CPS Code

Actually they have released a fair amount of publicity - even nationally, because they are the first partnership to go walkabout with their toys, under the new legislation.
They even featured on Five Live, and the BBC have had this covered for some time.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/cumbria/6711661.stm

However, they CANNOT charge you twice for the same offence, if the vans are back to back on the same stretch of road, despite the threats from their head honcho, Steve "I'm no legal expert" Callaghan!

You can also rest assured that the oncoming traffic will usually include somebody who will risk getting a ticket themselves. by flashing their lights at you - as happened at Ings last week, where it was like driving into a disco on the trip from Bannerigg to Ings!!

It would also pay you to get acquainted with somebody on the night shift somewhere(ASDA), who texts all his friends to warn them of the talivans presence on certain roads!!

Finally at Ings southbound, the sign is obscured by foliage from a bush, which I warned the Highways people about - they were cutting grass today, so I'll see if it was trimmed on my way home, but I doubt it!!

_________________
Time to take responsibility for our actions.. and don't be afraid of speaking out!

I'm struggling to see how this is any different from flashing your lights to warn drivers of the camera, neither of which should be considered a crime, especially as they are putting signs out themselves!

Whatever next, are they going to evesdrop on conversations and swoop down on you if you tell someone in person where a scamera is lurking?

Sorry, but I'd rather not. Can we find some other way of demolishing the wretched system?

Best wishes all,
Dave.

Thanks for the replies.

I appreciate that there has been some media coverage of this "roving cameras" idea, but would you not say it has been rather one-sided? I'd expect our local press to stick up for the local people, rather than what they are doing at the moment which is just printing the SCPs ridiculous propaganda.

Any ideas on what the "new guidelines" which allow them to operate "anywhere" involve, i.e. can they just drive along and pick any place they like completely at random? Do they have to put up warning signs?

Anyone else think that the "vans to operate in pairs" idea is completely illogical? Surely once people get used to it they will just speed up even more after they pass the 2nd van, which will then presumably lead to the vans operating in threes, then fours... Completely stupid.

And where on earth do they get the idea that they have the support of the public? I don't know anyone who thinks they are doing the public a service and, as others have said, wherever C"S"CP are operating you tend to get every oncoming driver flashing their lights to warn you of their presence.

How much longer can they keep this up? Criminalising the vast majority of the public is surely a sign of growing deseration on their part.

I never really trusted them anyway so I'm hoping it won't make much difference one way or the other. To be honest, I'm slightly optimistic about it too. As everyone knows, they've not exactly (how can I put this?) "distinguished" themselves in their first 4 years of operation and, as has been said, this year is off to an apalling start. That's DESPITE a fair number of road layout improvements (like closing all the lay-bys in the Cumberland gap).

So, what do we do? We give them a bit more rope - that's what! They like to think that the public is largely in favour of their activities. Well, let's see what the new working pattern does for that shall we?

They "claimed" to have made massive reductions "at the camera sites" in the past. OK, let's see how they do when the whole of Cumbria is a "camera site" and they can't hide behind the notion that people just travel elsewhere when they want to kill themselves.

If it helps, the Westmorland Gazette have published my response to the CSCP's criticisms of mine and another letter a fortnight ago.

It would appear that they have at last recognised a failing in the CSCP campaign - fatalities are NOT going down, and their claim to be reducing seriously injured figures is sadly not true.

Welcome to the site by the way Sam!

I hope you join in the fray so to speak, and if you want to help get the message across, contact your local paper, and MP, and tell them everything you think is wrong!

_________________
Time to take responsibility for our actions.. and don't be afraid of speaking out!

First post, been lurking here for years.

Quote from Cumberland News story per OP:

"He [Kevin Tea] said that Cumbria was adopting the new policy after studying research from Queensland, Australia, which showed that random camera deployment was twice as effective at reducing crashes as focusing on well-known sites."

So, how well has Queensland done since 1998, when "any where any time" speed cameras became their primary road safety strategy?

Not very well, as the following Qld fatal road crash figures show:

1998 257
1999 273
2000 275
2001 296
2002 283
2003 284
2004 289
2005 296
2006 314

Source: http://www.atsb.gov.au/publications/2007/mrf_2006.aspx Table 29

Admittedly these figures do not take account of population and traffic increases, and fatal crashes per billion vehicle kilometres would give a more accurate overall picture, but they are figures that the average Joe can understand.

It would be intetesting to see how Kevin Tea reconciles these Qld figures with his "research".

Keep up the good fight.

Kim Jupe
Chief Research Officer
National Motorists Association of Australia

_________________
"Measure what is important, don't make important what you can measure."

Welcome aboard you former lurkers!



If nothing else, this issue has brought out a change in the way people perceive cameras - they seem to be tipping the undecideds into the anti-camera camp!

Thanks for that Kim, I shall be using that in my next letter to the local paper!!

_________________
Time to take responsibility for our actions.. and don't be afraid of speaking out!

Not to worry. I'm sure Mr C thinks they're "Still doing well".

So, let's be clear what's happening here. The claims made by the CSCP were that they had been very successful at reducing casualties at certain 'hot-spots'. The fact that they did not allow for 'regression to the mean' in their claims showed the lengths to which they would go to try to appear successful.
When it was pointed out that the TRL had established that only 3% to 5% of all serious accidents involved vehicles which were breaking the speed limit, we were told by them that at the 'hot-spots' this was not the case, but that speed in excess of the posted limit was a greater factor at the 'hot-spots'.
But now the vans are to be deployed on a more random basis so, logically, the 3% to 5% figure will now definately apply.
If one were being cynical, one might, just might, think that what has happened is that revenue has dropped from operations at the 'hot-spot' sites without any overal drop in deaths and serious casualties, and that there have been instructions to generate more revenue, using the increased deaths to justify this and to 'spin-it-up' to make it seem a good idea. After all, on a random basis the 5% causation factor cannot give an improvement of greater than 5% in casualty reduction.
The CSCP do seem to operate with no logic at all. Working randomly as they intend to, if they were 100% effective and managed to prevent every single vehicle in the region from exceeding any speed limit at any time, they might reasonably hope for a 5% reduction in casualties. Of course, that won't ever happen in the real world.
So, to coin a phrase, 'what's it all about, Alfie?'
It seems clear that it's about job preservation by the employees of the CSCP, the saving of face by the members of the Partnership in view of their total failure so far and the need to raise more cash to fund this useless and unnecessary organisation. They have changed their stance from addressing allegedly-established dangerous bits of road to random enforcement and for what? Just random enforcement for the sake of enforcement and to raise cash since with a 5% maximum achievable that's all they can hope to achieve. There can be no other reason when one considers the proven failure to date.
You know, they really should be ashamed of themselves for taking their salaries whilst making peoples lives a misery with their 'roadside-mugging', changing the focus of real road safety and doing no good whatsoever. All they have done is to generate cash, hot air, obfuscation and bad feeling. They should go now.
How should this be brought to the attention of the media?

[quote="Ernest Marsh"]Welcome aboard you former lurkers!

If nothing else, this issue has brought out a change in the way people perceive cameras - they seem to be tipping the undecideds into the anti-camera camp!
quote]

Yes, this may dissuade them from using Waterhead. They'll catch everyone (except my wife), and would very quickly turn opinion.