Safe Speed Forums

Just received this reply from Mick Jackson, boss of Cleveland CSP. Is he kidding?

Peter

I do not know what it will take to show you that cameras are having a
positive affect on the roads where they are being used, and that it has
nothing to do with money.

The whole purpose of publishing the results was to show that the number of collisions is reducing where we use cameras, at a rate far in excess of
roads where cameras are not being used.

Now, since the only difference in 'policing' the roads is that on some
cameras are used and on others they are not, then what other inference canyou draw than the cameras are having a positive effect?

People are paranoid about speed, because speed is killing and injuring
people. It may not be the car drivers fault when a crash occurs, but the
speed of his/her car determines the severity of the injuries. All the
Accident and Emergency Consultants will tell you that this is the case and
Newton's Laws of Motion explain why this is the case. (The faster something is travelling, then the greater the force when it hits something else).

Requests from the public and communities for us to use cameras on their
roads to slow the traffic down exceeds our resources. In one year alone
there were 10,000 requests from the public in this country asking for
cameras to be used near their homes.

As for my salary, it comes from those who will not listen to reason and
will not stick to the speed limit. They all have a choice. If they do not
want me to be paid, then slow down and stick to the limit. It's easy
really!

I have not 'changed' from being a police officer, I retired after 32 years
service to the public and have taken this job because I for one am not
prepared to sit back and watch over 3000 people die every year and over
250,000 more get injured. At least I am trying to reduce this number and
the figures show that this is the case.

How much has the partnership made from cameras? Not a single penny. All we get back is the money we have spent and no more, thus ensuring that it has cost you nothing.

I'm sorry that you cannot see the benefits from slowing down and sticking
to speed limits, however I must content myself that 78% of people in
Cleveland who took part in an independent survey support the use of the
cameras. They can't all be wrong.

Kind regards

Mick

Mick Bennett
P.R. Manager
Cleveland Safety Camera Partnership
Hartlepool Borough Council
Bryan Hanson House,
Hanson Square,
Hartlepool.
TS24 7BT
Tel:- 01429 284 170
Mobile:- 07766 087 152
Fax:- 01429 860 830
www.clevelandsafetycameras.co.uk
www.dft.gov.uk/safetycameras

and an update. He seems reasonable enough.


Peter

Now you are asking a different question.

The partnership does not make a penny profit, as I have explained.

However it is not a secret that the once the partnerships have be paid
their expenses, then the Chancellor of the Exchequer keeps any surplus.

Last year that amounted to £20 million (that is the figure for the whole of
the country) and this figure was made public

Now, I don't agree that they should keep that money, and that it should be
spend on road improvements, and as you said earlier, on education. However
the Treasury will not change those rules and this is outside my control.

Regards

Mick

Yes, apparently he is kidding us. One minute he's admitting he earns a salary out of speeding fines; the next minute, he claims no one makes a penny out of them.

Wow, I must live in a different Cleveland because 78% of people I know think Cameras are just tax with malice. Were any of these 78% of people knowledgable in road safety, if not then they can all quite easily be wrong.

Shame I was never included in this survey, nor was I consulted about having a mobile camera site near my house.



So what exactly do 10,000 letters from mis-informed people whom havn't a clue about road safety prove?

Possibly that speed cameras are achieving the status of "Cargo Cult" items.?

So, like the poor benighted populations of far-flung South-Seas islands who erected bamboo radio aerials and cardboard radar-scanners on their huts in the sure and certain knowledge that they would attract the "big tin birds" full of wondrous cargo to their shores, the residents of areas beset with car problems beseech the authorities to install speed cameras because all the propaganda they've seen tells them that all accidents and dangerous driving is caused by speeding, and all speeding is immediately cured by the installation of a camera.

Seems logical enough to me..

_________________
"Politicians are the same the world over... We build bridges where there aren't any rivers." - Nikita Kruschev

333,333 illegal speeding events, and NOT one of them was stopped. So if speeding is the desperately criminal dangerous act he seems to think it is, why on so many occasions were they allowed to "get on with it" instead of being stopped before they killed or injured somebody?

Could it be because it would interfere with the revenue stream??

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