Your Bucks
Get involved: send your photos, videos, news & views by texting bfp news to 80360 or email »
Anger over speed camera car in bus bay
2:30pm Monday 7th January 2008
Comments (30)SPEED camera bosses have been criticised for parking mobile enforcement cars in a bus bay.
Householders on Watchet Lane, Holmer Green, said police should not be given a privilege denied to other drivers - but camera chiefs said the practice is within the law.
Resident Eileen Chapman, 66, said: "Nobody else would get away with it. I don't object really to them putting a camera there I just don't think it should be in the bus stop."
Peter Blakey, 50, a self-employed commercial manager, said: "Drivers are not allowed to park on that stop so why should the police be allowed? It could potentially be a bit of a hazard."
But others said they did not have a problem with the checks, which are carried out by Thames Valley Safer Roads Partnership.
Barbara Wasp, 79, said: "There is room enough for the bus and the police. It certainly makes the cars slow down."
Jeanette Crawford, 56, who runs a garden maintenance business, said: "For the amount of times a bus pulls up the time the speed camera is there then I don't think it makes an awful lot of difference."
Dan Campsall, spokesman for the camera partnership, said police were entitled to use the bays.
Bus companies are consulted and risk assessments are carried out to ensure the obstruction does not cause a danger to drivers, he said.
Your Say YourBucks Free Press
erm, ermsville says...
6:26pm Mon 7 Jan 08
So is it safer for the vehicle to park in the bus stop or would it be safer to park at the side of the road?
I would personally say that the safest place for everyone, including the person in the van would be to park in the bus stop.
I would personally say that the safest place for everyone, including the person in the van would be to park in the bus stop.
Running Man, HW says...
7:48pm Mon 7 Jan 08
but camera chiefs said the practice is within the law
How so?
bazza, h/w says...
9:56pm Mon 7 Jan 08
By siting the camera van in the bus stop it allows the scamera partnership to target motorists who come down the hill just as they round the corner. I believe the siting of a camera on a corner to be against ACPO advice although in this case it does not allow motorists any chance to see the camera and adjust speed accordingly which is therefore more PROFITABLE which is after all why they are there in the first place as we all know that there has been no reduction of accidents due to speed cameras in Bucks as the statistics prove.
Becky, High Wycombe says...
12:08am Tue 8 Jan 08
I have no prob with Police doing speed checks and what have you but NOT in a BUS STOP!!! Why should the general public be done for parking in a bus stop and not the POLICE? At the end of the day the police are there to stop crime and law benders and surely they're breaking the LAW themselves by parking in the bus stop!
tom, marlow says...
9:06am Tue 8 Jan 08
hmmm so if you were beinmg mugged and the police turned up 2 mins too late because they didnt want to break the law by exceeding the speed limit, that would be OK would it?
Parking in a bus stop is hardly the crime of the century. If thats the safest place to park the camera van then it makes sense to be a bit flexible about parking rules
Parking in a bus stop is hardly the crime of the century. If thats the safest place to park the camera van then it makes sense to be a bit flexible about parking rules
Insight, bucks says...
10:23am Tue 8 Jan 08
"Dan Campsall, spokesman for the camera partnership, said police were entitled to use the bays."
Since when did the Camera Partnership become 'Police'?
Delusions of grandieur starting to show, these partnership vans aren't operated by qualified on duty police officers, they're operated by civilians who've got a little too big for their boots.
If this area is a such a problem, then demand CCTV is installed, you'd get all round protection then, not just against the odd person doing 35 mph, but against all kinds of crime, that would be linked directly to the police themselves who could despatch a mobile unit to actually arrest a potential criminal, unlike these incompetent self important buffoons working on these partnerships.
Since when did the Camera Partnership become 'Police'?
Delusions of grandieur starting to show, these partnership vans aren't operated by qualified on duty police officers, they're operated by civilians who've got a little too big for their boots.
If this area is a such a problem, then demand CCTV is installed, you'd get all round protection then, not just against the odd person doing 35 mph, but against all kinds of crime, that would be linked directly to the police themselves who could despatch a mobile unit to actually arrest a potential criminal, unlike these incompetent self important buffoons working on these partnerships.
Malc London, Gerrards Cross says...
2:03pm Tue 8 Jan 08
If it's "safe" for them to park there then surely it's safe for anyone to park there and any parking restrictions should be lifted.
Becky, High Wycombe says...
5:22pm Tue 8 Jan 08
hmmm so if you were beinmg mugged and the police turned up 2 mins too late because they didnt want to break the law by exceeding the speed limit, that would be OK would it?
That has nothing to do with parking in a bus stop! racing to a crime scene and breaking the speed limits is a complete matter all together than parking in a bus stop...why don't you keep on track for goodness sake? And is case you didn't know it is ILLEGAL to park in any bus stop regardless of who you are! So my point is why should the POLICE if the public can't?
tom, marlow says...
5:43pm Tue 8 Jan 08
So my point is why should the POLICE if the public can't?
There's all sorts of things the police can do that the public can't, so they can carry out their function as police. Breaking parking regs is one of them.
I cant help feeling that this is all about reaction to mobile speed cameras rather than whether the police should be allowed to park in a bus stop.
Insight, bucks says...
10:21pm Tue 8 Jan 08
Tom
If you were being mugged, you wouldn't call the camera partnership, you'd call the police.
The people who operate these cameras aren't on duty police officers, they're civilians, so the question of legality to park there is still very much valid.
Even if it's a discrepency that needs ruling out for the future rather than an outright attack on speed cameras.
The way things are going, I don't think theres any need to criticise where a van parks, they seem to be screwing things up nicely by themselves with the number of cameras proving to be faulty and fines having to be returned because of unsafe convictions due to a number of reasons, cameras not being set up properly, the one in Croydon obviously didn't like the weather and started snapping stationary vehicles as well as people under the limit.
Lancashire having to return 300 fines.
Buckinghamshire having to drop cases.
The only people who seem to be doing ok and making a significant impact on road casualties are North Yorkshire and Durham who, strangly enough, don't run speed camera partnerships.
According to the newspapers, several partnerships have had their funding removed citing that they've lost sight of original purpose.
Even labour party ministers are starting to ask questions and show concern that the parterships are coming into disrepute.
So I think the question of a van parking in a bus stop is the least of national partnerships worries, the whole policy seems to be about to turn belly up anyway.
If you were being mugged, you wouldn't call the camera partnership, you'd call the police.
The people who operate these cameras aren't on duty police officers, they're civilians, so the question of legality to park there is still very much valid.
Even if it's a discrepency that needs ruling out for the future rather than an outright attack on speed cameras.
The way things are going, I don't think theres any need to criticise where a van parks, they seem to be screwing things up nicely by themselves with the number of cameras proving to be faulty and fines having to be returned because of unsafe convictions due to a number of reasons, cameras not being set up properly, the one in Croydon obviously didn't like the weather and started snapping stationary vehicles as well as people under the limit.
Lancashire having to return 300 fines.
Buckinghamshire having to drop cases.
The only people who seem to be doing ok and making a significant impact on road casualties are North Yorkshire and Durham who, strangly enough, don't run speed camera partnerships.
According to the newspapers, several partnerships have had their funding removed citing that they've lost sight of original purpose.
Even labour party ministers are starting to ask questions and show concern that the parterships are coming into disrepute.
So I think the question of a van parking in a bus stop is the least of national partnerships worries, the whole policy seems to be about to turn belly up anyway.
Insight, bucks says...
10:40pm Tue 8 Jan 08
oh! ..and I forgot about cumbria, who've had at least two faulty cameras, the partnership manager originally lied to the press, then changed his mind as saying that it was true, the camera that snapped a funeral car was faulty and even though they've taken 1.6 million in fines, their fatality rate is up 31%.
So taking that into account, it really isn't a good time to find out our government had failed to include casualty reduction targets and allow funding to maintain the number of active traffic officers on our streets which are down across the nation by up to 18% inspite of an ever growing population.
The consevatives are suggesting speed cameras are a stealth tax, councils have been pulling out of partnerships to run the cameras themselves, the liberals have been calling to put traffic police back on the road, if only to combat the increase in drink drive offences year round and not just rely on a christmas campaign.
So, as I was saying, a bus stop is the least of their worries right now!
So taking that into account, it really isn't a good time to find out our government had failed to include casualty reduction targets and allow funding to maintain the number of active traffic officers on our streets which are down across the nation by up to 18% inspite of an ever growing population.
The consevatives are suggesting speed cameras are a stealth tax, councils have been pulling out of partnerships to run the cameras themselves, the liberals have been calling to put traffic police back on the road, if only to combat the increase in drink drive offences year round and not just rely on a christmas campaign.
So, as I was saying, a bus stop is the least of their worries right now!
Insight, bucks says...
11:25pm Tue 8 Jan 08
.....of course, if it's what they call an ANPR Van (Automatic Number Plate Recognition) Van, then they are entitled to be in the bus stop, because they are police as they are run by the constabulary and check passing cars against a database for valid MOT, tax etc, criminals, they're the people who're still doing the good work.
tom, marlow says...
9:04am Wed 9 Jan 08
Very good points Insight.
I still dont think it matters much that they were parked in the bus stop. Does anyone know whether they actually caaught anyone speeding?
I worry about claims that speeding fines from cameras and other automated systems are a "stealth tax".
Firstly its not really a tax. Payment is optional - stick to the speed limits and you dont have to pay it (aside from issues of faulty equipment). Same is true of parking tickets.
More worrying though is that calling it a tax implies it is acceptable to break the law on speeding and that being caught results in taxation. Its not, its a penalty .
I still dont think it matters much that they were parked in the bus stop. Does anyone know whether they actually caaught anyone speeding?
I worry about claims that speeding fines from cameras and other automated systems are a "stealth tax".
Firstly its not really a tax. Payment is optional - stick to the speed limits and you dont have to pay it (aside from issues of faulty equipment). Same is true of parking tickets.
More worrying though is that calling it a tax implies it is acceptable to break the law on speeding and that being caught results in taxation. Its not, its a penalty .
Insight, bucks says...
10:23am Wed 9 Jan 08
I'd tend to agree on the issue of parking in a bus stop Tom, although as I said, if it were proven to be illegal to park there, any 'genuine convictions' could be chalenged on that basis.
As far as the phrase 'stealth tax' thats not my words, thats the Tory Party and various cross party MP's and councillors, even labour MP's are concerned that the program is falling into disrepute, so don't shoot the messenger on that one.
As for the question of accuracy ..well, so many convictions, so little result begs the question, 'just how accurate are speed cameras and can they be relied upon to serve to protect not only drivers, but pedestrians and cyclists and any other road user for that matter.
Can we afford to lose so many qualified police officers in the face of such inadequate technology? and let us not confuse Speed cameras and their operators with CCTV run by the police themselves, it's clear that CCTV is the way forward and that camera partnerships are the poor cousin of the police in the technology stakes.
The public who don't understand the limitations of the technology may be lulled into a false sense of security by the presence of speed cameras, but the people who do the research who've figured out just how inadequate speed cameras are, still driving at break neck speeds, because the prosecutions by camera clearly show that the vast bulk of 'captures' are fractionally above the limit and really fast drivers aren't caught by camera at all, they're caught by the few remaining qualified officers on the roads.
It seems that as time goes on, it is only the 'honest' drivers who're being caught out for a minor indiscretion, as more and more people register vehicles under false names and addresses, drive without a license at all, no insurance etc etc, the weakness of speed camera policy becomes more and more apparent.
When it comes down to my own personal opinion, it's the fact that speeding drivers are no longer 'apprehended' that has done the most damage, too much good police work has been lost by a reduction in those impromptu interviews after a minor speeding offence.
Quite honestly, if these cameras were costing councils money, instead of paying for themselves and adding to the governments coffers, it's highly unlikely they'd still be being used anyway, as they would have been declared an abject faliure a long time ago.
Did I mention the increase in drink drive since cameras arrived? ..oh well, if I didn't, now I have, I can't be bothered to read it again!
As far as the phrase 'stealth tax' thats not my words, thats the Tory Party and various cross party MP's and councillors, even labour MP's are concerned that the program is falling into disrepute, so don't shoot the messenger on that one.
As for the question of accuracy ..well, so many convictions, so little result begs the question, 'just how accurate are speed cameras and can they be relied upon to serve to protect not only drivers, but pedestrians and cyclists and any other road user for that matter.
Can we afford to lose so many qualified police officers in the face of such inadequate technology? and let us not confuse Speed cameras and their operators with CCTV run by the police themselves, it's clear that CCTV is the way forward and that camera partnerships are the poor cousin of the police in the technology stakes.
The public who don't understand the limitations of the technology may be lulled into a false sense of security by the presence of speed cameras, but the people who do the research who've figured out just how inadequate speed cameras are, still driving at break neck speeds, because the prosecutions by camera clearly show that the vast bulk of 'captures' are fractionally above the limit and really fast drivers aren't caught by camera at all, they're caught by the few remaining qualified officers on the roads.
It seems that as time goes on, it is only the 'honest' drivers who're being caught out for a minor indiscretion, as more and more people register vehicles under false names and addresses, drive without a license at all, no insurance etc etc, the weakness of speed camera policy becomes more and more apparent.
When it comes down to my own personal opinion, it's the fact that speeding drivers are no longer 'apprehended' that has done the most damage, too much good police work has been lost by a reduction in those impromptu interviews after a minor speeding offence.
Quite honestly, if these cameras were costing councils money, instead of paying for themselves and adding to the governments coffers, it's highly unlikely they'd still be being used anyway, as they would have been declared an abject faliure a long time ago.
Did I mention the increase in drink drive since cameras arrived? ..oh well, if I didn't, now I have, I can't be bothered to read it again!
tom, marlow says...
11:01am Wed 9 Jan 08
Sorry, didnt intend to imply it was you using the term "stealth tax".
I agree with most of what you say although I'm perhaps a bit less pessimistic about it. Cameras may not be as effective as police officers but they are a lot cheaper. My take on the statistics is that they do have some effect - just not nearly as much as is claimed.
Now all we need to deal with is people driving too close. I drove into London on the M40 last saturday afternoon for the first time in ages and it was scary !
I agree with most of what you say although I'm perhaps a bit less pessimistic about it. Cameras may not be as effective as police officers but they are a lot cheaper. My take on the statistics is that they do have some effect - just not nearly as much as is claimed.
Now all we need to deal with is people driving too close. I drove into London on the M40 last saturday afternoon for the first time in ages and it was scary !
Insight, bucks says...
11:22am Wed 9 Jan 08
Oh I'm not pessimistic about all cameras Tom, CCTV especially in cities is proving to be an absolute boon to the 'actual' police, monitoring all kinds of crime and potential crime.
My only real criticism is at the speed camera partnerships, it is those bunch of civilians, who've clearly exceeded their ability to make the roads safer and it is they who're responsible for not apprehending speeding drivers as they used to do in't olden days.
The inaccuracy of hand held devices and the potential for break downs of fixed cameras is quite apparent and if no convictions and license points were involved, it wouldn't be a problem, but innocent peoples lives are potentially being ruined by all this faulty kit and no one in government is tackling the problem.
I have little doubt, in the fullness of time camera partnerships will be retired and a return to traditional, albeit, techhology enhanced methods of policing will ultimately prevail over the current sensless sham of a policy where the revenue has blinded normally reliable officials to make some very serious blunders!
My only real criticism is at the speed camera partnerships, it is those bunch of civilians, who've clearly exceeded their ability to make the roads safer and it is they who're responsible for not apprehending speeding drivers as they used to do in't olden days.
The inaccuracy of hand held devices and the potential for break downs of fixed cameras is quite apparent and if no convictions and license points were involved, it wouldn't be a problem, but innocent peoples lives are potentially being ruined by all this faulty kit and no one in government is tackling the problem.
I have little doubt, in the fullness of time camera partnerships will be retired and a return to traditional, albeit, techhology enhanced methods of policing will ultimately prevail over the current sensless sham of a policy where the revenue has blinded normally reliable officials to make some very serious blunders!
Bob Wilcock, UK says...
5:36pm Sat 12 Jan 08
It seems the whole question of automated law enforcement is coming under increasing pressure, not just locally here in the UK, but globally.
The Americans are showing statistics that prove in their case that accidents increase in the presence of their 'red light' system.
The South Africans are considering removal of fixed cameras which only have and I quote, "a very limited impact on drivers breaking the law and yet show an alarming increase in the number of accidents".
The worst hit seem to be the australians who have in the last week in one province alone had to return 5300 (yes, thats five thousand three hundred, not a typo) faulty convictions.
How much longer are the councils and officials of this country going to turn a blind eye to the facts to pay for leisure centres out of the earnings from such faulty technology, while allowing the government to save money by reducing funding for qualified traffic police?
We're paying a very high price for a system that actually leaves our roads less protected.
Only recently one of the partnerships have admitted that one of their cameras hasn't convicted a single driver in 10 months, the law of averages would indicate there should be at least one as it would be impossible to expect a 100% record anywhere.
So we're left with only two alternatives, either that camera is faulty, but faulty to the benefit of the driver for once. Or more likely, all the locals have figured out how to duck it as is happening right across the country, as operation helical in York demonstrates, in just a very short period leading up to christmas over 4000 drivers were caught speeding along with another 97 drink drive offences.
The scum of this country who deserve prosecution are getting away with blue murder while the innocent people who register their cars correctly, display correct number plates, drive with a proper license, tax, MOT and insurance who happen to stray just that little bit too far over the limit are being treated as if they're actually criminals.
I'm not arguing speeding is alright, but I am arguing that the perpetrators of danerous driving aren't even being caught by such woefully inadequate techology.
Time to own up partnerhips, you've cocked up, put the police back on the road.
The Americans are showing statistics that prove in their case that accidents increase in the presence of their 'red light' system.
The South Africans are considering removal of fixed cameras which only have and I quote, "a very limited impact on drivers breaking the law and yet show an alarming increase in the number of accidents".
The worst hit seem to be the australians who have in the last week in one province alone had to return 5300 (yes, thats five thousand three hundred, not a typo) faulty convictions.
How much longer are the councils and officials of this country going to turn a blind eye to the facts to pay for leisure centres out of the earnings from such faulty technology, while allowing the government to save money by reducing funding for qualified traffic police?
We're paying a very high price for a system that actually leaves our roads less protected.
Only recently one of the partnerships have admitted that one of their cameras hasn't convicted a single driver in 10 months, the law of averages would indicate there should be at least one as it would be impossible to expect a 100% record anywhere.
So we're left with only two alternatives, either that camera is faulty, but faulty to the benefit of the driver for once. Or more likely, all the locals have figured out how to duck it as is happening right across the country, as operation helical in York demonstrates, in just a very short period leading up to christmas over 4000 drivers were caught speeding along with another 97 drink drive offences.
The scum of this country who deserve prosecution are getting away with blue murder while the innocent people who register their cars correctly, display correct number plates, drive with a proper license, tax, MOT and insurance who happen to stray just that little bit too far over the limit are being treated as if they're actually criminals.
I'm not arguing speeding is alright, but I am arguing that the perpetrators of danerous driving aren't even being caught by such woefully inadequate techology.
Time to own up partnerhips, you've cocked up, put the police back on the road.
tom, marlow says...
10:09am Sun 13 Jan 08
The fact that Mr Wilcock has been posting similar comments in local newspapers from Lands End to John o'groats (OK I exagerate, but theres a lot of google hits - or may be a lot of John Wilcocks) makes me suspect that he is acting on behalf of some pressure group.
Will Mr Wilcock please stand up and identify his affiliation.
Will Mr Wilcock please stand up and identify his affiliation.
Insight, bucks says...
1:35pm Sun 13 Jan 08
I'm not affiliated with anyone tom, just a concerned citizen who doesn't like watching people blatantly driving like idiots past my house every day and night when there are speed cameras only a few miles away and we never see mobile police anymore.
Why would I have to be affiliated with anyone to complain about something I passionately don't believe in?
If speed cameras policy were bullet proof and fairly and squarly 'did what it says on the tin' I'd be the first to send in letters of congratulation and gratitude.
It's hardly my fault that the press all over the world, let alone this country opennly criticise the speed camera policy and I choose to comment on it.
Besides, in a democracy and if I were associated with a pressure group of some kind (which I'll repeat, I am not) why would I be wrong for having an opinnion?
I'm a private citizen who doesn't approve of speeding, doesn't want speed limits changed, but does want common sense to prevail over this childish argument between the pro and anti camera brigade.
Besides, if the camera partnerships can't handle one persons genuine criticism then they're in the wrong business.
Why would I have to be affiliated with anyone to complain about something I passionately don't believe in?
If speed cameras policy were bullet proof and fairly and squarly 'did what it says on the tin' I'd be the first to send in letters of congratulation and gratitude.
It's hardly my fault that the press all over the world, let alone this country opennly criticise the speed camera policy and I choose to comment on it.
Besides, in a democracy and if I were associated with a pressure group of some kind (which I'll repeat, I am not) why would I be wrong for having an opinnion?
I'm a private citizen who doesn't approve of speeding, doesn't want speed limits changed, but does want common sense to prevail over this childish argument between the pro and anti camera brigade.
Besides, if the camera partnerships can't handle one persons genuine criticism then they're in the wrong business.
Bob Wilcock, UK says...
2:09pm Sun 13 Jan 08
Tom: No, I am not in any kind of group, although I think their should be realistic groups challenging speed camera policy. Personally I feel like I am in between a rock and a hard place, on the one side we have all the people who go on and on about speeding being the problem and stopping people speeding will solve everything, on the other we have the absurd anti camera groups who want to raise speed limits and drive like lunatics with no concern for others. Something needs to be done, because no progress is being made. I sincely hope that I'm not the only person who criticises cameras for what I consider to be a moral reason, but it seems all criticism is being lost under the assumption that if you do criticise them, you're only doing so because you want to speed. I'm afraid in my case that isn't my cause. The speed limits are fine as they are (although I do question the validity of having two different speed limits on different types of dual carriageway, in my opinion, 60 on either type of dual carriage way would result in less confusion, but thats besides the point). As insight says, if the partnerships can't handle a little criticism they should take up golf.
Bob Wilcock, UK says...
2:23pm Sun 13 Jan 08
I'd also like to add to that, why do we have to have so many different limits? it is no wonder so many drivers get caught out. If my opinion prevaled, it would be 60 on all roads that could handle it (remaining 70 on motorways) and 30 everywhere else. It's little wonder drivers are convicted all over the place less than 10 over the limit if one moment they're in a 60, then a 40, then a 50 then a 20 then a 40 again, then a 30. The policy, not just about speed cameras is madness.
tom, marlow says...
4:58pm Sun 13 Jan 08
OK, It just seemed a bit odd to see your comments in local papers all over the country.
If I may offer a word of advice, your claims, particularly where you are quoting this place is doing this, this study showed that etc would be much more plausible if you provided references. Its all to easy to take numbers out of context in what is usually a complex analysis and claim to prove anything you like.
I'd also suggest that using emotive phrases like "The scum of this country who deserve prosecution are getting away with blue murder " don't really add much to objective discussion.
For the record, personally I'm pretty neutral about speed cameras. They are there to record and identify people breaking the speed limit, nothing more, nothing less. I'd argue that most of the time they do this reasonably effectively. Whether that has any affect on accident rates, driving behaviour or whatever is a separate issue.
If I may offer a word of advice, your claims, particularly where you are quoting this place is doing this, this study showed that etc would be much more plausible if you provided references. Its all to easy to take numbers out of context in what is usually a complex analysis and claim to prove anything you like.
I'd also suggest that using emotive phrases like "The scum of this country who deserve prosecution are getting away with blue murder " don't really add much to objective discussion.
For the record, personally I'm pretty neutral about speed cameras. They are there to record and identify people breaking the speed limit, nothing more, nothing less. I'd argue that most of the time they do this reasonably effectively. Whether that has any affect on accident rates, driving behaviour or whatever is a separate issue.
Bob Wilcock, UK says...
6:15pm Sun 13 Jan 08
Tom: Your comments are taken in the spirit they are intended. I shall endeavour where necessary to quote a reference or simply suggest googling whatever the phrase may be. For the record, I am not anti law enforcment nor am I supportive of pro speed campaigners. I'm just frustrated that the argument between the two sides has swamped valid criticism of an obviously flawed policy.
Bob Wilcock, UK says...
12:32am Mon 14 Jan 08
In the spirit of your request Tom: Here is an up to date example of why I am concerned enough to put my comments on the net.
Lincolnshire Echo Saturday 12/01/2008.
The number of drivers clocked speeding on Lincolnshire's roads has hit a six-year low.
And new figures also suggest that not only are more drivers wearing seltbelts but fewer are talking on mobile phones at the wheel too.
Motorists paid 21,924 fines for speeding in 2006/07, compared to 29,252 in the previous financial year. Road safety professionals say the reduction is due to more people slowing down at the speed camera sites they are familiar with and in the majority of cases, speeding drivers pay their fines as soon as the letter arrives, with relatively few cases challenged in the courts. Lincolnshire Police last year issued 3,714 £30 fines to drivers caught not wearing seatbelts, compared to 5,955 fines the year before nd in 2006, 2,900 motorists were given £30 fines for driving while using handheld mobile phones.Even though the penalty rose to a £60 fine and three points last year a total of just 1,738 drivers were caught in 2007.
Despite this, 79 people died as a result of crashes on Lincolnshire's roads last year - 20 per cent more than in 2006.
So far this year two people have been died due to collisions.
Lincolnshire Road Safety Partnership spokesman Steve Batchelor said that local knowledge of speed camera locations was likely to see more motorists slowing down.
************
So, what conclusion would you draw from that information Tom?
Have the partnerships succeeded because convictions are down, or have they failed because inspite of the reduction in speed, 20% more people died?
I'm not arguing with you by the way, I'm just pointing out what to me appears to be utterly absurd.
Lincolnshire Echo Saturday 12/01/2008.
The number of drivers clocked speeding on Lincolnshire's roads has hit a six-year low.
And new figures also suggest that not only are more drivers wearing seltbelts but fewer are talking on mobile phones at the wheel too.
Motorists paid 21,924 fines for speeding in 2006/07, compared to 29,252 in the previous financial year. Road safety professionals say the reduction is due to more people slowing down at the speed camera sites they are familiar with and in the majority of cases, speeding drivers pay their fines as soon as the letter arrives, with relatively few cases challenged in the courts. Lincolnshire Police last year issued 3,714 £30 fines to drivers caught not wearing seatbelts, compared to 5,955 fines the year before nd in 2006, 2,900 motorists were given £30 fines for driving while using handheld mobile phones.Even though the penalty rose to a £60 fine and three points last year a total of just 1,738 drivers were caught in 2007.
Despite this, 79 people died as a result of crashes on Lincolnshire's roads last year - 20 per cent more than in 2006.
So far this year two people have been died due to collisions.
Lincolnshire Road Safety Partnership spokesman Steve Batchelor said that local knowledge of speed camera locations was likely to see more motorists slowing down.
************
So, what conclusion would you draw from that information Tom?
Have the partnerships succeeded because convictions are down, or have they failed because inspite of the reduction in speed, 20% more people died?
I'm not arguing with you by the way, I'm just pointing out what to me appears to be utterly absurd.
tom, marlow says...
9:28am Mon 14 Jan 08
I guess my comments are as follows
1. There is almost certainly information missing from that report that might help a rational analysis. Newspaper reorts are written by journalists, not statisticians, traffic engineers, road safety specialists etc. Thats not to knock journalists, but you only have to read reports on topics that you do have some expertise in to be aware that detailed technical reporting is not always accurate.
2. The relationship between speed and accidents is complex. There's a huge debate on this topic with both sides having many valid points. The issues with speed and fatalities are different in 60/70 mph contexts where accidents mainly involve vehicles from those in 30mph/residential contexta where pedestrians are often involved.
3. The 20% figure (roughly 15 people). That looks a lot but is it really? You really do have to look at numbers over several years and look at the variation from one year to the next. In statistical terms whats the standard deviation? Was this just a bad year or is there really a causal relationship?
So to anwser your question I can't draw any more rational conclusions from that report than you can. All I can do is identify the shortcomings of the report :-)
I find it hard to accept that attempts to modify and improve driver behaviour can be blamed for increasing fatality rates even if they are ultimately unsuccessful.
Any scheme to try and improve driver behaviour is worthwhile. If it works then thats good and if it doesnt then try something else. Its not always easy to tell whether something is having an effect and it often takes time for random effects to average out.
The attrition rate on our roads is unacceptably high and ultimately it is drivers who have to take the blame - albeit a relatively small minority.
1. There is almost certainly information missing from that report that might help a rational analysis. Newspaper reorts are written by journalists, not statisticians, traffic engineers, road safety specialists etc. Thats not to knock journalists, but you only have to read reports on topics that you do have some expertise in to be aware that detailed technical reporting is not always accurate.
2. The relationship between speed and accidents is complex. There's a huge debate on this topic with both sides having many valid points. The issues with speed and fatalities are different in 60/70 mph contexts where accidents mainly involve vehicles from those in 30mph/residential contexta where pedestrians are often involved.
3. The 20% figure (roughly 15 people). That looks a lot but is it really? You really do have to look at numbers over several years and look at the variation from one year to the next. In statistical terms whats the standard deviation? Was this just a bad year or is there really a causal relationship?
So to anwser your question I can't draw any more rational conclusions from that report than you can. All I can do is identify the shortcomings of the report :-)
I find it hard to accept that attempts to modify and improve driver behaviour can be blamed for increasing fatality rates even if they are ultimately unsuccessful.
Any scheme to try and improve driver behaviour is worthwhile. If it works then thats good and if it doesnt then try something else. Its not always easy to tell whether something is having an effect and it often takes time for random effects to average out.
The attrition rate on our roads is unacceptably high and ultimately it is drivers who have to take the blame - albeit a relatively small minority.
Bob Wilcock, UK says...
12:12pm Mon 14 Jan 08
So, you want me to provide a refernce that isn't written by a journalist? ..not asking for much are you.
Well, with the same kind of attitude the pro camera lobby would have, 15 people 'are' a lot, just ask their families. It is often reported that partnerships congratulate themselves for a reduction of fatalities directly at their sites often by much less than 10%, so perhaps that one cuts both ways. But with speed at a six year low according to that report based on figures provided to them by the very same statisticians and experts of whom you speak, because I can't accept that a newspaper would put itself at risk of prosecution by publishing figures they made up from scratch.
It doesn't matter how long this goes on for, the premiss was wrong to start with, the outcome will remain the same as the current state of affairs show, ...things aren't getting better.
Well, with the same kind of attitude the pro camera lobby would have, 15 people 'are' a lot, just ask their families. It is often reported that partnerships congratulate themselves for a reduction of fatalities directly at their sites often by much less than 10%, so perhaps that one cuts both ways. But with speed at a six year low according to that report based on figures provided to them by the very same statisticians and experts of whom you speak, because I can't accept that a newspaper would put itself at risk of prosecution by publishing figures they made up from scratch.
It doesn't matter how long this goes on for, the premiss was wrong to start with, the outcome will remain the same as the current state of affairs show, ...things aren't getting better.
Bob Wilcock, UK says...
1:36pm Mon 14 Jan 08
By the way, just so that we're clear. You can keep the cameras for the benefit of the people who do think they work and to save face and pretend that they are contributing, as long as other proven initiatives that have been allowed to disappear over recent years are brought back and will ultimately make the real difference.
tom, marlow says...
2:48pm Mon 14 Jan 08
So, you want me to provide a refernce that isn't written by a journalist? ..not asking for much are you.
No, thats probably too much to expect , but the studies that journalists source are usually in the public domain.
And of course I wasnt suggesting they made the numbers up. I do argue though that a few numbers taken out of context can be misleading. Take a look at Andrew Dilnot's work. (just google him) He's one of the guys that forced the government to back off on their claims about how successful cameras were. The same arguments apply to claims they dont work! His analysis is that although they dont have as much effect as was originally claimed, they do have some.
You can keep the cameras for the benefit of the people who do think they work...
They do work. They do exactly what they were designed to do, detect and identify people breaking the speed limit :-)
Obviously there is no single solution. I just dont criticise people for trying
Bob Wilcock, UK says...
3:25pm Mon 14 Jan 08
"They do work. They do exactly what they were designed to do, detect and identify people breaking the speed limit :-)"
Assuming, that they're setup correctly in the first place, haven't been vandalised by the local youth, haven't been disabled by a piece of parcel tape by the local chapter of the max power club (to use that particular road as a racing circuit), haven't taken a disliking to the weather and started to flash stationary cars as well as moving ones (as the one in Croydon did before christmas) haven't become faulty and flashed funeral cars travelling well below the limit as in Cumbria last year, haven't been toppled by irrate motorists who have been caught red handed and if they're mobile units haven't been setup incorrectly by the users resulting in another 300 convictions having to be over returned in one county alone, which, as was demonstrated on the BBC several years ago was a known fault of mobile cameras and their operators and steps should have been taken then so that it never have happened again.
I hear what you're saying Tom and I don't object to the attempt, but I think it's time to acknowledge the clear limitations and move on to a strategy that will make a significant improvment.
Assuming, that they're setup correctly in the first place, haven't been vandalised by the local youth, haven't been disabled by a piece of parcel tape by the local chapter of the max power club (to use that particular road as a racing circuit), haven't taken a disliking to the weather and started to flash stationary cars as well as moving ones (as the one in Croydon did before christmas) haven't become faulty and flashed funeral cars travelling well below the limit as in Cumbria last year, haven't been toppled by irrate motorists who have been caught red handed and if they're mobile units haven't been setup incorrectly by the users resulting in another 300 convictions having to be over returned in one county alone, which, as was demonstrated on the BBC several years ago was a known fault of mobile cameras and their operators and steps should have been taken then so that it never have happened again.
I hear what you're saying Tom and I don't object to the attempt, but I think it's time to acknowledge the clear limitations and move on to a strategy that will make a significant improvment.
In this section
- Hayes wins control of Wanderers
- Child airlifted after crash on M40
- Stabbing memorial defaced
- Girl, 12, in serious condition after accident in Beaconsfield
- Vigil to mark anniversary of police search death
- Donkey Derby raises more than £5,000 for scouts
- Gurkha heroes celebrate at restaurant opening
- Fern Britton sets midnight marchers on their way
- Times food expert to hold workshop
- Brewery raises glasses for charity
Sponsored Links
Local Links
Local Information
Enter your postcode, town or place name
piran, Marlow says...
6:22pm Mon 7 Jan 08