OT: That Photography Debate Again

[Just zis Guy]

Cue the Pink Panther music

Durham, durham, durham durham durham...

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/3305719.stm

Oh dearie me. Durham's fatality rate up by more than half - the same Durham which Sm*th touts as the
example of safety culture, with just one fixed camera.

Possibly a blip, maybe just a bad year, possibly they are now the victims of speed tourists. Durham,
the Thailand of the speedophile...

--
Guy
===

WARNING: may contain traces of irony. Contents may settle after posting.
http://chapmancentral.demon.co.uk

 

[Tony Raven]

Just zis Guy, you know? wrote:
> Cue the Pink Panther music
>
> Durham, durham, durham durham durham...
>
> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/3305719.stm
>
> Oh dearie me. Durham's fatality rate up by more than half - the same Durham which Sm*th touts as
> the example of safety culture, with just one fixed camera.
>
> Possibly a blip, maybe just a bad year, possibly they are now the victims of speed tourists.
> Durham, the Thailand of the speedophile...

Paul Garvin was on the Today programme this morning. His comment was that the previous year was
anomalously low because of the big impact of foot and mouth on traffic in the County. That may or
may not be true but it sounds plausible. As pointed out in the article and on the BBC, their
casualty rate is 33% below the national average and they do have speed cameras - its just that they
use mobile and not fixed ones.

Tony

 

[Simon Brooke]

"Tony Raven" <[email protected]> writes:

> As pointed out in the article and on the BBC, their casualty rate is 33% below the national
> average and they do have speed cameras - its just that they use mobile and not fixed ones.

The advantage of mobile cameras is you don't know where they are - so you can't just speed from
known camera location to known camera location, you have to drive either legally or else at least
alertly all the time.

Static, brightly painted cameras may act as a local deterrant to speeding in known blackspots, but
they do bugger all for the general speed of traffic.

--
[email protected] (Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/

'Victories are not solutions.' ;; John Hume, Northern Irish politician, on Radio Scotland
1/2/95 ;; Nobel Peace Prize laureate 1998; few have deserved it so much

 

[Velvet]

Tony Raven wrote:
> Just zis Guy, you know? wrote:
>
>>Cue the Pink Panther music
>>
>>Durham, durham, durham durham durham...
>>
>>http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/3305719.stm
>>
>>Oh dearie me. Durham's fatality rate up by more than half - the same Durham which Sm*th touts as
>>the example of safety culture, with just one fixed camera.
>>
>>Possibly a blip, maybe just a bad year, possibly they are now the victims of speed tourists.
>>Durham, the Thailand of the speedophile...
>
>
> Paul Garvin was on the Today programme this morning. His comment was that the previous year was
> anomalously low because of the big impact of foot and mouth on traffic in the County. That may or
> may not be true but it sounds plausible. As pointed out in the article and on the BBC, their
> casualty rate is 33% below the national average and they do have speed cameras - its just that
> they use mobile and not fixed ones.
>
> Tony
>
>

I saw/heard that this morning too. The F&M reason seems plausible. Regarding the fact that they only
have one fixed speed camera, I noted his comment that they go after the people who cause the
problems - ie, those driving whilst banned, those driving without insurance, joyriders, persistant
offenders, etc? That was certainly the impression I got. And to be honest, if you're someone that
*does* speed, you'll know where the fixed cameras are, and it's very unlikely they'll catch you. If
you don't know where the next mobile one will show up, it makes it more likely you'll be caught (and
eventually either stop speeding in order to retain your licence, or wind up with a ban).

Of course, something similar could be managed by removing the highvis panels on existing fixed
cameras, and replacing them with stealth models which have no markings on the roads, and which
aren't visible even up close. That way they'll do their job without being a distraction to the
motorist to an extent that the speeders slam on their brakes to try and avoid being done....

I *do* think what Mr Garvin said has some basis in sound logic. Unfortunately it'll be twisted by
the anti-enforcement bunch...

Velvet

 

[Colin Blackburn]

On Wed, 10 Dec 2003 10:49:57 -0000, Tony Raven <[email protected]>
wrote:

> Just zis Guy, you know? wrote:
>> Cue the Pink Panther music
>>
>> Durham, durham, durham durham durham...
>>
>> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/3305719.stm
>>
>> Oh dearie me. Durham's fatality rate up by more than half - the same Durham which Sm*th touts as
>> the example of safety culture, with just one fixed camera.
>>
>> Possibly a blip, maybe just a bad year, possibly they are now the victims of speed tourists.
>> Durham, the Thailand of the speedophile...
>
> Paul Garvin was on the Today programme this morning. His comment was that the previous year was
> anomalously low because of the big impact of foot and mouth on traffic in the County. That may or
> may not be true but it sounds plausible.

It is very plausible, the county was hit very badly by F&M but it would be interesting to see
figures for the estimated mileages for that year. Do such things exist?

> As pointed out in the article and on the BBC, their casualty rate is 33% below the national
> average and they do have speed cameras - its just that they use mobile and not fixed ones.

They dodn't have speed cameras they have speed camera. Just one! Of course some areas will be below
the average (everyone ants to be better than average, not everyone realises that they can't be.)
What is the spread of these figures anyway?. What also needs to be looked at is whether Durham has
always been 30% below the average. Of course none of these figures come out in typically short TV
and radio pieces, just a startling sounding headline figure.

Colin
--

 

[Tony Raven]

Simon Brooke wrote:
>
> The advantage of mobile cameras is you don't know where they are - so you can't just speed from
> known camera location to known camera location, you have to drive either legally or else at least
> alertly all the time.
>
> Static, brightly painted cameras may act as a local deterrant to speeding in known blackspots, but
> they do bugger all for the general speed of traffic.

That's my view. We have a long dual carriageway near here with four speed cameras on in each
direction. Everyone knows they are there You can see the brake lights go on before people speed away
again. I suspect they are not actually in use because the road markings are nearly worn away. OTOH
the mobile ones are still obvious if you are alert but I personally think they are a much bigger
deterent. Just not enough of them around.

Tony

 

[Robert Bruce]

mae <[email protected]> wedi ysgrifennu:

> The advantage of mobile cameras is you don't know where they are - so you can't just speed from
> known camera location to known camera location, you have to drive either legally or else at least
> alertly all the time.

Not totally accurate. Stretches of road where mobile cameras *may* be in operation must still
display a square black bordered advisory sign - I can recall cases from some time ago when drivers
were excused fines since the signs did not exist. This does not, of course, guarantee that a camera
will actually be in operation on any given stretch of road (so your statement that "you don't know
where they are" is partly true). Dyfed-Powys police actually publicises it's mobile camera sites on
the web (http://tinyurl.com/ykp3) in order further to get people to slow down in known danger areas.

--
Rob

Please keep conversations in the newsgroup so that all may contribute
and benefit.

 

[Robert Bruce]

mae <[email protected]> wedi ysgrifennu:

> I noted his comment that they go after the people who cause the problems - ie, those driving
> whilst banned, those driving without insurance, joyriders, persistant offenders, etc? That was
> certainly the impression I got.

Is there any evidence that forces with loads of fixed camera sites don't also go for
dangerous/wreckless/careless drivers as much as Durham? Maybe P**l S***h's site has some figures.
And maybe if he has they've not been willfully misinterpreted and distorted.

--
Rob

Please keep conversations in the newsgroup so that all may contribute
and benefit.

 

[Tony Raven]

Colin Blackburn wrote:
>
> They dodn't have speed cameras they have speed camera. Just one!

Where did you get that information from. The article said "The force has just one static speed
camera and focuses on mobile and hand-held cameras instead" or don't you consider mobile and
handheld speed cameras to be real speed cameras?

>Of course some areas will be below the average (everyone ants to be better than average, not
>everyone realises that they can't be.) What is the spread of these figures anyway?. What also needs
>to be looked at is whether Durham has always been 30% below the average.
>

Whatever, being 33% below average is better than being average or worse than average.

Tony

 

[Velvet]

Robert Bruce wrote:

> mae <[email protected]> wedi ysgrifennu:
>
>
>>I noted his comment that they go after the people who cause the problems - ie, those driving
>>whilst banned, those driving without insurance, joyriders, persistant offenders, etc? That was
>>certainly the impression I got.
>
>
> Is there any evidence that forces with loads of fixed camera sites don't also go for
> dangerous/wreckless/careless drivers as much as Durham? Maybe P**l S***h's site has some figures.
> And maybe if he has they've not been willfully misinterpreted and distorted.
>
> --
> Rob
>
> Please keep conversations in the newsgroup so that all may contribute and benefit.
>
>

It would certainly be interesting to see figures on numbers of fixed cameras in a given area vs
hours spent with mobile patrols etc, and compared from county to county. I'd suspect (and I think
this was the point being put across) that speed cameras have replaced mobile etc traps, because you
can't fund both of them, it's a case of one or the other to some extent, so if you have lots of
fixed speed cameras, less hours are devoted to mobile traps.

And I'm not saying people driving whilst banned or without insurance etc are necessarily
reckless/dangerous, but I suspect there is some correlation between those who will speed to excess
(who often won't be caught by fixed cameras cos they know where they are, but who would be got by
mobile traps) and those who wilfully drive when they shouldn't be (after a ban, etc).

That's just my opinion though Personally, I'd like to see more speed cameras that are very
heavily camouflaged. If you don't know if there's one there or not, that's a bigger deterrent to
speeding than if you can see it from a mile off. If you can't see it even close, there's none of
this sudden braking that 'makes speed cameras dangerous' - you just get caught, fined, and points on
your licence, and you soon learn that staying within the speed limits is the easiest way to avoid
having that happen.

Velvet

 

[Colin Blackburn]

On Wed, 10 Dec 2003 15:46:53 -0000, Tony Raven <[email protected]>
wrote:

> Colin Blackburn wrote:
>>
>> They dodn't have speed cameras they have speed camera. Just one!
>
> Where did you get that information from. The article said "The force has just one static speed
> camera and focuses on mobile and hand-held cameras instead" or don't you consider mobile and
> handheld speed cameras to be real speed cameras?

I got the information from local news. According to that there are no fixed cameras, they have one
camera operating from a van. Of course this information could be wrong as could the BBC webpage.

>> Of course some areas will be below the average (everyone ants to be better than average, not
>> everyone realises that they can't be.) What is the spread of these figures anyway?. What also
>> needs to be looked at is whether Durham has always been 30% below the average.
>>
>
> Whatever, being 33% below average is better than being average or worse than average.

I clearly didn't say otherwise. I hoped I had suggested that as a bald headline figure it could
be misused.

Colin
--

 

[Colin Blackburn]

On Wed, 10 Dec 2003 16:15:01 -0000, Colin Blackburn
<[email protected]> wrote:

> I clearly didn't say otherwise. I hoped I had suggested that as a bald headline figure it could be
> misused.

For instance, in the county figures for KSI per unit of population Durham does indeed have a figure
which is 70% of the national (England) average for 2002. However, Greater Manchester, Cleveland,
Tyne and Wear and Staffordshire all have better figures while West Midlands, Bedfordshire and
Leicestershire have a similar figure. They all have fixed cameras AFAIK.

Colin
--

 

[Alan Braggins]

Just zis Guy, you know? wrote:
>> traps, because you can't fund both of them, it's a case of one or the other to some extent, so if
>> you have lots of fixed speed cameras, less hours are devoted to mobile traps.
>
>That would be an interesting excuse, since cameras are intended to be self-funding.
[...]
>One solution would be to go back to the old system of grey boxes and more boxes than cameras...

If the cameras are self-funding, why not put one in every box? I thought they were only mostly empty
when it was too expensive to have more of them (because the money from fines went into a different
budget, before the rules changed to make them more self-funding).

 

[Mark Thompson]

> >> traps, because you can't fund both of them, it's a case of one or the other to some extent, so
> >> if you have lots of fixed speed cameras, less hours are devoted to mobile traps.
> >
> >That would be an interesting excuse, since cameras are intended to be self-funding.
> [...]
> >One solution would be to go back to the old system of grey boxes and more boxes than cameras...
>
> If the cameras are self-funding, why not put one in every box? I thought they were only mostly
> empty when it was too expensive to have more of them (because the money from fines went into a
> different budget, before the rules changed to make them more self-funding).

It was partly due to not having the time to process all the people they'd caught.

 

[Richard Corfiel]

On 2003-12-10, Tony Raven <[email protected]> wrote:
> That's my view. We have a long dual carriageway near here with four speed cameras on in each
> direction. Everyone knows they are there You can see the brake lights go on before people speed
> away again. I suspect they are not actually in use because the road markings are nearly worn away.
> OTOH the mobile ones are still obvious if you are alert but I personally think they are a much
> bigger deterent. Just not enough of them around.

I remember when I lived in Warwick, there were places with speed cameras on the straights, and lots
of very silly overtaking in the bends in between. I'd heard that problem had been noticed since and
speed camera placement altered because of it.

- Richard

--
_/_/_/ _/_/_/ _/_/_/ Richard dot Corfield at ntlworld dot com _/ _/ _/ _/ _/_/ _/ _/ Time is a
one way street, _/ _/ _/_/ _/_/_/ Except in the Twighlight Zone.