Thieving b*stards
Thread Starter
Registered User
Joined: Mar 2002
Posts: 5,184
Likes: 0
From: South
Had a reply this morning...
Mr *****
This site suffered a total of 36 collisions resulting in 56 casualties (including two fatalities and seven serious injuries) along a 1.5 km stretch of road in a three year period prior to enforcement. (Some of these took place on, as you describe it, "a clear open dual carriageway on a dry day").
As well as enhanced conventional signing there are also vehicle activated signs to remind drivers of the speed limit. It is hard to think of anywhere else in the County that has clearer speed limit signing and warnings of enforcement. We ensure that the whole stretch is enforced because collisions have taken place in the past along the whole length, not just in the vicinity of the fixed camera.
Oh and guess what? Since enforcement, for the first 18 months, there have been just 4 slight injury collisions - quite a reduction from an average of over 18 per year in the three years before hand. Your concern that the enforcement causes dangerous braking is simply not borne out by the collision statistics. There has never been a collision due to such braking - and the drivers should be sticking to the limit anyway.
If, despite all the warnings we have provided, drivers continue to substantially exceed the limit, then they will face the risk of being issued with a penalty. I make no apologies for that - it is not theft, it is the drivers choice as to whether they break the law at collision hotspots or not. There is no incentive for us to make money, all the fines go to central government, and the Partnership is only able to recover its costs. Any surplus is retained by central government.
Yours sincerely
Mr *****
This site suffered a total of 36 collisions resulting in 56 casualties (including two fatalities and seven serious injuries) along a 1.5 km stretch of road in a three year period prior to enforcement. (Some of these took place on, as you describe it, "a clear open dual carriageway on a dry day").
As well as enhanced conventional signing there are also vehicle activated signs to remind drivers of the speed limit. It is hard to think of anywhere else in the County that has clearer speed limit signing and warnings of enforcement. We ensure that the whole stretch is enforced because collisions have taken place in the past along the whole length, not just in the vicinity of the fixed camera.
Oh and guess what? Since enforcement, for the first 18 months, there have been just 4 slight injury collisions - quite a reduction from an average of over 18 per year in the three years before hand. Your concern that the enforcement causes dangerous braking is simply not borne out by the collision statistics. There has never been a collision due to such braking - and the drivers should be sticking to the limit anyway.
If, despite all the warnings we have provided, drivers continue to substantially exceed the limit, then they will face the risk of being issued with a penalty. I make no apologies for that - it is not theft, it is the drivers choice as to whether they break the law at collision hotspots or not. There is no incentive for us to make money, all the fines go to central government, and the Partnership is only able to recover its costs. Any surplus is retained by central government.
Yours sincerely
Thread Starter
Registered User
Joined: Mar 2002
Posts: 5,184
Likes: 0
From: South
2 cameras - 1 fixed...1 mobile (500 yards away) - I've now spoken to several people who have been done...and none for more than 6mph over the speed limit (50 MPH on an open dual carraigeway)
Shame they don;t put their bloody vans in residential areas, schools etc. They might be of use there.
Shame they don;t put their bloody vans in residential areas, schools etc. They might be of use there.
Joined: Jul 2002
Posts: 17,572
Likes: 1
From: Wakefield, West Yorks.
It might not be the popular opinion, but I can't help reading that reply and thinking ...... yeah, He's right. 
As far as I can see it the problem isn't that it's there and they are catching speeders, that' is the law after all, but the problem is that they are neglecting their other duties.
Of course that just the impression that it gives. Whether it's true or not I've no idea. But I have my suspicions.
As far as I can see it the problem isn't that it's there and they are catching speeders, that' is the law after all, but the problem is that they are neglecting their other duties.
Of course that just the impression that it gives. Whether it's true or not I've no idea. But I have my suspicions.
Joined: Dec 2005
Posts: 2,468
Likes: 0
From: South of Heaven
It wouldn't be a problem if other, more important areas of law enforcement were taken care of before they picked on people driving a few mph above the limit. But that would cost money which is being wasted elsewhere.
Registered User
Joined: Dec 2004
Posts: 7,395
Likes: 0
From: Tunbridge Wells
That website link you posted sucks - they give no real value add information if you ask me.
6mph you say.. so these are drivers nicked for 56 or slower in a 50 zone huh?
That would go against the guidelines issued by the Association of Chief Police Officers (50+10%+2=57mph).
I assume a guideline is just that, they can decide not to follow it if they wish but if I got a ticket <57 I would ask them why they do not follow the national guideline..
Apart from that I think their response email is quite fair. Gets to the point and is justified perhaps (is that a lot of accidents? Sounds like it..)
Anyway - if you want to stoke the fire and are certain people are getting nicked for <57mph the take a look at this site below - I post their FAQ page:
http://www.kmscp.org/cameras_page03.html
Quote.
"Fiction:
I received a fixed penalty notice and I was only going 32mph in a 30mph zone.
Fact:
It would be extremely unusual for any driver to be fined or prosecuted for travelling at 32mph in a 30mph limit. Our Partnership does not operate at levels often described as 'zero tolerance'. We follow guidelines issued by the Association of Chief Police Officers not to prosecute motorists unless they are recorded as going at 10% plus 2mph over the posted speed limit. In the case of a 30mph limit that would be 35mph. This is to safeguard against any discrepancies there might be between speedometers and police equipment."
6mph you say.. so these are drivers nicked for 56 or slower in a 50 zone huh?
That would go against the guidelines issued by the Association of Chief Police Officers (50+10%+2=57mph).
I assume a guideline is just that, they can decide not to follow it if they wish but if I got a ticket <57 I would ask them why they do not follow the national guideline..
Apart from that I think their response email is quite fair. Gets to the point and is justified perhaps (is that a lot of accidents? Sounds like it..)
Anyway - if you want to stoke the fire and are certain people are getting nicked for <57mph the take a look at this site below - I post their FAQ page:
http://www.kmscp.org/cameras_page03.html
Quote.
"Fiction:
I received a fixed penalty notice and I was only going 32mph in a 30mph zone.
Fact:
It would be extremely unusual for any driver to be fined or prosecuted for travelling at 32mph in a 30mph limit. Our Partnership does not operate at levels often described as 'zero tolerance'. We follow guidelines issued by the Association of Chief Police Officers not to prosecute motorists unless they are recorded as going at 10% plus 2mph over the posted speed limit. In the case of a 30mph limit that would be 35mph. This is to safeguard against any discrepancies there might be between speedometers and police equipment."
Registered User
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 7,541
Likes: 0
From: omnipresent
[QUOTE=Shipley,Mar 1 2007, 10:21 AM] This site suffered a total of 36 collisions resulting in 56 casualties (including two fatalities and seven serious injuries) along a 1.5 km stretch of road in a three year period prior to enforcement. (Some of these took place on, as you describe it,
Thread Starter
Registered User
Joined: Mar 2002
Posts: 5,184
Likes: 0
From: South
The speed limit is correct for where the static camera is. There is a dangerous junction which crosses the dual carraigeway.
The issue is the placement of the mobile van where the road widens and the traffic naturally climbs in speed, albeit marginally. Its clearly financially motivated. The van could be used in areas where there is a clear need. At this position, there isn't.
The issue is the placement of the mobile van where the road widens and the traffic naturally climbs in speed, albeit marginally. Its clearly financially motivated. The van could be used in areas where there is a clear need. At this position, there isn't.
Joined: Jun 2004
Posts: 2,032
Likes: 1
From: At Home
Are you meaning the mobile camera van that sits on the Mickleham Bends at Boxhill ?
If this is where you mean I have had a car brake in front of me right in the bend - I took that as decidedly odd and eased off .... only to see the mobile man sitting in the middle of the dual carriageway on the bends. It wasn't a problem for me as I wasn't speeding and don't like that section of road anyway ... I personally think people do go too fast on it; poor surface, cambers and all !
I do though really object to them putting the van in the bends - I think it is dangerous and if they want people who are really speeding they only have to sit at the end of the straight near the roundabout and Texaco garage. People using their eyes would see the van and not get tickets. Blind drivers not paying attention would get a ticket ..... which, if they are not looking where they should be ; i.e. up the road ahead of them is their own fault. I have no problem with inattentive drivers getting points.
I do have a problem with people being sneeky when there is no need and sticking a van in what is IMO a dangerous spot.
Assuming you do mean this site I'm afraid I do have to disagree though with you view of the road as a wide open DC. It is dangerous at speed and has seen many, many crashes over the years - mainly though from motorbike riders who like to see how quick they can do the bends. As a bike rider myself I even find their riding mad in the summer and avoid the area like the plaque !
The funny thing is though that the position of this van - which wouldn't be able to realistically do bikers as it takes pictures of the front of the vehicles - may cause a biker on autopilot to grab a handful of their front brake and as a result try joining the camera van in the middle of the trees ..... thereby increasing the casualty figures .....
People being done by the van shouldn't be done for under 57mph - I know Surrey follow exactly ACPO guidelines .... 10%+2mph but anything over and you are stuffed. As one of my work colleagues found out ... they did his wife for 35.1mph and after he cited ACPO guidelines got a detailed letter explaining it all
As I say, poor position of a mobile van which I think they should be ashamed of - but I do think your assessment of the danger of that road - which I travel a hell of a lot - is somewhat wrong.
If this is where you mean I have had a car brake in front of me right in the bend - I took that as decidedly odd and eased off .... only to see the mobile man sitting in the middle of the dual carriageway on the bends. It wasn't a problem for me as I wasn't speeding and don't like that section of road anyway ... I personally think people do go too fast on it; poor surface, cambers and all !
I do though really object to them putting the van in the bends - I think it is dangerous and if they want people who are really speeding they only have to sit at the end of the straight near the roundabout and Texaco garage. People using their eyes would see the van and not get tickets. Blind drivers not paying attention would get a ticket ..... which, if they are not looking where they should be ; i.e. up the road ahead of them is their own fault. I have no problem with inattentive drivers getting points.
I do have a problem with people being sneeky when there is no need and sticking a van in what is IMO a dangerous spot.
Assuming you do mean this site I'm afraid I do have to disagree though with you view of the road as a wide open DC. It is dangerous at speed and has seen many, many crashes over the years - mainly though from motorbike riders who like to see how quick they can do the bends. As a bike rider myself I even find their riding mad in the summer and avoid the area like the plaque !
The funny thing is though that the position of this van - which wouldn't be able to realistically do bikers as it takes pictures of the front of the vehicles - may cause a biker on autopilot to grab a handful of their front brake and as a result try joining the camera van in the middle of the trees ..... thereby increasing the casualty figures .....
People being done by the van shouldn't be done for under 57mph - I know Surrey follow exactly ACPO guidelines .... 10%+2mph but anything over and you are stuffed. As one of my work colleagues found out ... they did his wife for 35.1mph and after he cited ACPO guidelines got a detailed letter explaining it all
As I say, poor position of a mobile van which I think they should be ashamed of - but I do think your assessment of the danger of that road - which I travel a hell of a lot - is somewhat wrong.