Race away crashes lead to double trouble in Cumbria
25 December 2004, 09:04 AM
#1
Scooby Senior
Thread Starter
Race away crashes lead to double trouble in Cumbria
According to press reports, Cumbria are to introduce "double" speed traps - two camera vans just one quarter of a mile apart. One might wonder at the purpose of such a bizarre tactic. Do they want to issue double fines to passing drivers? Double fines would be bad enough, but the truth is far more frightening. It turns out than there have been a series of crashes as frustrated and annoyed drivers leave a zone of speed enforcement. They have been having crashes at the very next hazard. Safe Speed believes this little known side effect of speed cameras is the true reason for the bizarre Cumbrian double traps. It's called "race away", and the double cameras are a misguided attempt to combat this special danger.
In an interview with the Times earlier this year Chief Constable Richard Brunstrom, sometimes called 'The mad mullah of the traffic taliban' said: "We have a particular problem with motorcyclists slowing down for the cameras but then speeding up and dying on the next corner."
Paul Smith, founder of the Safe Speed road safety campaign (www.safespeed.org.uk) commented: "We have been trying to monitor these so called "race away" crashes for some time. Camera partnerships are reluctant to give us any information, and we're not surprised. Race away is one of a series of dangerous speed camera side effects, none of which have been properly investigated. In February this year, Steve Callaghan, manager of the Cumbria camera operation said: "The mobile sites we have set up have hard standings where the vans are usually located but we can move them within the location of that site. Let's say the site is 0.9km long, we can operate anywhere inside that distance and this will be done in the coming months. Hopefully this will combat the effect of the 'race away' and subsequent disaster at a nearby hazard."
This is a difficult issue for the camera proponents - do they warn the public of the hazard, thereby admitting that their cameras have deadly side effects, or do they allow it to continue? Cumbria has a novel 'solution', but of course we'll end up with drivers and riders who are twice as annoyed crashing after the second camera.
On Wednesday 22nd December annual road deaths in Cumbria surpassed the 2003 total making 2004 the worst year since 2000, and there's a high risk week to go. Paul continues: "After the formation of the camera partnership in Cumbria (April 2003) road fatalities have gone up in both 2003 and 2004. Any suggestion that cameras save lives is a sick joke, and especially so for the thousands who have been fined or even banned from driving. Safe Speed demands that we immediately suspend all speed camera operations nationally. The side effects are killing us."
Important tips for all road users:
Anyone caught speeding twice, 1/4 mile apart should ignore the fixed penalty notices and ask the court to deal with BOTH as a SINGLE OFFENCE. Taking your case to court also PREVENTS the local camera partnership from recovering any fine money.
<ends>
Notes for editors:
******************
BBC story from August,
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/3564128.stm
Contains: "Richard Brunstrom, head of road policing for the Association of Chief Police Officers, told the Times: "We have a particular problem with motorcyclists slowing down for the cameras but then speeding up and dying on the next corner."
***
In February this year, Steve Callaghan, manager of the Cumbria Camera Partnership said: "The mobile sites we have set up have hard standings where the vans are usually located but we can move them within the location of that site. Lets say the site is 0.9km long, we can operate anywhere inside that distance and this will be done in the coming months. Hopefully this will combat the effect of the 'race away' and subsequent disaster at a nearby hazard."
***
On December 22nd, writing in the CSCP forum, Steve Callaghan said: "We have noticed that some motorists race away from safety camera sites, sometimes flicking up a couple of fingers on the way. Not being totally satisfied with this sort of reaction our camera operators reported this back to me. We predicted that the envelope of compliance around the camera would be about 1000m before and may be 500-1000m afterward for the more manipulative (an coincidentally, the more at risk) driver. We also predicted that the speed profile at accident hot spots would change with some migration of speed to either side of the accident hot spot. This has now occurred."
Notice how the wording has softened since February?
Link:
http://www.cumbriasafetycameras.org/forum/index.php?showtopic=743&st=45
***
Press story from the North West Evening Mail:
http://www.nwemail.co.uk/news/viewarticle.aspx?id=164647
cumbria speed camera vans to hunt in pairs
Published on 22/12/2004
A NEW campaign to cut speeding could spell double trouble for motorists in Cumbria. Two safety camera vans are set to be sited within a quarter of a mile of each other on certain stretches of road where speeding is commonplace.
Roads targeted will include stretches of the A590 between Barrow and the M6, as well as the A595 along the West Cumbria coast and the A6. The move by Cumbria Safety Cameras aims to outfox motorists who think they can escape punishment by slowing down for a speed camera and then immediately exceeding the speed limit once they have gone past.
***
Cumbria fatality figures:
2000: 55
2001: 47
2002: 49
2003: 54
2004: 47 to end November, 8 so far in December making 55.
***
Cumbria Camera Partnership can be contacted on 01768 217477
http://www.cumbriasafetycameras.org
***
About Safe Speed
================
The Safe Speed road safety campaign is primarily the work of engineer- turned road safety analyst Paul Smith.
Since setting up Safe Speed in 2001, Paul Smith, 49, an advanced motorist and road safety enthusiast, and a professional engineer of 25 years UK experience, has carried out over 7,500 hours of research into the overall effects of speed camera policy on UK road safety. We believe that this is more work in more detail than anything carried out by any other organisation. Paul's surprising conclusion is that overall speed cameras make our roads more dangerous. Paul has identified and reported a number of major flaws and false assumptions in the claims made for speed cameras, and the whole "speed kills" system of road safety.
The inescapable conclusion is that we should urgently return to the excellent road safety policies that gave us in the UK the safest roads in the World in the first place. Safe Speed does not campaign against speed limits or appropriate enforcement of motoring laws, but argues vigorously that automated speed enforcement is neither safe nor appropriate.
Contact Safe Speed:
=================
web: http://www.safespeed.org.uk
In an interview with the Times earlier this year Chief Constable Richard Brunstrom, sometimes called 'The mad mullah of the traffic taliban' said: "We have a particular problem with motorcyclists slowing down for the cameras but then speeding up and dying on the next corner."
Paul Smith, founder of the Safe Speed road safety campaign (www.safespeed.org.uk) commented: "We have been trying to monitor these so called "race away" crashes for some time. Camera partnerships are reluctant to give us any information, and we're not surprised. Race away is one of a series of dangerous speed camera side effects, none of which have been properly investigated. In February this year, Steve Callaghan, manager of the Cumbria camera operation said: "The mobile sites we have set up have hard standings where the vans are usually located but we can move them within the location of that site. Let's say the site is 0.9km long, we can operate anywhere inside that distance and this will be done in the coming months. Hopefully this will combat the effect of the 'race away' and subsequent disaster at a nearby hazard."
This is a difficult issue for the camera proponents - do they warn the public of the hazard, thereby admitting that their cameras have deadly side effects, or do they allow it to continue? Cumbria has a novel 'solution', but of course we'll end up with drivers and riders who are twice as annoyed crashing after the second camera.
On Wednesday 22nd December annual road deaths in Cumbria surpassed the 2003 total making 2004 the worst year since 2000, and there's a high risk week to go. Paul continues: "After the formation of the camera partnership in Cumbria (April 2003) road fatalities have gone up in both 2003 and 2004. Any suggestion that cameras save lives is a sick joke, and especially so for the thousands who have been fined or even banned from driving. Safe Speed demands that we immediately suspend all speed camera operations nationally. The side effects are killing us."
Important tips for all road users:
Anyone caught speeding twice, 1/4 mile apart should ignore the fixed penalty notices and ask the court to deal with BOTH as a SINGLE OFFENCE. Taking your case to court also PREVENTS the local camera partnership from recovering any fine money.
<ends>
Notes for editors:
******************
BBC story from August,
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/3564128.stm
Contains: "Richard Brunstrom, head of road policing for the Association of Chief Police Officers, told the Times: "We have a particular problem with motorcyclists slowing down for the cameras but then speeding up and dying on the next corner."
***
In February this year, Steve Callaghan, manager of the Cumbria Camera Partnership said: "The mobile sites we have set up have hard standings where the vans are usually located but we can move them within the location of that site. Lets say the site is 0.9km long, we can operate anywhere inside that distance and this will be done in the coming months. Hopefully this will combat the effect of the 'race away' and subsequent disaster at a nearby hazard."
***
On December 22nd, writing in the CSCP forum, Steve Callaghan said: "We have noticed that some motorists race away from safety camera sites, sometimes flicking up a couple of fingers on the way. Not being totally satisfied with this sort of reaction our camera operators reported this back to me. We predicted that the envelope of compliance around the camera would be about 1000m before and may be 500-1000m afterward for the more manipulative (an coincidentally, the more at risk) driver. We also predicted that the speed profile at accident hot spots would change with some migration of speed to either side of the accident hot spot. This has now occurred."
Notice how the wording has softened since February?
Link:
http://www.cumbriasafetycameras.org/forum/index.php?showtopic=743&st=45
***
Press story from the North West Evening Mail:
http://www.nwemail.co.uk/news/viewarticle.aspx?id=164647
cumbria speed camera vans to hunt in pairs
Published on 22/12/2004
A NEW campaign to cut speeding could spell double trouble for motorists in Cumbria. Two safety camera vans are set to be sited within a quarter of a mile of each other on certain stretches of road where speeding is commonplace.
Roads targeted will include stretches of the A590 between Barrow and the M6, as well as the A595 along the West Cumbria coast and the A6. The move by Cumbria Safety Cameras aims to outfox motorists who think they can escape punishment by slowing down for a speed camera and then immediately exceeding the speed limit once they have gone past.
***
Cumbria fatality figures:
2000: 55
2001: 47
2002: 49
2003: 54
2004: 47 to end November, 8 so far in December making 55.
***
Cumbria Camera Partnership can be contacted on 01768 217477
http://www.cumbriasafetycameras.org
***
About Safe Speed
================
The Safe Speed road safety campaign is primarily the work of engineer- turned road safety analyst Paul Smith.
Since setting up Safe Speed in 2001, Paul Smith, 49, an advanced motorist and road safety enthusiast, and a professional engineer of 25 years UK experience, has carried out over 7,500 hours of research into the overall effects of speed camera policy on UK road safety. We believe that this is more work in more detail than anything carried out by any other organisation. Paul's surprising conclusion is that overall speed cameras make our roads more dangerous. Paul has identified and reported a number of major flaws and false assumptions in the claims made for speed cameras, and the whole "speed kills" system of road safety.
The inescapable conclusion is that we should urgently return to the excellent road safety policies that gave us in the UK the safest roads in the World in the first place. Safe Speed does not campaign against speed limits or appropriate enforcement of motoring laws, but argues vigorously that automated speed enforcement is neither safe nor appropriate.
Contact Safe Speed:
=================
web: http://www.safespeed.org.uk
25 December 2004, 09:16 AM
#2
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Mar 2003
Posts: 695
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
25 December 2004, 09:54 AM
#3
Scooby Senior
Thread Starter
Originally Posted by Tentenths
25 December 2004, 11:30 AM
#4
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Scoobynet
Posts: 5,387
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Haha!! The Cumbria Revenue Camera partnership website even has a forum!!
http://www.cumbriasafetycameras.org/forum
http://www.cumbriasafetycameras.org/forum
25 December 2004, 12:11 PM
#5
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Bangor, Northern Ireland
Posts: 2,033
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
okay, so these cameras cause accidents then? so we'll put in a second camera van. so will people then "race away" after they pass the 2nd one? maybe you could have 4 camera vans, then on one stretch of road, sitting 10mph above speed limit you could loose your licence. brilliant - that'll stop crashes then...oh
25 December 2004, 09:03 PM
#7
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Apr 2003
Posts: 1,985
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
My theory is that they do live on the same planet as us but that their wages are paid from the fines they raise.
It is a bit like any scam you try on people, soon they get wise to you and your income goes down so you have to rethink your scam.
They also live on the same planet as the Nigerian scammers and the ebay scammers and deserve more recognition for their contribution to this noble art.
It is a bit like any scam you try on people, soon they get wise to you and your income goes down so you have to rethink your scam.
They also live on the same planet as the Nigerian scammers and the ebay scammers and deserve more recognition for their contribution to this noble art.
Trending Topics
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post