He even gets in the Norfolk press...

The lying one even makes it into the Norfolk press

http://tinyurl.com/2hsm3

I feel a letter to the editor of the Evening News coming on pointing where, if
he can be bothered, he can find out the lies PS tells...

Cheers, helen s



"Speed cameras - special report


January 16, 2004 12:42

IT IS one of the biggest debates raging across Britain. Do speed cameras help
save lives? Are they in the right places? Or are they just another cynical tax
on motorists? ALEX GORE investigates.

.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

More than 760 motorists a week were snapped speeding on Norfolk roads in 2003.

At face value, good news. Road safety campaigners have long argued studies have
consistently shown speed kills. They claim the controversial cameras keep
motorists in check on danger stretches of tarmac.

But critics say the cameras are in the wrong locations, that the true accident
blackspots are being ignored for sites that enable Norfolk's 22 cameras to
snare more drivers. To them the cameras are little more than cosmetic attempts
to show the speeding issue is being taken seriously.

A recent study by powerful motoring lobby, The RAC Foundation, found a fifth of
speed cameras in London were sited where there had been no serious accident
record.

Today the Evening News can reveal some of the worst accident blackspots in
Norfolk are not covered by fixed cameras.

The worst accident blackspots in 2003 included Barrett Road and Ketts Hill in
Norwich; the Thickthorn roundabout: the B1149 in Felthorpe; Tunstead Road in
Wroxham; Drayton Hall Lane in Scarning and the A17 in King's Lynn.

Dangerous cluster sites on trunk roads where there have been fatal accidents in
the last six years, include the A47 Acle Straight; the A140 Norwich to Cromer
road; the A1065 Swaffham to Fakenham road; the A140 Norwich to Ipswich road and
the A11 Norwich to Thetford road.

There are currently no fixed cameras on any of these routes, although one is
being planned for the A11 at Ketteringham and another on the A47 at Burlingham.
The Norfolk Casualty Reduction Partnership, which is responsible for the
cameras, said it did monitor these major routes with its four mobile speed
camera vans.

But there is a fixed camera on notorious Grapes Hill, where there were just
seven "serious" accident in the last three years and no deaths. A tricky hill,
even the most experienced driver often gets caught out and finds themselves
"speeding", say angry motorists.

In 2003, 39,589 motorists were caught out in Norfolk and the vast majority -
33,590 - were fined. At £60 a go, that meant each camera was generating an
average of £90,000 from motorists already battling the rising costs of road
tax, insurance and fuel.

Four more cameras are on the way. Anti-camera campaigners are cynical. It could
mean another 6,100 otherwise law-abiding citizens fall foul of speed limits a
year - or in financial terms, another £366,000 to add onto the £2 million plus
raked in from speeding fines last year alone.

Paul Smith, founder of the Safe Speed campaign group, which has consistently
challenged the Government to come up with evidence that speed cameras save
lives, said cameras were being strategically placed as "cash machines" across
the country.

"There are two rules which the partnerships must follow when researching
potential camera sites - there must be a history of accidents, and a history of
speeding," he said.

"Planners in this country use a general rule when setting speed limits that 85
per cent of motorists will drive within the speed limit. If there is a history
of speeding on any stretch of road, that is probably because the majority of
drivers feel it is safe to speed on that particular stretch.

"Now, we have traffic surveys finding stretches where motorists speed and
thinking that is a good place to have a camera. But a history of speeding
should indicate there is a serious flaw in the existing speed limit."

Mr Smith has also challenged any road safety organisation to come up with
credible evidence that speed causes more than five per cent of accidents.

"We are concentrating too much on speed and not enough on reckless behaviour
and poor standards of driving.

"We have got millions of drivers now who look at their speedometers as a
barometer of safety. This is far too over-simplified."

Anthony Williment, secretary of the Norwich Hackney Trade Association, said:
"There is a lot of speeding going on in the city but not necessarily where the
cameras are. They are not a terribly effective way of controlling speeding
anyway," he said.

"I would prefer to see other speed reducing measures in the city. The design of
St Stephens with speed bumps and pinch points is very effective in reducing
accidents, for example."

The Evening News revealed last month that at least 40 taxi drivers were plying
their trade with criminal convictions ranging from speeding to violent crimes.

One cabbie, still working, notched up five speeding fines in five years.
Speeding accounted for far the largest number of convictions of cabbies.

But apart from the fines, motorists are also being hit in the pocket as
insurance premiums are rising depending on the number of speeding points they
have on their licence.

Last May, the Evening News revealed that a militant group known as Motorists
Against Detection (MAD) had claimed responsibility for a series of arson
attacks on speed cameras in Norfolk.

Captain Gatso, a spokesman for MAD, said his group was acting in the interests
of law-abiding motorists.

"We applaud speed cameras where they are in the right places, such as urban
areas outside schools, but we will continue our crusade against cameras
strategically placed to maximise income," he said.

"It is fine to have a policy of zero tolerance on crime, as long as we target
normal crimes affecting normal people first, such as burglary.

"Unfortunately, the motorist is an easy target. He drives a car, he has money
and he is easily identified by his registration plates. The Government is
picking the pockets of the 30 million under siege, generally law-abiding
motorists of this country."

Edmund King , the RAC Foundation's executive director, said the motoring group
believed cameras were being used simply to raise revenue.

"We have said all along that motorists are more likely to support cameras if
they are sited at accident black spots.

"A study this week found that 20 per cent of speed cameras in London were in
areas where there was no serious accident record. The London camera partnership
has now vowed to remove these cameras, and perhaps Norfolk should look at this
example and follow suit."

Mr King added since the camera groups and accident reduction partnerships
employed more civilians, jobs had become at stake.

"As the bureaucracy on partnerships grows, the need for them to give out more
tickets grows," he said.

"It remains in the partnerships' interests to have cameras on roads which
attract more tickets rather than dangerous roads. We have called on the
Transport Secretary to review this situation."

Last month, the Association of British Drivers claimed the Government's Speed
Kills crackdown, including cameras, had made road safety worse in the UK by
ignoring other traffic offences.

Bryan Edwards, a spokesman for the NCRD, said in areas where the speed cameras
were serious accidents had been reduced by 54.5 per cent over the past year.

"When cameras go in, people say it is because it is the best place to raise
revenue, but we operate in places where there have been speed-related accidents
over a three-year period.

"We use police accident reports and double check with ambulance statistics.
There are some areas where you cannot put a fixed camera and areas where you
cannot put a mobile camera. We have one of the lowest numbers of cameras
despite being one of the largest counties.

"We are not allowed to make a profit. Last year, our excess was £70. A lot of
people think the money goes to the police but it doesn't, it goes to the
Treasury and it is not until the end of the year when we get our costs back."

Mr Edwards, who was involved in a fatal accident six years ago, insisted he was
not on a personal crusade against speeding motorists.

"We are trying to make speeding as anti-social as drink-driving," he said. "If
people didn't speed, there would be no revenue to operate the cameras. If there
were no accidents, I would be happy that I was out of a job. We are not here to
replace police officers and traffic officers, we are here to support them."

There are currently five cameras being constantly moved between the 18 fixed
cameras. There are four mobile camera vans patrolling the county.

Mr Edwards said the NCRP supported other initiatives, such as track days and
employer prizes for employees who don't have an accident all year.

"There is a responsibility for companies to look after their employees and make
sure they have enough time to get from A to B, so they don't have to break the
speed limit."

WHERE the fixed speed cameras a

A147 Grapes Hill, Norwich

A140 Mile End Road, Norwich

A140 Sweet Briar Road, Norwich

A1042 Mile Cross Lane, Norwich

A1074 Dereham Road, Norwich

A1067 Taverham, Norwich

A143 Bradwell

A146 Loddon

A146 Thurton

A149 Heacham

A148 Little Snoring and Bale

A148 Gunton

B1332 Poringland

A1075 Toftwood

Marine Parade, Great Yarmouth Sea Front

A149 Caister Road Yarmouth

Gayton Road, King's Lynn

Proposed sites:

A47 Burlingham

A12 near James Paget Hospital

A11 Ketteringham

another site is yet to be agreed

Interesting websites:

www.norfolk-safety-camera.org.uk

www.safespeed.org.uk


Copyright © 2004 Archant Regional. All rights reserved."

--This is an invalid email address to avoid spam--
to get correct one remove dependency on fame & fortune
h*$el*$$e**nd***$o$ts***i*$*$m**m$$o*n**s@$*$a$$o* *l.c**$*$om$$

In ,
dirtylitterboxofferingstospammers typed:
The lying one even makes it into the Norfolk press

http://tinyurl.com/2hsm3

I feel a letter to the editor of the Evening News coming on pointing
where, if he can be bothered, he can find out the lies PS tells...

Annoying.

On another note, is it only Norfolk that has 'notorious hills'? (About 1/3
of the way down). I guess drivers could be forgiven for not realising they
have to release pressure on the accelerator going downhill if there's only
one to go down.

A.

On Fri, 16 Jan 2004 16:27:35 -0000, "Ambrose Nankivell"
wrote:

On another note, is it only Norfolk that has 'notorious hills'? (About 1/3
of the way down). I guess drivers could be forgiven for not realising they
have to release pressure on the accelerator going downhill if there's only
one to go down.

Quite. I seem to manage OK despite automatic transmission. The
secret is knowing that cars are affected yb gravity. Mind you,
watching the legions of the clueless grinding up long hills on the
motorway at walking pace because they've not thought to put a bit more
pressure on the loud pedal, maybe that's the problem.

I think what's going on here is that people perceive that they are at
risk of a fine if they stray a few mph over the limit, but their
interpretation of the limit is the limit below which ACPO guidelines
say you won't be prosecuted. If you are doing 36 indicated in a 30
limit then it's quite easy to stray into the Gatso zone. If you're
doing an indicated 30 then it's much less likely. And if you're
observing the speed limit - i.e. driving a bit below the limit so the
occasional variation won't take you over - well, then I'd be surprised
if you could have a big enough speed increase to come close to the
Gatso zone without noticing.

Clarkson claimed his Mum got a Gatso ticket for being 3mph over the
limit. I don't believe it. 3mph over the ACPO guidelines, maybe.
But that's nearly 40mph in a 30 zone, and into the 90% fatality area
for any pedestrian who gets in the way.

Guy
===
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://chapmancentral.demon.co.uk

Just zis Guy, you know? wrote:

I think what's going on here is that people perceive that they are at
risk of a fine if they stray a few mph over the limit, but their
interpretation of the limit is the limit below which ACPO guidelines
say you won't be prosecuted. If you are doing 36 indicated in a 30
limit then it's quite easy to stray into the Gatso zone. If you're
doing an indicated 30 then it's much less likely. And if you're
observing the speed limit - i.e. driving a bit below the limit so the
occasional variation won't take you over - well, then I'd be surprised
if you could have a big enough speed increase to come close to the
Gatso zone without noticing.

Clarkson claimed his Mum got a Gatso ticket for being 3mph over the
limit. I don't believe it. 3mph over the ACPO guidelines, maybe.
But that's nearly 40mph in a 30 zone, and into the 90% fatality area
for any pedestrian who gets in the way.

Most car speedometers are around 10% "fast" - probably deliberately, to
allow some safety margin [1]. Therefore if you're doing an indicated
30mph in a 30 zone there is no chance whatsoever of you being caught by
a Gatso, even if your foot slips on a speed hump.

[1] imagine angry drivers (maybe rightly) trying to claim the cost of
their speeding tickets from Ford if the speedo was 10% *slow*!

Upon the miasma of midnight, a darkling spirit identified as Zog The
Undeniable gently breathed:

Most car speedometers are around 10% "fast" - probably deliberately, to
allow some safety margin [1]. Therefore if you're doing an indicated
30mph in a 30 zone there is no chance whatsoever of you being caught by
a Gatso, even if your foot slips on a speed hump.

[1] imagine angry drivers (maybe rightly) trying to claim the cost of
their speeding tickets from Ford if the speedo was 10% *slow*!

There are sped cameras placed purely for revenue reasons though, even a
pro-public-transport and pro-cycling type like me can see that. I
regularly pass one near Louth, which was carefully concealed behind a
road sign on a bend on the (engineered for speed) bypass, just after the
bottom of a fairly steep bowl.

The locals don't seem too impressed with it - in the two years I've been
travelling that road (always within the limit - avoiding camera fines
really isn't that hard!) I've seen it repeatedly daubed with paint, and
on one occasion as I approached from the other side I found a scorched
post and pile of charred wreckage on the ground! I've seen news reports
of people putting burning tyres over them, presumably that's what
happened to this one - unless someone had a military rocket of some
kind...

What I'd like to see more of is some kind of camera device that could
spot idiots turning where they're not supposed to, or boy nutters
swerving from lane to lane and getting in the way of people who drive
calmly. In Leeds there is a stretch of road where if you do a steady
25, all the lights change to green just as you come to them, so you can
maintain a constant speed and thus save fuel and wear. However this is
often spoiled by morons who swoop past in the other lane and then cross
into the lane your in, only to screech to a stop at the (still red)
lights ahead. You then have to slow down and speed up again, and all
their swerving about is a hazard to cyclists and other drivers alike.

If someone could develop a system to identify and fine idiots like that,
I'd be all for it! :-)

NP: The Dreamside - Faery Child
--
- Pyromancer Stormshadow
http://www.inkubus-sukkubus.co.uk -- Pagan Gothic Rock!
http://www.littlematchgirl.co.uk -- Electronic Metal!
http://www.revival.stormshadow.com -- The Gothic Revival.

On Sat, 17 Jan 2004 22:37:08 +0000, Pyromancer
wrote:

There are sped cameras placed purely for revenue reasons though, even a
pro-public-transport and pro-cycling type like me can see that.

Can you. I wonder who put them there? The Police, who get no money
at all from them but have to collect the film, or the camera
partnerships who are not-for-profit?

regularly pass one near Louth, which was carefully concealed behind a
road sign on a bend on the (engineered for speed) bypass, just after the
bottom of a fairly steep bowl.

Excellent position. Just the sort of place where people speed.

What I'd like to see more of is some kind of camera device that could
spot idiots turning where they're not supposed to, or boy nutters
swerving from lane to lane and getting in the way of people who drive
calmly.

I have already proposed the ****so Camera as the next great road
safety invention - but the fact that cameras can't presently get these
eejits is not a reason for not using them to enforce what they can
enforce, such as bus lanes, red lights and speed limits. At least
that way the few traffic plod who are allowed out by the Police
Authority (whose performance measures include only one factor relating
to roads out of 31) can conentrate on the offences which require
judgement to detect.

In Leeds there is a stretch of road where if you do a steady
25, all the lights change to green just as you come to them, so you can
maintain a constant speed and thus save fuel and wear. However this is
often spoiled by morons who swoop past in the other lane and then cross
into the lane your in, only to screech to a stop at the (still red)
lights ahead. You then have to slow down and speed up again, and all
their swerving about is a hazard to cyclists and other drivers alike.

Slough used to be the same, but it seems to have broken now. There is
no speed at which you don't seem to hit half the lights at red.

If someone could develop a system to identify and fine idiots like that,
I'd be all for it! :-)

It's called fuel duty ;-)

Guy
===
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://chapmancentral.demon.co.uk

On Sat, 17 Jan 2004 22:37:08 +0000, Pyromancer scrawled:
) There are sped cameras placed purely for revenue reasons though, even a
) pro-public-transport and pro-cycling type like me can see that.

I've heard it from lots of different people, and I don't really know what
"purely for revenue reasons" means. Does it mean they are set to trigger
at a legal speed, to trap people who aren't criminals? Or that they trap
passers-by and increase their income tax secretly by 0.1% using some
sprawling, centralized, ORWELLIAN, KAFKAESQUE database? Or does it mean
they just trap

) regularly pass one near Louth, which was carefully concealed behind a
) road sign on a bend on the (engineered for speed) bypass, just after the
) bottom of a fairly steep bowl.

people too thick to know where their brake pedal and/or speedometer are
located, or how to drive safely down all types of road? If so, should this
demographic be on the road at all?

"Engineered for speed". I can only assume this means coated in teflon,

J-P
--
You are allowed to use the word "problematic" as a noun.