Locations Of Speed Cameras In Kent
Discussion
I just came across this web page listing Kent's speed cameras: http://www.kmscp.org/cameras_page04.html
Apart from the obvious political mis-use of the term "Safety Camera" in 'Kent & Medway Safety Camera Partnership' when the cameras are speed cameras, I wonder why they use both Kent & Medway in their name. Medway is wholly within Kent!
Apart from the obvious political mis-use of the term "Safety Camera" in 'Kent & Medway Safety Camera Partnership' when the cameras are speed cameras, I wonder why they use both Kent & Medway in their name. Medway is wholly within Kent!
Interesting to read some of the Board minutes posted on the site.
Very small group to have the title 'Board' -often only 5-6 attendees. Lots of self-affirming dialogue particularly from the PR types. Regular comments on 'support' from public, lack of 'negative correspondence'. As if this indicates a county-wide love of the fecking things. Working in Kent public sector as I do, I've seen this attitude before. It can breed 'groupthink' and poor decision making. >>>
Even in the edited public facing minutes there's some interesting use of language. In discussing the lowering of speed thresholds it is stated that some further understanding of impact would be useful.
"CR said that a 1mph drop would increase offences by 25%, but we can ‘test’ this by detecting them with the actual cameras but not issuing tickets; after a while we can tot up the likely extra business for real."
My bold. Jan '09 minutes. After all the public 'moneymaking' accusations re. cameras, -they let this out in public minutes!
Very small group to have the title 'Board' -often only 5-6 attendees. Lots of self-affirming dialogue particularly from the PR types. Regular comments on 'support' from public, lack of 'negative correspondence'. As if this indicates a county-wide love of the fecking things. Working in Kent public sector as I do, I've seen this attitude before. It can breed 'groupthink' and poor decision making. >>>
Even in the edited public facing minutes there's some interesting use of language. In discussing the lowering of speed thresholds it is stated that some further understanding of impact would be useful.
"CR said that a 1mph drop would increase offences by 25%, but we can ‘test’ this by detecting them with the actual cameras but not issuing tickets; after a while we can tot up the likely extra business for real."
My bold. Jan '09 minutes. After all the public 'moneymaking' accusations re. cameras, -they let this out in public minutes!
It is interesting to see that, acording to their own survey, about 64% of people believe that safety (sic) cameras are an easy way of making money out of motorists compared with 21% of people who disagree.
When asked if safety cameras are only situated in places where there are lots of crashes, the number of people disagreeing increased from 24% in 2007 to 43% in 2008. In fact only 35% of people agreed.
Finally, they also say that "it has been estimated that for each 1mph reduction in average speed, accident frequency is reduced by 5%". They don't say who makes this estimate, though. From all of the research I have seen, speeding causes about 1 in 20 accidents. The main detrimental effect of speeding is to make an accident worse.
When asked if safety cameras are only situated in places where there are lots of crashes, the number of people disagreeing increased from 24% in 2007 to 43% in 2008. In fact only 35% of people agreed.
Finally, they also say that "it has been estimated that for each 1mph reduction in average speed, accident frequency is reduced by 5%". They don't say who makes this estimate, though. From all of the research I have seen, speeding causes about 1 in 20 accidents. The main detrimental effect of speeding is to make an accident worse.
Gassing Station | Kent & Essex | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff