View previous topic :: View next topic |
Author |
Message |
jimtherev Occasional Visitor
Joined: Apr 27, 2008 Posts: 1
|
Posted: Fri Nov 27, 2009 11:10 am Post subject: Safety Camera Partnerships |
|
|
Darren wrote in this morning's Newsletter:
Quote: | It's time we all started asking questions of these groups. All too often when put under close scrutiny the accident data supporting the installation of a camera has been proved to be false. When will we stop accepting the status quo without questioning it? |
Yup. Agree with all of that. But how? The very nature of the so-called 'Parnerships' is that one is denied access to data; this makes any challenge difficult. Individual enquiries are but pinpricks, answers will probably be delayed until the information is so old as to be irrelevant, or, worse still, enquiries ignored until the enquirer uses the 'steam hammer' of the Freedom of Information Act.
The whole ethos of the SCP - secrecy, non-accountability, seemingly-random actions and so on - is what is under question here. The only way anyone could get any change is to challenge this ethos at national level. I'm not sure who is powerful enough to do this... even the mighty PocketGPSWorld would probably find this a challenge too far.
Or would we?
Jim |
|
Back to top |
|
|
MaFt Pocket GPS Staff
Joined: Aug 31, 2005 Posts: 15142 Location: Bradford, West Yorkshire
|
Posted: Fri Nov 27, 2009 2:40 pm Post subject: |
|
|
you could maybe try writing to a local paper and seeing if they would be willing to look into it? give them some info on other known fake results etc and it may perk up some interest for a bit of investigative journalism rather than the usual 'small boy loses toy dog' stories local papers are often plagued with...!
MaFt |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Darren Frequent Visitor
Joined: 11/07/2002 14:36:40 Posts: 23848 Location: Hampshire, UK
|
Posted: Fri Nov 27, 2009 3:14 pm Post subject: |
|
|
It's apathy that is the problem here. Most of us have no interest until we are prosecuted for speeding and feel aggrieved, possibly because we honestly believe we weren't speeding, maybe even because we weren't!
But it is time every driver started to question why these partnerships were allowed to form let alone continue to exist.
Why, when it is the police and the police alone, who are responsible for road traffic, do we need these partnerships?
OK, preaching to the converted here but what we can do is submit Freedom of Information requests to our local partnerships. Ask them for siting criteria for a camera site, accident data pre and post installation.
Get your local papers involved and while you're at it, write to your MP or local councillors.
Until people like this realise that we are suddenly waking up to this issue they will continue to do whatever they please without fear of our asking searching questions.
Forums such as Pepipoo.com are a great place to discuss these matters and drum up support and the Association of British Drivers are also beginning to question the powers and organisation of SCP's and why they are run without clear mandates and oversight of any sort. _________________ Darren Griffin |
|
Back to top |
|
|
MaFt Pocket GPS Staff
Joined: Aug 31, 2005 Posts: 15142 Location: Bradford, West Yorkshire
|
Posted: Fri Nov 27, 2009 3:34 pm Post subject: |
|
|
it could be quite useful for someone with better writing skills than me to put together a 'standard' letter that could be sent as a FOI request covering all the points that would be required. also a standard letter that could be sent to mp's / papers. if they receive quite a few then they might start questioning things themselves...
i wonder if it could be a joint project with pepipoo?
MaFt |
|
Back to top |
|
|
|
Posted: Today Post subject: Pocket GPS Advertising |
|
|
We see you’re using an ad-blocker. We’re fine with that and won’t stop you visiting the site.
Have you considered making a donation towards website running costs?. Or you could disable your ad-blocker for this site. We think you’ll find our adverts are not overbearing!
|
|
Back to top |
|
|
|