- This topic has 1 reply, 2 voices, and was last updated 20 years, 4 months ago by
.
- Posts
Humberside V brunstromia
Not much difference really!
Controversial speed cameras across East Yorkshire have helped halve the number of road deaths and serious injuries in their first year of use.
WHICH, DEATHS OR CASUALTIES?
Figures published today show the number of casualties at the 65 worst crash sites in Humberside dropped by 53 per cent.
53%?
In the year to April, 34 people were killed or badly injured, compared to an average of 72 over previous years.
KILLED OR BADLY INJURED, 34 OUT OF 72 = 47%…?
The Humberside Safety Camera Partnership publishes the locations of its mobile cameras on its website each week in a bid to deter motorists from speeding.
EXCEPT THE BIT THAT SAYS “ WE CAN USE OTHER SITES”.
Its members were delighted with the results for their first 12 months.
WHICH BIT, THE 53% OR THE 47%..?
They announced three new sites for the speed-cutting measures, including the East Riding’s first fixed camera.
FIRST FIXED CAMERA, SORRY SCAMERA.
Spokeswoman Ruth Gore said: “This is a great result for the Humberside Safety Camera Partnership and clearly shows that safety cameras are having an effect on reducing casualties and collisions.
SAFETY CAMERAS, SHE MEANS TALIVANS (WHICH ARE NORMALLY HIDDEN).
“We realise this is just one year’s results and it’s normal to review this information over three years.
WELL, WHY HAVEN’T YOU?
“We were expecting a reduction in casualties and collisions based on the experience of other camera partnerships that have been operating over a longer period.
YAWN!
“Such a dramatic reduction in casualties in our first year is fantastic, however we are not complacent.”
WHAT REDUCTION, YOU MAKE FIGURES UP!
The East Riding’s police commander, Chief Superintendent Patrick Geenty, said: “It’s absolutely tremendous there has been such a huge drop.
DROP IN WHAT, POLICE STANDARDS? OUCH, SORRY PEEPS.
“We deploy the safety cameras at auditable accident blackspots and the figures show they are reducing the number of casualties significantly.
AUDITABLE, AUDITABLE, I REST MY CASE.
“Across Humberside and the whole region there has been a recognition of the need to reduce speed. “I think that’s due largely to the safety camera partnership.”
DO YOU REALLY?
The partnership today announced three new safety cameras sites across East Riding where speed enforcement will begin over the coming months.
Each has a history of crashes, casualties and speeding motorists, as required by Government rules on cameras.
LET ME GUESS WHICH YOU CHOSE, EERRRRRM SPEEDING MOTORISTS?
Mobile cameras vans will be enforcing the 60mph speed limit at two sites on the A614 near Shiptonthorpe.
MOBILES!!
The East Riding’s first fixed camera will be installed on the B1239, north of Preston.
B ROAD, B ROAD,
From 2000 to 2002, there were eight crashes in the 750-metre section of road, three of which resulted in death or serious injury.
TWO YEAR STATISTICS NOW,,,, AND ONE DEATH, WHICH WAS NOT SPEED RELATED BY THE WAY.
At each of the three sites, at least 20 per cent of the traffic exceeded the speed limit every day.
OF COURSE IT DID…. PERCENTAGES THAT YOU MAKE UP. THE TERM AUDITABLE SITES. I WONDER WHY WE CALL IT ALL BLOX!Best Regards
Stuart XV16
Please note that some of the comments and articles posted may not represent my views or the views of FORUM99 and its moderators.
HELP KEEP THIS FORUM ALIVE! PLEASE DONATE.Wrongly convicted… Add this to your statistics
A Van driver has avoided a fine after speed camera officials admitted they had got the wrong man.
White van driver Steve Hutchinson was facing a £60 fine and three points on his licence, after Humberside Safety Camera Partnership claimed it had caught him speeding.
But rather than accept the £60 fine, the 40-year-old decided to challenge the claim in court.
Only when he arrived at court did Mr Hutchinson discover the photograph, which the Crown Prosecution Service was resting its case on, showed a number plate different to his. Today Mr Hutchinson said: “My concern is people could have their details reproduced wrongly and get prosecuted when they haven’t done anything wrong.
“I gave out a yell of ‘yes’ and saw a look of surprise on the prosecutor’s face when the magistrates said ‘case dismissed’.
“I represented myself in court and thought it was a good victory.”
The self-employed electrical engineer successfully argued at Hull Magistrates’ Court the registration number on the image produced by a speed camera was not his.
The speed camera at Bishop Burton reproduced one digit on a number plate wrongly and magistrates dismissed the case once the error had been pointed out in court.
The registration number in the image shown in court had a 6 six instead of a five in the correct number.
This week Humberside Police admitted the number had been reproduced wrongly and that the mistake was down to “human error.”
Mr Hutchinson is now urging everyone to contest their speeding fine in court in case a similar error has been made.
Mr Hutchinson added: “This could have happened to many other people and perhaps would not think to challenge it in court.
“Also, I didn’t get to see the photograph until I was shown it in court. It was then I challenged it.”
A spokesman for Humberside Police said: “Many images of vehicles speeding are taken every day and there is the rare occasion when some are reproduced incorrectly.
“The summons was issued with the correct details but the picture was not. This was down to human error and the case was dismissed on those grounds.”
Best Regards
Stuart XV16
Please note that some of the comments and articles posted may not represent my views or the views of FORUM99 and its moderators.
HELP KEEP THIS FORUM ALIVE! PLEASE DONATE.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.