Cycling club wins police grant to buy action cameras for ride leaders

Quote:

but honestly I think there are far better uses of public money.

and a third finger from your good self.

If you'd troubled to look a bit beyond the headline and the photo, you might have found that 

Quote:

Portishead Cycling Club was set up to promote cycling for all local people. The club has grown in the last five years to become one of the largest cycling clubs in the area with over 190 members cycling for exercise, sport or just to be part of riding in a social group.

...so not just road warriors on high-end bikes (and likely a lot of them are also commuters). The people in the photo are presumably club organisers, so not surprising if they're at the higher end of the enthusiast scale and prepared to invest a bit more in their bikes - it doesn't mean they're representative of the whole membership.

In any case, the cameras aren't being given to "people who could have just bought them themselves" - they're not being given to people at all - they're being given to the club, not for personal use.

Effectively, the police force has recruited an army of unpaid volunteers to carry out traffic policing operations for it for the minimal price of a few cameras and tabards, instead of paying expensive officers to do it - from their point of view, it seems like a clever money-saving move to me.

mdavidford wrote:

Effectively, the police force has recruited an army of unpaid volunteers to carry out traffic policing operations for it for the minimal price of a few cameras and tabards, instead of paying expensive officers to do it - from their point of view, it seems like a clever money-saving move to me.

I couldn't agree more. For return on investment this has to be the smartest and easiest thing for police forces to do, providing that they've already sorted out their video reviewing procedures and resources.

They have more details on the cameras here: https://www.portisheadcycling.com/cameras

(Chilli bullet camera with replaceable lithium battery)

Maybe we could do like the Texans and deputise everyone as bounty hunters: put a bounty/reward on every mobile phone user, RLJer, or speeder reported to the police.

(to be clear, I massively disagree with what the Texans have actually deputised everyone to do, but bounty hunting might be a cost-saving exercise.  And I always wanted to wear Mandalorian armour...).

hawkinspeter wrote:

mdavidford wrote:

Effectively, the police force has recruited an army of unpaid volunteers to carry out traffic policing operations for it for the minimal price of a few cameras and tabards, instead of paying expensive officers to do it - from their point of view, it seems like a clever money-saving move to me.

I couldn't agree more. For return on investment this has to be the smartest and easiest thing for police forces to do, providing that they've already sorted out their video reviewing procedures and resources.

Alternatively, it's a complete waste of money as not only have they forked out on the cameras, it will also take up valuable police time filing all the reports straight into the bin.

OnYerBike wrote:

Alternatively, it's a complete waste of money as not only have they forked out on the cameras, it will also take up valuable police time filing all the reports straight into the bin.

Remains to be seen, but seems like that would be something of an own goal. Unlike unsolicited individual submissions, where it's relatively easy to explain away lack of action case by case without the wider world taking much interest, they're going to look very silly if, at the end of this, Portishead CC are issuing press releases complaining about how they've failed to act on the results of their own initiative, which they've spent money on.

Though Avon & Somersets stats at least suggest they are more likely to act on submissions than some forces and seem to be dealing with large enough volumes they dont need to deputise club cyclists to get any more, have the police reached out to other clubs in their area to do similar ?

But it's an interesting point as to why the club went the route of the police grant, and not self fund it even just via their own club funds.

When I think I could have bought a decent n+1 for the amount I've spent on cameras in the last 5 years, and the best outcome thesedays amounts to some words on headed note paper, I've pretty much chucked my deputy badge in the sea.

Well, everyone's focussing on the supplying of the cameras, but that's only part of the scheme - it seems to be as much about the club and the police working together on how to produce quality submissions, so you'd hope that there'd be an improved 'strike rate' in terms of action being taken off the back of them.

Awavey wrote:

have the police reached out to other clubs in their area to do similar ?

PCC Mark Shelford wrote:

...the Police Community Trust wants to say yes to as many local organisations as possible who are working towards the same aims. If you think your group has an idea of how you can help make roads safer, please apply!

OnYerBike wrote:

Alternatively, it's a complete waste of money as not only have they forked out on the cameras, it will also take up valuable police time filing all the reports straight into the bin.

Just as well that they're not doing that, then.

No, that's not fair. Avon & Somerset is one of the better forces for acting on video submissions. Judging by their first Half Year stats, less than 10% of all reports result in no further action.

hawkinspeter wrote:

I couldn't agree more. For return on investment this has to be the smartest and easiest thing for police forces to do, providing that they've already sorted out their video reviewing procedures and resources.

They have more details on the cameras here: https://www.portisheadcycling.com/cameras

(Chilli bullet camera with replaceable lithium battery)

That depends really, because it seems many police forces are recieving more video submissions than they are interested in actioning for free.

On the other hand the cost of a few cameras is small, and the costs to society of dealing with KSIs is relatively high

wycombewheeler wrote:

That depends really, because it seems many police forces are recieving more video submissions than they are interested in actioning for free.

On the other hand the cost of a few cameras is small, and the costs to society of dealing with KSIs is relatively high

Police forces should prioritise dealing with video submissions as it's such a good, cheap way of getting more police 'eyes' out on the roads and collecting good quality evidence of bad and dangerous driving. It's also convenient as it's an easy desk job that isn't time critical (as long as they don't leave it for a week). If they really wanted to they could even set it up as work-from-home if an officer has mobility issues.

Repeating your unsubstatiated assumptions about the financial werewithal of those involved, and misleading characterisations of giving people 'freebies' doesn't make them any more true.

Do you actually read anything you respond to?

A photo of three people. Out of a club of 190+.

And you have no idea of whether the cost of their gear represents small change or many years of hard saving to them.

Nigel Garrage wrote:

They now face the ignomity of not only paying for safety cameras that the police often ignore, but are also funding Sophie and Hugo de Snootsville's freebie out of their own hard-earned wages. I hope the camera doesn't damage their carbon handlebars.

"Ignomity" is not a word. Wouldn't usually pull people up on such a thing but as you're so snotty towards everyone else it's a pleasure to do so.

Regarding your remarks, there are many things the police and other public agencies supply or have supplied free, for example rape alarms, self-defence classes, smoke alarms, home security consultations. The point is to encourage people to have such items because in the long term they are a very worthwhile investment as by cutting incidences of crime, accidents, fires etc they save the huge costs these entail.

Of course the trouble with Tories like yourself is that you go as pink as sizzling gammon at the idea of anyone getting anything for free (except tax breaks for those who don't need them, of course) - that's why you're always trying to dismantle the NHS and the welfare state and moaning about civil servants' pensions.

Nigel Garrage wrote:

It does irk me when freebies are handed out seemingly arbitrarily to people can easily afford to buy themselves 

But they're not being arbitrarily handed out, they're being handed out in a planned initiative to reduce dangerous driving and injuries and deaths on the road which cost far more than a handful of cheap cameras. One fatal road accident costs the exchequer in excess of £2M, each serious injury around £200,000, and each slight injury around £25,000. So if having camera-equipped cyclists prevented just one fatal injury accident because a driver made a better decision due to being worried about being nabbed, that would pay for 40,000 cameras. It's not a "freebie giveaway" but a serious investment in road safety.

Nigel Garrage wrote:

 when they could go to better things - for example local libraries, communities, youth centres, social care, the list goes on and on. But that's because Tories like myself know there isn't an infinite amount of money available or a tree that it grows on, but that costs should be carefully and efficiently managed.

It's your party, that has been in power since 2010, that has systematically slashed funds for all those amenities you mention! Hypocrisy, thy name is Nigel.

Nigel Garrage wrote:

I'm actually surprised you don't agree with this... I mean to take your smoke alarm example, I'm assuming that you'd rather low income families received grants for smoke alarms that the Windsors?

The alternative is means testing, the cost of which dwarves the cost of the cameras.

Perhaps there's a parallel with covid testing. I could afford to pay for mine, but I'd be far less likely to get tested and hence might wander about Lancashire villages spewing virus over innocent nimbies. There's a public benefit in providing them free of charge, to you, me and our own dear Queen for whom we pray every Sunday.

So often we see police asking if anyone has CCTV or dashcam footage. Here, the police community trust (a charity) is doing something to make sure there's more of it.

I agree that the police need the resources to process the evidence, and ultra-amazing Priti Patel, empowered by world king (if we had a true meritocracy) Boris have nearly succeeded in planning to put police numbers up to what they used to be.

And all the other things you mention also need money. But infrastructure, potholes and prosecution cost a lot more than giving out cameras to people who will definitely be on the road, are well engaged with the safety campaign and now have good contacts within the police. Makes perfect sense to me.

TheBillder wrote:

...might wander about Lancashire villages spewing virus over innocent nimbies.

I believe the accepted phrasing is 'panting plumes of virus'.

Nigel Garrage wrote:

"I've never seen so many [rich and middle aged] white people in one place".

S'funny - I don't see anywhere where it tells you anything about their wealth or income.

How many times are you going to try this unsubstantiated claim about how rich they all are?

Nigel Garrage wrote:

if these went anywhere they should have been provided to commuters rather than people who could have just bought them themselves,

So are commuters less able to buy their own than someone on a nice carbon road bike?

Indeed, I would rather not have to spend money on a decent camera, time making sure it is charged and has enough memory space, and especially time making submissions to the police. Unfortunately until there is a sea change in both cycle infrastructure provision and driver attitudes in this country they are going to be a regrettable necessity.

747 NIPs vs 920 warning letters apparently, with only 179 no further actions. which means they prosecuted over half of all the submissions. Roughly 2/3rds of the submissions came from cyclists the rest came from cars,motorcyclists,horse riders and even pedestrians.

Maybe if more forces started publishing this data we'd start to get a picture of how they compared across the country.

That's really great to see - thanks for sharing the additional data.

You may be interested to know that the warning letters were drafted in collaboration with Dr Ian Walker, ultradistance cyclist & leading academic. Examples of the letters can be seen here: - 

https://bristolcycling.org.uk/cycling-with-video-cameras-a-cyclists-pers...