Letter to Haringey Council from a friend
From The High Street Hornsey Concerned Residents AssocisationDear Sir/Madam
URGENT - CCTV CAR – SAFETY CONCERNS
Over the last few weeks our residents committee has become increasingly concerned at the almost continual presence of the council surveillance car that is often parked on the High Street in Hornsey.
Our main concern centres around the driver and occupants wanton disregard for local traffic bylaws, ironically the laws they are there to enforce and the risk that they are putting local people under. The car shown at Attachment 1 clearly shows a council vehicle parked on yellow lines.
Health & Safety Concerns - Pedestrians
Pedestrian Safety. The double yellow lines that appear around junctions are not designed to deter casual shoppers stopping their cars, but more for safety of pedestrians and vehicles on the junction. By ignoring these yellow lines the driver and occupant of the CCTV vehicle are putting pedestrians at risk. Oncoming drivers coming onto the junction need clear lines of sight to identify pedestrians who may well be already on the junction. Pedestrians have the right of way in this instance.
Safety of Schoolchildren. Given that this area has such a high concentration of schools nearby (the North London Rudolph Steiner Kindergarten, the Greig City Academy and St Mary’s Junior School) and that schoolchildren frequently traffic the High Street throughout the morning, day and into the early evening concerns have been raised for their safety. Although the car has a relatively low [height] profile, small children are obscured and cannot be seen by oncoming cars if they are crossing the junction behind. This makes a collision almost unavoidable and serious child injury is a realistic consequence. This is detailed within Attachment 1 and 2 where a pedestrian is clearly shown at risk in the blind spot behind the parked CCTV car in Attachment 1.
The affected schools are detailed at Attachment 3 in conjunction with a summary of the instances where the vehicles have parked recklessly on or near junctions or on or near crossings or bus stops also marked.
Due to the negligence of the Council employees driving the vehicles and parking on junctions, and the subsequent lawsuit that can be expected we request that this practice cease immediately – after all, we as local tax payers will be held financially responsible and have to pay the settlement in any case. This is an abuse of our financial liability.
Collision Performance. In Attachment 4, the EuroNCap results for a 2007 Smart Car are highlighted. Alarmingly pedestrians fair extremely poorly when considered in a vehicle/pedestrian collision. The question has to be raised why a car so notoriously bad in pedestrian collisions was chosen to operate around a built-up-area close to a number of schools when there are so many other better (in terms of pedestrian collisions) alternatives available? Once again this is negligent and potential grounds for lawsuit action should such a collision occur.
CCTV Presence. The imposing sight of the CCTV vehicle is also extremely intimidating. Their tinted glass and lack of transparency gives them a sinister look and is extremely disconcerting. This is highlighted at Attachments 2 and 5. The question of the powerfulness of the cameras is also raised and concern has been leveled at their eavesdropping capabilities (can they overhear conversations? Who monitors the audio or visual recordings?). Once again the fact they operate around schools is alarming. Questions regarding monitoring, supervision and appropriateness of employees are also raised. The dangers of a person who could spy on young children are evident to all. The issue is even more alarming when a situation where a driver and occupant, both with an unhealthy interest in children, go on shift together. Again this potentially a negligent act if suitable checks are not conducted.
Local Trade. The over zealous use of these vehicles is also having a dramatic effect on the viability of small local businesses who rely on the High Streets passing trade. The vehicles presence is driving Small Businesses to the wall, making life harder for the already hard working ‘average Joes’ of our borough; plumbers who stop at the hardware store, customers collecting furniture. Rather than parking legitimately, cars have decided to avoid the area altogether in case they inadvertently wander into the cameras cross fire. The policy appears to be to ambush drivers who are only keeping local small businesses employed anyway.
Health & Safety Concerns – Other Motorists
Emerging Traffic. Vehicles attempting to move into the main flow of traffic from side streets are at risk due the reduced vision. They cannot view oncoming traffic and are forced to edge forward blindly. Similarly, approaching traffic are unable to identify traffic that may wish to emerge and are unaware of the dangers. A combination of these two factors makes serious collisions inevitable.
Health & Safety Concerns – Driver and Occupant
Internal Conditions. We are also concerned over the Health & safety Issue arising from two large men crammed into such a tiny car for long periods at a time. There may be long term health impacts; back injuries, posture problems, limb ailments as well as any coronary care matters that might arise from council employees being crammed into and immobilized in such a tiny space. Once again, we as local council tax payers are concerned and do not want our taxes eaten up in negligence claims. The question arises have the long term health benefits of constricting movement and mobility of council employees been evaluated?
Impact Performance. As previously discussed the European crash test results are shown at Attachment 4. As highlighted within the Smart ForTwo comes off extremely badly when in a side impact collision with another vehicle. Given the positions that these vehicles are often parked, either precariously on junctions or side on to traffic the occupants are at Risk.
The vehicle is marketed as a vehicle that has the utility to park ‘nose-in’ in longitudinal bays exposing any occupants to greater risk. When this vehicle is operated in heavy traffic, and parked side on, the occupants are at considerable risk.
Health & Safety At Work Act. The council has obligations to its workforce under the Health & Safety At Work Act 1974 and the subsequent amendments under the stipulation to protect employees against Risk
The 1974 Act also outlines the council’s duty of care to pedestrians by using vehicles not ‘fit for purpose’, (ie not pedestrian friendly in a heavily pedestrianised area) stating their duty to:
‘[Protect] persons other than persons at work against risks to health or safety arising out of or in connection with the activities of persons at work;’
Once again local tax payers revenues will be sucked up should some poor unfortunate lorry driver collide with one of these vehicles parked precariously close (and illegally) to busy junctions as reinforced in the photographs at attachment 3.
In terms of ‘duty of care’ to employees the appropriateness of a Smart Car in this role must be flagged as a concern.
Request For Information
In order to continue or research into the Health & Safety Issues of using these vehicles and assessment of their suitability we request that under the Freedom Of Information Act 2000 the following questions are answered.
We would like to remind you of your commitment to replying to this request in the appropriate timeframe [20 days].
Suitability of Staff
Have all staff undergone child protection vetting that allows them to use high powered surveillance cameras outside schools? (in the same way that crossing patrol staff are vetted)
What is the current vetting procedure?
Can employees record their own video for personal use?
Do any of the staff have previous child welfare convictions?
Are all employees legally resident in the UK?
Do any have previous convictions?
Do all drivers hold a current EU or UK driver licence?
Have all non UK employees had their backgrounds checks?
Have drivers undergone specific training?
Have any CCTV vehicles been involved in a collision in the last 12 months?
If so what were the circumstances, who was found at fault and were there any injuries?
Camera Usage – Surveillance Concerns
How powerful are the cameras?
Do they have microphone eavesdropping capabilities?
How are the cameras monitored?
What is done with the footage?
Where is the data stored?
Who has access to this data?
How is it stored?
Could data be lost on a CD?
What measures are in place to protect us?
Vehicle Performance
Has the suitability of better pedestrian collision performing cars been assessed?
Why was the decision to choose a vehicle option where children would come off extremely badly in a collision made over one that they would fair better?
Disregarding Traffic Laws
Will the driver of the vehicle shown in attachment 1 be prosecuted for parking on a yellow line?
Will drivers be educated over where is safe to stop and where isn’t – in terms of the risk to school children, other road users and themselves?
We very much look forward to your reply by the 9 April 2008.
Kind regards,
The High Street Hornsey Concerned Residents Association.