• Question by: Mike Tuffrey
• Meeting date: 21 May 2003

Can I invite you to reconsider withdrawing and re-stating the answer you gave to my colleague, Lynne Featherstone, that you would not issue an instruction under the Act because it might cost money. You have never been shy of spending money. You do not refuse to improve the buses because it will cost money. You do not refuse to improve the roads because it will cost money. Why should you discriminate against users of the overground? Why do you refuse to use your powers on the grounds that it will cost money to sort the problems out? Of course it...

• Question by: Lynne Featherstone
• Meeting date: 21 May 2003

It is really a question -

• Question by: Roger Evans
• Meeting date: 21 May 2003

Well that is not quite what the advertising campaign said. However, when he came to see us your speed camera man also told us that he thought the decision to paint the speed cameras yellow and make them visible was, in his words, `pandering to the motoring lobbies'. Do you agree with that?

• Question by: Roger Evans
• Meeting date: 21 May 2003

Then how do you explain that contradiction?

• Question by: Roger Evans
• Meeting date: 21 May 2003

The main thrust of that advertising campaign seemed to be to say, in fact it did say, that speed cameras are only placed in areas where there has been a history of accidents and casualties. Yet on 5 December, Jim Landles, who is `Mr Speed Cameras' at Transport for London, told us that in 15% of cases cameras could be put in where there has been no history of casualties. Were you not misleading the public with that advertising campaign?

• Question by: Roger Evans
• Meeting date: 21 May 2003

Those of us who listen to local radio were privileged to hear a TfL advertising campaign earlier this year attempting to make the cameras popular. What were the objectives of that ambitious campaign and how much did it cost?

• Question by: Victor Anderson
• Meeting date: 21 May 2003

Is that yes then?

• Question by: Valerie Shawcross
• Meeting date: 21 May 2003

Ken I am really glad to hear that basically you see that road safety goes beyond speed cameras; it goes into needing 20 mile an hour zones and special schemes around schools and playgrounds. I am pleased to hear that Transport for London have apparently said that £12 million will be going into such schemes locally over the next three years I think. My concern is just to make sure that Transport for London takes account of the growing body of research that shows that children in the poorer areas, the deprived communities, are more at risk. I think it...

• Question by: Jenny Jones
• Meeting date: 21 May 2003

I wonder if you could do two things. At TfL, could you ask for a report from the London Safety Camera Partnership, and ask them to comment on it, and to bring ideas on how things could be done more efficiently? Is that a possibility?

• Question by: Jenny Jones
• Meeting date: 21 May 2003

I did not have anything to do with the article. Before the article, my information for over a year was that the facts within it were substantially correct. So, we have been operating safety cameras at ludicrously high levels. Does it really matter whether that is correct or not? The fact is that at the moment, safety cameras are taken as a bit of a joke by the police. I am asking you now if you will help me in some way make the police and the Police Authority take this issue seriously. For example, even if there is film...