Safe Speed Forums

The campaign for genuine road safety
It is currently Tue Feb 03, 2026 12:31

All times are UTC [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 6 posts ] 
Author Message
PostPosted: Wed Feb 02, 2011 12:25 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Tue Oct 12, 2004 02:17
Posts: 7355
Location: Highlands
View Online (Lyme Media & Events)here
View Online - Paul Crompton wrote:
BRIDPORT: Council cuts hit speed camera
2nd February 2011 - by Paul Crompton

A NOTORIOUS traffic hot spot will not get an immediate replacement speed camera despite clocking more than 3,600 motoring offences last year.

The burnt out Chideock speed camera is the latest casualty of Dorset County Council cuts and is not set to be replaced until at least the next financial year. A new camera would cost up to £41,000.

Arsonists have twice targeted the west-bound camera into Chideock, which was responsible for 3,606 notices of intended prosecution in 2009/10.

The camera has been redundant since last November’s arsonist attack, despite a rise of 299 offences from the previous year.

A spokesman for Dorset Road Safe, a DCC partner responsible for the speed camera, said the case for the replacement camera was still “up in the air”.

They said: “It will very much depend on whether we can fund its replacement. That’s why it’s up in the air.
“With everything going on with the budget that’s why we cannot say we are going to replace it. It will depend on the budget but we are not in a position to replace it at this time.
“We are always looking at things carefully, that’s why there has been no immediate action to replace it.
“We just need to work out where we are to budget funds for it next year.
“We are coming up to new financial year and we are obviously looking at whether to budget from this year’s or next year’s budget.
“We are not able to say definitely if it’s going ahead and it’s hard to tell people in Chideock something either way when we don’t know.”

The cost of buying a brand new Gatso safety camera is approximately £30,000. Installation could cost a further £5,000 - £10,000, with the annual maintenance of the camera costing between £500 - £1,000.

The money would need to come from DRS’s funding partners.

Chideock is the site of a pioneering scheme whereby villagers became police volunteers to clock speeding motorists and collect data of the volume of traffic along the A35.

The scheme began last July following a meeting between officials and villagers.

The last four months have seen 215 letters sent to motorists found to be speeding by the volunteers. This number includes 95 in September and 78 in October.

The numbers halve in November, the month the camera was burnt out, and fall to just three in December, although it is believed this was due to the blizzards that swept the county that month.

To date there have been no repeat offenders, and no residents of Chideock have been identified speeding.

Police Officers and Police Community Support Officers regularly support the CSW volunteers and will issue tickets to speeding motorists.
Lyme Media & Events Ltd, Unit 3, St Michael's Business Centre, Church Street, Lyme Regis, Dorset DT7 3DB · Tel 01297 446057 · Fax 01297 444981
Of course if you are relying on volunteers their interest in going out in winter is probably waning too. I note that they say that no locals were issued a ticket .... hummm ... that would not reflect the rest of the Speed Watch programs at all. :scratchchin:

_________________
Safe Speed for Intelligent Road Safety through proper research, experience & guidance.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
PostPosted: Wed Feb 02, 2011 13:16 
Offline
Gold Member
Gold Member
User avatar

Joined: Wed Dec 08, 2004 14:26
Posts: 4364
Location: Hampshire/Wiltshire Border
Yes, you are absolutely correct that the main recipients of letters after Community Speedwatch checks are locals. The reason? You have to have multiple reports before you get one and only locals will use the roads often enough.

The other issue is that if huge numbers are being caught over the limit at Chideock then the limit is almost certainly wrong and not the bulk of reasonable and safe drivers. Isn't this the result of "concerned locals" moaning and the place where a guy continually pressed the pelican crossing button to hold up drivers?

_________________
Malcolm W.
The views expressed in this post are personal opinions and do not represent the views of Safespeed.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
PostPosted: Wed Feb 02, 2011 13:51 
Offline
Friend of Safe Speed
Friend of Safe Speed
User avatar

Joined: Sun Sep 25, 2005 10:16
Posts: 7986
Location: Moved to London
Aren't local drivers more likely to know where the local speed monitoring locations are?

_________________
Views expressed are personal opinions and are not necessarily shared by the Safe Speed campaign


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
PostPosted: Thu Feb 03, 2011 16:01 
Offline
Life Member
Life Member
User avatar

Joined: Sun Sep 25, 2005 21:17
Posts: 3734
Location: Dorset/Somerset border
The bloke who spends all day pressing the button on the pelican crossing to inconvenience the through traffic would surely volunteer to man a speed gun.

This little berk.

Image

You've a job to speed through Chideock most of the week, though the crawler lane at the far end (still :40:) gives you a chance. Guess where the scammers sit...


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
PostPosted: Thu Feb 10, 2011 18:20 
Offline
User

Joined: Sun Dec 07, 2008 19:11
Posts: 172
Location: Southampton
Once again the emphasis is on how many vehicles were exceeding the limit. I would have thought that if safety was the main concern, they should be looking at the number of accidents that had occurred and to wither these had increased or decreased.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
PostPosted: Tue Feb 22, 2011 13:34 
Offline
User

Joined: Mon Jan 30, 2006 19:43
Posts: 86
whynot wrote:
Once again the emphasis is on how many vehicles were exceeding the limit. I would have thought that if safety was the main concern, they should be looking at the number of accidents that had occurred and to wither these had increased or decreased.
But if they did that, you'd just say "oh, it's regression to the mean."


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 6 posts ] 

All times are UTC [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 41 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You can post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group
[ Time : 0.043s | 10 Queries | GZIP : Off ]