Safe Speed Forums

Portsmouth, Walsall and Birmingham may copy Swindon in ripping out the hated cameras, and others are expected to follow suit.

Tory-run Swindon Borough Council became the first to ditch the yellow boxes after councillor Peter Greenhalgh objected to central Government receiving all the cash from fines while Swindon council pays £320,000 a year for the cameras' upkeep.


Hated: A Swindon speed camera with a 'not in use' sign over it after Swindon Borough Council became the first to get rid of the yellow boxes


Mr Greenhalgh said the fact that 70 people were killed on Swindon's streets in 2007-08 was proof that speed cameras were not making roads safer.

He suggested that cash should be spent on other safety measures, including training for motorists, better street lighting and reduced speed limits in problem areas.


On Thursday the Liberal Democrat leader of Portsmouth City Council, Gerald Vernon-Jackson, said speed cameras could be scrapped there too.

He said: 'We pay £380,000 a year of public money for six fixed speed cameras. I don't think that is good value for money. It costs £40,000 to provide an extra copper. I could buy an awful lot of coppers for £380,000.

'There is a feeling around the country that speed cameras are not great value for money. I have had informal discussions about this with colleagues on other councils, mainly Liberal Democrat. But this is not a party political issue. This is just common sense.'

Anthony Harris, Walsall Council's transport chief, said all 47 speed cameras in the district could be pulled down.

He said: 'It's about establishing respect with the motorist. These cameras have no impact on speeding and drivers understandably view them as traps to siphon off money for the Government.

'In most cases the motorist has no idea he has been caught for at least two weeks. Who is that helping?'

David Sparks of the Local Government Association, which represents all councils in England and Wales, confirmed that other councils were investigating scrapping cameras and predicted a move towards electronic speed warning signs.

He said: 'There's a reluctance to deploy speed cameras because of the cost.'

Meanwhile, the AA highlighted figures in answer to a Tory question showing a decline of 20 per cent in the number of traffic police in England and Wales over the last decade. There are now 1,507 fewer patrolling the roads.

Until recently, speed camera 'partnerships' - comprising councils, police, courts, and road safety groups - kept the revenue from the cameras to invest in road safety, principally more cameras.

After massive criticism, the Government decided that the millions generated from the cameras would go directly into Treasury coffers in return for road safety grants to councils.

3% - the proportion of accidents caused by drivers exceeding the speed limit according to DfT?

(i.e. driver was going so fast they just lost control), but that doesn't mean "above the speed limit" it means so fast that speed was logged as the only/prime cause.

Is that too fast for the car being driven, or the driver's skills, or the road conditions?

Finally, some sense. Speed camera's might have been a well intentioned idea at the very start, but soon turned into just another way for the Government to make cash out of the motorist.
Speed does not kill, lack of attention kills, not paying attention to the road conditions kills, not looking for other road users or pedestrians kills.
Speed signs are a good idea. People do not drive around looking at their speedo all the time, so often don't realise that they are over the limit. [Speed] signs bring that to their attention, IMMEDIATELY ! Not two weeks later.

On an unrelated note, I got a rather nasty trojan disguised as part of MS Word when I clicked that link!

IIRC it's "3%" that are logged as being down to nothing but excess speed (i.e. driver was going so fast they just lost control), but that doesn't mean "above the speed limit" it means so fast that speed was logged as the only/prime cause.weepej
User

Posts: 1105
Joined: Sat Oct 20, 2007 22:50

Utter bunkum, a total and utter misrepresentation of reality.

IIRC it's "3%" that are logged as being down to nothing but excess speed (i.e. driver was going so fast they just lost control), but that doesn't mean "above the speed limit" it means so fast that speed was logged as the only/prime cause.

You're mistaken. The 3% are KSIs in which the police recorded speed in excess of the limit as a factor.

AVG 8.0, which intercepted it.

When I clicked the Mail link, windows installer started trying to do something to Word.

(I'm currently installing a new firewall as a result of this incident)

I'm just wondering if this could be the start of a change in the way we see health and safety??

We have a civic engineer help us for a couple of weeks at this time of the year and he tells me that dispite all the health and safety box ticking that goes on in construction they are still in the Dangerous Jobs Champions League because people don't use their brains, which sounds mighty familiar to me.

My bad. But it goes to show how worthless our speed limits have become since the speed limit reductions programme begun!

My husband heard on the radio, the day Swindon announced the end of the cameras, that in fact it was the end of the Council paying to maintain the cameras, but that some other body, such as the Road Safety Partnership, or whatever, would be taking on that role, so they would still be active, just not run by the council.

Swindon Cameras? - Wiltshire & Swindon Safety Camera Unit – Press Statement.

The Wiltshire and Swindon Safety Camera Unit has been in existence since 2002 and is part of the wider Wiltshire and Swindon Road Safety Partnership.

In common with all other Safety Camera schemes the Unit was financed by central government until April 2007 when new funding arrangements were introduced. Since that date, local authorities have received additional government grants which they may choose to use exclusively or in part to continue operating Safety Cameras. These grants are fixed until 2010 and are unaffected by the numbers of offences detected or the amount of money attributable to fines arising from camera offences.

Since 1 April 2007 all revenue raised by safety cameras has gone directly to the Consolidated Fund in the same way as other fines. From that date the Department for Transport has enhanced the level of funding for road safety through the Specific Road Safety Grant - £110 million per year (£440m over the period 2007/08 - 2010/11). This exceeds the £99.5m of costs reclaimed by Safety Camera Partnerships in 2005/06 through the old netting off funding regime. The Specific Road Safety Grant is also in addition to the road safety funding already provided through the Local Transport Plan process.

Wiltshire County Council has confirmed that it will provide funding in support of Safety Cameras until the end of 2010. Swindon Borough Council has agreed to provide funding until April 2009 and indicated that it will review the position each year.

Over the 12 months to the end of April, 2008, the collision statistics for roads across the Wiltshire and Swindon area, including camera sites indicated a 30.25% reduction in the number of people killed or seriously injured when compared with the baseline data required by the Department for Transport before Safety Camera enforcement began. For children under 16 years the reduction is 47.7%

At the Core camera sites in isolation, the collision statistics indicated a 69% reduction in the number of people killed or seriously injured. For children under 16 years the reduction is 58.5%

Focusing only on Swindon's Core sites, in the three years before camera enforcement was introduced the average number of persons killed or seriously injured was 19 per year. Since safety camera enforcement began at these sites the average number of persons killed or seriously injured is 5.9 per year, a reduction of 69%

10 of Swindon's Core sites have not had a single fatal or serious injury collision since they were established.

Note to editors:
The fixed site cameras at Queens Drive and A420 South Marston in Swindon are currently covered up. This is in no way related to future funding issues. The Swindon Borough Council Highways Authority is responsible for all signage and Traffic Regulation Orders within its jurisdiction. At both locations, speed limits have been changed and new Orders are required to make those limits legally enforceable. Once the Council confirms that the Orders are in effect and that all relevant signage is in place, enforcement will resume.