Safe Speed Forums

The campaign for genuine road safety
It is currently Sun Jun 28, 2026 01:04

All times are UTC [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 5 posts ] 
Author Message
PostPosted: Tue Dec 29, 2009 15:52 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Tue Oct 12, 2004 02:17
Posts: 7357
Location: Highlands
Here
By Luke Salkeld wrote:
Last updated at 11:20 AM on 29th December 2009

It is over a year since Swindon became the first town in the UK to scrap 'cash cow' speed cameras after claims that they are a 'blatant tax on the motorist.'
It took the unprecedented decision to ditch fixed-point speed traps and end a constant flow of £60 speeding fines going to the Government.
And now it has emerged that since they were removed the number of motorists caught speeding in the Wiltshire borough has dropped by over 50 per cent.
Axed: The number of motorists caught speeding in Swindon has dropped by more than half after fixed Gatso cameras were removed.
The number of fatal accidents on stretches of road previously covered by the cameras has also fallen - from one to none. After Swindon scrapped the speed cameras in October last year, it was expected that many more towns would follow their lead.
And figures released yesterday are expected to strengthen the argument to get rid of them.
According to Swindon Borough Council, from August 1 2008 to 31 October 2008 there was one fatal and four 'slight injury' accidents on roads covered by the cameras.
From 1 August 2009 until 31 October 2009 there were six accidents - two described as 'serious' and four as 'slight'.
Explaining that the fatality made 2008's statistics worse, the leader of Swindon Borough Council Rod Bluh yesterday insisted this was proof that cameras do no prevent accidents or save lives.
He said: 'These figures clearly show there is no link between accidents and cameras.
'It completely vindicates our position. We are confident we took the right action in getting rid of them. It also clearly shows there is a revenue raising element in having these cameras.'
Last year a nine-strong cabinet of the Tory run council voted in favour of withdrawing from the Wiltshire and Swindon Safety Camera Partnership.
The partnership, which had been running for five years, operated 16 fixed speed cameras, three red-light cameras and an array of mobile traps.
The idea of withdrawing was first mooted 12 months ago by Peter Greenhalgh, councillor for highways in Swindon, who branded the devices 'a blatant tax on motorists'.
It came after a change to the way fixed-point cameras were funded so that the Government got the cash from fines. After the vote Mr Greenhalgh said speeding motorists could still be caught by police with handheld measuring devices..
In the three months between 1 August and 31 October 2009 just 1,033 motorists received Notices of Intended Prosecution after being caught by mobile cameras.
But in the same three month period in 2008 when the Gatso cameras were in place the figure was 2,227.
The figures were released by the Wiltshire and Swindon Safety Camera Partnership following a Freedom of Information request.
It claims the decrease in detection is not solely the result of the removal of fixed Gatso cameras from the Swindon Borough area.

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


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
PostPosted: Tue Dec 29, 2009 17:34 
Offline
User

Joined: Sat Oct 20, 2007 22:50
Posts: 3267
Quote:
It claims the decrease in detection is not solely the result of the removal of fixed Gatso cameras from the Swindon Borough area.



Would be interesting to see how it arrived at that outcome.

Not covered in the article of course... Strange that.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
PostPosted: Tue Dec 29, 2009 21:52 
Offline
User

Joined: Wed Nov 16, 2005 18:50
Posts: 673
weepej wrote:
Quote:
It claims the decrease in detection is not solely the result of the removal of fixed Gatso cameras from the Swindon Borough area.



Would be interesting to see how it arrived at that outcome.

Not covered in the article of course... Strange that.

So presumably it is your contention that exactly the same number of motorists are speeding then. It seems odd then that the only factor that has changed is the removal of GATSO's and the fatalaties are plummeting.

From your previous posts I thought there would be carnage, seems the reverse is true?


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
PostPosted: Tue Dec 29, 2009 22:21 
Offline
User

Joined: Sat Oct 20, 2007 22:50
Posts: 3267
Odin wrote:
So presumably it is your contention that exactly the same number of motorists are speeding then.


...or more.

Odin wrote:
It seems odd then that the only factor that has changed is the removal of GATSO's and the fatalaties are plummeting.


Plumeting? One less fatality in a three month period, two more incidents IIRC, and we know it doesn't take much for an incident to become a K or an S.

And we're not sure they've been removed, just bagged (or just not operating), with all the signage left in place.

Edit:

2008, one death, four slight, total five incidents
2009, two serious, four slight, total six incidents

We all know that the sample is really not good enough to perform extrapolations on for eaither case.

Odin wrote:
From your previous posts I thought there would be carnage, seems the reverse is true?


Seriously, where did I say or even suggest there would be carnage? You must be mistaking me for somebody else, unless I'm mistaken.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
PostPosted: Tue Dec 29, 2009 23:12 
Offline
Friend of Safe Speed
Friend of Safe Speed
User avatar

Joined: Sun Sep 25, 2005 10:16
Posts: 7986
Location: Moved to London
weepej wrote:
And we're not sure they've been removed, just bagged (or just not operating), with all the signage left in place.

That doesn't matter. Everyone knows they are disabled.

weepej wrote:
We all know that the sample is really not good enough to perform extrapolations on for eaither case.

Ah, so you will agree with me that claims like this really are pointless?
Don't forget, we're not the full-time, paid professionals with literally many millions of pounds of PR resource behind us, just in case you want to compare.

Would you also agree that thus far there is no sign of the carnage that people (not necessarily yourself) said would have befallen that scheme?


Did you see the RTTM point I raised to you earlier?

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


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 5 posts ] 

All times are UTC [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 84 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 : 0.037s | 13 Queries | GZIP : Off ]