Safe Speed Forums

mega link

'Give us more speed cameras', says driver caught out twice

Oct 5 2006

By Glenn Ebrey glennebrey@trinitysouth.co.uk

MOLE Valley needs more speed cameras to "change the attitude" of irresponsible motorists.

This is the view of speed camera supporters in the district, who have hit back at criticism of the much-maligned yellow boxes.

Presently, the only permanent speed camera in the area is the infamous camera on the A24, at Mickleham.

The camera is unpopular with some drivers and has been the target of vandals.

But one driver, who has been flashed twice by speed cameras, argues that more are needed in Mole Valley.

Bob Ball, from South Holmwood, has six points on his licence thanks to speed cameras. But he has no sympathy for himself or others who have fallen into the speed trap.

"When I was pictured by a camera for the second time I felt really aggrieved,"he said.

"But when I look back at it I was doing 40mph in a 30mph zone, so I could have no arguments.

"It has changed my attitude and taught me a lesson. People who get flashed aren't victims - I was not a victim because I was breaking the law."

He cites the stretch of the A24 near South Holmwood as a prime example of a location where people drive with "a complete disdain" for the law.

Beare Green ward council-lor Valerie Homewood spoke out at last week's council meeting about the need for extra cameras.

She told the Advertiser she would like to see more placed at accident blackspots,including the A24 near the Beare Green roundabout.

Government guidelines only allow cameras in areas with high accident statistics and "casualty levels" - defined as causing injury.

The Surrey Safety Camera Partnership admits it is restricted by this.

Spokesman Adrian Creek said: "We cannot just go around putting cameras up willy nilly.We need the statistics to back us up."

The partnership recently came under fire for refusing to reveal how many drivers have been flashed by the Mickleham camera. But it did reveal that casualty levels have dropped by 73 per cent in the past 11 months.

================

so if 5% of crashes have exceeding the speed limit as a contributory factor, how is it possible for a camera to reduce crashes by 73% in 11 months? They are getting wilder and wilder.

_________________
Paul Smith
Our scrap speed cameras petition got over 28,000 sigs
The Safe Speed campaign demands a return to intelligent road safety

Why 11 months? What happened 12 months ago?

Is this an example of double think.

Two and Two make five because big brother says it does.

5% of accidents are caused by breaking speed limits.
Because we have enforced the limit accidents have been reduced by 73%

_________________
Oct 11 Birmingham Half Marathon. I am running for the British Heart Foundation.
http://www.justgiving.com/Rob-Taylor

Sounds like the guy who got caught twice only wants more cameras because he’s peeved about getting caught twice himself. If they install any more he’ll certainly be on for a ban.

_________________
Useless laws weaken necessary laws.

A few facts about the box hill camera on the a24.

its a dual carriage way with a 50 mph limit. the camera is located on a safe straight stretch of the road. there have been massive improvements to the road to reduce the camber and protect cars from running off the ditch.

there have been as many (I'm local I see the cars) accidents post camera as before, but the ENGINEERING improvements (crash bars) are stopping cars from rolling down the ditch and presumably reducing injuries.

The police have also installed CCTV at the biker's meeting point and have a very high police presence (Ive counted 15 cops on one day)...

So the accident improvement is down to:
1 - engineering improvements
2 - visible police presence

the camera is there for revenue - it only ever points to catch traffic on the daul carriage way, never the signle carriage way section where 50mph is more appropriate. its also been out of service for as many months as its been up because it keeps getting burned out.

that is probably why they wont show how many tickets have been issued.

I'll draft a response..

As a resident of Mole valley I was interested to read your article where Bob Ball, from South Holmwood demands more cameras in the area. In your article Bob is right to be embarrassed by driving at 40mph in a 30 limit (which represents 25% over the speed limit), as 30 mph limits are often the least safe roads to exceed the limit. However, I fail to see how this is relevant to a well-maintained dual carriage way with a lower than avg. 60mph limit. Road safety is about getting drivers to choose an appropriate speed for the conditions, and focus on hazard priority and anticipation, not watching their speedo. This has been evidenced recently by the DfT recent statistics that show that speeding accounts for only 5% of accidents (for motorcycles its half that).

Speed cameras don’t stop inappropriate speed, failing judge a gap or emerging on to the A24 without looking properly – which are likely to be the real causes of any accidents on the South Holmwood stretch of the A24. In addition any credit that can be taken for casualty reductions at Mickleham, must be handed to Mole valley police for the excellent Bikesafe initiative targeted at box Hill visitors, their very high police presence in the area including CCTV to tackle anti-social riding and driving, and of course the massive road engineering improvements that have been undertaken on the bends. Despite the Micklem camera being located at one of the safest stretches of the road, its been out of action for as long as its been up, so its no wonder they wont release the figures – The number of tickets issued is probably zero.


any comments - i'll include references as usual

just had emial confirmation that my letter is going to be published.