Town switches off speed cameras

Thread view:

Enable EMail Alerts

Start New Thread

Thread rating:

Vicko Zoomba - 31 Jul 2009 15:49 GMT

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/wiltshire/8178347.stm

Swindon has become the first English authority to scrap the use of its
fixed speed cameras.

The Conservative-run borough council said it was reinvesting the
£320,000 a year maintenance costs for the five cameras in road safety
measures.

The move does not mean the town will be left without any speed cameras
as Wiltshire Police will continue to operate mobile units.

The decision has been called "reckless" by the road safety charity,
Brake.

All these devices do is take pictures of people breaking the speed
limit, they're not actually managing the speeds
Peter Greenhalgh

The deactivated cameras will be replaced with vehicle-activated signs.

"Because the amount of money we were putting into cameras wasn't
delivering the results we required, we decided to make the focus road
safety rather than enforcement," said Conservative councillor Peter
Greenhalgh.

"We'll be working with the road safety partnership, investing in
education programmes [and] working with the Institute of Advanced
Motorists to improve driver training facilities and with schools and
colleges.

"We are also trying to deliver improved programmes for drivers who
have been caught transgressing the speed limits," he said.

"At the end of the day all these devices do is take pictures of people
breaking the speed limit, they're not actually managing the speeds and
they're not educating people."

Tim Shallcross, from the Institute of Advanced Motorists, said:
"Cameras are not the total solution and 10 out of 10 really to Swindon
for reviewing the expenditure that they put into the budget for road
safety.

"If Swindon can show that they have produced a definite reduction in
casualties by diverting the money to other resources from some
cameras, then that's setting a good example for others to follow."

But Helena Houghton from Brake said: "We're strongly opposed to the
decision. We think it's a dangerous experiment with people's lives.

"By removing speed cameras you are removing a deterrent. They are
crucial in lowering death and injury rates."

Looks like Swindon has finally seen sense at last. If only every other
town had the common sense to do the same.

McK.

Reply to this Message

Mortimer - 31 Jul 2009 16:18 GMT

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/wiltshire/8178347.stm

"By removing speed cameras you are removing a deterrent. They are
crucial in lowering death and injury rates."

Looks like Swindon has finally seen sense at last. If only every other
town had the common sense to do the same.

====

Agreed. I'd favour *much* more severe penalties for those drivers who
*cause* accidents by pulling out from side roads, rather than penalising the
drivers who are doing nothing wrong (apart from exceeding an arbitrary and
inconsistently-applied limit) and who have priority. And penalising those
drivers who drive at a stupidly high speed for the conditions at that
instant - condition-related rather than blanket limits. Any limits must be
justified solely on the grounds of road safety, not on NIMBY principles of
noise and "we don't like traffic going that fast even if it's not
dangerous". [1]

In other words, concentrate on the education of *all* road users that you
*must* give way to traffic that has priority over you.

And I much prefer illuminated signs to enforce speed limits and to remind
you "yes, despite appearances, the limit is *still* only 30" every hundred
yards or so. I find that if I trigger a sign I will usually reduce to the
limit even though there is no automatic penalty associated with triggering
those signs.

[1] The justification for the 50 limit on the A34 west of Oxford and the 30
limit between Clifton Hampden and Dorchester in Oxfordshire. In the case of
the A34, a very effective noise barrier was installed for the houses near
Botley, but the limit was not restored to 70 when this was done. I used to
live next door to a traffic policeman and he said that there are some limits
that they do not enforce because they are not there for road-safety reasons.

Reply to this Message