Your Swindon
Get involved: send your photos, videos, news & views by texting 'SWINDON NEWS' to 80360 or email »
|
|
|
|
|
|
Got a story? EMAIL US, call us on 01793 501806 or text us at 80360, starting your message
with 'SWINDON NEWS'
Speed camera is back on the road
12:30pm Tuesday 26th August 2008
A SPEED camera that some politicians feared could be for the chop will soon be back in action.
The camera on Queens Drive has been out of operation for several weeks.
Some had feared it would not be replaced while Swindon Council decided if it would continue backing the speed camera scheme across the town.
But now it has emerged that the camera will go back into action early in September.
“We’re waiting for further confirmation from Swindon Council that the signage on Queens Drive is correct so that our operations there are legally enforceable,” said Sgt Nick Blencowe of the Wiltshire and Swindon Safety Camera Partnership.
“Swindon Council just needs to tell us when that work is done so that we can get going again.”
Questions over the future of the speed camera were raised in July.
At that time South Swindon MP Anne Snelgrove launched her own campaign to save the camera which she feared may have been pulled.
Swindon Council last November backed a plan to withdraw the safety camera partnership’s funding if Government refused to return cash made by the cameras to the borough.
Since then officers and councillors have been deciding the next step.
The matter is expected to be debated at a forthcoming council meeting. But the imminent return of the Queens Drive camera has been welcomed by Labour councillor Derique Montaut (Lab, Western).
“The camera has been out of use for months,” said councillor Derique Montaut (Lab, central).
“But working with the local MP we put pressure on the council to make representations to the road safety partnership, of which they are a member.
“The Labour team of Councillors and MPs will keep pressure on the council to u-turn on its plans to scrap speed cameras in September.”
Uncertainty still hangs over the future of the speed camera at Chiseldon.
The device was burned out and then carted away in May. But since then no camera has taken its place.
Sgt Blencowe said: “There is a question of cost to do with the reconnection of that camera,” he said.
“We have asked Swindon borough council if it will pay that cost but it is waiting until councillors have made a decision about the authority’s future in the camera partnership before they find cash for this.
“We, as a partnership, are more than happy to operate the cameras but only as and when they are legally enforceable.”
Your Say YourSwindon
john c, swindon says...
12:49pm Tue 26 Aug 08
We all know that speed cameras are all about fund raising, if they wanted to make the roads safer they would speed the time and money from speed cameras putting Automatic Number plate Recognition systems into patrol cars and use them to get some of the 1.000.000+ uninsured / unlicensed drivers off of the roads.
Big Mac, Old Town says...
1:16pm Tue 26 Aug 08
I am more than happy about anything that genuinely increased road safety. I am more than happy to accept that the camera on Queens Drive does lower the amount of accidents.
All I need in order to believe it are the actual, unmanipulated, un-'adjusted' figures as mentioned in my first post.
If the Speed Camera Partnership refuse to issue them then we can only assume that they do not support their case.
Malkym, Highworth on the hill says...
1:52pm Tue 26 Aug 08
jabbra4, Swindon says...
2:18pm Tue 26 Aug 08
nansview, Swindon says...
2:19pm Tue 26 Aug 08
Big Mac, Old Town says...
2:32pm Tue 26 Aug 08
If it doesn't, there is no need for it to be there and it can only be there to raise revenue.
Remember, speeding is a contributary factor in just 5% of all road accidents. Therefore, 95% of all accidents occur where nobody is breaking the speed limit.
The reason motorists are sick to death of the 2 MILLION speed camera tickets that are issued each year is that they do not tackle the real problem of road safety - which is poor driving skills and tiredness.
I have never, ever received a speeding ticket but I still have no faith in the reasoning behind speed cameras.
Time after time after time is has been proven that there are far more effective measures in tackling road safety but all the government do is instal more and more cameras.
The statistics speak for themselves: even if every single driver in the UK stopped speeding overnight, 95% of road accidents would STILL happen!
Opinionated Wench, Swindon says...
2:43pm Tue 26 Aug 08
RF1, Swindon says...
3:00pm Tue 26 Aug 08
These days they are signposted, painted in bright pretty colours and roadmaps and sat-navs will tell you where they all are - so whose fault is it when you get snapped by one?
If I say that fire is hot and you still decide to plunge your hand into it - whose fault is that?
So what if they ARE all about making money - there's one easy fix - isn't there?
Slow down to the correct max speed instead of the one you think the road should have, pay more attention to the road instead of piddling about with your mobiles and then they won't make any money at all.
That WILL indeed reduce accidents - speed cameras or not.
Malkym, Highworth on the hill says...
3:09pm Tue 26 Aug 08
Opinionated Wench wrote:OW just a minor addendum " And if their parents had any sense and parental control over their children they would drum it in to them time and time again about the dangers of playing near busy main roads"
I dont speed, I have never gotten a ticket. But like many others i still dont believe that speed cameras are the answer to safety problems. nansview... Why would children be playing on or near queens drive anyway?? If they had any sense they wouldnt be playing near roads. And also people should use the crossing a bit more....
yiddo, swindon says...
3:28pm Tue 26 Aug 08
Opinionated Wench wrote:You dont recall yhe kids death afew years back near Coate,Malkym in an ideal world yeh but truth is this does happen
I dont speed, I have never gotten a ticket. But like many others i still dont believe that speed cameras are the answer to safety problems. nansview... Why would children be playing on or near queens drive anyway?? If they had any sense they wouldnt be playing near roads. And also people should use the crossing a bit more....
Big Mac, Old Town says...
3:34pm Tue 26 Aug 08
Slow down to the correct max speed instead of the one you think the road should have
That's an interesting comment, RF1.
UK speed limits were first introduced in 1965 (well over 40 years ago) in response to crashes that actually happened due to excessive fog.
Car were built differently and had completely different performance and safety characteristics in those days, yet the speed limits have never changed.
Both the RAC and The AA back the raising of the motorway speed limit to 80mph, yet the government still resist. Thankfully, the Tories have promised to raise the limit when they win the next general election.
I would be very careful when suggesting that speed limits are the 'correct maximum speed'. All they represent is the 'legal maximum speed' as they're based on guesswork and data that is four decades old.
nansview, Swindon says...
3:47pm Tue 26 Aug 08
scottyincs, says...
4:05pm Tue 26 Aug 08
nansview wrote:Perhaps some people with kids need to believe it's not only OTHER people that need to slow down. I live at the bottom of a slope at the end of a cul de sac and always drive down the street slowly in case the kids in the street are in the road.
Opinionated wench you cetainly are, read it properly before you attack me, I said people speed in residential areas regardless of children playing, a residential area is anywhere there are houses where people live, some with children who may be playing, or crossing the road with a parent, but the speed they bomb up our residential road, a child would not stand a chance, some are cul de sac's, dead ends near parks, but people speed up them like the M4, why shouldn't children play, did you never play outside, if you can't allow for children along residential roads, then god help everyone, I suppose it's your given right to go as fast as you like in residential areas, if a speeding motorist hits a child, it would always be the parents fault wouldn't it, consideration on the road is long gone, but when people refuse to make allowances for children, that's sad.
My dipstick neighbour, who has a couple of kids, invariably has to slam on his brakes as he arrives on his drive.
But I bet he thinks his brood are more at risk from other people
RF1, Swindon says...
4:06pm Tue 26 Aug 08
....so then all the idiots will be driving at 100mph instead of 90...great strategy that one Big Mac!
If you want people to keep to a speed limit then set the signs 10mph SLOWER not FASTER!!!!
RF1, Swindon says...
4:12pm Tue 26 Aug 08
nansview, Swindon says...
4:19pm Tue 26 Aug 08
yeti, swindon says...
4:29pm Tue 26 Aug 08
john c, swindon says...
5:30pm Tue 26 Aug 08
yeti wrote:I have no problem with people who break the law being punished. What gets my goat is the way the camera partnerships try and wrap it up as being for safety’s sake. As I said in an earlier post if you want to make the roads safer then put more effort into getting the unlicensed / uninsured drivers of the road.
if people dont speed then they wont get done for speeding.i think the money collected should go into the local communities, but have no problem with more cameras being installed.
yingtong, swindon says...
6:52pm Tue 26 Aug 08
Big Mac, Old Town says...
7:28pm Tue 26 Aug 08
RF1 wrote:Oh dear, oh dear, oh dear.
Both the RAC and The AA back the raising of the motorway speed limit to 80mph, yet the government still resist. Thankfully, the Tories have promised to raise the limit when they win the next general election.....so then all the idiots will be driving at 100mph instead of 90...great strategy that one Big Mac!If you want people to keep to a speed limit then set the signs 10mph SLOWER not FASTER!!!!
You STILL don't get it, do you?
Speed is only a contributing factor is just 5% of ALL road traffic accidents.
It doesn't matter if people drive 80mph, 90mph or 100mph.... speed is NOT what the problem is!
Seriously, this just shows how effective government propaganda is.
RF1, please, THINK about facts and reality, not just the lies you're fed.
Robh, Swindon says...
10:07pm Tue 26 Aug 08
That could mean driving at 20mph through housing estates at tea time to driving at 70mph on Queens Drive at 3am. Putting a random speed limit on a road won't stop most accidents.
Country Girl, Swindon says...
9:46am Wed 27 Aug 08
What about the people who drink drive? Or those who insist on using their mobile phones while driving? Those drivers should be the ones under attack here.
I had my vehicle written off along Queens Drive by a driver who was way over the limit at 8am...
Maybe the British Government should adopt the French way of applying speed limits...they change on a motorway according to the weather conditions and weight of traffic...
ourtone, Freshbrook says...
10:19am Wed 27 Aug 08
You want the Wilts Speed Camera Partnership to release the figures for the time the Queens Drive camera has been down, and the same period the previous year.
You want to know if more accidents occurred.
I already know the answer.
How?
Imagine, if Queens Drive had suddenly become more dangerous as a result of not having a working GATSO, what would the the Wilts Speed Camera Partnership have done?
They would have had a Press Conference. They would have invited ol’ ‘Bandwaggon’ Snelgrove to come along. They would have put the figures up on Powerpoint slides in big, Blood-Red letters. They would have said that the council were murdering babies by leaving the camera out of action. They wouldn’t have missed the opportunity.
They have done none of this.
There’s your answer buddy!
g5wq, south marston says...
10:37am Wed 27 Aug 08
if no one speeds and triggers the cameras , the company makes no money and goes bust .
simple isnt it
Big Mac, Old Town says...
11:20am Wed 27 Aug 08
Bobfm, South Marston says...
11:33am Wed 27 Aug 08
SBC's decision is so simple, use the £500k given to the partnership to install flashing signs on all housing estates and vulnerable roads. Come on Councillors this must be the easiest decision in the world to take, why keep sitting on your hands, or could it just be you also would prefer the fine money, as opposed to improving road safety.
RF1, Swindon says...
11:44am Wed 27 Aug 08
Big Mac wrote:Oddly enough Big Mac I do have my own mind and my own opinion - and it is this:
RF1 wrote:Both the RAC and The AA back the raising of the motorway speed limit to 80mph, yet the government still resist. Thankfully, the Tories have promised to raise the limit when they win the next general election.....so then all the idiots will be driving at 100mph instead of 90...great strategy that one Big Mac!If you want people to keep to a speed limit then set the signs 10mph SLOWER not FASTER!!!!Oh dear, oh dear, oh dear.You STILL don't get it, do you?Speed is only a contributing factor is just 5% of ALL road traffic accidents.It doesn't matter if people drive 80mph, 90mph or 100mph.... speed is NOT what the problem is!Seriously, this just shows how effective government propaganda is.RF1, please, THINK about facts and reality, not just the lies you're fed.
The argument about speed cameras is generally silly - as is the argument about speed. If a sign says 50 and you go at 60 it is your own bloody fault if you get a ticket really - isn't it? Nothing to do with the spped limit being too low, nothing to do with the sods who put the camera there, or checked the film, or printed the fixed notice off and mailed it to you - it is purely down to the person with the foot on the gas!
My wife got caught doing 50 in a 40 zone and what did she do? Tantrums? Emails to The Sun? Set fire to the nearest camera? No - she blamed herself for getting caught, paid the fine and moved on.
Get a life people and stop getting so upset about something that we all know so much about - and blaming everybody and everything else for something that YOU are responsible for.
My other point about speed is perfectly valid - whatever speed limit you WILL have a percentage who will drive above it - so have a speed limit of 100mph and some will go at 110 or even 120 - excessive speed DOES cause fatalities - and 5% is still a figure to be frowned upon - not condoned. So next time read MY comment properly before you start poo-pooing it.
Either way, you seem to have a rather unhealthy and unnatural fixation with speed cameras - perhaps THAT needs looking into??
nansview, Swindon says...
12:19pm Wed 27 Aug 08
Big Mac, Old Town says...
12:48pm Wed 27 Aug 08
Either way, you seem to have a rather unhealthy and unnatural fixation with speed cameras - perhaps THAT needs looking into??
Says the person who has written several times, and with the lengthiest posts, on this thread.
Hmmm.
ourtone, Freshbrook says...
12:58pm Wed 27 Aug 08
Oddly enough Big Mac I do have my own mind and my own opinion - and it is this:
The argument about speed cameras is generally silly - as is the argument about speed.
Get a life people and stop getting so upset about something that we all know so much about - and blaming everybody and everything else for something that YOU are responsible for.”
The argument is not silly, it is deadly serious.
Let us suppose there are two ways of policing traffic, ‘A,’ & ‘B.’
If you adopt ‘A,’ Road Deaths will average 3,600 p.a.
If you adopt ‘B, Road Deaths will average 2,400 p.a.
Thus, if you choose ‘A,’ you are choosing to kill 1,200 people a year.
‘A,’ is the current UK policy, with its unhealthy dependence on Speed Cameras.
‘B,’ exists, but it costs money, rather than raising it. The DoT know this, which is why they are happy to allow 1,200 people a year to continue dying unnecessarily.
Please checkout the site safespeed.co.uk which is full of Inconvenient Truths for the DoT.
If you want to prove this, make an FOI request to the Wiltshire Safety Camera Partnership, asking for the figures Big Mac mentions at the start of the thread. You may not like what you find.
So no, nansview, not well said at all.
RF1, Swindon says...
1:10pm Wed 27 Aug 08
Big Mac wrote:That's me - well spotted - no eyesight problems then!!
Either way, you seem to have a rather unhealthy and unnatural fixation with speed cameras - perhaps THAT needs looking into??Says the person who has written several times, and with the lengthiest posts, on this thread.Hmmm.
Big Mac, Old Town says...
1:17pm Wed 27 Aug 08
RF1, Swindon says...
1:18pm Wed 27 Aug 08
‘A,’ is the current UK policy, with its unhealthy dependence on Speed Cameras.
‘B,’ exists, but it costs money, rather than raising it. The DoT know this, which is why they are happy to allow 1,200 people a year to continue dying unnecessarily."
Dress that up however you like - it is still the blaming of all ills on speed cameras - they are there, they are staying there for the forseeable - so get used to it.
The majority of what happens on the road is caused by good or bad driving - the fact that a speed camera is clicking away in the background is immaterial - it's this pre-occupation with the presence of speed cameras that is unhealthy.
RF1, Swindon says...
1:19pm Wed 27 Aug 08
Big Mac wrote:Ooooooooooh.......
And unlike some people, not hypocritical either.
ourtone, Freshbrook says...
3:20pm Wed 27 Aug 08
1:18pm Wed 27 Aug 08
"Thus, if you choose ‘A,’ you are choosing to kill 1,200 people a year.
‘A,’ is the current UK policy, with its unhealthy dependence on Speed Cameras.
‘B,’ exists, but it costs money, rather than raising it. The DoT know this, which is why they are happy to allow 1,200 people a year to continue dying unnecessarily."
Dress that up however you like - it is still the blaming of all ills on speed cameras - they are there, they are staying there for the forseeable - so get used to it.
The majority of what happens on the road is caused by good or bad driving - the fact that a speed camera is clicking away in the background is immaterial - it's this pre-occupation with the presence of speed cameras that is unhealthy.”
You are so close, but wrong in your conclusions. It is the DoT’s pre-occupation with the speed cameras as a method of policing roads that is unhealthy. It doesn’t work and is killing people. They have the figures. They know this. They lie to protect themselves.
The majority of what happens on the road IS caused by good or bad driving, so Police that. Put real people out on the roads with the vehicles and equipment and training to deal with the problems.
Catch the unlicensed and the uninsured and the reckless and the dangerous and the drunk and the distracted and the habitual phone users and the tailgaters and the dangerous over-takers and the people who can’t adequately see out of their cars. Catch the people who currently cause 95% of the road deaths in this country.
Or let people die because its cheaper and easier. And lie about it.
Big Mac, Old Town says...
3:29pm Wed 27 Aug 08
Anyway, why might anyway expect the Department of Transport to care about 1,200 additional (but needless) deaths on the road when over at the Department of Health the NHS kills some 10,000 people a year through sheer neglect, incompetence and a pathological inability to clean things properly.
And that's before we start on the deliberate witholding of life-saving drugs and treatments.
ourtone, Freshbrook says...
5:11pm Wed 27 Aug 08
I have just completed and dispatched an F.O.I. request to the Wilts Safety Camera partnership for the information you mention at the start of the thread.
They have 20 days to respond, and I imagine they will do so on the basis of a Section 36 exmption excuse. (Look it up on their website.) It basically means they don't have to give the info out if they are planning to publish it at some point in the future.
Big Mac, Old Town says...
7:26pm Wed 27 Aug 08
AK, Swindon says...
11:22am Mon 1 Sep 08
The speed camera on Queens, I live opposite it and do not notice much speeding (except late at night when there is little traffic and few pedestrians)
The majority of vehicles travel at a very reasonable speed for what is essentially a dual carrigeway, I know this as I am one of the annoying idiots who chooses to cross at the camera rather than using the crossing 200 yards away (sorry) I've never come close to being hit and find that vehicles do drive sensibly.
Besides, the camera only ever covers one direction, meaning that drivers have always been able to speed on Queens without being caught! The whole issue is moot!
Therefore RF1 I suggest that you spend as much time on/near this road as I do before spouting such hysterical rubbish!
BTW I can't drive and so can't speed or be fined!!!
Your sayYourSwindon
Add your comment
Register for a FREE Swindon Advertiser account and you can have your say on today's news and sport by adding comments on articles we publish. The best comments may even get published in the paper.
Please register now or sign in below to continue.
In this section
- Recycling firm's appeal after its £9,000 digger stolen
- Music quiz at bowls club
- Residents lose fight to stop drug centre
- Bryan's debut novel
- Woman admits nightclub attack
- Melinda cries as victim has heart attack
- Interest rate slashed to historic low
- Trains back to normal after signal fault
- Recycling on the cards at superstore
- Teenagers beat boy up at Coate Water
Sponsored Links
Local Advertisers
Local Information
Enter your postcode, town or place name
Big Mac, Old Town says...
12:36pm Tue 26 Aug 08
1. Number of road accidents on Queens Drive during the period the camera was out of action.
2. Number of road accidents on Queens Drive during the corresponding period last year when the camera was operational.
If number 2 is roughly equal to, or higher than, number 1, it's proof positive that it's all about the cash folks.
The Camera Partnership knows these figures and the public have a right to know them also.
We're waiting...