Council accused over plans to scrap all speed cameras on Swindon roads (From Swindon Advertiser)
Get involved! Send photos, video, news & views. Text SWINDON NEWS to 80360 or email us
Email us your story, call 01793 501806 or text 80360, starting your message with 'SWINDON
NEWS'
Council accused over plans to scrap all speed cameras on Swindon roads
9:20am Wednesday 15th October 2008 in
SWINDON council could have “blood on its hands”, say opponents of its plans to scrap the town’s speed cameras.
Councillors are expected to agree a proposal to withdraw from the Wiltshire and Swindon Safety Camera Partnership at a meeting next Wednesday.
Coun Peter Greenhalgh, lead member for highways, transport and strategic planning, said that money currently spent on the partnership will be ploughed into a range of schemes to reduce road casualties.
But he admitted that in the short term the council would have to meet the cost of withdrawal, which could be up to £360,000.
One councillor opposed to the scheme has described the plans as madness.
Derique Montaut, Labour’s transport spokesman, said: “The proposal to withdraw from the Safety Camera Partnership is absolute madness. This is Swindon Council playing politics with people’s lives.
“Swindon has had problems of boy racers in the past, and this will make the situation worse.
“Only three months ago the Tories agreed to continue funding for the Safety Camera Partnership now they want to use more tax payers’ money in withdrawing from it.
“Sadly, this whole review was started as a political ruse to embarrass the government over road safety funding within Swindon.
“As the debate has gone on it is clear that, not only does Swindon benefit from Government funding on road safety, the number of accidents have been reduced due to the introduction of speed cameras. Coun Greenhalgh has left himself in a political hole and he is too arrogant to admit that he is wrong.
“I am worried that the council will end up with blood on its hands over this issue.”
Coun Greenhalgh, who instigated the plans, said: “This is not about speed cameras, this is about reducing accidents on our roads and finding the best way to do that.
“This is not a frivolous decision – we commissioned a report from the Transport Research Laboratory, and we have looked carefully at those conclusions.
“It showed that the problems on our roads are attributable to a number of factors.
“I believe we can use the money currently spent on the partnership more effectively.
“This is not about publicity, or people thinking I’m a great guy, this about safety on our roads.”
Among the measures being considered by the council are publicity and education campaigns targeted at young, vulnerable or novice road users. Better police enforcement, vehicle-activated speed warning signs and engineering solutions such as improvements to lighting and junctions will be investigated.
Coun Greenhalgh said: “We will have to cover the cost of the withdrawal, which is a maximum of £360,000, but as Swindon only has a couple of speed cameras I wouldn’t expect the figure to be that high. We are waiting to hear how many staff at the partnership may be affected by this.”
Comments(33)
top_starfish
says...
10:00am Wed 15 Oct 08
The next time someone dies, everyone will blame Greenhalgh, the press will turn on him - what an idiot!
Opinionated Wench
says...
10:11am Wed 15 Oct 08
Spot the spelling mistake!!!
Web Team
says...
10:20am Wed 15 Oct 08
Malkym
says...
10:23am Wed 15 Oct 08
Insight
says...
10:27am Wed 15 Oct 08
This I feel is the true indicator of the issue, Labour are getting very nervous that other councils will follow suit (rightly so) and start deploying real police again in preference to these over priced 'gadgets' that are out of date more or less as soon as they're planted on the side of the road.
It is Labour who're playing politics with this issue, or are they trying to deny that real police are 'less' effective than cameras.
I can imagine a great deal of lobbying in the halls of West Minister as these bandits who make these devices realise their revenue stream is starting to dry up.
This shouldn't even need to be debated, put the police back on the road and be done with it.
Insight
says...
10:31am Wed 15 Oct 08
Previous comment should have read.
"It is Labour who're playing politics with this issue, or are they trying to portrait that real police are 'less' effective than cameras"
Al Smith
says...
10:42am Wed 15 Oct 08
Even Angrier Monkey
says...
10:45am Wed 15 Oct 08
You may have noticed, but people slow down for the camera then speed up again.
This is political scaremongering of the worst kind.
Insight
says...
10:53am Wed 15 Oct 08
Typical of Labour, stamping it's collective feet and resorting to amatuer dramatics rather than logical grown up policy decision making.
Insight
says...
11:05am Wed 15 Oct 08
Assuming there were actually a need to have a rise in council tax.
Are you really trying to say that a five pound increase on your annual council tax bill (of over a thousand pounds, or 10p a week) is too high a price to pay for a return to real policing of our streets and highways and the lives it will no doubt save in comparison to an antique polaroid on a pole?
We should be getting used to paying for the mistakes of this government by now, it's already costing us collectively billions as it is.
Besides, under the current recession we've piloted into by Gordon Brown, your council tax is going to be the least of your worries.
Robh
says...
11:10am Wed 15 Oct 08
Speeding is a problem all over the borough but we rely on a few fixed cameras and a mobile unit hiding in the hedge to control it. The mobile unit is as good as useless now because most Swindon drivers know where they hide and they pick spots to generate maximum income not for road safety.
The old bobby by the roadside with a hand held camera was a more effective way of dealing with the problem. We used to see them all over the borough not just at fixed positions.
Bobfm
says...
11:14am Wed 15 Oct 08
I can answer for the A420, to my knowledge, not one. The problem use to be traffic coming out of Old Vicarage Lane turning into the flow of traffic, which would abruptly slow down due to the cameras, now that doesn't happen. No accidents.
Now what about Queens Drive, can any resident enlighten us.
Big Mac
says...
11:15am Wed 15 Oct 08
What if the council decided to keep the speed cameras and accidents still occur (as they would, 95% of accidents don't involve speeding)?
Would Mr Montaut accept that would mean he had blood on HIS hands?
This is typical snide Labour politics. The council are trying brave new initiatives to actually make our roads safer and all Labour can do is harp on about revenue generating speed cameras that do NOT make our roads safer.
Still, I expect Labour are keen to talk about anything other than the 164,000 more unemployed people announced today. People aren't stupid Mr Montaut, the Labour government doesn't need Swindon Council to embarrass them, they do a perfectly good job of it themselves.
PeeveD
says...
11:32am Wed 15 Oct 08
What... Accused of using common sense and agreeing with the majority of intelligent thinking constituents?
I only hope that one day the council will apply this these criteria to ALL important decisions!
Bobfm
says...
11:32am Wed 15 Oct 08
Job loses, what job loses, they are just seasonally adjusted figures BM, whatever next, Labour don't lose jobs, they lose money, personal data, crime wars, teaching standards, hospital standards, but they don't lose jobs.
Donkey
says...
12:11pm Wed 15 Oct 08
Big Mac
says...
1:06pm Wed 15 Oct 08
Geoff Reid
says...
1:35pm Wed 15 Oct 08
I've read the Transport Research Laboratory report commissioned by SBC and the 2007 annual report on road casualties published by the Department for Transport.
Both reports support the position taken by Councillor Greenhalgh and the cabinet of SBC.
Readers should pay particular attention to the utter lack of reference to either report by Derique Montaut.
His opinion is overtly political and it's evident that he really is playing politics with peoples emotions, particularly the recently bereaved.... whereas SBC's actions seemed to be solidly grounded in factual data.
Malkym
says...
2:10pm Wed 15 Oct 08
localgirl80
says...
2:11pm Wed 15 Oct 08
PeeveD
says...
3:09pm Wed 15 Oct 08
Geoff Reid wrote:Geoff for Mayor!
I've read the Transport Research Laboratory report commissioned by SBC and the 2007 annual report on road casualties published by the Department for Transport. Both reports support the position taken by Councillor Greenhalgh and the cabinet of SBC. Readers should pay particular attention to the utter lack of reference to either report by Derique Montaut. His opinion is overtly political and it's evident that he really is playing politics with peoples emotions, particularly the recently bereaved.... whereas SBC's actions seemed to be solidly grounded in factual data.
How refreshing to see a comment based on fact and not just personal feeling.
And well done to Cllr Greenhalgh... keep pushing fine sir...!
I Too
says...
5:07pm Wed 15 Oct 08
However on this particular issue I am very proud of SBC for using initiative.
It is naive to the extreme to think that speed cameras are the best way to police our roads.
Note I call them SPEED cameras, not SAFETY cameras.
They could also be called CASH cameras, but they have very little to do with safety.
The causes of accidents include tailgating, lack of due care and attention, unroadworthy vehicles, pulling out of junctions and changing lanes without looking, driving under 'the influence' and a whole load of issues not monitored by a camera which simply issues a fine if you inadvertantly creep over the speed limit.
On this issue I am actually proud of SBC .If I used my real name many councillors would be very surprised that I have written that statement twice.
I hope they have the courage and the backing to see this all the way.
Bobfm
says...
5:42pm Wed 15 Oct 08
Do we believe that faced with, shall we say, fiscal arm twisting, will SBC succumb to Government pressure. Will the council be brave or cowards. Lets hope the former.
Worz
says...
6:18pm Wed 15 Oct 08
I find that very worrying, that if you're a councilor, you should feel the need to keep quiet and not put your opinion forward, presumably for fear of repercussions from the other councilors. So much for local democracy.
I Too
says...
6:55pm Wed 15 Oct 08
I find that very worrying, that if you're a councilor, you should feel the need to keep quiet and not put your opinion forward, presumably for fear of repercussions from the other councilors. So much for local democracy.
Relax! I'm not a councillor.
Most of the regulars on this site already know that
I Too
says...
7:16pm Wed 15 Oct 08
I Too, surely not an opposition councillor. That aside call me cynical, but can HMG allow their 'fund raiser' to be damaged?.
Coo what's going on.
I'm still NOT a councillor. I'm not connected to the local authority in any way.
I am also not a member of any political party.
Merely a member of the vocal public.
My comment about councillors discovering my identity was used because I usually complain to councillors.
They would probably refer to me as a known nimby, but today I have commended them.
Now please calm down people ;-)
Town Of The Future
says...
10:22pm Wed 15 Oct 08
Personally, i dont speed so dont mind cameras at all. And yes i'm 31 and drive an escort GTI!
Why are you all so opposed to them, the only arguments above seem down to the fact that you side with a political party!
Getting rid of the fines and increasing the points to 4-5 would get the speeders off the road which would please everyone and go some way to stop speeding drivers killing our kids.
I think there should be of them but most importantly, in the right places for safety and not cash.
Town Of The Future
says...
10:30pm Wed 15 Oct 08
I today witnessed a complete prat in a megane, wheelspin from under transfer bridges, undertake 3 cars through a pedestrian crossing on Cirencester way coming off the roundabout, (and what happened there on christmas day?). The megane then went within a whisker of slamming into the truck in front of him, before cutting in front of the small van to his right, again by a whisker, speeding off at aprox over 50MPH towards Wickes.
As mentioned above, any accident here would of been through tailgating, changing lanes etc, but ultimately and more importantly, it was the drivers desire to SPEED which meant he had to commit the other stupid driving offences!
Geoff Reid
says...
11:04pm Wed 15 Oct 08
Town of the future says....
"I think there should be of them but most importantly, in the right places for safety and not cash"
As soon as a 'safety' camera has recorded a single vehicle exceeding the speed limit it has both failed as a 'safety' device and failed as a deterrent.
Also, the 'If they save one life they're worth it' argument is reversible. If the presence of a 'safety' camera causes one death, (as recently happened to a motorcyclist in the North), should they not all be removed?
Let's be honest and call a spade a spade. They are not 'safety' cameras, they are 'speed' cameras, which sit passively recording offence after offence leading to the issue of fine after fine with very little, or no impact at all on making an area any 'safer'.
The belief that 'safety' cameras are an adequate replacement for the visible presence of traffic police on the roads is misplaced, as is believing cctv deters crime as efficiently as bobbies on the beat.
We, as a society, should think very carefully before going any further down the route of accepting and expecting scarecrow policing on the cheap, be it a speed camera, cctv or pcso.
Demand the real thing.
'VAS' signs, (Vehicle Activated Speed Signs), cost 50 time less than Gatsos and are more effective because, by politely reminding drivers that they are exceeding the speed limit,
The biggest beneficiaries of speed cameras are the
Geoff Reid
says...
11:14pm Wed 15 Oct 08
Continues:
'VAS' signs, (Vehicle Activated Speed Signs), cost 50 time less than Gatsos and are more effective.
The cost of installing one Gatso is more than the yearly wage of a traffic policeman. Which would you rather have?
Swindon Borough Council intends to implement SPAR, the strategic plan for accident reduction, and is confident that the plan will reduce accidents to a lower level than we are currently seeing.
If SBC do not implement SPAR, do not leave the W&SSC partnership and leave the situation 'as is', (which is what the pro speed camera lobby want), accident rates will CONTINUE TO RISE.
This really is a no brainer.....
Bobfm
says...
8:00am Thu 16 Oct 08
That aside is anyone else experiencing the SA site locking their computer in. For the last few days the only way I can get off the site is by Control Alt Delete, and close in the Task Manager. I will also not let me reduce to the task bar or open things like copy paste.
This happens on both IE and Firefox.
Anyone any ideas.
Worz
says...
4:03pm Thu 16 Oct 08
Town Of The Future wrote:TOTF, a number of points here.
And i wonder how many of you would change your mind if your child was knocked down and killed!
Personally, i dont speed so dont mind cameras at all. And yes i'm 31 and drive an escort GTI!
Why are you all so opposed to them, the only arguments above seem down to the fact that you side with a political party!
Getting rid of the fines and increasing the points to 4-5 would get the speeders off the road which would please everyone and go some way to stop speeding drivers killing our kids.
I think there should be of them but most importantly, in the right places for safety and not cash.
If the collision was in the road (other than at a crossing or red traffic light), then it was the child's fault, no question, or the parent's fault for not keeping an eye on the child.
You can't say that you never speed, because to do so you would have to be permanently watching your speedo, and hence you would never look at where you're driving. I can believe that you never intentionally exceed the posted limit, and then only by a small amount and for a short time. I don't believe that you never glance at your speedo and think "Ooh ease of a little".
I'm opposed to speed cameras because they've been used to replace safety with income and savings in police staffing levels for the government.
Like you, I could have more sympathy for speed cameras if all they did was give you points and eventually ban you for totting up. However, safe driving != slow driving.
Worz
says...
4:10pm Thu 16 Oct 08
>8:00am Thu 16 Oct 08
>This happens on both IE and Firefox.
My Firefox is fine, I never use IE. Strange that both should go the same way, at the same time.
Do you use a proxy at your isp which could have screwed up?
Have you installed any new programs which could have altered a dll somewhere in the \windows directory?
Do you run as an administrator all the time, so that some other web site could have sneakily caused you to download & overwrite something in your OS?
More News stories
- Regent Street evacuated due to gas leak
- Fire at Penhill Royal British Legion Club
- Thamesdown services running as normal
- Swindon schools remain open
- Artist set to make a splash with her work
- Football fans angry at train firm cancelling discounts
- GWH chief backs call for more private care income
- Police chief in call for CCTV cameras
- Bomb disposal unit in Pinehurst
- Country show is in urgent need of help
A speed camera on Queens Drive
Most popular
Local Information
Enter your postcode, town or place name
Comment now! Register or sign in below.
Log in with us
Fields marked with * are mandatory.
Or
Log in with