Mp’s anger over speed cam plans

THE people of Swindon should be consulted over plans to scrap speed cameras, according to an MP.

Michael Wills, North Swindon MP, has said he has concerns about “radical steps” which are expected to be given the green light by Swindon Council’s cabinet next week.

Councillors will meet on Wednesday to discuss proposals to withdraw from the Wiltshire and Swindon Speed Camera Partnership.

Mr Wills said: “I’m very concerned about this decision. All the evidence shows that speed cameras are effective in reducing road accidents.

“I have seen too many heartbreaking cases of people in Swindon whose loved ones have been killed or maimed by speeding drivers.

“I am surprised the council did not conduct a full and thorough consultation with the people of Swindon before taking such a radical step which could effect the lives of so many people.

“The council is now on trial to prove that the steps they say will improve road safety will be at least as effective and measures they have now removed.

“I very much hope they will pass this test they have set themselves as the lives of many people in Swindon depend on it.”

Peter Greenhalgh, Swindon Council’s lead member for highways, transport and strategic planning, hit back at the criticisms.

He said: “This is not a radical step – what we are doing is in response to an unbiased report.

“If we consulted on every single decision that was made we would be having votes every day.

“Michael Wills should concentrate on his own job of securing funding for Swindon, instead of criticising us.

“When was the last time he consulted the people on a decision made by his government?”

In response to the heated debate generated by the issue the Adver will run its own poll, to see if the people of Swindon agree with the recommendations.

From Saturday to Tuesday readers can vote online or via the paper to give their opinion on the speed camera debate.

Adver editor Dave King said: “This is a decision that affects everyone in Swindon and it is only right that the voice of the public is considered alongside the views of politicians.

“This is why I am urging all our readers to have their say on this issue when the Adver poll opens on Saturday.”

The results of the poll will be published on Wednesday in the run up to the cabinet meeting at 6.15pm, at the Civic Offices in Euclid Street.

Comments (35)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

12:30pm Thu 16 Oct 08

Bobfm says...

Labour have got more front than Sainsbury's. How dare Michael Wills talk about democracy. he does not know the meaning of the word, neither does his Government.

He also shows his complete ignorance of Road Safety, he is talking total rubbish. It is sickening when politicians use emotiveness to 'sell' their ideas.

This Government needs to understand people are sick to death of lies and deceit. Where was democracy over the smoking ban Mr Wills when 65% of the UK population wanted choices in hospitality, where was the democracy Mt Wills, when 80% plus wanted on a Referendum on the Reform Treaty. Remember the meeting Mr Wills 140ish for a vote and 4 I think against. What did you and Anne do. Voted against the wishes of your electorate.

When have either of you voted against your lord and masters. You are as out of touch with this as you are with everything else.

Speed cameras cost lives not save them.
Labour have got more front than Sainsbury's. How dare Michael Wills talk about democracy. he does not know the meaning of the word, neither does his Government. He also shows his complete ignorance of Road Safety, he is talking total rubbish. It is sickening when politicians use emotiveness to 'sell' their ideas. This Government needs to understand people are sick to death of lies and deceit. Where was democracy over the smoking ban Mr Wills when 65% of the UK population wanted choices in hospitality, where was the democracy Mt Wills, when 80% plus wanted on a Referendum on the Reform Treaty. Remember the meeting Mr Wills 140ish for a vote and 4 I think against. What did you and Anne do. Voted against the wishes of your electorate. When have either of you voted against your lord and masters. You are as out of touch with this as you are with everything else. Speed cameras cost lives not save them. Bobfm

12:34pm Thu 16 Oct 08

Bobfm says...

Dave can you ensure the vote cannot be rigged, which is not beyond the morality of some.
Dave can you ensure the vote cannot be rigged, which is not beyond the morality of some. Bobfm

12:36pm Thu 16 Oct 08

Robh says...

'I have seen too many heartbreaking cases of people in Swindon whose loved ones have been killed or maimed by speeding drivers'

The point is that none of these accidents took place at a speed camera site. Very few accidents involve speed and it seems stupid to spend so much money on the very limited areas they cover. Also the police seem to have used these cameras as an excuse for not providing adequate action on road safety.

A camera will only detect speed but a policeman with a hand held camera can see many other offences. Unfortunately many drivers have become complacent when it comes to safe driving to the point that anything goes.

We need to give them a wake up call with more officers dealing with more offences and much stiffer fines.
'I have seen too many heartbreaking cases of people in Swindon whose loved ones have been killed or maimed by speeding drivers' The point is that none of these accidents took place at a speed camera site. Very few accidents involve speed and it seems stupid to spend so much money on the very limited areas they cover. Also the police seem to have used these cameras as an excuse for not providing adequate action on road safety. A camera will only detect speed but a policeman with a hand held camera can see many other offences. Unfortunately many drivers have become complacent when it comes to safe driving to the point that anything goes. We need to give them a wake up call with more officers dealing with more offences and much stiffer fines. Robh

12:39pm Thu 16 Oct 08

Geoff Reid says...


Anyone else notice that the "Public must be consulted" gets shouted when one politician doesn't like the decision taken by another....

...the other politician shouts "We live in a representative democracy, so we take these decisions on your behalf".

This, however, is another instance where the government hasn't allowed the public to learn the facts regarding accident data.....

...because it is jealously protecting a huge revenue stream.

As seductive as the emotive arguments might be for 'safety' cameras, they do not hold up to objective scrutiny and are not supported by the governments own Dept. of Transport report:

http://www.dft.gov.u
k/162259/162469/2214
12/221549/227755/rcg
b2007.pdf

I doubt Michael Wills will want you to read Swindon Borough Councils cabinet papers on this either...so here they are:

http://ww2.swindon.g
ov.uk/moderngov/ieLi
stDocuments.asp?CId=
285&MId=3390&J=1

Put emotions and money to one side for just 30 minutes and read the proposals before deciding that enforcement cameras are a 'must have' solution to road safety.


I want Swindon's roads to be much safer than the government target figure, which is why I support SBC's intention to make them so.
Anyone else notice that the "Public must be consulted" gets shouted when one politician doesn't like the decision taken by another.... ...the other politician shouts "We live in a representative democracy, so we take these decisions on your behalf". This, however, is another instance where the government hasn't allowed the public to learn the facts regarding accident data..... ...because it is jealously protecting a huge revenue stream. As seductive as the emotive arguments might be for 'safety' cameras, they do not hold up to objective scrutiny and are not supported by the governments own Dept. of Transport report: http://www.dft.gov.u k/162259/162469/2214 12/221549/227755/rcg b2007.pdf I doubt Michael Wills will want you to read Swindon Borough Councils cabinet papers on this either...so here they are: http://ww2.swindon.g ov.uk/moderngov/ieLi stDocuments.asp?CId= 285&MId=3390&J=1 Put emotions and money to one side for just 30 minutes and read the proposals before deciding that enforcement cameras are a 'must have' solution to road safety. I want Swindon's roads to be much safer than the government target figure, which is why I support SBC's intention to make them so. Geoff Reid

12:48pm Thu 16 Oct 08

Dirty Barry says...

When the government wanted the council to install speed cameras in Swindon, I don't recall them or the 'people's champions' Micheal Wills ever asking what the views or opinion of the local community were as they could not give a dam, but now the decision may be taken to remove their cash cows, they are demanding that the public should now get there say! Completley shameless behaviour.
When the government wanted the council to install speed cameras in Swindon, I don't recall them or the 'people's champions' Micheal Wills ever asking what the views or opinion of the local community were as they could not give a dam, but now the decision may be taken to remove their cash cows, they are demanding that the public should now get there say! Completley shameless behaviour. Dirty Barry

12:56pm Thu 16 Oct 08

Malkym says...

Aha!! THe Minister for Britishness - loser of the the database information laptops! He liveth! As a previous poster succintly put it on a related thread - SPEED OR CASH CAMERAS do not save lives -they penalise the driver who occasionally creeps over the speed limit -what does save lives are - properly mechanically sound and safe cars, insured drivers, sober drivers, and as Bobfm champions - the flashing signs automatically tend to move right foot from accelerator to brake particularly if these are near schools - built up areas etc. Bob also quotes the number of accidents recorded since the camera near his pub on the A420 has been inactive - a big fat zero! and this on a stretch of road that historically pre camera was a regular blackspot.
Aha!! THe Minister for Britishness - loser of the the database information laptops! He liveth! As a previous poster succintly put it on a related thread - SPEED OR CASH CAMERAS do not save lives -they penalise the driver who occasionally creeps over the speed limit -what does save lives are - properly mechanically sound and safe cars, insured drivers, sober drivers, and as Bobfm champions - the flashing signs automatically tend to move right foot from accelerator to brake particularly if these are near schools - built up areas etc. Bob also quotes the number of accidents recorded since the camera near his pub on the A420 has been inactive - a big fat zero! and this on a stretch of road that historically pre camera was a regular blackspot. Malkym

1:25pm Thu 16 Oct 08

top_starfish says...

I'm sure the vote will be rigged, as there are loads of big anti speed camera websites and networks all rubbing their hands together at the prospect of camera removal. The majority of these people don't give a hoot about safety, they just think they are such good drivers thay can decide on a safe speed to travel, which is fine... ...until something unexpected happens.
The people that support cameras aren't quite as co-ordinated or vocal.
I'm sure the vote will be rigged, as there are loads of big anti speed camera websites and networks all rubbing their hands together at the prospect of camera removal. The majority of these people don't give a hoot about safety, they just think they are such good drivers thay can decide on a safe speed to travel, which is fine... ...until something unexpected happens. The people that support cameras aren't quite as co-ordinated or vocal. top_starfish

1:39pm Thu 16 Oct 08

Even Angrier Monkey says...

What is more likley to catch one of these arrogant anti speed camera drivers you describe top_starfish -

A static camera or coppers in a car?

And Devizes is spelt with a Z you plank
What is more likley to catch one of these arrogant anti speed camera drivers you describe top_starfish - A static camera or coppers in a car? And Devizes is spelt with a Z you plank Even Angrier Monkey

1:40pm Thu 16 Oct 08

Psychotic Sid says...

Yes, and neither do the pro speed camera people understand that only an active police unit (not a camera) can warn/prosecute the person ravelling for 30 miles in the middle or outside lane of the motorway, the person that overtakes on a village/estate road, those that use their phone on any road, those travelling too fast/too slow, prosecuting those with dangerous vehicles - it's those things that would make our roads safer, not the odd checkpoint for a speed and the person going 33 mph getting prosecuted.
Yes, and neither do the pro speed camera people understand that only an active police unit (not a camera) can warn/prosecute the person ravelling for 30 miles in the middle or outside lane of the motorway, the person that overtakes on a village/estate road, those that use their phone on any road, those travelling too fast/too slow, prosecuting those with dangerous vehicles - it's those things that would make our roads safer, not the odd checkpoint for a speed and the person going 33 mph getting prosecuted. Psychotic Sid

1:43pm Thu 16 Oct 08

Donkey says...

Top starfish, you are correct. Some people show, on here, exactly how they drive by suggesting that Speed Camera sites are statistically proven as non-effective as drivers know only too well where to slow down for them. Surely, without triggering their brains into considering the speed they are driving at will make them go even faster?

This is another political football, as most politicians in this town have absolutely no time whatsoever for the opposite parties on any issue! What about the good of the community ...what community, though?
Top starfish, you are correct. Some people show, on here, exactly how they drive by suggesting that Speed Camera sites are statistically proven as non-effective as drivers know only too well where to slow down for them. Surely, without triggering their brains into considering the speed they are driving at will make them go even faster? This is another political football, as most politicians in this town have absolutely no time whatsoever for the opposite parties on any issue! What about the good of the community ...what community, though? Donkey

1:54pm Thu 16 Oct 08

Even Angrier Monkey says...

Brilliant donkey. By opposing speed cameras we show that we are just a bunch of boy racers. superb jump of logic there.

I cant be bothered to mention all the reasons why speed cameras are so bad at the job they are designed to do again. its been said a million times, and still some people dont get it.

Just to mention I have a clean licence and have not had an accident for over 10 years
Brilliant donkey. By opposing speed cameras we show that we are just a bunch of boy racers. superb jump of logic there. I cant be bothered to mention all the reasons why speed cameras are so bad at the job they are designed to do again. its been said a million times, and still some people dont get it. Just to mention I have a clean licence and have not had an accident for over 10 years Even Angrier Monkey

1:55pm Thu 16 Oct 08

trustnopolitician says...

I wish we could get facts without embelisment from politicians - we might then be able to make up our own minds.

A referendum among non drivers might be a good start.

It doesn't occur to most politicians (local & national) that there are people of independent thought in their constituencies.

We need ALL motoring controls which lead to safety on our roads.

But above all we need decisions made on common sense rather than ideology which all main parties indulge in.

How many of the local politicians have (a) been convicted of speeding and more importantly (b) lost loved ones in Road Traffic Accidents?

I lost two loved ones in separated accidents in the space of eight years many years ago.

I know that the pain lives forever. We need all measures possible to protect us from stupid arrogant drivers, and it seems from uncaring, arrogant decision makers whose motivation is self interest and cheap publicity.
I wish we could get facts without embelisment from politicians - we might then be able to make up our own minds. A referendum among non drivers might be a good start. It doesn't occur to most politicians (local & national) that there are people of independent thought in their constituencies. We need ALL motoring controls which lead to safety on our roads. But above all we need decisions made on common sense rather than ideology which all main parties indulge in. How many of the local politicians have (a) been convicted of speeding and more importantly (b) lost loved ones in Road Traffic Accidents? I lost two loved ones in separated accidents in the space of eight years many years ago. I know that the pain lives forever. We need all measures possible to protect us from stupid arrogant drivers, and it seems from uncaring, arrogant decision makers whose motivation is self interest and cheap publicity. trustnopolitician

2:54pm Thu 16 Oct 08

PeeveD says...

Are we to have a referendum on every subject that graces the the pages of this fine publication?
I was under the impression that we voted for politicians on both local and national levels to make decisions for us. If this is not going to be the case then we should just allow the civil servants to hold a weekly (or the way it is going DAILY)vote on the topic of the day and then carry out the verdict of the majority!
Are we to have a referendum on every subject that graces the the pages of this fine publication? I was under the impression that we voted for politicians on both local and national levels to make decisions for us. If this is not going to be the case then we should just allow the civil servants to hold a weekly (or the way it is going DAILY)vote on the topic of the day and then carry out the verdict of the majority! PeeveD

3:00pm Thu 16 Oct 08

The Chrominator says...

top_starfish wrote:
I'm sure the vote will be rigged, as there are loads of big anti speed camera websites and networks all rubbing their hands together at the prospect of camera removal. The majority of these people don't give a hoot about safety, they just think they are such good drivers thay can decide on a safe speed to travel, which is fine... ...until something unexpected happens. The people that support cameras aren't quite as co-ordinated or vocal.

Another assumption-heavy opinion whose author has, yet again, resorted to fear instead of fact.

I've just read the reports. You're spouting complete b*ll*x Starfish, and your last thought proves it >>

"The people that support cameras aren't quite as co-ordinated or vocal"....

Bwahahahahahaaaaaaaa
!!! stop it, my eyes are sweating!
[quote][p][bold]top_starfish[/bold] wrote: I'm sure the vote will be rigged, as there are loads of big anti speed camera websites and networks all rubbing their hands together at the prospect of camera removal. The majority of these people don't give a hoot about safety, they just think they are such good drivers thay can decide on a safe speed to travel, which is fine... ...until something unexpected happens. The people that support cameras aren't quite as co-ordinated or vocal.[/p][/quote] Another assumption-heavy opinion whose author has, yet again, resorted to fear instead of fact. I've just read the reports. You're spouting complete b*ll*x Starfish, and your last thought proves it >> "The people that support cameras aren't quite as co-ordinated or vocal".... Bwahahahahahaaaaaaaa !!! stop it, my eyes are sweating! The Chrominator

3:13pm Thu 16 Oct 08

The Chrominator says...

Donkey wrote:
Top starfish, you are correct. Some people show, on here, exactly how they drive by suggesting that Speed Camera sites are statistically proven as non-effective as drivers know only too well where to slow down for them. Surely, without triggering their brains into considering the speed they are driving at will make them go even faster? This is another political football, as most politicians in this town have absolutely no time whatsoever for the opposite parties on any issue! What about the good of the community ...what community, though?
Donkey said that I >> "show how I drive by suggesting that Speed Camera sites are statistically proven as non-effective"

You're another spouter of complete cr*p donkey.

Have you read either of the reports mentioned here earlier? No? Because you have zero interest in learning the truth.

Just for once why can't you emotional orgasmics try fact instead of fiction?.

[quote][p][bold]Donkey[/bold] wrote: Top starfish, you are correct. Some people show, on here, exactly how they drive by suggesting that Speed Camera sites are statistically proven as non-effective as drivers know only too well where to slow down for them. Surely, without triggering their brains into considering the speed they are driving at will make them go even faster? This is another political football, as most politicians in this town have absolutely no time whatsoever for the opposite parties on any issue! What about the good of the community ...what community, though?[/p][/quote]Donkey said that I >> "show how I drive by suggesting that Speed Camera sites are statistically proven as non-effective" You're another spouter of complete cr*p donkey. Have you read either of the reports mentioned here earlier? No? Because you have zero interest in learning the truth. Just for once why can't you emotional orgasmics try fact instead of fiction?. The Chrominator

3:18pm Thu 16 Oct 08

Worz says...

trustnopolitician, swindon says...
I lost two loved ones in separated accidents in the space of eight years many years ago.

You have my sympathy, one is devastating, two must be unbelievably so. However, unless these two accidents were caused purely by drivers exceeding the speed limit, then all the speed cameras in the world would not have saved them. Only a few percent of accidents are caused by excessive speed.

We don't just need the speed cameras removing, we need them to be replaced with something which will act on the causes of the other 90+% of accidents. In Swindon's case that will mean that an extra £320K per year can be invested in tackling the major problems, rather than a minor one.
trustnopolitician, swindon says... I lost two loved ones in separated accidents in the space of eight years many years ago. You have my sympathy, one is devastating, two must be unbelievably so. However, unless these two accidents were caused purely by drivers exceeding the speed limit, then all the speed cameras in the world would not have saved them. Only a few percent of accidents are caused by excessive speed. We don't just need the speed cameras removing, we need them to be replaced with something which will act on the causes of the other 90+% of accidents. In Swindon's case that will mean that an extra £320K per year can be invested in tackling the major problems, rather than a minor one. Worz

3:53pm Thu 16 Oct 08

ourtone says...

"Mr Wills said: “I’m very concerned about this decision. All the evidence shows that speed cameras are effective in reducing road accidents."


I am very concerned about Mr Willis. There is a substantial amount of evidence to show that at best, the virtues of Speed Cameras are over-rated and at worse, they kill people.

To make the statement above shows that Mr Willis is either ignorant of the facts or aware and deliberately misrepresenting them to further the political agenda of his paymasters.

So which is it Mr Willis, Ignorant or Corrupt?
"Mr Wills said: “I’m very concerned about this decision. All the evidence shows that speed cameras are effective in reducing road accidents." I am very concerned about Mr Willis. There is a substantial amount of evidence to show that at best, the virtues of Speed Cameras are over-rated and at worse, they kill people. To make the statement above shows that Mr Willis is either ignorant of the facts or aware and deliberately misrepresenting them to further the political agenda of his paymasters. So which is it Mr Willis, Ignorant or Corrupt? ourtone

4:12pm Thu 16 Oct 08

Big Mac says...

It was only a matter of time before Wills piped up to, what a surprise, take the exact same stance against the Council as Snelgrove does.

The sad thing is that neither of them have any concern for road safety, they are simply spouting the party line. They know full well that the government will lose a MASSIVE revenue stream if other councils follow SBC's lead - which they surely will.

As others have said, very eloquently, speed cameras do not offer much in the way of improved road safety. Only 5% of all road accidents involve excess speeds in any case - so even if they prevented ALL speeding, 95% of all accidents would still occur.

Of course, the sheer amount of money raised by speed cameras very clearly demonstrate that they're not even effective at reducing the speed of drivers at the actual camera sites!

I find it odd that this has seemingly broken down into a left-wing Vs. right-wing issue, but less surprising that the left-wing appear to simply take the overly emotive, non-factual stance in their attempt to continue making millions and millions of pounds from cameras that are essentially ineffective.

I do wish SBC would now get on and announce, definitively, that the cameras are going. They still don't appear to have confirmed that they are and we don't seem to have a date for their removal.

Let's get on, remove the cameras and make Swindon's roads safer for ALL of us (and yes, I even include Donkey in that).
It was only a matter of time before Wills piped up to, what a surprise, take the exact same stance against the Council as Snelgrove does. The sad thing is that neither of them have any concern for road safety, they are simply spouting the party line. They know full well that the government will lose a MASSIVE revenue stream if other councils follow SBC's lead - which they surely will. As others have said, very eloquently, speed cameras do not offer much in the way of improved road safety. Only 5% of all road accidents involve excess speeds in any case - so even if they prevented ALL speeding, 95% of all accidents would still occur. Of course, the sheer amount of money raised by speed cameras very clearly demonstrate that they're not even effective at reducing the speed of drivers at the actual camera sites! I find it odd that this has seemingly broken down into a left-wing Vs. right-wing issue, but less surprising that the left-wing appear to simply take the overly emotive, non-factual stance in their attempt to continue making millions and millions of pounds from cameras that are essentially ineffective. I do wish SBC would now get on and announce, definitively, that the cameras are going. They still don't appear to have confirmed that they are and we don't seem to have a date for their removal. Let's get on, remove the cameras and make Swindon's roads safer for ALL of us (and yes, I even include Donkey in that). Big Mac

4:14pm Thu 16 Oct 08

Lafyor Socksoff says...

Mr Willis. We do not need anyone from Nu Labour spouting about public consultation, ie democracy.
Our Prime minister is in place by a dirty deal between him and quitter Bliar and announced HOURS AFTER the last election. Bliar previously promised two referenda on the Euro and Brown a referendum on the EU constitution NONE OF WHICH HAPPENED. Also please present your data on the effectivness of cameras on accidents. Its the usual Labour smoke and mirrors which adds up to the Nu Labour Con Trick. With unemployment rising rapidly under your stewardship I would get a real job quick prior to 2010 when you are history
Mr Willis. We do not need anyone from Nu Labour spouting about public consultation, ie democracy. Our Prime minister is in place by a dirty deal between him and quitter Bliar and announced HOURS AFTER the last election. Bliar previously promised two referenda on the Euro and Brown a referendum on the EU constitution NONE OF WHICH HAPPENED. Also please present your data on the effectivness of cameras on accidents. Its the usual Labour smoke and mirrors which adds up to the Nu Labour Con Trick. With unemployment rising rapidly under your stewardship I would get a real job quick prior to 2010 when you are history Lafyor Socksoff

4:37pm Thu 16 Oct 08

Tony Starr says...

I don't think anyone has ever claimed that a camera is better than a police patrol - and I agree that more police patrols are needed too! However cameras can cover an area prone to speed-related accidents 24/7, a patrol is mobile and may pass the problem area a couple of times a shift!
Cameras are needed where there is a problem with speed-related accidents, and it shouldn't stop the police from monitoring the area too. Where there isn't a problem, cameras shouldn't be there in the first place!
If cameras approximately pay for themselves - ie the government hand out to partnerships roughly what they get in revenue overall, then they do not detract from the police at all.
Why would someone who doesn't speed have a problem with speed cameras.
I don't think anyone has ever claimed that a camera is better than a police patrol - and I agree that more police patrols are needed too! However cameras can cover an area prone to speed-related accidents 24/7, a patrol is mobile and may pass the problem area a couple of times a shift! Cameras are needed where there is a problem with speed-related accidents, and it shouldn't stop the police from monitoring the area too. Where there isn't a problem, cameras shouldn't be there in the first place! If cameras approximately pay for themselves - ie the government hand out to partnerships roughly what they get in revenue overall, then they do not detract from the police at all. Why would someone who doesn't speed have a problem with speed cameras. Tony Starr

4:42pm Thu 16 Oct 08

Even Angrier Monkey says...

Tony, I can answer your final question with you're own words:

"Why would someone who doesn't speed have a problem with speed cameras."

"Where there isn't a problem, cameras shouldn't be there in the first place!"



Tony, I can answer your final question with you're own words: "Why would someone who doesn't speed have a problem with speed cameras." "Where there isn't a problem, cameras shouldn't be there in the first place!" Even Angrier Monkey

4:47pm Thu 16 Oct 08

Even Angrier Monkey says...

My personal answer to your question "Why would someone who doesn't speed have a problem with speed cameras." would be because they do not focus on what is really dangerous.

Drink drivers are always dangerous. un-roadworthy cars are always dangerous. Speed can at times be dangerous, but fining someone £80 for exceeding the limit by 5/10 mph on a clear road in good conditions is pointless, and does nothing to aid road saftey at all.

The other reason is the cost of the cameras. you could put an extra copper in a car on the raod for every camera.
My personal answer to your question "Why would someone who doesn't speed have a problem with speed cameras." would be because they do not focus on what is really dangerous. Drink drivers are always dangerous. un-roadworthy cars are always dangerous. Speed can at times be dangerous, but fining someone £80 for exceeding the limit by 5/10 mph on a clear road in good conditions is pointless, and does nothing to aid road saftey at all. The other reason is the cost of the cameras. you could put an extra copper in a car on the raod for every camera. Even Angrier Monkey

4:57pm Thu 16 Oct 08

ourtone says...

Tony Starr, Avebury says...
4:37pm Thu 16 Oct 08
Cameras are needed where there is a problem with speed-related accidents, and it shouldn't stop the police from monitoring the area too. Where there isn't a problem, cameras shouldn't be there in the first place!

If cameras approximately pay for themselves - ie the government hand out to partnerships roughly what they get in revenue overall, then they do not detract from the police at all.

Why would someone who doesn't speed have a problem with speed cameras.


Well Tony, I don’t speed and I hate GATSO’s with a passion.

Just to be clear, I have been driving for 22 years and have never had a single point on my licence for speeding or anything else. I have never had an accident that was my fault (ask my Insurance company,) and I have probably covered about 330,000 miles overall.

So what is wrong with GATSO’s?

Firstly, they are used as a substitute for real policing. Police Traffic patrols have been reduced consistently since GATSO’s were introduced. The Cameras that the Police now rely on are almost useless. They only catch people breaking the limit in a specific location.
GATSO’s don’t catch drivers who are drunk, drugged, uninsured, untaxed, on the wrong side of the road or driving on the pavement, driving at night without lights, driving with bulbs blown, bald tyres or other illegal defects to their cars. That is why there are over 1.5 million uninsured cars on UK roads, which are presumably untaxed and unregistered.

Second, they don’t work. Before their introduction, Road Deaths per 1,000 head of population were reducing slowly and steadily. Since the UK started to depend on GATSO’s, that reduction has stopped, and deaths have remained level or occasionally increased slightly.
The anti drink-drive campaign, that used coppers on patrol, achieved a real change. GATSO’s have just given us policing on the cheap.

Third, the Road Safety partnerships lie and twist the figures in order to defend the indefensible. In order to site a permanent camera they have to substantiate a number of deaths within a certain distance and time. In the past they have incorporated people who have committed suicide by jumping off bridges in the figures. They also distort the figures following the introduction of a camera to justify its existence, when in fact any change can be explained by a statistical phenomena known as ‘regression to the mean.’

Fourth, they are used to extend the infiltration of CCTV cameras throughout the UK. We already have the highest levels of surveillance in the Western World. Coupled with systems like ANPR, they provide yet another method for an unreliable and untrustworthy government to snoop on us. We don’t need any more.

I have more, but that’s enough for now.
Tony Starr, Avebury says... 4:37pm Thu 16 Oct 08 Cameras are needed where there is a problem with speed-related accidents, and it shouldn't stop the police from monitoring the area too. Where there isn't a problem, cameras shouldn't be there in the first place! If cameras approximately pay for themselves - ie the government hand out to partnerships roughly what they get in revenue overall, then they do not detract from the police at all. Why would someone who doesn't speed have a problem with speed cameras. Well Tony, I don’t speed and I hate GATSO’s with a passion. Just to be clear, I have been driving for 22 years and have never had a single point on my licence for speeding or anything else. I have never had an accident that was my fault (ask my Insurance company,) and I have probably covered about 330,000 miles overall. So what is wrong with GATSO’s? Firstly, they are used as a substitute for real policing. Police Traffic patrols have been reduced consistently since GATSO’s were introduced. The Cameras that the Police now rely on are almost useless. They only catch people breaking the limit in a specific location. GATSO’s don’t catch drivers who are drunk, drugged, uninsured, untaxed, on the wrong side of the road or driving on the pavement, driving at night without lights, driving with bulbs blown, bald tyres or other illegal defects to their cars. That is why there are over 1.5 million uninsured cars on UK roads, which are presumably untaxed and unregistered. Second, they don’t work. Before their introduction, Road Deaths per 1,000 head of population were reducing slowly and steadily. Since the UK started to depend on GATSO’s, that reduction has stopped, and deaths have remained level or occasionally increased slightly. The anti drink-drive campaign, that used coppers on patrol, achieved a real change. GATSO’s have just given us policing on the cheap. Third, the Road Safety partnerships lie and twist the figures in order to defend the indefensible. In order to site a permanent camera they have to substantiate a number of deaths within a certain distance and time. In the past they have incorporated people who have committed suicide by jumping off bridges in the figures. They also distort the figures following the introduction of a camera to justify its existence, when in fact any change can be explained by a statistical phenomena known as ‘regression to the mean.’ Fourth, they are used to extend the infiltration of CCTV cameras throughout the UK. We already have the highest levels of surveillance in the Western World. Coupled with systems like ANPR, they provide yet another method for an unreliable and untrustworthy government to snoop on us. We don’t need any more. I have more, but that’s enough for now. ourtone

5:06pm Thu 16 Oct 08

Tony Starr says...

But my ill-tempered simian friend, they apparently rake in a fortune, paying for themselves in no time, and therefore do not take money that could otherwise fund a staffed patrol car.
I fully agree that they do not address the majority of safety issues, and shouldn be regarded as the pariah of road safety, but even if they do not prevent accidents but make them happen at a reduced speed they can save lives!
The A14 scheme in cambridgshire claims a 21% reduction in colissions, but an 80% reduction in deaths and serious injuries. Speed doesn't cause the majority of accidents, but a few MPH can mean the difference between life & death when they do happen.
But my ill-tempered simian friend, they apparently rake in a fortune, paying for themselves in no time, and therefore do not take money that could otherwise fund a staffed patrol car. I fully agree that they do not address the majority of safety issues, and shouldn be regarded as the pariah of road safety, but even if they do not prevent accidents but make them happen at a reduced speed they can save lives! The A14 scheme in cambridgshire claims a 21% reduction in colissions, but an 80% reduction in deaths and serious injuries. Speed doesn't cause the majority of accidents, but a few MPH can mean the difference between life & death when they do happen. Tony Starr

5:13pm Thu 16 Oct 08

ourtone says...

Tony Starr, Avebury says...
4:37pm Thu 16 Oct 08
Why would someone who doesn't speed have a problem with speed cameras.


Tony – a question for you.

Why do you think fixed speed limits are appropriate. How can you say that there is only one speed which is appropriate for a stretch of road at any time.

Safe speed for any road depends on the weather, time of day, visibility, density of traffic, road surface and the type, age and condition of cars using it and the health and physical ability of people driving them.

If you are a young man with good eyesight and reflexes, on the M4 near Chippenham at 7 a.m. on a bright, dry, summer morning with 5 cars per mile, driving a new car with brakes, suspension and tyres in good condition, then 70 m.p.h. is far too slow. Under those circumstances 100 m.p.h. is likely to be safer.

By the same token, being on the two lane stretch near Newport in the middle of winter, in the dark, in the rain, in an older car or with an older driver, should mean that 45-50 m.p.h. is the safer top speed.

The law, however says that 70 m.p.h. is the correct speed for both situations, and there is no argument allowed or appeal to common sense possible,.

Even if you were to ignore the above, and believe that fixed limits can be appropriate, why do you think the limits we have now are right. The current speed limits are based on stopping distances developed using car technology of the 1950’s. Back then cars had drum brakes all round and ABS was unheard of, the suspension systems were primitive, steering was manual, with no assistance, tyre technology was primitive and headlights were dim and unreliable. Even the cheapest cars now on sale are hugely better than that. If car technology has moved on, speed expectations should also.
Tony Starr, Avebury says... 4:37pm Thu 16 Oct 08 Why would someone who doesn't speed have a problem with speed cameras. Tony – a question for you. Why do you think fixed speed limits are appropriate. How can you say that there is only one speed which is appropriate for a stretch of road at any time. Safe speed for any road depends on the weather, time of day, visibility, density of traffic, road surface and the type, age and condition of cars using it and the health and physical ability of people driving them. If you are a young man with good eyesight and reflexes, on the M4 near Chippenham at 7 a.m. on a bright, dry, summer morning with 5 cars per mile, driving a new car with brakes, suspension and tyres in good condition, then 70 m.p.h. is far too slow. Under those circumstances 100 m.p.h. is likely to be safer. By the same token, being on the two lane stretch near Newport in the middle of winter, in the dark, in the rain, in an older car or with an older driver, should mean that 45-50 m.p.h. is the safer top speed. The law, however says that 70 m.p.h. is the correct speed for both situations, and there is no argument allowed or appeal to common sense possible,. Even if you were to ignore the above, and believe that fixed limits can be appropriate, why do you think the limits we have now are right. The current speed limits are based on stopping distances developed using car technology of the 1950’s. Back then cars had drum brakes all round and ABS was unheard of, the suspension systems were primitive, steering was manual, with no assistance, tyre technology was primitive and headlights were dim and unreliable. Even the cheapest cars now on sale are hugely better than that. If car technology has moved on, speed expectations should also. ourtone

5:19pm Thu 16 Oct 08

Big Mac says...

I've never once received a speeding ticket of any kind, yet I detest speed cameras.

Anyone with half decent eyesight can quite merrily speed just about wherever they want, all you need do is slow down for speed cameras.

That's the secondary reason why they're so utterly pointless and usually just penalise people who have crept a few miles per hour over the limit and were driving perfectly safely and caused no incident of any kind.

The main reason they're so pointless is because 95% of all road accidents occur when no speed limit has been broken.

The pro-speed camera brigade routinely overlook and ignore this glaring FACT that is provided by the Department of Transport and the police themselves.

If nobody ever broke any speed limit on any road ever again we would still have 95% of the road traffic accidents happen.

To be absolutely honest, those who support speed cameras generally tend to the same people who delight in telling others what they must, and must not do, and who like to impose their views on others and control them.

It's not an attractive or healthy attitude in my opinion.
I've never once received a speeding ticket of any kind, yet I detest speed cameras. Anyone with half decent eyesight can quite merrily speed just about wherever they want, all you need do is slow down for speed cameras. That's the secondary reason why they're so utterly pointless and usually just penalise people who have crept a few miles per hour over the limit and were driving perfectly safely and caused no incident of any kind. The main reason they're so pointless is because 95% of all road accidents occur when no speed limit has been broken. The pro-speed camera brigade routinely overlook and ignore this glaring FACT that is provided by the Department of Transport and the police themselves. If nobody ever broke any speed limit on any road ever again we would still have 95% of the road traffic accidents happen. To be absolutely honest, those who support speed cameras generally tend to the same people who delight in telling others what they must, and must not do, and who like to impose their views on others and control them. It's not an attractive or healthy attitude in my opinion. Big Mac

5:20pm Thu 16 Oct 08

ourtone says...

Tony Starr, Avebury says...
5:06pm Thu 16 Oct 08
But my ill-tempered simian friend, they apparently rake in a fortune, paying for themselves in no time, and therefore do not take money that could otherwise fund a staffed patrol car.


The flaw in this argument is that the numbers of Police Traffic patrols have been reduced. This isn’t because of money being spent on cameras, it is because senior policemen and politicians have spotted an opportunity to save money.
In some forces Traffic Police numbers have been cut by 66% in the last decade.
Home Office figures (from Home office publication: "Motoring Offences and breath test statistics, England and Wales - 2000") documents that all motoring offences except speeding show a fall in offences between 1999 and 2000. Don't let anyone tell you that this is because fewer offences were committed. It's clearly because fewer offences were detected by fewer police patrols. In just this one year, speeding offences are up by 18%, while all other groups of offences were down by between 2 and 19%.
You would have to be stupid not to spot the correlation.
Tony Starr, Avebury says... 5:06pm Thu 16 Oct 08 But my ill-tempered simian friend, they apparently rake in a fortune, paying for themselves in no time, and therefore do not take money that could otherwise fund a staffed patrol car. The flaw in this argument is that the numbers of Police Traffic patrols have been reduced. This isn’t because of money being spent on cameras, it is because senior policemen and politicians have spotted an opportunity to save money. In some forces Traffic Police numbers have been cut by 66% in the last decade. Home Office figures (from Home office publication: "Motoring Offences and breath test statistics, England and Wales - 2000") documents that all motoring offences except speeding show a fall in offences between 1999 and 2000. Don't let anyone tell you that this is because fewer offences were committed. It's clearly because fewer offences were detected by fewer police patrols. In just this one year, speeding offences are up by 18%, while all other groups of offences were down by between 2 and 19%. You would have to be stupid not to spot the correlation. ourtone

5:50pm Thu 16 Oct 08

Geoff Reid says...

Tony Starr asks:

"Why would someone who doesn't speed have a problem with speed cameras"

Because the recent DFT and TRL reports clearly show that speed cameras do not, and cannot do what the government claims for them.

If you were prescribed pills for heart disease which didn't work, you'd be upset, and furious when you realised that the manufacturer knew they didn't work, but lied to you so you'd keep buying them...

Anyway, isn't this a Swindon issue?

Funny how contributors from Wiltshire have suddenly cropped up in this specific topic.






Tony Starr asks: "Why would someone who doesn't speed have a problem with speed cameras" Because the recent DFT and TRL reports clearly show that speed cameras do not, and cannot do what the government claims for them. If you were prescribed pills for heart disease which didn't work, you'd be upset, and furious when you realised that the manufacturer knew they didn't work, but lied to you so you'd keep buying them... Anyway, isn't this a Swindon issue? Funny how contributors from Wiltshire have suddenly cropped up in this specific topic. Geoff Reid

7:39pm Thu 16 Oct 08

Bobfm says...

Geoff every one is entitled to their opinion, even though they may be employed by the Partnership.

This is quite a simple issue. Camera partnership show us how many people were killed or seriously injured whilst our two cameras were out of action, at their locations.
Geoff every one is entitled to their opinion, even though they may be employed by the Partnership. This is quite a simple issue. Camera partnership show us how many people were killed or seriously injured whilst our two cameras were out of action, at their locations. Bobfm

6:26am Fri 17 Oct 08

M4 Bypass says...

Michael Wills come and live in Swindon 24 x 7 and you will understand the proposal re cameras is 100% right. I haven't had a say on the war, my taxes paying rich bankers etc etc. Why is it right for speed cameras? Lets have a new phone in show called "You gov"
Michael Wills come and live in Swindon 24 x 7 and you will understand the proposal re cameras is 100% right. I haven't had a say on the war, my taxes paying rich bankers etc etc. Why is it right for speed cameras? Lets have a new phone in show called "You gov" M4 Bypass

10:17am Fri 17 Oct 08

Tony Starr says...

It is a Swindon issue. and although I don't live there, so I can't even vote against the idiot, I do work there, & not at the Speed Camera Partnership as Geoff suggests.
Accident Stats work on known factors and in the days of modern antilock bakes it's hard to know the speed of a vehicle leading up to a crash. We therefore have to rely on driver & witness statements. No driver is going to say 'I was doing 45 when he pulled out in front of me', and in the absence of skid-marks, there is no proof that they were! so the stats 19 records driver error as the cause.
You're all correct to say speed doesn't kill (it's the impact that kills), and in ideal conditions speed doesn't cause accidents. I agree no one speed limit can be appropriate to a road at all times - you may be driving well above the speed limit in a perfectly safe manner, but that doesn't account for the other driver/biker/cyclist
/pedestrian. It may be their fault, but if you were speeding at the time, that could be the end of them rather than a painful & costly mistake! 2 or 3 mph can mean the difference between life & death.
I don't consider speed cameras to be the pariah of road safety and if they replaced the cameras with additional police patrols, I would be all in favour... they won't be. we'll get a flashing sign at best, the effects of which are short term before the majority of drivers just switch off to them!
It is a Swindon issue. and although I don't live there, so I can't even vote against the idiot, I do work there, & not at the Speed Camera Partnership as Geoff suggests. Accident Stats work on known factors and in the days of modern antilock bakes it's hard to know the speed of a vehicle leading up to a crash. We therefore have to rely on driver & witness statements. No driver is going to say 'I was doing 45 when he pulled out in front of me', and in the absence of skid-marks, there is no proof that they were! so the stats 19 records driver error as the cause. You're all correct to say speed doesn't kill (it's the impact that kills), and in ideal conditions speed doesn't cause accidents. I agree no one speed limit can be appropriate to a road at all times - you may be driving well above the speed limit in a perfectly safe manner, but that doesn't account for the other driver/biker/cyclist /pedestrian. It may be their fault, but if you were speeding at the time, that could be the end of them rather than a painful & costly mistake! 2 or 3 mph can mean the difference between life & death. I don't consider speed cameras to be the pariah of road safety and if they replaced the cameras with additional police patrols, I would be all in favour... they won't be. we'll get a flashing sign at best, the effects of which are short term before the majority of drivers just switch off to them! Tony Starr

10:59am Fri 17 Oct 08

ourtone says...

Tony Starr –
When the speed of vehicles at an accident is assessed, they have a lot more information to go on than skid-marks. There is the relative position of the vehicles to their original direction of travel, dispersion of headlight lens and window glass secondary impacts and so on. There is no lack of eagerness amongst the Road Policing fraternity to blame excessive speed as a causative factor. If ‘Driver Error,’ is recorded then you can be sure this is correct.

Your second point is logically inconsistent. You accept that one limit cannot be appropriate at all times, and then you go on to say that if someone is ‘speeding,’ you are more likely to kill the other driver/biker/cyclist /pedestrian. If you accept that fixed limits are inappropriate, then the concept of speeding is no longer what it previously was.

If an accident is caused by driver ‘A’ then it is irrelevant how fast driver ‘B’ is going. The blame stays with ‘A.’

You don’t consider Speed Cameras to be the pariah of road safety. Well I do. The reliance on them is allowing unlicensed, uninsured drivers to clog the streets with untaxed vehicles with no MoT and frequently laden with defects which may render the car dangerous.

We need real policing, and for that you need people, not stupid yellow boxes on sticks.
Tony Starr – When the speed of vehicles at an accident is assessed, they have a lot more information to go on than skid-marks. There is the relative position of the vehicles to their original direction of travel, dispersion of headlight lens and window glass secondary impacts and so on. There is no lack of eagerness amongst the Road Policing fraternity to blame excessive speed as a causative factor. If ‘Driver Error,’ is recorded then you can be sure this is correct. Your second point is logically inconsistent. You accept that one limit cannot be appropriate at all times, and then you go on to say that if someone is ‘speeding,’ you are more likely to kill the other driver/biker/cyclist /pedestrian. If you accept that fixed limits are inappropriate, then the concept of speeding is no longer what it previously was. If an accident is caused by driver ‘A’ then it is irrelevant how fast driver ‘B’ is going. The blame stays with ‘A.’ You don’t consider Speed Cameras to be the pariah of road safety. Well I do. The reliance on them is allowing unlicensed, uninsured drivers to clog the streets with untaxed vehicles with no MoT and frequently laden with defects which may render the car dangerous. We need real policing, and for that you need people, not stupid yellow boxes on sticks. ourtone

4:20pm Fri 17 Oct 08

Tony Starr says...

Ourtone,

The actual IMPACT speed can be determined with the techniques you state, but on impact, drivers have usually been braking for some seconds. The approach speed prior to braking cannot be determined, and can only be estimated to a reasonable degree of accuracy with full investigation which takes many hours, requires a full road closure. However the impact speed or approach speed are not fully investigated unless a death or injuries likely to cause death occur! Otherwise, statements and often photographs are taken and the road cleared as soon as possible.

I do accept that a fixed speed limit is not always appropriate for the whole length of a road, but limits are required - without them, the choice of speed is left to the drivers interpretation, which for an experienced, well trained and considerate driver is fine, but unfortunately for the majority of drivers, is not fine. So we all have to stick to them.

If an accident is caused by driver ‘A’ then it is irrelevant how fast driver ‘B’ is going. The blame stays with ‘A.’- Agreed, but the speed that 'B' was travelling may still determine the severity of the incident!

I whole-heartedly agree with you on one thing - We do need more REAL policing too! Although most people hate traffic police too - the phrase 'why dont you go catch some real criminals' springs to mind!
Ourtone, The actual IMPACT speed can be determined with the techniques you state, but on impact, drivers have usually been braking for some seconds. The approach speed prior to braking cannot be determined, and can only be estimated to a reasonable degree of accuracy with full investigation which takes many hours, requires a full road closure. However the impact speed or approach speed are not fully investigated unless a death or injuries likely to cause death occur! Otherwise, statements and often photographs are taken and the road cleared as soon as possible. I do accept that a fixed speed limit is not always appropriate for the whole length of a road, but limits are required - without them, the choice of speed is left to the drivers interpretation, which for an experienced, well trained and considerate driver is fine, but unfortunately for the majority of drivers, is not fine. So we all have to stick to them. If an accident is caused by driver ‘A’ then it is irrelevant how fast driver ‘B’ is going. The blame stays with ‘A.’- Agreed, but the speed that 'B' was travelling may still determine the severity of the incident! I whole-heartedly agree with you on one thing - We do need more REAL policing too! Although most people hate traffic police too - the phrase 'why dont you go catch some real criminals' springs to mind! Tony Starr

2:13am Sat 18 Oct 08

Insight says...

It isn't a question of senior police removing traffic officers, it's the fact that government have 'neglected' to supply targets to senior police for casualty reduction and therefore no funding for 'real' traffic police.

Yes, the Labour Government, Anne Snelgroves bunch, ooops a daisy we forgot to supply targets and funding for 'real' police who can do the job properly because speed cameras cut down on public sector pay.

...and she's got the nerve to criticise this council for playing fast and loose with peoples lives?

By the way, stop this retarded arguing of the pros and cons and laws of physics nonsense over speeding, the object of this exercise and replacement of cameras is to catch more people driving dangerously and stop them doing it, not give a license to idiots who think they're Michael flippin Schumacher. Speed cameras simply don't work, but speeding is still wrong, get over it!)
It isn't a question of senior police removing traffic officers, it's the fact that government have 'neglected' to supply targets to senior police for casualty reduction and therefore no funding for 'real' traffic police. Yes, the Labour Government, Anne Snelgroves bunch, ooops a daisy we forgot to supply targets and funding for 'real' police who can do the job properly because speed cameras cut down on public sector pay. ...and she's got the nerve to criticise this council for playing fast and loose with peoples lives? By the way, stop this retarded arguing of the pros and cons and laws of physics nonsense over speeding, the object of this exercise and replacement of cameras is to catch more people driving dangerously and stop them doing it, not give a license to idiots who think they're Michael flippin Schumacher. Speed cameras simply don't work, but speeding is still wrong, get over it!) Insight

2:24am Sat 18 Oct 08

Insight says...

In response to top_starfish.

I agree, the vote will be rigged, but in favour of the speed camera partnerships.

With the Governments reputation at stake and with big investment banks like Goldman Sachs investing in speed camera manufacturers, it's obvious there's an easy buck to be made out of stupid authoritys who're lead to believe they're doing the right thing in these troubled economic times.

Speed Cameras and Safety? ...my foot ...only councils that are easily lead and fools with their money would sign up to new camera deals now they know they're all but being cut out of the revenue stream.
In response to top_starfish. I agree, the vote will be rigged, but in favour of the speed camera partnerships. With the Governments reputation at stake and with big investment banks like Goldman Sachs investing in speed camera manufacturers, it's obvious there's an easy buck to be made out of stupid authoritys who're lead to believe they're doing the right thing in these troubled economic times. Speed Cameras and Safety? ...my foot ...only councils that are easily lead and fools with their money would sign up to new camera deals now they know they're all but being cut out of the revenue stream. Insight
Post a comment

Remember you are personally responsible for what you post on this site and must abide by our site terms. Do not post anything that is false, abusive or malicious. If you wish to complain, please use the ‘report this post’ link.

click2find

About cookies

We want you to enjoy your visit to our website. That's why we use cookies to enhance your experience. By staying on our website you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more about the cookies we use.

I agree