Weather
Vote may not see end of cameras (From Swindon Advertiser)
Get involved! Send photos, video, news & views. Text SWINDON NEWS to 80360 or email us
|
|
|
|
|
|
Got a story? EMAIL US, call us on 01793 501806 or text us at 80360, starting your message
with 'SWINDON NEWS'
Vote may not see end of cameras
7:10am Tuesday 21st October 2008
MOBILE speed patrols could still snap Swindon speeders in the act – even if councillors ban fixed position cameras from the town.
Debate has raged in Swindon over the future of speed cameras for almost a year.
Tomorrow councillors on Swindon Council’s cabinet will make a final decision on withdrawing from the safety camera partnership – a move which would see the end of static speed cameras in the town.
Despite that, the police officer charged with overseeing the partnership says even if the council backs that suggestion, mobile cameras could still be used here.
81%
19%
Acting Inspector Nick Blencowe, of the safety camera partnership, said: “Although I could not take a decision in isolation about where and when we enforce speed limits with mobile patrols, the Road Safety Board could.
“But if Swindon withdrew from both the partnership and the board the only people funding it would be Wiltshire County Council. And those who pay for the service decide where the cameras will be used.”
The safety camera partnership is funded jointly by Wiltshire County Council and Swindon Council and has been for years.
Last November two Swindon councillors floated a suggestion that unless Government agreed to return the cash generated by cameras to the borough the council would consider dropping out of the partnership – meaning an end to speed cameras in Swindon.
The council backed the plan and, since the Government said in January it would not return the money, officers have been looking at the next step the council can take.
A spokesman for the county council, said: “Once Swindon Borough Council has made a decision we will discuss the situation with our road safety partners. Until then it would be inappropriate to make any further comment.”
- In response to the heated debate generated by the issue the Adver is running its own poll, to see if the people of Swindon agree with the recommendations.
Until late today readers can vote online or via the paper to give their opinion on the speed camera debate.
The results of the poll will be published tomorrow in the run up to the cabinet meeting at 6.15pm, at the Civic Offices in Euclid Street.
More News stories
- Tributes paid to RAF who died in car crash
- Ambulance service defends staff plan
- Fight leaves man with broken leg
- Swindon firebombers have their sentence cut
- Inquest verdict due on stream death
- Woman faces cocaine charge
- Court date set for Pinehurst shooting
- Man denies assault
- No more snow for Swindon, says Met Office
- Man tried to cut off head of ex-lover
Your Say YourSwindon
flicky, Lawn Swindon says...
8:04am Tue 21 Oct 08
Also, mobile units would mean that the sat nav would not act as a warning.
But we would all have to monitor our speed more precisely as it is all too easy to tip over onto the wrong side of 30 or 40 mph, especially when the speed limit on the same road can vary; Marlborough Road in Old Town , for instance.
Inky, W Swindon says...
8:05am Tue 21 Oct 08
Bobfm, South Marston says...
8:19am Tue 21 Oct 08
I do however believe the officers should be clearly visible, again adding to the evidence if someone is caught. You can imagine the scenario. 'Sorry officer I didn't see all the warnings signs and humps or you, I was on my hand held mobile.'
malkym1, Highworth on the Hill says...
10:13am Tue 21 Oct 08
Big Mac, Old Town says...
10:42am Tue 21 Oct 08
I mean, it's still a blatant cash cow, given that only 5% of road accidents occur where the speed limit is being broken, but at least it's a real person taking trained judgement of the situation and applying it accordingly - and, hopefully, with a bit of common sense and decency.
On that point, I do wish the police would be more transparent about their 'leeway' percentage.
I think public confidence in speed limit enforcement would be somewhat bolstered by knowing that we won't, in fact, get a ticket for doing, say, 43mph in a 40mph zone.
It is ludicrous to suggest that, for example, 41mph is any more or less dangerous than 39mph.
Most people's car speedometers are out by +/- 3mph in any case.
Buster, says...
10:47am Tue 21 Oct 08
SBC councillors have gained much out of their national fame for pushing this forward, many poeple are supporting the council do so on the basis that the publicity has been about bringing an end of cameras. People need to see this for the party political, populist spin that it is.
The only thing that will change is that the council will direct the money onto other road safety initiatives and the police resources will be more stretched as they step in, they will then probably ask for money money in the next council tax review.
The result, we'll still have cameras on the roads but we'll be paying more money for them.
Peter Greenhaigh may go and sit on his thrown at Top Gear, but the people of Swindon will see through the deceit.
Bobfm, South Marston says...
10:52am Tue 21 Oct 08
Buster, don't forget there are police officers at the Partnership, as their rolls will no longer exist one assumes, they could be released to do the mobile speed checks. It needn't cost any more although 'Bandwagon' and others will clearly imply that it will.
Robh, Swindon says...
11:12am Tue 21 Oct 08
We need enforcement which is highly mobile and can be used where ever a problem exists. We also want more detection of the unlicensed, uninsured and tax evaders.
Road safety seems to be paramount for the majority.
Meldrews Dad, Wroughton says...
11:19am Tue 21 Oct 08
Perhaps there should be a help line where motorists could log their illegally parked vans and motorcycles for the Swindon Parking service to enforce the laws. Then at least Swindon would make a buck!
Big Mac, Old Town says...
11:23am Tue 21 Oct 08
I often see people drive past speed cameras at a few miles over the limit and you can see them looking behind them to see if the camera flashed - completely oblivious to what's going on in front of them. Yet another reason why cameras are so dangerous.
Tony Starr, Avebury says...
11:47am Tue 21 Oct 08
I assume that if they did get to keep the money they would continue to use cameras... to raise revenue!
As it's the council that decided where they are placed, they should not be able to keep the money as this would encourage the council to place machines where they would raise the most, not where they are needed to reduce speed related incidents.
But now they can't they want to gamble peoples lives by taking them out all together - claiming they are cash cows. I bet if the council picked up the cheques, all the cameras would be loaded with film constantly. - Hypocrites!
Seeing as Pepipoo, Safespeed, MAD & the performance car & bike forums have been encouraging their members to vote on this (I got the mass email from one of them which I occasionally contribute a contrary argument to), I don't think I'll bother with this subject any more - there's no point in arguing with those people on safety when they use the same, albeit well-constructed, misleading rubbish to persuade people that cameras do not save lives.
You can argue 'regression to mean' all you like, but that can explain away around half the reduction in deaths and serious injuries at speed camera sites - are the other half of the lives not worth saving then?
I won't contribute to this subject any more, I just hope the council sees sense in the end! If they don't, they'll just asking for the inevitable media explosion when the first death occurs.
Worz, Wootton Bassett says...
11:56am Tue 21 Oct 08
Using copper's time to run mobile speed cameras is even stupider than using fixed cameras. Coppers should be mobile, looking for dangerous drivers.
The last I heard, the ACPO _guideline_ was 10% + 2 i.e. 35 in a 30, 46 in a 40 and so on. However they're just guidelines, and if they want to nick you for 31 in a 30, then they will do so.
I do worry that if a copper is given a speed gun, then he'll be told to nick a certain number of drivers, irrespective of how fast they're going. There will be some sort of quota system, and if a copper doesn't make the quota, then he'll get a rollocking.
Everhopeful, says...
12:20pm Tue 21 Oct 08
Bobfm, South Marston says...
12:38pm Tue 21 Oct 08
Everhopeful, says...
12:54pm Tue 21 Oct 08
ourtone, says...
12:57pm Tue 21 Oct 08
11:47am Tue 21 Oct 08
- there's no point in arguing with those people on safety when they use the same, albeit well-constructed, misleading rubbish to persuade people that cameras do not save lives.
You can argue 'regression to mean' all you like, but that can explain away around half the reduction in deaths and serious injuries at speed camera sites - are the other half of the lives not worth saving then?
I won't contribute to this subject any more,
I do hope you won’t contribute to this subject any more, because apart from being thoroughly unpleasant about it, you are also substantially misrepresenting your opponents views.
The last time this was discussed on this site, I posted about 12 separate points in rebuttal of your views. Each one was a cogent, reasoned argument, based on facts, and quoting sources where appropriate.
How did you respond? You ignored every single one.
It’s not my fault you can’t answer a reasoned argument without resorting to abuse, but don’t accuse our arguments as being rubbish if you can’t respond to any of them.
One of my arguments specifically was a demonstration of the fact that Speed Cameras Kill. Its not a question of ‘saving the other half,’ it is the fact that over 10,000 people have died because of Gatso’s who should not have done so.
Bobfm, South Marston says...
1:14pm Tue 21 Oct 08
As has been said we know speed accounts for 5 to 6 percent of accidents, this one may well have been as a result of speed. That doesn't mean the presence or otherwise of a camera would have altered it.
Pray tell why such an aggressive post. I have posted by views about cameras numerous times, based both on my experience as a former police road safety office, and having read the research that says not only that Cameras in economic terms are non productive, but also in Road Safety terms.
Everhopeful, says...
1:56pm Tue 21 Oct 08
Insight, says...
2:01pm Tue 21 Oct 08
If it is operated by civilians or PCSO's we're still being diddled out of what we've (nearly all) been demanding.
Rome wasn't built in a day and I don't think anyone expected a complete return to correct policing from day one of the fixed camera ban.
...but it is a start and now the lobbying must continue to ensure we continue to make progress on road safety initiatives, let them have their 'mobile' cameras if it makes the weak minded fools happy, but now they're mobile again, we can insist their units are fitted with ANPR and that any drunks spotted are pulled over to be breathalyzed.
Insight, says...
2:08pm Tue 21 Oct 08
Big Mac, Old Town says...
3:13pm Tue 21 Oct 08
Everhopeful wrote:Even if illegal speed was a contributing factor (and there's a 95% chance it wasn't) that doesn't mean the accident would have been prevented by a speed camera being in the vicinity.
Hello Bobfm. If your or I had been anywhere near the vehicle that shot off the road onto the central reservation, for whatever reason, yesterday morning -- I don't think the SBC's report 'by the experts' would have been much help. Can you please find out if speed was a factor in that accident and then say something more constructive ? Many thanks.
Did the accident even take place at the precise location of the speed camera? Because that 100m or so is the only place where they reduce speed.
Maybe the driver's attention was diverted by the speed camera itself, causing them to crash?
The Adver report on the incident says that the man had travelled from Reading and crashed at 6.49am
Looks far more likely it was tiredness that was to blame.
Everhopeful, says...
3:25pm Tue 21 Oct 08
Everhopeful, says...
3:26pm Tue 21 Oct 08
BWB, SWINDON says...
4:00pm Tue 21 Oct 08
And If you are caught speeding,
you are within your rights to ask
the Officer for the calibration
cirtificate of the camera being used
they have to be calibrated regularly
to be legal.They might not like your request,but tough luck,its your right.
ericbrip, St Albans says...
4:03pm Tue 21 Oct 08
If not, can anyone describe a hypothetical accident in which the presence of a camera would have prevented it?
No-one (and I have asked many experts) has yet provided a credible answer.
All claims for results "at camera sites" are due to statistics and other factors such as engineering.
This is so simple.
A camera CANNOT PREVENT A COLLISION.
A camera CANNOT SAVE A LIFE.
There is plenty of evidence, however, of cameras contributing to collisions and casualties through distraction, sudden braking etc.
They must go - and soon.
Even Angrier Monkey, Swindon says...
4:17pm Tue 21 Oct 08
Are they going to be just like fixed cameras, but mobile (ie they take a picture and send out a fine)
Or will they be pulling people over to be breathalised, told what they have done wrong etc?
If its the former than its only a very marginal improvment in my view.
Big Mac, Old Town says...
4:55pm Tue 21 Oct 08
BTW, type 'queens drive swindon accident' into Google and The Adver report on it comes up in the top five results.
Everhopeful, says...
5:09pm Tue 21 Oct 08
Everhopeful, says...
5:21pm Tue 21 Oct 08
ericbrip wrote:Some, who fear getting a ticket on a stretch of road are persuaded to drive within the legal limit. Driving at the speed for which the road was designed will make an accident less likely, particularly if the driver pays attention. Any collision would be at a lower speed, quite nice if you are the 'colidee'. If sudden braking occurs at a camera site, the blasted driver was breaking the speed limit at the time. Why is it necessary to do this? I always meet the speeder at the next traffic light anyway, so what's the benefit of his undertaking, speeding and all the other stuff? Has he/she got a problem -- get therapy.
Can anyone describe an accident that has happened that would have been prevented had a camera been present?
If not, can anyone describe a hypothetical accident in which the presence of a camera would have prevented it?
No-one (and I have asked many experts) has yet provided a credible answer.
All claims for results "at camera sites" are due to statistics and other factors such as engineering.
This is so simple.
A camera CANNOT PREVENT A COLLISION.
A camera CANNOT SAVE A LIFE.
There is plenty of evidence, however, of cameras contributing to collisions and casualties through distraction, sudden braking etc.
They must go - and soon.
Insight, says...
5:26pm Tue 21 Oct 08
I believe it should be mandatory that anyone pulled over for an offence such as speeding should also be required (at the discretion of the attending officer) to take a breathalyzer as a matter of course.
Also a documents check or a producer and a general overview of the vehicles safety, lights, tyres, exhaust, seatbelts etc.
I'd rather the number of drink drive convictions went up (because they were actually catching them) rather than massaging the figures to make speed cameras look like they're doing the job.
There are no doubt some people who might be scared of the speed cameras, but the people who should be being caught by a real officer certainly aren't.
Let's make inroads into the two million uninsured drivers on our roads every single day and you're not going to do that sitting in a van with a camera.
DO THE JOB PROPERLY!!
Geoff Reid, West Swindon says...
5:42pm Tue 21 Oct 08
Insight wrote:I could not agree more with Insights opinion.
I have to agree with you there Monkey and I'd go a little further.
I believe it should be mandatory that anyone pulled over for an offence such as speeding should also be required (at the discretion of the attending officer) to take a breathalyzer as a matter of course.
Also a documents check or a producer and a general overview of the vehicles safety, lights, tyres, exhaust, seatbelts etc.
I'd rather the number of drink drive convictions went up (because they were actually catching them) rather than massaging the figures to make speed cameras look like they're doing the job.
There are no doubt some people who might be scared of the speed cameras, but the people who should be being caught by a real officer certainly aren't.
Let's make inroads into the two million uninsured drivers on our roads every single day and you're not going to do that sitting in a van with a camera.
DO THE JOB PROPERLY!!
Policing the roads must be done by the right people in the right way.
This means using real police officers, not using 'scarecrow' devices like gatsos which are passive recorders only.
It should not fall to local councils to do what the police should be doing. The police should police and the council can concentrate on getting the bins emptied every two weeks.
Everhopeful, says...
5:43pm Tue 21 Oct 08
ericbrip, St Albans says...
5:43pm Tue 21 Oct 08
You use the term "the speed for which the road was designed" but cameras are always installed where the limit is lower than the 85th percentile (in fact the ACPO enforcement threshold (limit+10%+2mph) is also below the 85%ile. And the 85%ile is the yardstick for a safe speed, so going slower does not reduce likelihood of a collision (it may actually increase it, due to temptation to do other things (change CD etc).
No crash that has occurred would have been prevented by a camera.
No future crash will be prevented by a camera. An accident is a hazardous condition combined with an initiating event and no camera cannot will ever remove either of those.
I am not interested in speeding - I am angered at the money wasted on cameras and the lies used to support the industry. Millions of pounds wasted and millions taken off safe drivers at the 85%ile speed. The injustice disguised as safety is truly sickening.
Your sayYour Swindon
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.
Mobile speed cameras could still be used even if Swindon withdraws from the safety camera partnership
IVA help and Advice
Local Advertisers
Local Information
Enter your postcode, town or place name
Bobfm, South Marston says...
7:26am Tue 21 Oct 08
Seriously though,is that not what the Council and most posters have been saying that a combination of road safety initiatives are far better than just one. Members of the public could actively engage in this.
If you live in a residential street which has traffic calming and flashing signs which are ignore routinely then you could contact the police and ask for mobile enforcement. There is no delay in implementation like there is for fixed cameras.
The adver as part of it's 'keep the public informed, could highlight where such requests have been made, but not of course when they will be enforced. The levels of fines could be doubled, as drivers would clearly have no excises, given the combination of methods being used to slow them down. I would go further that a disqualification could be added as a matter of routine.