War of words over speed cameras (From Swindon Advertiser)
Get involved! Send photos, video, news & views. Text SWINDON NEWS to 80360 or email us
War of words over speed cameras
12:00pm Friday 24th October 2008 in News
TORY politician Peter Greenhalgh backed plans to axe speed cameras to cosy-up to celebrity pal Jeremy Clarkson says Swindon MP Michael Wills.
Now the Conservative councillor, and architect of the plan to remove speed cameras from Swindon’s streets, has hit back saying the MP is living in ‘la-la land’.
The war of words erupted after the council’s cabinet voted on Wednesday to withdraw from the safety camera partnership, which would lead to speed cameras being pulled from Swindon’s streets.
North Swindon MP Michael Wills said he would be the first to shake Coun Greenhalgh’s hand if the speed camera removal plan proves successful.
But in the meantime he said he was ‘living in despair’ at the possible outcome.
“Road safety is the issue here,” he said.
“If the measures result in the reduction of accidents and fatalities then it must be a good thing.
“If it does not then I hope the council will hold their hands up and admit they’ve made a mistake.
“I do think coun Greenhalgh has done this to get in with Top Gear and the Daily Mail and I despair at what this may mean for the lives of some Swindon people.
“I hope to God I am wrong and that I can eventually congratulate him on a job well done.”
Coun Greenhalgh said the move to axe cameras was as a result of evidence that the current scheme ‘simply wasn’t working’.
“Instead funding that would have been pumped into the partnership will now go on to other more effective methods of reducing speed and saving lives,” he said.
“As for Mr Wills’s comments, I have never met Jeremy Clarkson and don’t really care if I do.
“This is about saving lives. It is not about making cheap political potshots as if this is some sort of joke, it’s about lowering the death toll on our roads.
“It’s about time we had a proper debate on road safety, it’s about time we had a proper debate on speed cameras but so far our MPs haven’t supported that need at all.
“This is a very serious matter that needs to be addressed as such.”
Comments(40)
Always Grumpy
says...
12:41pm Fri 24 Oct 08
Oh god, have we still got 18 months before we can kick this man out of office along with the odious Snelgrove?
Bobfm
says...
12:56pm Fri 24 Oct 08
Brown also it is understood believes that if he can see an upturn by his actions by then it would be good to go to the country.
cfa
says...
1:25pm Fri 24 Oct 08
malkym1
says...
1:29pm Fri 24 Oct 08
On the Mayoral forum I asked Ms S what she planned to do for a career after the next election - she didn't answer! You don't imagine it's because she still thinks she'll be a MP after it does she?
Minno
says...
2:02pm Fri 24 Oct 08
I have just returned from travelling 2,000 miles in three states of the USA and not a speed hump or camera in sight and obedience to all speed limits the general rule. What we need is a complete change in attitude and mentality and the only way that can now be achieved is the fear of meeting a mobile speed camera that hasn’t been announced or is camouflaged. Unmarked police cars are also a deterrent and if you don’t know where they are, or can’t see them, the more likely you are to comply with mandatory speed limits. We might then see some results and some rapid points and fines to the persistent offenders who seem in abundance these days. I also happen to think that speed being a 6% single cause of road death is epidemic so I hope any new measures that are proposed to be introduced are scrutinised and analysed with all the fairness that the D of T statistics were used to condemn the speed camera. As usual I expect it will only be the favourable ones that are used. Just a thought but I wonder how many of those people who voted in the SA poll have been fined for speeding, or are part of the minority? Where is my bike?
The Chrominator
says...
2:15pm Fri 24 Oct 08
‘living in despair’ at the possible outcome.
Oh dear. Oh deary, deary me.
If we, the general public, still believed every dire warning of imminent disaster HMG ****-out every time it wants to promoted the latest 'must have' policy/tax/war on terror/war on obesity/war on knife crime/ war on gun crime/ war on want/ war on poverty/ war on waste.....
.....we would all be booking ourselves into a Swiss euthanasia clinic.
Michael Wills and his merry band of political activists are still refusing to debate the factual data on speed cameras.
They already know that the claim 'speed cameras save lives' isn't backed up by the unadulterated evidence, and believing that the mere presence of just 3 fixed speed cameras in Swindon somehow magicly makes us, or our children safer overall is like asking Gary Glitter to baby-sit for you.
No one should assume a road is ever going to be a safe place because they're not, and they never will be until everyone who is using and sharing that space is prepared to take more responsibility for their own safety, as well as that of others.
This means drivers AND pedestrians AND cyclists.
I see pedestrians wandering casually out into traffic every day and tbh I marvel that more aren't killed and it's a testament to the vast majority of decently skilled drivers that they aren't.
The pro-camera brigade are entitled to hold the views they do, but this is a two way street. As a professional driver I'd be happy to see fixed cameras remain in Swindon if pedestrians would consent to have a new law passed upon them which would make it illegal to cross the road at any point other than a designated crossing point.
WBAde
says...
2:19pm Fri 24 Oct 08
What is being done about the other 94% of factors causing accidents?
As long as there are those who blindly follow the faith of "Speed Kills" we will keep having these arguments, whilst THOUSANDS of people die on the road every year.
Everhopeful
says...
2:38pm Fri 24 Oct 08
Always Grumpy wrote:I do not think Anne Snelgrove is 'odious'. She is very likeable. To show that I am not just writing as a pro-Labour person, some of the Tories (e.g. F. Foley) can be amiable, too. Why do we have to be so viscious about individuals ? It brings it all down to such a scummy level.
If Wills ever had any credibility (which I seriously doubt), then he's lost it completely with this outrageous crtisism of Swindon Council and in particular Councillor Greenhaigh. This latest outburst just highlights how completely out of touch he is with public opinion in general and the democratic process he chooses to ignore in particular. The man's a complete and utter fool!
Oh god, have we still got 18 months before we can kick this man out of office along with the odious Snelgrove?
PS. who is this kinky person who now wants me to type in "ball-burn" as a security word ? Can't they think of anything else ? What's wrong with them ?
NotALoony
says...
2:54pm Fri 24 Oct 08
Agreed, that there was no point in Clarkson's name coming up, but the guy concerned was probably just venting his frustration.
cfa
says...
2:59pm Fri 24 Oct 08
I've never read anything on here that I would consider "scummy level".
Some of the actions of our politicians however.......
Bungs, russians & yachts, undisclosed earnings, cash for questions, Mandleson......
Also to show that I too am not "pro Labour/Tory", my opinion is, with very few exceptions that most politicians are complete a*******s.
Worz
says...
3:06pm Fri 24 Oct 08
I got a bit lost in your post. Exactly why do you believe that nothing should be done about 94% of accidents (i.e the ones which don't involve excess speed)?
The ModFather
says...
3:15pm Fri 24 Oct 08
Worz
says...
3:27pm Fri 24 Oct 08
Yellow lines, yes, ticket them, fine them and tow them, they're causing an obstruction. However in my experience, traffic wardens tend to be told to spend their time patrolling the parking bays i.e. "you may park here, but only if you pay the council protection racket money". Wardens tend to have quotas, and they take their numbers the easiest way that they can.
Synergie
says...
3:43pm Fri 24 Oct 08
Geoff Reid
says...
3:48pm Fri 24 Oct 08
I think I'm the one who wants to 'get in with Top Gear', hence my blatant attempt to blag my way into a studio invite. Otherwise I'll have to wait 23 years, (at current waiting list numbers), to get in.
http://www.talkswind
on.org/index.php?top
ic=3743.msg21313#msg
21313
Will's comments above cement my own belief that neither MP is willing or able to debate this issue on the evidence available from the Department of Transport.
It is difficult to logically and rationally object to SBC seeking the reduce the numbers of people killed and seriously injured on Swindons roads to numbers far below the target deemed 'acceptable' by HMG and it's two representatives in Swindon.
Wiltshire constabulary have already begun visibly policing the Boroughs roads again this week in a very high profile way.
As SBC has not yet left the W&SSCP, I question whether this sudden, but very welcome increase in plod activity was initiated after a political request to the Chief Constable, or whether he has finally realised that traffic policing in Swindon has been severely neglected since the formation of the W&SSCP. Time will tell.
I'd like to see a constant and determined police presence on Swindons roads and, contrary to much of the illogical and emotive noise being created by the 'Speed Kills - Cameras save live' lobby, an increased police presence is exactly what most people want.
What is preferable..... a real policeman/woman on the side of the road, or their scarecrow equivalent?
I'll take the real PC McCoy please.
potluck
says...
4:02pm Fri 24 Oct 08
with Mr Wills, i had dealings with him on the new bypass, his envolement was to refer my letter to the Highways Agency and state that they know what they are doing. He is suppose to MP for North Swindon, but has allowed the main approach from the north into Swindon a disaster. he should look at his actions before trying to criticize others.
the stats for and against speed camera's can be read in numerous ways, proving that most people are biased in issuing data.
PeeveD
says...
4:15pm Fri 24 Oct 08
Too Easy.....
Mr Wills.. has it come to this.....
Using the name of a popular celebrity to garner yourself a cheap "headline"?
Here's a thought buddy...
DO SOMETHING WORTHWHILE FOR YOUR CONSTITUENTS!
That would probably get you a few more of B"anne"dwagons' precious inches and a little more respect form the constituents who to be frank are just looking forward to seeing you get your butt kicked back to the private sector!
Bobfm
says...
4:29pm Fri 24 Oct 08
BobP
says...
10:14pm Fri 24 Oct 08
malkym1
says...
2:23am Sat 25 Oct 08
ourtone
says...
6:24am Sat 25 Oct 08
2:38pm Fri 24 Oct 08
Always Grumpy wrote:
I do not think Anne Snelgrove is 'odious'. She is very likeable. To show that I am not just writing as a pro-Labour person, some of the Tories (e.g. F. Foley) can be amiable, too. Why do we have to be so viscious about individuals ? It brings it all down to such a scummy level.
‘Odious,’ would be a polite version of how I feel about Anne Snelgrove, and I have my reasons.
I wrote to her over the 42 day detention issue. It was an appeal for her to do the right thing and vote against this foul and undemocratic piece of legislation. She was quoted in the Adver saying that she had her intial concerns, but had been given assurances that the powers would not be misused.
I pointed out that the RIPA powers (2003) were already being misused, despite assurances given at the time by the former Hom Sec.
In reply I got a snide e-mail which said that she didn’t intend to debate with me, but pointed out that some of the councils misusing the RIPA powers were Tory.
Well that’s all right then!
All in all she was sarcastic, rude and worst of all, patronising. As I pointed out in my reply however, fortunately she has a majority that is slimmer than a playing card that has been on a diet. It wont take many Labour voters changing their minds to see her on the dole queue, where she belongs.
Based on his pathetic quotes above, clearly Michael Wills needs to join her. He says there is no debate about the facts but as soon as anyone quotes anything to contradict his views, he ignores them. He is toeing the party line, despite the increasing evidence that his beloved speed cameras kill people.
He says he will shake Greenhalgh by the hand if he (Willis) is proved wrong. I hope Peter holds him to that. Here are the things that need to happen to justify that.
1) The number of people caught speeding goes down.
2) The number of people caught for other motoring offences goes up.
3) The number of road deaths remains static.
This would be enough to prove the point, howeverby the time the data is in (April 2010) Willis will likely be unemployed, and once he loses his seat, he will never be seen in Swindon again.
ourtone
says...
6:27am Sat 25 Oct 08
2:54pm Fri 24 Oct 08
Jeremy Clarkson is a very entertaining man. His weekly column in The Sunday Times is hilarious. Difficult not to like him. Yet he is a grown man (who does not want to grow old) and is childlike about blowing up cameras and being a boy-racer. Do all of you think he's right ? If so, I despair ...... "
He also has never had a single point on his licence and does his 'boy-racing,' offroad. He has also done advanced driving and race driving courses, and is very skilled behind the wheel.
Have you ever had a point on your licence? If so, you are the boy racer, not him!
Piccolo
says...
7:47am Sat 25 Oct 08
NotALoony
says...
9:32am Sat 25 Oct 08
ourtone wrote:No I haven't ever had a point on my licence !
"NotALoony, says...
2:54pm Fri 24 Oct 08
Jeremy Clarkson is a very entertaining man. His weekly column in The Sunday Times is hilarious. Difficult not to like him. Yet he is a grown man (who does not want to grow old) and is childlike about blowing up cameras and being a boy-racer. Do all of you think he's right ? If so, I despair ...... "
He also has never had a single point on his licence and does his 'boy-racing,' offroad. He has also done advanced driving and race driving courses, and is very skilled behind the wheel.
Have you ever had a point on your licence? If so, you are the boy racer, not him!
I agree that Jeremy Clarkson is a very skillful driver (and nice with it, a pal tells me who has met him). But whilst he shows in every programme that he is not an old fogey, many will conclude that it is boring not to speed. Jeremy Clarkson is a gem, a 'one-off', but I would rather he did not have a lot of lesser mortals copying what they interpret as is his message.
cfa
says...
10:46am Sat 25 Oct 08
ourtone
says...
11:12am Sat 25 Oct 08
10:46am Sat 25 Oct 08
Am I the only one who thinks Clarkson is a complete a**e?
Probably
Casual Observer
says...
11:29am Sat 25 Oct 08
I'll get my coat.
Big Mac
says...
11:39am Sat 25 Oct 08
They've been stung by a Tory council who have adopted a policy that the majority of people believe in and want to see happen.
Not only does this mean democracy has, for once, prevailed but it also means other councils will follow suit and the government's smoke and mirrors speed camera approach to road 'safety' will be left in tatters.
As usual - and whenever he opens his mouth, it would seem - Mr Wills has made a fool of himself and simply lost himself even more votes.
Roll on the next general election!
Piccolo
says...
12:47pm Sat 25 Oct 08
Big Mac
says...
12:54pm Sat 25 Oct 08
Councils are supposed to represent, reflect and carry out the democratic wish of the people who vote for them.
That is what SBC have done in this case. I fail to see how they can be criticised.
Just because we've had to endure 11 years of national government doing as they please and ignoring the wishes of the people doesn't mean we have to accept the same level of contempt from our local government.
NoAngel
says...
3:05pm Sat 25 Oct 08
Big Mac
says...
4:00pm Sat 25 Oct 08
That is absolutely not the case.
How is *any* driver any 'safer' at 30mph than 31mph?
ourtone
says...
4:22pm Sat 25 Oct 08
11:29am Sat 25 Oct 08
Probably not ourtone, I can't stand him. Though I have got a hairstyle like his... in my underpants.
I'll get my coat.
Very good!
ourtone
says...
4:26pm Sat 25 Oct 08
3:05pm Sat 25 Oct 08
Speed limits are set as the safe speed at which it is safe for an average driver to travel"
Really? Always?
So what you are saying, is that it is always safe to travel on a motorway at exactly 70 m.p.h. and that this is true at any time of the day or night, in any weather.
If you stand by your comment, what you are saying is that the same speed is safe at 6 a.m. on a bright summer weekend morning with no cars about, and 6 p.m. on a winter evening, in the midweek rush hour, with thick snow and ice on the ground, fog all around. In both cases, you are saying that 70 m.p.h is totally appropriate.
If that is what you believe, then you are seriously deluded. If that is not what you meant, kindly withdraw your previous comment.
NotALoony
says...
4:38pm Sat 25 Oct 08
ourtone wrote:Individual drivers are supposed to be possessed of a brain. In fog, snow, ice, the dark, etc. He/she reduces speed without being ordered -- as it is both common sense and an act of self-preservation. The speed limit is the maximum speed the powers that be have set, for driving in ideal conditions. You are not obliged to go at 30 mph past a primary school, even though there is no sign saying 20 mph. It is assumed that the brain you were given will be engaged and in use whilst you are behind the wheel, to deal with whatever situation presents itself. There is, by the way, no speed limit sign posted in a car park -- Sometimes drivers shoot around as if on a racetrack: bonkers. Not jolly to squash someone.
"NoAngel, Swindon says...
3:05pm Sat 25 Oct 08
Speed limits are set as the safe speed at which it is safe for an average driver to travel"
Really? Always?
So what you are saying, is that it is always safe to travel on a motorway at exactly 70 m.p.h. and that this is true at any time of the day or night, in any weather.
If you stand by your comment, what you are saying is that the same speed is safe at 6 a.m. on a bright summer weekend morning with no cars about, and 6 p.m. on a winter evening, in the midweek rush hour, with thick snow and ice on the ground, fog all around. In both cases, you are saying that 70 m.p.h is totally appropriate.
If that is what you believe, then you are seriously deluded. If that is not what you meant, kindly withdraw your previous comment.
Piccolo
says...
8:41pm Sat 25 Oct 08
ourtone
says...
10:44pm Sat 25 Oct 08
4:38pm Sat 25 Oct 08
Individual drivers are supposed to be possessed of a brain. In fog, snow, ice, the dark, etc. He/she reduces speed without being ordered .
The speed limit is the maximum speed the powers that be have set, for driving in ideal conditions. You are not obliged to go at 30 mph past a primary school, even though there is no sign saying 20 mph. It is assumed that the brain you were given will be engaged and in use whilst you are behind the wheel, to deal with whatever situation presents itself.
But that is not what was said. The quote was
"NoAngel, Swindon says...
3:05pm Sat 25 Oct 08
Speed limits are set as the safe speed at which it is safe for an average driver to travel"
Safe speed. Not maximum speed. Safe speed for an average driver to travel.
That is what having fixed limits like this does. Everyone drives to the limit.
I agree. Drivers should be able to use their discretion. One fixed limit with no appeal to common sense is exactly the opposite view. I remain correct.
ourtone
says...
10:48pm Sat 25 Oct 08
8:41pm Sat 25 Oct 08
Big Mac, whether you like it or not the authorities have a duty to make decisions which are not necessarily popular but in the best interests of those they're elected or appointed to serve. Whatever you might think about all of this, this recent decision made by a small number of deluded Swindon Councillors is neither data led nor in the best interests of the people they're elected to serve,
If you have better data than the government, kindly produce it.
The government’s own figures show that speed is a factor in 5-7% of road deaths. Under the previous arrangements ALL of the council’s road safety budget was being focussed on those 5-7% and ignoring the 93-95%. They have now decided to focus on other causes of death.
How is that not data lead?
Swindon Councillors are not deluded, but you are if you think there is any evidence at all that supports your view.
If you cannot produce it, you should be quiet. Also, get ready with the apology when the figures show that Swindon’s roads are going to start getting SAFER from April 09.
Worz
says...
11:08am Sun 26 Oct 08
>the authorities have a duty to make decisions which are ... in the best interests of those they're elected or appointed to serve.
And that's what they've done. Pouring £320K per year into only 5% of RTAs is not in the electorate's best interests.
The electorate and the council now need to convince the police that concentrating their time/money/resources
/effort into only 5% of RTAs is a bad thing. Only then will deaths & injuries start to improve.
The council's decision is only the first step in the right direction.
Big Mac
says...
2:06pm Sun 26 Oct 08
Politicians and the authorities are ONLY there to represent, reflect and implement the wishes of the people. It is called 'democracy', although I realise there are no longer too many examples of it in operation.
It actually isn't up to politicians to go around only ever doing what 'they think is best' for the rest of us - although, again, after the last 11 years of government it's easy to see why people might think that's their role.
Whether you like it or not, democracy and common sense has been served well by Swindon Borough Council in this instance.
You are clearly in favour of speed cameras and that's your perogative. However, the majority of your peers are against them and realise that the Council should be using other, more successful, measures to increase road safety in the town.
In case you need reminding, in the last year that fixed speed cameras were in operation in Swindon, the number of road traffic accidents *increased*. This, along with the sheer amount of tickets they issue, proves they are ineffective for both road safety and as a means to reduce speeding.
You also claim that SBC's decision is 'short-term politically motivated'. That doesn't really make sense - everyone benefits from the removal of speed cameras, so if your current councillor is Labour then he/she will also reap the rewards of SBC's decision. And if SBC's decision does manage to win more votes for Tory councillors because the Council is mainly Tory, then, again, surely that's democracy at work.
If you can find enough people with the same view as yourself, simply vote for anyone but the Tory candidate and you'll have resoundingly made your point. Good luck with that.
The reality, if you study the introduction and take-up of the use of speed cameras in the UK is that the Labour government saw them as yet another stealth tax with which to raise money they do desperately need to try and reduce the massive public borrowing they have to make to fund their spend, spend, spend ideology.
And look where that's got us.
Comment now! Register or sign in below.
Log in with us
Fields marked with * are mandatory.
Or
Log in with