News RSS Feed Send your news, pictures & videos


Swindon's speed cameras are turned off

A speed camera A speed camera

Speed cameras on Swindon’s roads will be deactivated today.

All cameras which are permanently fixed on the town’s roads will have bags put over them this afternoon. They will be temporarily replaced by vehicle-activated signs which flash when a driver exceeds the speed limit.

The Wiltshire and Swindon Road Safety Partnership decided to end the use of cameras due to a combination of funding issues and new thinking about the causes of accidents.

Permanent measures to cut accidents at the three sites which host the five cameras – Queens Drive, Oxford Road and the A420 – will continue to be discussed.

Coun Peter Greenhalgh, Swindon Council’s lead member for transport and a member of the partnership, said drivers who might consider Swindon roads a racecourse from today would be disappointed.

He said: “I would always urge people to drive safely and if people choose to break the speed limits they will of course be punished. The police are fully committed to road safety in Swindon.

“We believe there are better ways we can reduce the accidents on our roads than just through the use of speed cameras.

“We have talked about a lot of different strategies. For example we are talking to motorbike shops to try to use them as an interface to get our message across.

“We are also implementing education schemes and trying to look at the causes of accidents.”

One method that will not be used to replace the cameras will be speed bumps.

“Definitely not,” said Coun Greenhalgh. “Speed bumps are possibly the second worst aberration for drivers. If I had my way I would remove every single speed bump from Swindon.

“But I would replace them with measures that would ensure safety on those roads.”

Coun Greenhalgh said councils around the country had expressed an interest in the plan.

He added: “I suspect all parties will be looking at Swindon to see how we are responding and how our ideas are carried out.

“We are developing a reputation for challenging the status quo and being at the forefront of new thinking.”

REACTION to the speed camera decision varied from delight to dismay.

Eric Archer, who has been driving minicabs in Swindon for 50 years, said he was pleased the cameras would be deactivated.

Mr Archer, from Central Taxis on Shrivenham Road, said: “I think it’s a good idea. I was caught last week on the A420.

“I drive along that road every day but it was pouring with rain and I was talking to the customer and forgot it was a 50mph area. I was only doing 57 mph.

“I do agree with them in built-up areas because I think you need to do something to stop people speeding, but on roads like the A420 I think they are really irritating.”

Mr Archer added: “I’m all for the flashing signs. They make you think about what you are doing and you do see people slow down.”

Andrew Howard, head of road safety at the AA, said he would be following the Swindon speed camera saga with interest.

He said: “Does it mean that there will be no enforcement in Swindon?

“Are policemen going to be hiding behind trees? There are a lot of questions that need to be answered before anyone can make a real judgement.

“We survey our members every year and the lowest support we have ever had for speed cameras is 69 per cent.

“We make the question very broad because there is always a difference between what people think about the camera in their street and in someone else’s.”

Mr Howard said vehicle activated signs had their place in a responsible road safety scheme but did not play the same role as speed cameras.

He said: “They will probably influence people who are travelling on that road for the first time but it won’t do that for the people who use that road everyday.“ Deputy chief constable of Wiltshire Police David Ainsworth said his officers would not compromise in their drive to keep Wiltshire motorists safe.

He described cameras as an effective means of reducing deaths and injuries and said mobile speed cameras would continue to be used.

Mr Ainsworth added: “I am especially pleased that the council remains committed to the fact mobile speed safety camera units, which are part of that partnership, will continue as normal.

“We will continue to work with the council in assisting to monitor the impact of the new vehicle activated signs.

“Any assumption that speed cameras will no longer be used in Swindon is plainly incorrect.”

Labour leader Coun Derique Montaut claimed the council’s Conservative cabinet had made a grave mistake by recommending switching off the cameras.

He said: “It is an extremely sad day and I think the council will regret this in the long term.

“As from today our roads will be more dangerous.”

Comments(38)

itsamess says...
9:36am Fri 31 Jul 09

Unfortunately our Council puts revenue collection from motorists above the real issues and the decision to have cameras shut off was about revenue the Council were receiving. For numerous years the beseiged motorist has had to face extra costs in every aspect of owning a car--with poor quality roads and more police dealing with motorists than the growing crime. Our roads are extremely congested through bad design and thought process. Park and rides that never benefited the locals or out of town workers and ignoring very simple solutions to traffic management--prefferi
ng to hit the local people hard. Look long and hard at your local councillors of any party and if they are not getting it right vote them out--regardless of party.

billie-boy says...
9:40am Fri 31 Jul 09

Oh what a donut Mr Archer is, he is glad they are being turned off because he got caught last week, so now he can start speeding everyday and not get caught now and most probably hit some poor innocent person.

Bobfm says...
10:05am Fri 31 Jul 09

We could debate the merits of speed cameras until the cows come home, what concerns me though was Mr Archers statement:

“I drive along that road every day but it was pouring with rain and I was talking to the customer and forgot it was a 50mph area. I was only doing 57 mph."

So it was adverse weather conditions and he was distracted by talking to a customer.

Has he just attended the NVQ course we heard about.

For the record Mr Archer 80 to 90% of all RTA's are caused by some form of driver distraction like talking to someone in the vehicle.

Bobfm says...
10:16am Fri 31 Jul 09

Please FK don't insight them, they need no encouragement.

swindonistani says...
10:18am Fri 31 Jul 09

itsamess wrote:
Unfortunately our Council puts revenue collection from motorists above the real issues and the decision to have cameras shut off was about revenue the Council were receiving. For numerous years the beseiged motorist has had to face extra costs in every aspect of owning a car--with poor quality roads and more police dealing with motorists than the growing crime. Our roads are extremely congested through bad design and thought process. Park and rides that never benefited the locals or out of town workers and ignoring very simple solutions to traffic management--prefferi ng to hit the local people hard. Look long and hard at your local councillors of any party and if they are not getting it right vote them out--regardless of party.
I wish that our roads surface could be as well maintained as the cameras!
It is proven that to significantly reduce accidents, we need to increase road markings and signalling!
the second biggest killer on the road after the drivers is the road itself, so why is there no systematic maintenance of the road, risk assessements of junctions etc....
Each fatal accident cost £1million, that is £2 billion/year!
we need to make road safer by investing in it and not only penalising, battering drivers!
In formula 1 or other racing competition, security is taken seriously, Track safety, car safety and driver security.
We cannot be serious about Road safety by only focusing on the drivers!

Former Kingsdownman says...
10:18am Fri 31 Jul 09

Bobfm, I know but it is rather funny seeing what they come up with.

alfred says...
10:19am Fri 31 Jul 09

The Adver has given considerable coverage to this issue from which I gleaned that the speed cameras were simply not the most cost effective way to enforce speed restrictions. In fact, they were very expensive.

I hope that the money saved will go to the other, more effective safety schemes that have been written about and that this stops being such a political hot potato.

Bobfm says...
10:27am Fri 31 Jul 09

Alfred according to independent research Cameras are 50 times more expensive than flashing shines, and yet statistically less effective at preventing accidents within and around their locations than the signs.

Bobfm says...
10:31am Fri 31 Jul 09

Blimey the eyes are playing up this morning that have course should have read flashing signs.

Mr Blackwell says...
11:11am Fri 31 Jul 09

At last.

Good.

Will be interesting to see how the police etc. try and present the statistics differently in order to maximise 'accidents' now the cameras have been switched off.

Bobfm says...
11:21am Fri 31 Jul 09

Mr B, there was never justification on Home Office Accident guidelines for any of Swindons cameras in the first place.

But that didn't stop the Partnership.

Mr Blackwell says...
11:23am Fri 31 Jul 09

Bob, very true - at least two cameras in Swindon have been illegally sited and operated since their installation in any case.

In theory, any ticket issued by them is actually invalid.

Strange how that's been kept quiet, eh?

Home Boy says...
11:25am Fri 31 Jul 09

Mr Blackwell wrote:
Bob, very true - at least two cameras in Swindon have been illegally sited and operated since their installation in any case.

In theory, any ticket issued by them is actually invalid.

Strange how that's been kept quiet, eh?
I'm just amazed he managed he managed to keep his taxi on the road at that breakneck speed. What a dare devil he must be!

The Real Librarian says...
11:35am Fri 31 Jul 09

The Wiltshire and Swindon Road Safety Partnership decided to end the use of cameras due to a combination of funding issues and new thinking about the causes of accidents.

New thinking! What could they mean?

Has someone finally noticed that speed is only responsible for between 5-7% of all accidents?

Have they realised that real coppers on the roads catch people committing other offences, such as driving an uninsured, untaxed, unroadworthy vehicle?

Labour leader Coun Derique Montaut claimed “As from today our roads will be more dangerous.”
Can the Adver do some real journalism to follow this one up.
In 6 months time can we have a review of the accident figures before and after the cameras were turned off, and if they show a reduction, can we raise this issue with Coun Montaut?

Home Boy says...
11:50am Fri 31 Jul 09

Mr Blackwell wrote:
Bob, very true - at least two cameras in Swindon have been illegally sited and operated since their installation in any case.

In theory, any ticket issued by them is actually invalid.

Strange how that's been kept quiet, eh?
Have you read some of the justifications for the mobile camera sites? Despite having very little accident history, the mobile camera sites on Thamesdown Drive and Great Western Way are supposedly justified as "community concern" sites. This effectively allows the council to impose an artificially low speed limit and then enforce it with cameras. In the case of Thamesdown Drive the road has a design speed of 60mph (relating to the road's geometry) and yet has a mobile camera enforced 40mph limit. And people wonder why drivers get so frustrated!

Mr Blackwell says...
11:58am Fri 31 Jul 09

The cameras along Queens Drive had been there illegally all along, which is why they were switched off over a year ago.

You try getting the statistics from the various authorities for accidents on the section they cover *since* they were removed - it's nigh on impossible.

The reason for that is because accidents along there have obviously stayed the same or, as many suspect, actually decreased since the removal of the cameras.

Comments from the likes of Derique Montaut just show how he considers party allegiance more important than people's safety. The fact is that the vast majority of the Swindon road network is not covered by speed cameras yet we have a very low level of road accidents.

Socio-fascists like Derique Montaut just betray their left-wing, Statist routes with such comments... all he wants is the power to make you do what he wants, it's all about control and taking your money.

Speed cameras do NOT reduce speeding and do NOT reduce accidents - all they do is raise revenue.

Today is a good day for Swindon and, hopefully, the rest of the nation will follow SBC's lead.

Bobfm says...
12:20pm Fri 31 Jul 09

If you want to know all the facts about speed cameras then this is the site:

http://www.speedcame
ras.org/speed_camera
_facts.php

Getting the facts is right, I have tried to access the DoT camera stats justification site again, where I established 3 years ago that non complied with HO guidelines in Swindon, but it no longer seems to be there. Wonder why that may be.

I do remember that the Oxford Road Camera had just 0.5 of an accident in the 3 years prior to the camera's installation way below the criteria.

Swindon born n bred says...
12:21pm Fri 31 Jul 09

I guess that the counsil will be looking at other motoring related ways to raise revenue - such as the tax on urban businesses who have parking spaces for their employees. Up to £250PA can be levied. So, if you are a small business with 10 staff all of whom drive to work becasue public transport is no good, that's a bill of £2,500 PA (which may be passed on to employees at the employers discretion.

Then look at someone like Intel and calculate how much they'd have to pay. I guess we should look forward to many more UK based businesses moving abroad.

A bankrupt nation run by a bankrupt government who are bankrupt of ideas

Swindon born n bred says...
12:25pm Fri 31 Jul 09

That, of course, should be council

Grrr

itsamess says...
3:02pm Fri 31 Jul 09

Its a little late for those of you who know cameras were illegally sited as if our council made a decision to site them there they have been guilty of maladministration at least--or if they made the decision knowing so the spexcific councillors or advising officers coud face criminal charges under malfeasance--they can be imprisoned and lose the right to hold any public office. Over to our law expert Bobfm

Bobfm says...
5:59pm Fri 31 Jul 09

The legislation you refer to is of course not retrospective.

her_in_doors2 says...
7:03pm Fri 31 Jul 09

Cameras are only effective for the few yards in front of them. Speed between them, brake hard when you see one then off you go again. To my way of thinking they cause more problems than they solve. The flashing signs do make you think about your speed.
The signs in Pinehurst road said 21 accidents - 4 caused by excessive speed - this means that 17 were caused by cars going too slow!! (sorry can't remember the exact figures).

itsamess says...
7:13pm Fri 31 Jul 09

Oh deary me Bob--man of learning and teaching--ex police officer. Malfeasance can carry a life sentence under criminal law--and there is no statute of limitations in our law. Councillors and public services all have a duty of care. Likewise honesty and correct procedures must be followed as councillors are not above the law.

PK says...
8:21pm Fri 31 Jul 09

Good riddance to the roadside government piggy-banks.

These things are known to cause accidents because drivers are so busy watching their speedos incase they go a couple of miles over the speed limit than watching the road.

I drive pretty much to the speed limits in built up areas but also drive according to the road and weather conditions.

In 34 years I've not caused an accident or ever had a speeding ticket.

As for the A420, with all the different speed limits, some going from 70mph to 50mph, then 60mph and the amount of speed cameras on that road, I find it is one of the worst I've ever driven on.

That road is a nightmare, especially for someone who doesn't know that road.

As for Councillor Montaut, how like him to blame the Tories for everything (forgetting of course his own party when it ran the council made a pigs ear of it).

I spoke to him recently. He didn't like what I had to say to him and I found that every question I asked him he blamed on the Tories.

When I asked him a couple of difficult questions, he couldn't get away fast enough.

Would I vote for him or his party? No chance. Nor would I vote for the other lot either.


Bobfm says...
8:12am Sat 1 Aug 09

Wrong again itsamess

Generally there are no limits for the issuing of criminal proceedings. However, if the case may only be tried in the Magistrates Court, a magistrate or magistrate’s clerk must be asked to issue a summons within six months of the date of the alleged offence. If this is not done, a court may not subsequently convict.

That aside the rules Governing Councillor responsibility. For instance, if a councillor served 15 years ago and excluding criminal issues, there becomes an issue of say investing money unwisely that Councillor is not liable. If however someone is a Councillor now and in a few years time something similar happens then they can be held liable although as a Councillor the Council legally indemnifies them against such eventualities.

Kineasy says...
10:23am Sat 1 Aug 09

Great news!

itsamess says...
10:54am Sat 1 Aug 09

Regardless BobFm--the law provides this criminal offence where it can be proved a councillor or officer has made decisions to create revenue against the principle of law. Once discovered--and dont forget the evidence would be available through FOI and can sustain a prosecution it is a formality for magistrates to refer it to the higher court. For example if aparking assistant issues a Penalty notice knowing an offence is not committed--the recipient appeals and that is rejected by the council and the recipient pays it. As that prevents the appeal to the adjudicators on known false information malfeasance is committed. So are you saying a specialist lawyer who has overtuned many thousands of parking and speeding tickets is wrong?

itsamess says...
11:04am Sat 1 Aug 09

As a Quasi politician Bob how would you view the fact that all councillors in a ward decline to attend a meeting where a decision is made against the public opinion-and the cabinet member who has responsibility for the proposal. Despite strong and valid objections?

Bobfm says...
6:22pm Sat 1 Aug 09

itsamess, do you have the slightest idea what you are rambling on about, because I don't you go from Councillors can be 'prosecuted' to FPN's being overturned.

Then spout on about ward councillors, as though I should again have a clue what you are talking about, may I suggest staying off the Stella at least until lunch time.

itsamess says...
3:58am Sun 2 Aug 09

Perhaps that is why you get embroiled in so many confrontational situations--you profess to be a master of law and order--yet your ability to follow the flow of debate is not evident by your responses-or is it simply you have no ability to admit your failings? For your further information i am tee-total and a non-smoker who believes in freedom of choice. You self proclaimed you took a break from posting to prove a point--yet your adversary did contribute during that time--this is not the place for petty arguments--however when you are shown to be wrong you attack others in a personal way. You have not yet learned that by sharing information there is a possibility swindon can become a better place

Bobfm says...
10:42am Sun 2 Aug 09

I have asked you to explain what your posts meant, in a similar manner to your aggressive postings towards me.

It is clear from your response that you can give it out but can't take it.

However it doesn't alter the fact that your posts prior to your last make no sense or have a plain meaning. I cannot help that fact.

Perhaps in future if you behaved in a civilised way in your responses I would reciprocate, however I won't be holding by breath.

itsamess says...
11:38am Sun 2 Aug 09

You understood enough to quote inapplicable law--then level stupid remarks claiming you dont know what i mean--simply you believe only your views are important and you have no desire to accept you could be wrong. Maybe you believe the Council always acts within the law--they do not--the fact is there are legal remedies to deal with it and examples given of that which you dont grasp.

Bobfm says...
8:37am Mon 3 Aug 09

There you go again. I will ask simple questions.

What have Councillors to do with FPN appeals?.

What is the meaning of the post about Ward Councillors not attending a meeting?

Where have I suggested there are not remedies in law to deal with Councillor corruption.

itsamess says...
9:06am Mon 3 Aug 09

What have councillors to do with FPN.
A case of not reading what i actually said bob--i clearly stated Parking attendants.

You mean you dont know Council procedures where if a plan needs to be voted through the ward councillors are given a form to fill in--or attend the vote? So they dont vote--or fill in the form--what happens Bob? Not rocket science is it?

You blurbed about indemnity--that cannot prevent any council worker-officer or councillor facing criminal proceedings or being barred from public office or imprisonment. End of.

Bobfm says...
11:50am Mon 3 Aug 09

Oh I see so we are not now talking about malpractice by councillors in relation to FPNs, so that's clear then, so why mention FPNs in the first place and then talk about appeals etc, when the previous exchanges were about councillor lawful responsibilities.

Also I am supposed to have assumed you were talking about planning applications when you wrote:

'As a Quasi politician Bob how would you view the fact that all councillors in a ward decline to attend a meeting where a decision is made against the public opinion-and the cabinet member who has responsibility for the proposal. Despite strong and valid objections?'

One of us is losing the plot and it's not me.

itsamess says...
11:23am Tue 4 Aug 09

oh dear bob--you do like to keep moving the goal posts--sorry you are unable to understand--i used to think you had some common sense. Now its clear why you have numerous people attacking you.

Purlieu says...
1:39pm Wed 5 Aug 09

Meanwhile back on subject ...
Coun Derique Montaut said “As from today our roads will be more dangerous.”
Well perhaps not. Now we can drive down the roads concentrating firstly on what we should be doing - watching for pedestrians/dogs/oth
er vehicles/etc etc and not looking out for cameras first and foremost.



faatmaan says...
7:33pm Thu 6 Aug 09

the unfortunate accident on Drove road was effectively a combination of speeding and poor driving, under the old scheme of things, this could have resulted in a speed camera being placed there, alas once the incident has occured, the speeders do not speed there but transfer their bad driving to somewhere else, thus the cameras were only ever positioned after the event rather than being placed pro actively. the only deterrent especially in light of the sad death on Drove rd would be for an automatic ban and the person would have to serve a community based punishment spreading the word that speed coupled with poor driving is dangerous, after this has been done the offender should then serve any custodial sentence and then prove they are mentally fit to resume driving before resitting a stiff retest of their driving skills.

Local Businesses

Most popular