Oxfordshire decides it will turn off its speed traps (From Swindon Advertiser)
Get involved! Send photos, video, news & views. Text SWINDON NEWS to 80360 or email us
Email us your story, call 01793 501806 or text 80360, starting your message with 'SWINDON
NEWS'
Oxfordshire decides it will turn off its speed traps
8:30am Sunday 25th July 2010 in
A YEAR since Swindon’s speed cameras were switched off the move has become a blueprint for other councils to follow.
This week Oxfordshire decided to follow in Swindon’s footsteps and get rid of the speed traps.
At the time Swindon Borough Council was criticised for its decision, which some people feared would make the town’s roads more dangerous.
Council leader, Coun Rod Bluh, still stands by the council’s decision.
“Our stance has been vindicated. We did what we did because of road safety in Swindon. We’ve been quite clear, we’re not against speed cameras, we’ve still got the police out with mobile cameras.
“Effectively it was about road safety, we were spending all our road safety grant on maintaining the speed cameras. When speed only accounts for six per cent of accidents. We began to question what caused the other 94 per cent.
“We’d rather invest in other forms of road safety. We’re not anti-camera, we’re pro-road safety.
“As somebody who has been banned for speeding, I take speeding very seriously. It’s not acceptable.
“The speed activated signs are much more effective, they are nine times more effective.”
Coun Peter Greenhalgh, cabinet member for sustainability, strategic planning, property and transport, backed the idea and agreed that removing the cameras had been a success.
“We haven’t seen an increase in accidents at those locations so in that sense yes.
“The money saved is purely for road safety. There were costs with removing the fixed cameras. We do still have speed cameras with the police using mobile cameras. Safety is still our number one priority.”
But the decision has not been supported by everyone.
Coun Derique Montaut, Labour’s Swindon group leader, disagrees.
He said: “I said at the time that the Conservatives’ decision to scrap fixed speed cameras was the wrong decision for the law-abiding residents of Swindon and I still believe that this is the case today.
“Last year I criticised the Conservatives’ decision, as I believed it would further encourage boy racers to be irresponsible in their cars and it turns out that my criticism has been fair, as Swindon has been reported as having one of the worse levels of speeding in the country.
“Speeding laws are there for a reason. I would urge Swindon’s Conservative councillors to review their decision to scrap fixed speed cameras and would suggest other councils look at the facts in Swindon before they consider the scrapping of fixed speed cameras.
“If Labour were in power in Swindon we would be addressing those accident black spots that the Conservatives have failed to address and would reintroduce fixed speed cameras if we needed to, because people’s safety is too important to ignore.”
A mother has called for the the speed cameras to be switched back on.
Caroline Hannah, of Old Walcot, was with her son seven-year-old son, Tyrese when he was killed by a speeding motorist on Drove Road in March 2008.
Caroline said:“I will never be the same. When you’re getting in a car you’re getting in a loaded weapon and it depends whether you’re going to aim and fire.
“The cameras are important because people need to learn how to drive properly and not speed and keep within the law.
“Speed cameras save people’s lives. Does anybody else want to end up in a situation like I’m in? I think that would be a no.
“It’s just one of those things that if you do the crime you have to do the time.
“If you’re going around speeding you have got to be prepared that there’s a consequence,” she said.
Comments(35)
g5wq
says...
10:33am Sun 25 Jul 10
so just what is the real agenda , are the local authorities wanting to remove the cameras on a safety issue or is it purey a financial issue and because they are angry that they do not receive the money directly from the cameras/fines .
if the fines were paid direct to our local authority then i think the cameras would be being increased in number , in order to raise revenue .
the real problem regarding speed cameras is that they are not there or located specifically to increase road safety , they are there as a means to raise money , and thats totally wrong and the authorities should be ashamed of themselves for treating it in this way .
we have far too many stupid drivers out there who go far too fast and drive like maniacs without any regard for anyone else on the roads .
what we need to see is those people repremanded by actual police officers being on the streets and roads and catching them and stopping the mayhem that we have on our roads today .
pull these people over, delay them and interrupt their schedules , thats what they need
i am all for speed cameras as a means to increase road safety and to reduce drivers speed , but i am not for the cameras when they are used to just raise money .
.
Robert Feal-Martinez
says...
10:50am Sun 25 Jul 10
The cameras and housings belong to the Swindon Road Safety Partnership, so perhaps the Police are insisting the boxes at least stay.
Always Grumpy
says...
11:20am Sun 25 Jul 10
Robert Feal-Martinez wrote:Why are you commenting when you've been banned?
g5wq, perhaps the camera poles will be eventually used for flashing signs, as Councillor Pete says, as does a DofT study that they are 9 to 10 times as effective in road safety terms.
The cameras and housings belong to the Swindon Road Safety Partnership, so perhaps the Police are insisting the boxes at least stay.
daniel1o
says...
1:24pm Sun 25 Jul 10
Robert Feal-Martinez wrote:Bye Bye CMB
g5wq, perhaps the camera poles will be eventually used for flashing signs, as Councillor Pete says, as does a DofT study that they are 9 to 10 times as effective in road safety terms.
The cameras and housings belong to the Swindon Road Safety Partnership, so perhaps the Police are insisting the boxes at least stay.
RFM
says...
2:25pm Sun 25 Jul 10
Mr Blackwell wrote:Montaut, in his normal 'clutching at straws' way, is referring to a report that was mentioned in the Advertiser last year that showed that Swindon has one of the highest number of drivers that have been fined/received points for speeding.
Derique Montaut says that 'Swindon has been reported as having one of the worse levels of speeding in the country.' . Where does he get that information from? It sound bogus, at best. . The facts speak for themselves: if road accidents in Swindon have stayed the same without the cameras as they were before, then the cameras add NOTHING whatsoever to road safety. . Montaut will disagree with everything and anything the Council does, seemingly without even thinking about what he's talking about.
What he doesn't go on to explain, again in his own twisting the facts way, is that the points and fines received were for offences that took place all over the country not just in Swindon.
As there is a vast number of commuters that live in Swindon the chances of them getting picked up for speeding on the M4, M25, A420, M5 etc etc is higher than towns closer to London who have less far to travel!!
When will this man wake up to the fact that people can see right through his lies/embellishments of the facts?
Insight
says...
3:11pm Sun 25 Jul 10
Why are officials dropping the cameras like hot potatos?, because they don't work, they don't work at road safety and since they're so easy to avoid in this era of sat nav and even smart phones they don't even work at making money.
In 2008 fine revenue stood at £106 million, by 2009, inspite of many more cameras, revenue had plummetted to £87 million. Worse still, the latest generations of speed cameras (average cameras) don't generate anywhere near what the now antique GATSO did.
It's simple really, more council tax in, less fines out, council tax we can no longer afford to spend on a white elephant.
Well done Swindon Council, at the time I said you were right, a year later I'd say it's be proven.
As for Labour Councillor Derique Montaut, he'd do well to remember Labour MP Anne Snelgrove being very vocal in support of the failed speed camera project and where is she now?
The speed camera era is dead, the partnerships are just going through the stage of greif, denial, anger, bargaining, depression and finally acceptence, get over it.
The Real Librarian
says...
9:05pm Sun 25 Jul 10
Mr Blackwell wrote:The only thing Con Montaut thinks about is attacking the council.
Derique Montaut says that 'Swindon has been reported as having one of the worse levels of speeding in the country.' . Where does he get that information from? It sound bogus, at best. . The facts speak for themselves: if road accidents in Swindon have stayed the same without the cameras as they were before, then the cameras add NOTHING whatsoever to road safety. . Montaut will disagree with everything and anything the Council does, seemingly without even thinking about what he's talking about.
.
Based on the stories in the Adver over the last eight or nine days alone, he has made a series of mindless, knee-jerk attacks that only go to demonstrate that he just doesn't know what he is talking about. He sounds like a stroppy little child in a sulk.
.
If he were my local representative I would be deeply ashamed to have such an inept individual as my local rep.
.
He needs to remember he isn't an MP. He is there to do his best for the people of Swindon. So far he is failing pitifully.
reality_check
says...
9:55pm Sun 25 Jul 10
.
reality_check
says...
9:56pm Sun 25 Jul 10
daniel1o wrote:Have I missed something? Has CMB finally received his just desserts?
Robert Feal-Martinez wrote: g5wq, perhaps the camera poles will be eventually used for flashing signs, as Councillor Pete says, as does a DofT study that they are 9 to 10 times as effective in road safety terms. The cameras and housings belong to the Swindon Road Safety Partnership, so perhaps the Police are insisting the boxes at least stay.Bye Bye CMB
reality_check
says...
10:26pm Sun 25 Jul 10
reality_check wrote:Ahhhh, I've just caught up with the developments in the earlier story.
daniel1o wrote:Have I missed something? Has CMB finally received his just desserts?Robert Feal-Martinez wrote: g5wq, perhaps the camera poles will be eventually used for flashing signs, as Councillor Pete says, as does a DofT study that they are 9 to 10 times as effective in road safety terms. The cameras and housings belong to the Swindon Road Safety Partnership, so perhaps the Police are insisting the boxes at least stay.Bye Bye CMB
.
To be honest, I would prefer CMB to be rehabilitated rather than banished. How about it CMB? Why not drop the pompous, ill-informed and abusive nonsense and only post when you have something positive to add? Could you do that? Why not give it a go..
daniel1o
says...
11:03pm Sun 25 Jul 10
reality_check wrote:C'mon RC didn't your Mother tell you about leopards and their spots. He'd last all of 5 minutes.
reality_check wrote:Ahhhh, I've just caught up with the developments in the earlier story.
daniel1o wrote:Have I missed something? Has CMB finally received his just desserts?Robert Feal-Martinez wrote: g5wq, perhaps the camera poles will be eventually used for flashing signs, as Councillor Pete says, as does a DofT study that they are 9 to 10 times as effective in road safety terms. The cameras and housings belong to the Swindon Road Safety Partnership, so perhaps the Police are insisting the boxes at least stay.Bye Bye CMB
.
To be honest, I would prefer CMB to be rehabilitated rather than banished. How about it CMB? Why not drop the pompous, ill-informed and abusive nonsense and only post when you have something positive to add? Could you do that? Why not give it a go..
daniel1o
says...
11:03pm Sun 25 Jul 10
reality_check wrote:C'mon RC didn't your Mother tell you about leopards and their spots. He'd last all of 5 minutes.
reality_check wrote:Ahhhh, I've just caught up with the developments in the earlier story.
daniel1o wrote:Have I missed something? Has CMB finally received his just desserts?Robert Feal-Martinez wrote: g5wq, perhaps the camera poles will be eventually used for flashing signs, as Councillor Pete says, as does a DofT study that they are 9 to 10 times as effective in road safety terms. The cameras and housings belong to the Swindon Road Safety Partnership, so perhaps the Police are insisting the boxes at least stay.Bye Bye CMB
.
To be honest, I would prefer CMB to be rehabilitated rather than banished. How about it CMB? Why not drop the pompous, ill-informed and abusive nonsense and only post when you have something positive to add? Could you do that? Why not give it a go..
Daniel10
says...
9:03am Mon 26 Jul 10
Donkey of Langton
says...
10:09am Mon 26 Jul 10
Have you never heard of democracy, Librarian? It's what politics is all about, mate!
Your Tories, with their far from truthful reasons for actually carrying out their intents, told the public that the savings from the support for these Government money - making road safety measures would be used to increase road safety in the area. I beg to ask, where has this money been utilised in a form of 'road safety' in the Borough? You cannot come up with a truthful reply to any question can you ... no, you cannot. Your psychophantic adoration for anything this Tory crowd do is quite amusing, if it were not so serious.
Those yellow boxes on sticks have not exactly been a failure, apart from making speeding drivers think, they have helped the Treasury to keep down other taxation, maybe? Not a failure in my book, but when we see the replacement deterrent, if there is one, perhaps we can draw comparisons, eh?
Always Grumpy
says...
11:36am Mon 26 Jul 10
Daniel10 wrote:I thought you'd been banned from this site!
How apposite for you daniel1o
Daniel10
says...
12:26pm Mon 26 Jul 10
Always Grumpy
says...
12:38pm Mon 26 Jul 10
Daniel10 wrote:Bobfm, still offensive as usual I see!
Always Grumpy, more repeats than the BBC, thought you were particularly grumpy the other night.
.
Once again I ask a perfectly reasonable and civil question and you are typically abusive and arrogant in your reply and without answering my initial question.
.
What an odious little man you are. No small wonder you've upset and fallen out with almost everyone on this site. Have you nothing better to do in that run down dive of a pub of yours?
Old Town
says...
12:45pm Mon 26 Jul 10
Donkey of Langton wrote:It's funny that you berate anyone for supporting the Tories, yet all you do is spout anything Pro Labour and against anything Tory - are you actually Derique in disguise ?
It's odd that anyone should be so surprised that the leader of Labour, the legitimate opposition, should have a view on any subject the Swindon Advertiser should contact him for such. Have you never heard of democracy, Librarian? It's what politics is all about, mate! Your Tories, with their far from truthful reasons for actually carrying out their intents, told the public that the savings from the support for these Government money - making road safety measures would be used to increase road safety in the area. I beg to ask, where has this money been utilised in a form of 'road safety' in the Borough? You cannot come up with a truthful reply to any question can you ... no, you cannot. Your psychophantic adoration for anything this Tory crowd do is quite amusing, if it were not so serious. Those yellow boxes on sticks have not exactly been a failure, apart from making speeding drivers think, they have helped the Treasury to keep down other taxation, maybe? Not a failure in my book, but when we see the replacement deterrent, if there is one, perhaps we can draw comparisons, eh?
.
To answer your question, I think the money has been utilised putting up the new signs which light up and flash if someone is driving too fast.
.
For me they are a much better platform - they do not punish drivers who "stray" a couple of miles over the limit which the fixed speed camera's would, and they give you a great reminder to slow down.
.
So there you go - a truthful reply - yes it is !
.
The yellow boxes have been a way of extorting money from car drivers as a revenue generator for the government (Old Labour Government) so yes they have been a failure in that car drivers have been unduly penalised .......
.
The replacement deterrent is already there - perhaps you drive with your eyes closed ?
daniel1o
says...
1:04pm Mon 26 Jul 10
Always Grumpy wrote:The nice thing is at least the bobfm login has not been reactivated. I can only imagine the emails, phonecalls and steam that has come from his stovepipe hat these last few days!
Daniel10 wrote: Always Grumpy, more repeats than the BBC, thought you were particularly grumpy the other night.Bobfm, still offensive as usual I see! . Once again I ask a perfectly reasonable and civil question and you are typically abusive and arrogant in your reply and without answering my initial question. . What an odious little man you are. No small wonder you've upset and fallen out with almost everyone on this site. Have you nothing better to do in that run down dive of a pub of yours?
Mr Blackwell
says...
2:22pm Mon 26 Jul 10
.
There are two absolute facts that can be taken from the reality of this situation:
.
1. The rate of accidents in Swindon has remained the same over the year without speed cameras when compared to the last year with speed cameras. That means that the speed cameras do not reduce the number of accidents... it remains the same, with or without them.
.
2. Mr Montaut would like us to believe that Swindon has one of the worst levels of speeding in the country as a result of the removal of the cameras encouraging such driving. Let's take what he says as being true, shall we? Now, what he's actually said is that speeding is absolutely no more dangerous than not speeding... as we have one of the worst records of speeding and yet accidents have remained the same despite the cameras having been turned off.
.
However you look at it, Montaut has shot his own arguments directly in the foot.
.
The sad thing, for Labour supporters, is that so many of their elected representatives are still conditioned to support the policies and ideologies of the discredited and failed New Labour project.
.
When will they learn that the nation, and especially Swindon, has decided to remove any kind of political power from Labour?
Donkey of Langton
says...
4:35pm Mon 26 Jul 10
It would not too bright for me, (and I do drive with my eyes fully open) to consider that just because here and there I would find pockets of Councils flicking the switch, it would be okay to break the motoring law, and that is what it says ... 'breaking the speed limit, is breaking the law' ... these limits are put into place for a reason. We travel through Compton Marshall and Spetisbury near Blandford Forum, Dorset twice a week on our commute to and from Swindon and Swanage, a motorist would be a complete fool to break the 30mph limit through there, it is religeously adhered to as so many have had the paperwork delivered onto the doorstep to prove they are on!
Consider your Tory pals in Goddard Avenue and surroundings who have a speed limit less than running pace these days. They are a bit particular where they want to break speed limits with their typical Tory double standards.
Donkey of Langton
says...
4:42pm Mon 26 Jul 10
When will they learn that the nation, and especially Swindon, has decided to remove any kind of political power from Labour?
Don't kid yourself, me old mukka ... the Tories, when they've finished cocking everything up, both locally and nationally, and having conned the LibDems into thinking they 'have a voice', will get a right old bloody nose at all ballott boxes for the foreseeable future. If I am wrong, then the electorate, who have been grossly mislead, are more nuts than I thought!
And, I am not D. Monty in disguise, but I can see some of his logic, though not all of the time, I will admit!
Old Town
says...
5:05pm Mon 26 Jul 10
.
Accident figures are absolutely accurate - they just do not support your argument ! It is absolute FACT that the number of accidents has not risen in Swindon since the "yellow boxes" were disabled - and has absolutely nothing to do with country wide figures.
.
I also answered your question on the borough's use of money on road safety which you conveniently ignore in your response.
.
Now you want to talk about Compton Marshall etc... - to be fair this is Swindon which we are talking about.....
.
However I think it is very dangerous to have road users very quickly slowing down from 60mph to 30mph when they know there is a "yellow box" operating - this is purely about revenue generation rather than saving lives....
.
More police actually on our roads would help - but unfortunately the Labour fools decided this wasn't a good use of their time.....I think the last estimate was only 1 in 10 policemen actually out dealing with the public....
.
The truth is, and I know it is hard for you to hear, that the Labour Government single handedly walked this country to the wall on so many levels - luckily the public FINALLY saw through them and has put a co-ilition in charge that can start to mend all the things that Labour broke.......
Donkey of Langton
says...
6:42pm Mon 26 Jul 10
Not every driver in Swindon, or Oxford is a local. I cannot recollect an official notice near to a 'switched off' speed camera telling drivers that little piece of info, so my theory does hold water, the deterrent of seeing the 'yellow box', your words not mine I hasten to add, still has the desired effect to some large degree I would say.
We can argue until the cows come home ... await the next debate/debacle ...
The Charlton Marshall quote is to show that we drivers should not take for granted that the cameras are not fully functioning, and that it is okay to break the law.
Daniel10
says...
7:53pm Mon 26 Jul 10
Replacing cameras with flashing signs is clearly the way forward.
liveinswindon
says...
7:59pm Mon 26 Jul 10
Old Town
says...
8:07pm Mon 26 Jul 10
Donkey of Langton wrote:Donkey - please stop suggesting the "yellow boxes" was my quote - read your posts above - you mention the yellow box and I was following your lead.....
No-one voted for a coalition did they? Or is there some kind of twist in the electoral system that we socialists are unaware of, maybe? Not every driver in Swindon, or Oxford is a local. I cannot recollect an official notice near to a 'switched off' speed camera telling drivers that little piece of info, so my theory does hold water, the deterrent of seeing the 'yellow box', your words not mine I hasten to add, still has the desired effect to some large degree I would say. We can argue until the cows come home ... await the next debate/debacle ... The Charlton Marshall quote is to show that we drivers should not take for granted that the cameras are not fully functioning, and that it is okay to break the law.
.
I believe most drivers who drive in Swindon know the "yellow boxes" do not work. It was all over the press both on a national and local level - it even received a lot of recognition on BBC's Top Gear motoring programme....
.
Again - please stop mis-quoting me - I think you will find I said "luckily the public FINALLY saw through them and has put a co-ilition in charge" - what this means is that the public voted for Tory and LibDem - but obviously not Labour or your lot would be back in power.....
.
Most of the post's in Swindon have the actual camera (the yellow box) removed, or at the very least covered with something which makes it VERY obvious that it is not in use ! So I really cannot see how your argument holds water.....
.
I have also driven through the places you mention - and on a number of occasions found drivers slamming their brakes on just before the "Yellow Boxes" - so again it shows that people will not follow the speed limit because of the boxes - and this makes the roads far more dangerous than a sensible speed limit which is followed, and police out on the streets in cars catching speeding drivers !
Insight
says...
9:14pm Mon 26 Jul 10
Either way the death nell is sounding for all of these partnerships as the whole world wakes up and realises this was just a huge waste of time effort and money, money that should've been spent on equiping the 'real' police, instead of wasting it on a bunch of self righteous one trick pony civilians who were all too eager to blow our money on the latest gimmick.
Everyone's getting a sat nav, therefore the rapidly aging cameras are now redundant and there's no money for new ones.
Get over it and start looking for a new job.
Insight
says...
9:18pm Mon 26 Jul 10
The gravy train has run dry and the partnerships are nothing more than an on-cost to cash strapped councils who're terrified of having the council tax thresholds capped by Chancellor Osbourne, so the first victim is obviously the dead wood ...bye bye speed cameras, you won't be missed.
..and to think, Snelgrove put her reputation on the line for these things and lost at the general election (serves her right) and only a couple of months on, they're all disappearing anyway. I'd wager she's gutted at her own stupidity now!
I Too
says...
9:39pm Mon 26 Jul 10
Coun Derique Montaut, Labour’s Swindon group leader, disagrees.
"
I do wish Derique Montaut wouldn't keep making a clown of himself, by predictably disagreeing with everything, just for the sake of "Punch & Judy politics". Our other Central Ward councillors, Bob Wright and Junab Ali are very hard working representatives, being let down by their leaders pettiness.
Derique proudly stated that the (£240k) water feature was great, and people would learn to love it, despite the history of the previous water feature (which didn't even leak.)
Enough said for his integrity.
Cameras were nothing but a cash cow. They would only record speeding at their fixed location (not 200yards further up the road), they would not detect drunken / uninsured drivers. They would not detect vehicles devoid of M.O.Ts. they could not detect other forms of dangerous driving. They could not offer discretion or assistance.
The money would be far better spent on real police, for so many reasons.
Insight
says...
11:47pm Mon 26 Jul 10
..
“If Labour were in power in Swindon we would be addressing those accident black spots that the Conservatives have failed to address and would reintroduce fixed speed cameras if we needed to, because people’s safety is too important to ignore.”
..
If this is the case, why did the former 'Labour' government fail to supply targets (and therefore proper funding) to cheif police officers for active 'real' policing of our roads?, This has cost this country over 20% of it's traffic police. Is it because the Labour party thought they could cut corners by spending a few million on obsolete cameras that would ultimately cut the wage bill of the real police?
..
Mr Montaut, it doesn't matter how much you spin it. Drivers (especially those who know they speed) have Sat Nav's, therefore your precious cameras aren't even catching them.
Cameras do not address anything anymore, the public realise this. Are you so stupid as to keep on arguing over a lost cause? or do you simply never want to be re-elected?
..
Swindon did the right thing dumping the partnership, now what we all have to do is make sure the current government restore funding to active policing and stop all waste on camera partnerships and as much as Ms Hannah might protest, we don't need speed cameras, we need 'real' police. If we continue with what doesn't work, is she prepared to tell another mother of a child who's been killed by a 'drunk' or 'drugged' driver that sticking with speed cameras was partly her fault?.
..
Arguing to keep speed cameras is the 'irresponsible' thing to do, I can only assume that the councillor is either too stupid to work it out, or has a vested financial interest.
Mr Blackwell
says...
7:05pm Tue 27 Jul 10
.
You should be very aware that the Tories and Lib Dems had every right, under our electoral system, to take the vast majority of votes for both their parties and form a Coalition in order to remove Labour from office.
.
Had either of the two parties felt able to assist Labour in continuing power, not only would they have done so but you would be the first on here telling us how democracy means representing the wishes of the majority.
.
In the case of the recent general election, the vast majority of people decided not to vote for Labour - hence Labour, thankfully, have been prevented from doing any further damage for the next five years (at least).
.
And if you think your comrades are to enjoy a landslide sweep back into office come 2015, I'm very pleased to say that you're going to be bitterly disappointed.
.
Everyone in this country, apart from deluded old Socialists, knows what has to be done to get us back onto an even keel... and Labour simply cannot be trusted to do that as they're the ones that sunk us in the first place.
Insight
says...
7:07pm Thu 29 Jul 10
...
Exclusive The Department for Transport (DfT) has "unwittingly" misled the public over the benefits of speed cameras for the last four years.
...
That was the shock admission yesterday by a DfT spokeswoman, when finally cornered by the Department’s own research. She also told us that they have now been forced to put matters right by adding an explanation to future public statements.
...
The misinformation began with a report produced by the DfT itself in 2005. On the basis of this report, it came up with the now infamous claim that speed cameras are directly responsible for reducing the level of killed and seriously injured (KSI) at camera sites by 42 per cent. Yet its own evidence, in it's own report, doesn't even support half that figure.
...
Even with this admission, it's still not clear what difference, if any, the cameras actually do make, as independent research shows that re-engineering of sites with a history of collisions, such as resurfacing, new road signs, lighting and white lines can produce a reduction in collisions of up to 35%.
******
It's not like we didn't know already, but now it's official. All these years of being patronised by the camera people with their media bombardment and extraordinary claims of success at camera sites and now the truth comes out ....they've been lying to us, the public, officials, councillors, everyone, for years!
Bobfm
says...
7:12pm Fri 30 Jul 10
An independent report on the financial
justifications for Safety Cameras and
Vehicle Activated Signs
February 2008 ~ Nigel Bottomley FCMA ~ Page 2 of 10
1. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
This report is an examination of the financial costs of controlling speed by the use of
Safety Cameras and Vehicle Activated Signs (VAS’s). It is not a report on the safety
statistics or political benefits or disadvantages, although comments are to be made
where relevant.
The financial conclusion is very clear – over a period of ten years one Safety Camera
costs an average of .369,000 and one VAS costs .7,800. These costs include the
equipment, the installation, maintenance and attributable overheads, i.e. the inclusion
of the total costs of the Regional Safety Partnerships.
The biggest cost of the cameras is the overhead element. There are thirty eight (in
2005/06) Regional Safety Partnerships whose job it is to decide where cameras
should be erected and to install and maintain them.
These partnerships are funded by government grants which it is suggested, are not
based on the fixed penalty income from each region. However, there is a very clear
correlation between the two and recent reports would suggest that almost 100% of
the grants are used for safety cameras.
It is also clear from the management accounts information produced by the
partnerships for the DfT (and presumably designed by the DfT) that ratios are
provided about the penalties issued and collected and no comparative information is
supplied on the safety effectiveness. Only summary information is included
regarding the costs of the partnerships. This clearly suggests that the emphasis is
on maximising the collection of fines.
One of the reasons this report was commissioned was to comment on the DfT’s
comments regarding the two alternatives. The Department suggested that there was
a 12% difference in cost between the two systems in favour of cameras. In fact the
ratio is 47:1 in favour of VAS’s.
There were also various costs suggested for cameras and VAS’s and later amended
which were clearly wrong. For example in one communication, the DfT stated that
the cost of a camera was .7,500 whereas the cost of a sign was .14,000. The
department later amended both of these costs, but only after significant decisions
had been made using such data.
This would suggest that the department was either working from incorrect data or
was perhaps excluding essential costs such as operating the penalty system and
management overheads. The ex-Secretary of State for Transport, Dr Ladyman
suggested that accurate data was not available. However, all the data used in this
report was compiled from information freely available on government websites or as
a result of requests to government departments under the Freedom of Information Act.
More News stories
- ‘Legal’ drugs linked to two users’ deaths
- Author Sparkes some extra interest in children's stories
- Store manager is off to help out in Tanzania
- Prostitutes told to accept help, or face the law
- Help raise cash during White Horse walk
- School sets out plans to become academy
- Getting tough on TV licence dodgers
- VisitWiltshire chief joins partnership
- Community groups draw up plans for town’s future
- Nominations wanted for outstanding community policing
Most popular
Local Information
Enter your postcode, town or place name
Mr Blackwell says...
10:09am Sun 25 Jul 10
.
Where does he get that information from? It sound bogus, at best.
.
The facts speak for themselves: if road accidents in Swindon have stayed the same without the cameras as they were before, then the cameras add NOTHING whatsoever to road safety.
.
Montaut will disagree with everything and anything the Council does, seemingly without even thinking about what he's talking about.