Speed Cameras – The Debate
One of the most polarised debates in the transport sphere is over the utility and purpose of fixed site speed cameras. There are those who argue that cameras are merely a means of raising money from the already over-taxed motorist. They are ranged against those who believe that cameras are instrumental in making speeding motorists slow down, and thereby saving lives. It is certainly the case that local residents often have a perception that traffic speeds in their road and they want something done about it. Speed cameras are one of the most popular requested solutions.
It was therefore politically courageous of the ruling Conservative Group on Swindon Council to decide last year to remove all fixed cameras from 31 July 2009. At the time the Council was branded as “reckless” and criticised by a wide range of groups and agencies but the Conservative Group stuck to its view and terminated the arrangement that saw all revenues go to central Government, while maintenance costs fell to the Council. The Council did not remove all speed control measures. They agreed to invest the maintenance cost of cameras into other speeding prevention measures.
Six months on it is possible to assess the impact of the decision. The predicted carnage on the roads has not happened and the number of motoring related deaths and serious injuries remains virtually unchanged. It would be sensible to allow more time to reach a final conclusion but the initial stats suggest that Swindon made the right decision. I recently asked Reading Council Officers what consideration had been given to following Swindon’s lead and was immediately attacked by Labour Councillors. The answer was that under Labour control no thought has been given to removing fixed-site speed cameras.
What do you think? Do you think it is time that Reading gave consideration to following Swindon’s lead and removing fixed speed cameras?
11 Comments »
Leave a Reply
About Richard…
Richard is a Conservative Councillor on Reading Borough Council representing Peppard ward since 2007, having been re-elected in May 2011. He previously represented Thames ward from 2001 to 2004. He is currently the Conservative Shadow Cabinet Member for Transport on Reading Borough Council. 
-
Recent Comments
Steve Foley on New YouGov Poll – Labour… youngleftie on New YouGov Poll – Labour… Dan on A Flag for Northern Irela… Dan on Give Northern Ireland an Offic… Dan on Give Northern Ireland an Offic…
Without doubt these cameras are there to raise money,and that aside their worth is at best limited. Swindon made the right move and it would be a sensible thing for Reading to look at the possibilities.
More traffic police and a proper clampdown on unlicensed and uninsured drivers would be more effective than cameras which specialise in catching the law abiding person who might have strayed a few miles an hour above the limit. Cameras do not catch those guilty of dangerous or reckless driving.
Reducing the numbers of those who drive without license/insurance is quite simple, the penalty is so low that it is nearly always cheaper to take the chance. £1000 fines and 3 months in prison for a repeat offence would concentrate the mind!
Richard,
Last summer, I setup a task & Finish group on Bournemouth Borough Council to review of the efficiency of safety cameras and looking at alternative schemes. I am struggling to get information from the Dorset Safety Camera partnership, BUT I’m getting a lot of support from other campaigners, in fact work is being done close to you in Windsor & Maidenhead on this. The problem is trying to get data that shows the KSI(killed and seriously injured) for the sites for the period before the cameras were installed and after.
I hope to report to the council soon and have been talking to the Bournemouth Echo about this only this afternoon.
If you want some contacts etc contact me directly and we can have a chat.
Mark
They are not perfect, but there is evidence that speed cameras save lives.
In Swindon the number of speeding cars being caught has halved. While fixed cameras were reduced there, mobile ones are still used.
Lower speeds can also mean less emissions and pollution.
Where is the ‘evidence’ Adrian?
If you mean the ‘before and after figures’ that Mark is having trouble finding then there is a potential problem there , in as much as there is a hurdle to jump when cameras are installed . This means that there has to be a certain number of casualties at a given place before installation.A freak accident can trigger this, and then because no further freak accidents happen the claim can be made that the accident rate has fallen. This distorts the figures.
As for pollution , 20 mph creates more pollution than 30 mph……..always worth a smile!
Speed Camera’s are a stealth tax.
If speed is the issue, there are other ways to slow people down.
Examples are:
One way bottle necks (very much like Calcot uses).
Narrowing the Lanes (Norcot Road)
Rumble strips when changing to lower speed limits (like some villages have when changing from national to 30)
Speed bumps (like outside any school) (Save for last resort, as they damage cars, and are left in the road on weekends and holidays when school is out)
But of course Labour love their speed cameras because it raises money, which they can use to “buy” votes.
HT, I can prove cameras save lives. See http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2008/jul/16/transport.speedcameras
Can you prove going faster is less polluting?
I wish more research would be done on this, then if I am right, and going faster is polluting, motorways max speed can be 60mph. It would be safer too.
Adrian …..you live in a dreamworld…….you will never reach 60mph on your bike
Yes I can prove 20mph is more polluting than 30 mph…..the AA did a study on the subject and their findings prove what is obvious if you understand motorised vehicles. ie. by travelling at 20 instead of 30mph the vehicle will need to be in a lower gear , therefore doing more engine revs per mile , and more pollution per mile……simple really!
Adrian …..have you ever considered that any decrease in deaths might be in any way related to some of the gadgets that are on modern vehicles, such as airbags and side impact bars. I know of cases where people have been told that they would have died in serious crashes without these devices being on their vehicles, yes I know it muddies the waters, but things are never as straight forward as you are trying to make it seem.
There is nothing in your link which proves anything, perhaps you should research the casualty levels that trigger the ‘need’ to install a camera in the first place , and read my previous comment at the same time!
Howard, two points.
I have reached 62 mph on my bicycle (admittedly in 24th gear pedalling like fury down Crickley Hill in Gloucestershire, but still)
Second, you assume that we are talking about driver/passenger casualties, as opposed to others such as pedestrians, cyclists, motorcyclists. I always liked the comment that the best road safety measure would be a 9 inch spike pointing at the driver from the middle of the steering wheel.
Ashley, only one point: Why do you call fines for breaking the law a “stealth tax”? Is being fined for shoplifting a stealth tax? Not declaring your overseas income? Ashley, what are you hiding in your nefarious past that makes you so bitter about this?
Cheers Jonny, well said.
Howard, I dream of a better world, I hope you do also. And I cant cycle that fast.
The AA represent the car lobby, don’t go believing everything they say. http://www.20splentyforus.org.uk/Press_Releases/AA%20spreads%20mis-information%20on%2020%20mph%20speed%20limits.pdf
So I guess the AA report is simply a lie!……but actually it just confirms what is totally obvious.
No….I don’t assume driver/passenger casualties, what gave you that idea? Incidentally vehicle design has changed over the years to improve pedestrian safety ie. flatter areas and recessed wipers.
I didn’t think you were a speed merchant on that bicycle, but it would be interesting to see how any speeding points awarded would be applied!
I think it was a 60 limit, Howard, but it scared the bejesus out of me