Your Swindon
Get involved: send your photos, videos, news & views by texting 'SWINDON NEWS' to 80360 or email »
|
|
|
|
|
|
Got a story? EMAIL US, call us on 01793 501806 or text us at 80360, starting your message
with 'SWINDON NEWS'
War of words over speed camera plans
10:06am Wednesday 16th July 2008
Comments (54)POLITICIANS have traded snipes over Swindon Council's threat to pull speed cameras from the town's streets.
South Swindon MP Anne Snelgrove reignited debate over the future of speed cameras in Swindon on Monday when she said scrapping them would be playing politics with people's lives'.
She was reacting to a plan first mooted by Swindon Council last November when it said unless Government refunded cash made by the cameras to the town, it would withdraw form the speed camera partnership it helps fund.
Such a move would be the first of its kind in the UK and see speed cameras pulled from the town's streets.
Ms Snelgrove said: "I just want to stop Swindon Council from withdrawing.
"I know making this call will make me unpopular with some but the council needs to think about the safety of the children of Swindon on our roads."
Council leader Roderick Bluh said officers were working on proposals for the council to withdraw from the partnership - and that no final decision would be taken before September.
Mr Bluh served a three-month driving ban after he collected 12 points on his licence for speeding.
He admitted the ban, which was imposed before he became Swindon Council leader in 2006, changed his driving behaviour but said there were other ways to improve people's driving.
"None of this is against speed cameras - we haven't yet had that debate," he said.
"Apart from the Adver no-one has really picked up on our decision on this until now.
"And we aren't looking to trailblaze a way forward on this. We just want a debate with the partnership on if these are good or bad devices."
He said since the start of the week he had been swamped with emails of support from drivers who dislike cameras.
An AA spokesman said: "Cameras are often seen as the first and last resort rather than looking at a junction improvement or traffic calming. The most pragmatic thing to do would be to look at where cameras are effective and where they are not."
A spokeswoman for the RAC Foundation said: "Once one council starts thinking about this, it would not be surprising if others followed.
"Some engineering schemes are massively more cost-effective and have bigger road safety returns than speed cameras."
Sgy Nick Blencowe, acting manager of the Wiltshire and Swindon Safety Camera Partnership, said the devices had helped reduce accidents at key locations around the town.
He also said a new temporary camera had been installed on the newest part of the Blunsdon bypass opened to traffic and said that a camera put of action by vandals on the A346 at Chiseldon would be replaced in the near future.
He also said cameras on Queens Drive and the A420 which had been bagged up by the partnership, were not being used as speed limits in those areas had changed, meaning signage needed altering before the cameras could return to operation.
Your Say YourSwindon
Frontier(s), says...
10:42am Wed 16 Jul 08
Ms Snelgrove said:
"I know making this call will make me unpopular with some"
No, Ms Snelgrove, you and your government's actions over the last decade have resulted in your being unpopular with just about everyone.
Please, no more of this emotive nonsense about 'saving lives'.
This is about raising money to prop up your failed economy. Nothing more, nothing less.
But it is a pity you seem unable to be quite so forthright about stopping the knife related deaths we read about on a daily basis.
Probably can't raise much money from that though. Or is it that the type of people both killing and being killed makes for slightly uncomfortable subject matter, given Labour's open door policies of the past decade?
AK, Swindon says...
10:43am Wed 16 Jul 08
Robin Harris, Swindon says...
10:51am Wed 16 Jul 08
Insight, UK says...
10:54am Wed 16 Jul 08
For the same price as just one camera, the real police could equip three of their units with ANPR and make a real impact on dangerous drivers right across the county.
She talks as if speed cameras are the only solution when in reality they're a very limited yet very expensive solution.
Stop the emotive nonsense Ms Snelgrove, show your opposition to the wastfulness of the camera partnership and equip 'real police' with the modern technology available today and then you may have a chance of getting re-elected in 2010.
Frontier(s), says...
10:57am Wed 16 Jul 08
If the two figures are roughly the same, or precisely the same (which I suspect they will be), then the camera achives nothing but revenue generation.
Also, anybody who has been ticketed by the Queens Road camera at ANY time in history should appeal against their ticket as the camera was always positioned illegally.
That's why it's been covered up - just like the ones on the Oxford road/A420.
Robin Harris, Swindon says...
11:01am Wed 16 Jul 08
What has changed???
Robert Feal-Martinez, Swindon says...
11:01am Wed 16 Jul 08
Insight, UK says...
11:03am Wed 16 Jul 08
It seems in the haste to gather revenue from the panacea of speed cameras this government has lost it's grip on reality.
emmylou83, Stratton says...
11:05am Wed 16 Jul 08
Robin Harris wrote:Queens Drive is being made a 30limit instead of 40 in fact I think I read somewhere that comes into play this week
"He also said cameras on Queens Drive and the A420 which had been bagged up by the partnership, were not being used as speed limits in those areas had changed, meaning signage needed altering before the cameras could return to operation." What has changed???
Frontier(s), says...
11:08am Wed 16 Jul 08
Ring the Speed Camera Partnership and ask them the direct question as to why those cameras (and those on the A420) are covered.
They will bluster, they will attempt to worm their way out of it but if you pin them down for a simple answer to a simple question they will have to tell you.
Also try ringing Swindon Borough Council. They also know exactly why those cameras are covered - they were the people who confirmed to me it is because the cameras are illegally positioned and should never have been there in the first place.
Insight, UK says...
11:10am Wed 16 Jul 08
'Surfing' (a term which describes the technique for avoiding prosecution by speed camera) is a term that is even recognised on the DfT's own website where recommendations are made not to think of speed cameras as a solution to real traffic problems as they are nothing more than traffic calming measures with limited application and not very cost effective.
Have the wisdom to see past the emotive propaganda and the recommendations of Camera partnership managers who're worried about losing their jobs in a hugely wasteful quango and give us back our real traffic police before this stupid policy gets anybody else killed.
Frontier(s), says...
11:16am Wed 16 Jul 08
tinyurl.com/6rlslb
Insight, UK says...
11:17am Wed 16 Jul 08
Instead they've invested in automatic number plate recognition enable police units and are having remarkable success.
One town now has the catchphrase "If you're going to drive like a darn fool ..don't do it in our town"
Stop wasting time money and lives with obsolete speed cameras.
Robert Feal-Martinez, Swindon says...
11:27am Wed 16 Jul 08
KJ, says...
11:46am Wed 16 Jul 08
"Queens Drive in Swindon centre reservation. Reversable. Speed limit 40mph. Camera clicks at 50mph"
So if it doesnt click till you reach 50, how safe is that!!!!
Top_Starfish, UK says...
11:58am Wed 16 Jul 08
Secondly, they dont put them where they raise the most money, because the councils who place them dont get the money from the fines - it goes to the treasury. They are placed where they have the highest accident records.
Councillor Bluh doesnt want rid of the cameras, he wants the money raised from them to come back to the council this would incentivise the council to place them where they raise the most money instead of where they save the most lives. Thats the whole reason the councils dont get the money in the first place.
Frontier(s), says...
12:02pm Wed 16 Jul 08
They are placed where they have the highest accident records.
No. That's where they're supposed to be placed.
Insight, UK says...
1:04pm Wed 16 Jul 08
It's time to move on, there are superior and simply more cost effective solutions available that tackle a great deal more than an instance of speed in a hundred yard chunck of road, which clearly fails to recognise that vehicles have an accelorator pedel and even a small engined car can be over twice that speed limit less than 10 seconds later.
Get over the speed camera arguement, get your heads out of the sand and realise that it's time to stop wasting time, effort and money on obsolete technology that simply doesn't work to combat the levels of bad driving that even the DfT's website refer to as 'more serious offences than speeding'.
The government keep drafting new laws on road safety, but as the debate continues over speed cameras, halting progress in other areas, ask yourselves one simply question.
If there are indeed so many new drivng laws, who on earth is enforcing them if all you can see on the street is a speed camera?
Drop the camera debate, it's as relevant to modern road safety as the witch doctor is to modern medicine.
BWB, SWINDON says...
1:18pm Wed 16 Jul 08
They also dont like
Parking Tickets.
Stick to the rules and you wont pay any fine. Easy aint it.
Global Templar, Kingston upon Thames says...
1:25pm Wed 16 Jul 08
Frontier(s), says...
1:31pm Wed 16 Jul 08
Most people can no longer discuss the topic rationally.
95% of all road accidents occur when all drivers involved are driving within the speed limit.
People do not seem to realise that the VAST majority of road accidents and road deaths have nothing whatsoever to do with speeding... yet all people ever say is 'Speed Kills'.
We really are a nation of gullible fools.
What's so sad is that people seem to completely ignore all sensible and proven methods of reducing accidents and, instead, just keep demanding more and more cameras and sticking to their (misguided) belief that speeding motorists are the cause of all evil.
The horrible irony is that the statistics overwhelmingly prove that those who consider themselves 'safe' drivers because they never speed are by far the most dangerous and unsafe drivers on the road.
Mumstheword, Walcot says...
1:32pm Wed 16 Jul 08
BWB wrote:Yep too easy
He said since the start of the week he had been swamped with emails of support from drivers who dislike cameras They also dont like Parking Tickets. Stick to the rules and you wont pay any fine. Easy aint it.
Mumstheword, Walcot says...
1:41pm Wed 16 Jul 08
Insight, UK says...
1:53pm Wed 16 Jul 08
I quite agree with you, the governments own statistics show that well in excess of 95% of all collisions of any kind happen below 20mph.
What good is a speed camera then?.
Stay within the rules they simplistically repeat, the rule being stay under a speed limit, a loophole which the drunks have learnt to exploit very well indeed.
But you can' tell them, nanny knows best.
Insight, UK says...
1:58pm Wed 16 Jul 08
In one report, a driver who killed a child in an RTA was able to prove that he was driving safely because the accident occurred right beside a speed camera.
He used this information to sue the parents of the child for compensation for emotional distress.
I suppose it's the law of unexpected consequences that seems to afflict the current government, but these things are on the increase.
Frontier(s), says...
2:04pm Wed 16 Jul 08
Mumstheword wrote:Here's the thing... I've never once been recorded speeding - either by a fixed camera, mobile camera or police officer.
BWB wrote: He said since the start of the week he had been swamped with emails of support from drivers who dislike cameras They also dont like Parking Tickets. Stick to the rules and you wont pay any fine. Easy aint it.Yep too easy
I have a clean licence.
I've never had a car accident and have never made an insurance claim.
I have absolutely no axe to grind.
My problem is that all the resources (money, time, skill) is being directed in the WRONG place, if we're still pretending we care about road safety that is.
Speed cameras are NOT the answer to this problem. Until we realise this and start to change the way we tackle road traffic accidents we will continue to see the c.3000 road deaths every year that we have seen since speed cameras were introduced.
Despite thousands more cameras going up across the road network they are failing to reduce this number of deaths any further.
For me, this misdirection of resources is unacceptable. It is no longer good enough to put up a camera and pretend we've done something that will save lives.
Yes, it's easy to do. Yes, it makes money that the government need to prop up the economy.
NO, it doesn't save lives!
Insight, UK says...
2:07pm Wed 16 Jul 08
If you as a driver believe that speed cameras are unavoidable you do indeed tend to keep your speed down generally, as a pedestrian, you also believe that the roads are safer.
Unfortunatly not everyone believes cameras are unavoidable and therefore drive accordingly, braking sharply when approaching a camera and accelerating away once they've past it.
You never hear from these people who've learnt how to 'surf' on these blogs, because as far as they're concerned, at least there aren't as many police on the road.
But the propaganda is so strong, that the believers think that people who criticse cameras are the actual dangerous drivers their speed cameras are supposed to be catching.
BWB, SWINDON says...
2:11pm Wed 16 Jul 08
Well now,it just shows that the camera can work for you as well as against you.
Funny old world aint it.
Insight, UK says...
2:21pm Wed 16 Jul 08
Although it is true that casualtys amongst pedestrans are down on previous years this last year, the number of these pedestrian casualties who are children has risen as a percentage, leading to what many campaigners to believe to be a modern day Volvo syndrome where parents are less likey to teach their children road safety issues because they've been lead to believe that the roads are actually safer.
As a parent myself, holding a clean license and living near a speed camera I frequently watch drives passing my house well in excess of the speed limit, but whenever I complain about it I'm treated as if I'm some kind of speed freak who hates the survelence nation.
genisis, swindon says...
4:39pm Wed 16 Jul 08
Frontier(s), says...
4:42pm Wed 16 Jul 08
Although, if in doing this they inspire other councils to do the same, happy days.
genisis, swindon says...
4:46pm Wed 16 Jul 08
My main point is that if the councils where getting the money from the cameras do you really think they would be saying they are not effective.
Futures, Swindon says...
5:02pm Wed 16 Jul 08
Kids will think twice about running across roads if the speed limit is 70MPH!
Frontier(s), says...
5:08pm Wed 16 Jul 08
That's why Anne Snelgrove has been told by her government bosses to make a stand in Swindon.
The builder, Old Town says...
5:12pm Wed 16 Jul 08
Hasnt the editor woken up to the fact there is no point trying to suck up to the likes of snelgrove as shes out of a job soon.
the adver really should be behind this campaign to scrap the speed cameras because they dont work!
good on the council for challenging these gits in government and more power to their elbow.
Frontier(s), says...
5:18pm Wed 16 Jul 08
Quelle surprise.
Robert Feal-Martinez, Swindon says...
8:08pm Wed 16 Jul 08
MauriceMalpasClueles
sNumpty, Swindon says...
8:32pm Wed 16 Jul 08
Insight, UK says...
9:27pm Wed 16 Jul 08
But I forgot that Labour don't do that just incase they get the wrong answer!
Lafyor Socksoff, Alicante says...
9:57pm Wed 16 Jul 08
Time_waits_for_no_ma
n, Swindon says...
7:28am Thu 17 Jul 08
MauriceMalpasClueles
sNumpty, Swindon says...
7:56am Thu 17 Jul 08
Time_waits_for_no_man wrote:Are you thick or what..........this whole debate is political. Do you really beleive the government would back cameras if it didn't involve money. I would happily see them stay if only points were issued. As you can see in the article, council and government are frequently mentioned as is Ms Snelgrove. If she didn't get involved then I wouldn't of mentioned her. As she has then she is part of the discussion.
It would appear the discussion has been steered away from the point by certain individuals (they know who they are ) to have a pop at the government or local MP - if want to bring their political views to our attention please find another site somewhere else.
Robert Feal-Martinez, Swindon says...
8:22am Thu 17 Jul 08
Insight, UK says...
8:32am Thu 17 Jul 08
It has to be said that the Conservatives were the first to introduce speed cameras back in 1992, so perhaps it's fitting that those who introduced them should be the ones to start hammering nails into it's coffin.
Frontier(s), says...
9:23am Thu 17 Jul 08
Time_waits_for_no_man wrote:It's the local MP, Anne Snelgrove, that has launched this laughable 'Hands off our speed cameras' campaign.
It would appear the discussion has been steered away from the point by certain individuals (they know who they are ) to have a pop at the government or local MP - if want to bring their political views to our attention please find another site somewhere else.
All of which she has been told to do because her boss fears that Swindon Council has public support (something Labour hate because they no longer have it) and fears that all that lovely cash might start drying up if other councils follow SBC's lead.
For too long this government have ridden roughshod over the public and I, for one, am pleased to see Swindon Council make a stand and do the right thing.
As people's finances worsen during this recession I think we're going to see more and more people suddenly realise just how much of their money Broon & Co. steal from them and start either demanding it back or not handing it over in the first place.
£60 for a speeding fine or a week's shopping for your family? Hmmm, I wonder which people would rather spend their money on.
Insight, UK says...
9:33am Thu 17 Jul 08
While it's your typical pensioner losing a weeks pension who can't afford a sat nav and who's car is probably flat out at 70 but happened to break the limit by 6 miles an hour and it is her and all of her kind who're paying all the fines to this wasteful unjustifiable quango bumping up the conviction tally to help support the police force in this political target driven culture.
These **** hells grannies, Labour MP's should lock them all up and throw away the key they're such a menace on the streets.
Insight, UK says...
1:12pm Thu 17 Jul 08
Under the heading 'Mondeo Man' the article describes how Fords are all in the top ten of vehicles caught speeding.
Which to your average person probably isn't a surprise, but to the camera partnership spokesman it's a bit of a different story who goes on to say..
'You would think more powerful marques would feature in the top 10, but they are marketed to a group of drivers who seem to be more responsible,'
The editor does point out the obvious in that Fords are the most popular vehicles on Britains roads and through sheer numbers are statistically far more likely to be caught speeding, but as far as that particular spokesman was concerned, if you own and drive a 200mph supercar you're more responsible that a middle aged fella in a mondeo.
Can I point out that if you know where a camera is, wether you're in a ferrari or a mondeo, you're not going to be speeding while you pass it, but I'd wager the Ferrari will be traveling much faster than the mondeo once they're both free of a fixed camera site.
Just goes to show these partnership people don't really know what they're talking about.
Ask one a question such as 'So, how many speeding vehicles have your cameras failed to catch?' and I'll wager they won't be able to give you an answer.
Frontier(s), says...
1:38pm Thu 17 Jul 08
They are only interested in motorists who speed past their cameras.
Liz, swindon says...
2:51pm Thu 17 Jul 08
Frontier(s) wrote:If anyone wants to ring the Speed Camera Partnership for the reasons behind the out of use cameras in Swindon, they will be happy to tell you. On the other hand Swindon council will be the ones to bluster and attempt to worm their way out of it
Whilst they may well be changing the speed limit on Queens Drive, that has nothing to do with why the cameras have been covered and out of use for almost a year now. Ring the Speed Camera Partnership and ask them the direct question as to why those cameras (and those on the A420) are covered. They will bluster, they will attempt to worm their way out of it but if you pin them down for a simple answer to a simple question they will have to tell you. Also try ringing Swindon Borough Council. They also know exactly why those cameras are covered - they were the people who confirmed to me it is because the cameras are illegally positioned and should never have been there in the first place.
Time_waits_for_no_ma
n, Swindon says...
5:35pm Thu 17 Jul 08
MauriceMalpasCluelessNumpty wrote:The whole debate is not political 'numpty' its financial you numpty ! (very apt name there)
Time_waits_for_no_man wrote: It would appear the discussion has been steered away from the point by certain individuals (they know who they are ) to have a pop at the government or local MP - if want to bring their political views to our attention please find another site somewhere else.Are you thick or what..........this whole debate is political. Do you really beleive the government would back cameras if it didn't involve money. I would happily see them stay if only points were issued. As you can see in the article, council and government are frequently mentioned as is Ms Snelgrove. If she didn't get involved then I wouldn't of mentioned her. As she has then she is part of the discussion.
Robert Feal-Martinez, Swindon says...
7:11pm Thu 17 Jul 08
Robert Feal-Martinez, Swindon says...
7:21pm Thu 17 Jul 08
Where cameras are placed and how they are signed or made visible is not set out in legislation. The police are able to enforce speed limits by using any equipment that has been type approved by the Home Office and do so in a number of ways. The law requires only that the speed limit should be properly signed in accordance with the requirements set out in The Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions 2002. This includes:
* All changes of speed limits are required to be signed.
* 30 mph roads due to the presence of street lights are signed only at the beginning.
* 60 mph and 70 mph roads without street lights are signed with the national speed limit sign at the beginning.
* 20 mph, 30 mph roads without street lights, 40 mph and 50 mph roads, and 60 and 70 mph roads with street lights have speed limit repeater signs along the route.
* There are different speed limits for different classes of vehicles and these are set out in the Highway Code. All drivers should ensure they know the correct limit for the vehicle they are driving.
The law does not require drivers to be warned about the presence of safety cameras. However, the Government wants drivers to know both the speed limit on any given stretch of road, and also that camera enforcement is taking place.
Drivers sometimes think that a speeding penalty is not valid if the route is not signed correctly with safety camera warning signs. This is not the case. The only signing that is required in law for a speeding offence to be valid is that the speed limit of the road must be properly signed. The placing or visibility of speed camera warning signs has no bearing on the enforcement of offences detected by safety cameras and does not provide any mitigation of or defence for an alleged speeding offence .
Insight, UK says...
7:37pm Thu 17 Jul 08
Indeed, the Welsh let the cat out of the bag with their horse box camera on the issue of hidden cameras.
So, our honest government have changed their mind on using camerasas a visible deterant covering accident blackspots, as they clearly didn't work, but I suppose they've got to pay for them somehow. No wonder the government are so annoyed with Swindon council, if all the councils did that they'd have a huge bill to pay for equipment thats no longer needed, that'd be a shame, wouldn't it.
It's probably doesn't help that now all these mobile cameras are in opperation that all these operatives are proving to be incompetent in using equipment that is notoriously difficult to setup and use, with at least two forces currently having operatives suspended or as in one case already haveing been fired.
How many faulty convictions now? a hundred thousand? or has it climbed still higher countrywide.
Embarassing mess for the government I'd say, no wonder Ms Snelgrove is so hot to trot.
Grumpy, Swindon says...
10:37am Wed 16 Jul 08