The Bristol speed camera con
Speed cameras have not reduced the number of accidents on
roads in the Bristol area despite the number of motorists
-
slapped with speeding fines increasing 11-fold in a decade.
The Evening Post looked at the number of accidents recorded
at fixed camera sites and found the number of accidents
recorded last year, at 150, was higher than the 148 logged in
1998.
The money collected in Avon and Somerset has soared from
£290,000 in 1997 to a staggering £3.15 million in 2006.
Using accident figures posted on the Safecam website for
Avon and Somerset we found that in many locations there was no
clear downward trend in accidents – and that at some areas the
average number of accidents had actually risen in the years
since a fixed camera was installed.
On the A4 at Saltford Hill there were an average of two
accidents a year in the three years before 2001, when a Gatso
camera was installed. Since then, the average has been three a
year.
A camera was installed on the A4 at Brislington Hill in
1994. But in 1998 there were 17 accidents, in 2000 there were
29 and last year there were 23.
On the A4018 Westbury Road there were four accidents in 1998
and 10 last year, with no clear trend in the intervening
years.
And on New Cheltenham Road in Kingswood the average number
of accidents has remained almost static, at 6.3 per year, since
a camera was installed in 2005.
Some sites have seen an improvement. The camera site on the
A38 Gloucester Road near the Southmead Road junction saw an
average of 11 accidents per year between 1998 and 2001 but
since a speed camera was installed the following year, this has
fallen to eight.
of roadside and mobile speed cameras.
The Department for Transport says that there were 1,745
fewer deaths and serious injuries at UK camera sites each
year.
But regional spokesman for campaign group the Association of
British Drivers Hugh Blaydon said: “Cameras don't work – we
need police back on the roads. This demonstrates that speed
camera fines are nothing but a stealth tax.
“Cameras are a complete and almost total failure.
“They have not made our roads any safer and that's because
speed is not a contributory factor in the majority of
accidents.
“They cannot attribute falls in deaths and serious accidents
to speed cameras.
“What the police should be concentrating on is disqualified
and uninsured drivers, those that are over the drink-drive
limit, or under the influence of drugs while at the wheel, if
they want to make our roads safer.
“It's very doubtful that cameras have saved any lives
whatsoever.”
David Gollicker, a spokesman for the Avon and Somerset
Safety Camera Partnership – which was set up in 2002 – said the
amount of revenue generated in fixed penalty notices was in a
steady decline from its peak in 2004.
He said: “As an organisation, our revenue is decreasing and
has been for a number of years. We've now sent 100,000 people
caught speeding at just over 30mph to workshops to improve
their driving.
“None of those fines has gone to the Government because
those £60 fines pay for the course.”
The figures for the total number of fines, uncovered by the
Tories, include fixed penalty notices from speed cameras as
well as those issued by police officers.
Tory police reform spokesman David Ruffley said: “Ministers
need to tell us what they are doing with the money taken from
motorists.
“How much is actually put back into practical road safety
that does not involve speed cameras?”
111 Comments
View all
by Bill, Highway to Hell
Saturday, August 09 2008, 12:27AM
“Here's another little entertaining statistic for you.
Since vehicle manufacturers improved the security of vehicles to a point where they are virtually unstealable without the actual key. In a classic example of 'sods law' the number of house break in's to steal those keys has dramatically risen.
Previously, the car would've been hot wired and stolen, now, you're more likely to find that not only your car is gone, but that your house has been burgled as well.
The tactic involves blu taking a set of fake plates, cloned from a vehicle with a similar specification over the target vehicles real ones which combined with an absence of traffic police in an area with a large number of speed cameras makes stealing vehicles with no damage at all and resale over seas big and lucrative business.
So, although speed cameras haven't actually stolen your car, you're more likely to get it stolen and have your house burgled in the bargain, if you live in an area with many speed cameras.
The law of unexpected consequences? ..or simply a government who is too stupid to listen to genuine critiscism?”
by Bill, Highway to Hell
Friday, August 08 2008, 11:54PM
“It is true to state that the death toll nationally has dropped from 3,421 in 1998 to 3,172 in 2006, approx 249 a year ¿ a reduction of approx seven per cent, wether this reduction can even be associated to speed cameras is open to speculation as the motor industry seem to be keen to point out that it is improvement to vehicles that is responsible.
However taking Durham as the first example of a county that doesn't use speed cameras, the money collected by Durham Constabulary ¿ just £169,000 in 2006 ¿ is tiny by comparison to all of the countys who operate speed cameras. But at the same time that there has been a mere seven percent drop in road deaths nationally the Durham force has cut its road death by more than 40 per cent.
The only other force in the country with no fixed cameras is nearby North Yorkshire ¿ and road deaths there are down by 15 per cent over double the national average.
Several forces have reluctantly had to admit an increase in fatlities since cameras were introduced.
All in all it adds up to one thing, the governments decision to commit to road safety being handed over to automated photo booths was a clearly stupid and deadly one, it may protect Gordon Browns precious public sector pay, but it is costing lives right across the country and no amount of Partnership propaganda can convince anyone that 7% is good result when a county with no cameras has a reduction of 40%.
Speed cameras ..Think! ..don't trust a council who supports speed cameras, you have better odds of survival in the two countys who do not use them.”
by Bill, Highway to Hell
Thursday, August 07 2008, 5:01PM
“You cannot defend the Speed Camera Partnerships, they, like the cameras they support are obsolete in the light of the new technology that we could be buying for real police officers, who 'can' apprehend dangerous drivers on the spot and if necessary take away the vehicle to keep us safe.
To continue to support a 20 year old policy that is well past it's sell-by date is ridiculous.
Speeding isn't the only issue and it appears that the naive amongst us think that speed cameras are any kind of solution to road safety. They simply represent the available technology that was around as long ago as 1990 and have been surpassed.
Don't forget that the rules have been changed and more mobile cameras are on the streets, more mobile cameras, mean more operators, more operators mean more wages, so why don't we spend that money on real police who can put the apprehending of drivers back into the equation and make a real difference to road safety,. which when you think about it logically means we've come full circle and are right back where we started from apart from having wasted millions on a quango that can no longer justify it's existance now that their is superior and considerably more cost effective equipment to arm the 'real' police with.
Councils are starting to wise up and realise they're not making any money out of cameras anymore, as the money goes to prop up and incompetant government instead and they've started to realise that the police are actually cheaper and more effective, because you don't need so many of them.
Goodbye speed camera partnerships, your days are numbered, it's been an experiment in faliure and we won't be sorry to see the back of you.”
by Simon, Bristol
Thursday, August 07 2008, 3:25PM
“Has anyone else noticed the safety camera partnership spokesman doesn't defend his organisation and quote statistics regarding the number of lives supposedly saved, he merely states they are making less money.”
by S Clark, Bristol
Thursday, August 07 2008, 3:16PM
“Why ahve we let the car control our lives so much, if all of them were banned this debate would go away, I say start with the idiots who drive sports cars and then work our way down.... speed won't be an issue then.”