"It's time to turn our speed cameras back on" - Councillor Gary Hopkins
SWITCHING off traffic cameras has led to more people "jumping lights" in Bristol, according to a former city transport boss.
Lib Dem councillor Gary Hopkins warned that the lack of a deterrent may also lead to more accidents like that which killed 27-year-old teacher Jake Thompson.
Mr Hopkins argued that the cameras should be switched back on as they are "self-financing" and only require the cooperation of the council and police.
Mr Thompson was killed on the Three Lamps Junction on the A37 by a lorry which was travelling 38mph in a 30mph zone moments before clipping his head as he stepped out to cross the road.
Business Cards From Only £10.95 Delivered www.myprint-247.co.uk
View detailsOur heavyweight cards have FREE UV silk coating, FREE next day delivery & VAT included. Choose from 1000's of pre-designed templates or upload your own artwork. Orders dispatched within 24hrs.
Terms: Visit our site for more products: Business Cards, Compliment Slips, Letterheads, Leaflets, Postcards, Posters & much more. All items are free next day delivery. www.myprint-247.co.uk
Contact: 01858 468192
Valid until: Sunday, June 30 2013
Witnesses at an inquest, where the cause of death was found to be accidental, said the light was "on the cusp" of changing from amber to red.
The investigation into Mr Thompson's death – which happened in May 2011 – has now been reopened by police.
At the cabinet meeting last Thursday, Mr Hopkins urged the council to work with police to get enforcement cameras back in use and avoid future collisions.
Mr Hopkins said: "It's not just speed cameras but red light cameras which people are regularly jumping in this city.
"There was a tragic accident on the Wells Road not that long ago which is now being investigated.
"It was shown on the tachograph that the lorry had actually been speeding – of course we didn't have speed cameras to find that out."
Mr Hopkins argued that enforcement cameras should be "switched back on" through cooperation with police.
He said: "It's not a matter of budget it's a matter of the two partners getting together to deal with this.
"The red light cameras is something which can't really be enforced in any other way."
Before the meeting, Mr Hopkins sent a letter to mayor George Ferguson and Police and Crime Commissioner Sue Mountstevens stating that enforcement cameras can be "self funding".
In the letter he mentioned how fees paid by offenders taking Speed Awareness courses – offered to them after being caught speeding or jumping a red light – can pay for the deterrent.
Speaking to The Post, Mr Hopkins added that he was in favour of the cameras being reintroduced – but not as a "cash cow" money-making exercise.
He said as speed enforcement has declined it has become more common for motorists to "push it that little bit more" on the roads.
The city's 37 fixed point speed cameras and traffic light cameras were switched off in April 2011 as part of a nationwide cost-cutting exercise.
It was left to local authorities to make the final decision on whether to cut the deterrents.
The Safecam partnership was abolished, leaving the cameras – 20 of which were red light cameras – switched off indefinitely.
A police spokesman Simon Whitby said the fixed cameras had been replaced with six mobile enforcement units across the Avon and Somerset area which are deployed "when and where" they are needed.
Mr Whitby said: "Neighbourhood beat teams work with local people to identify areas where speeding and traffic offences can be a problem.
"Community Speed Watch schemes are also effective with volunteers trained to use speed detection equipment."
The number of people taking Speed Awareness courses in the Avon and Somerset area dropped from 43,797 in 2010 to 24,704 last year.
The revenue generated by the Speed Awareness course fell from £1,750,621 in the year 2009/10 to 952,175 for the whole of 2012.
Police are set to issue a fresh appeal for more witnesses of the collision which killed Mr Thompson.
60 Comments
View all
by DM_Fishponds
Monday, February 04 2013, 1:48PM
“LibDem MP Chris Huhne is now facing a possible jail sentence after admitting lying to police over a speeding offence caught on camera committed a decade ago.
In the light of this breaking news, does Cllr Hopkins think that re-introducing roadside cameras is still a good idea? Or conversely does Cllr Hopkins believe that Chris Huhne was not doing any harm?”
by green_man
Sunday, February 03 2013, 4:20PM
“You are not being precise and not fully appreciating the statistical processes smoosername and yet criticise University College London and the Royal Society for the Prevention of accidents! For instance you say the 'majority of speed cameras have been turned off' and yet take no account of this whatsoever (majority off means some were still on but you dont say how many or what proportion). The numbers of cameras that were turned on/off and exactly when in the 2010/11 period is obviously a factor - Bristol's cameras were still operating for 3 or 4 months into 2011 for instance. Are you implying that University College London and the Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents have an agenda that skews their approach and that they have some sort of interest in not producing accurate/correct figures?? It would hardly be reputation-enhancing for them to get things wrong or be biased now would it.
You say '...you would expect some of these figures to move the other way when cameras were turned off. And yet they didn't? '. In fact some of them did. According to the figures you give yourself the number of fatal accidents went up from 1620 in 2010 to 1683 in 2011 and the number of serious accidents went up from 18,043 in 2010 to 18,391 in 2011. And by the way you should not be saying when ' they were turned off ' you should be saying when a lot of them or some of them were being turned off or that cameras were in the process of being turned off at different times in different parts of the country.”
by smoosername
Saturday, February 02 2013, 1:52PM
“I just thought that with claims (remember they are claims, they cannot be proven) such as:
the number of vehicles exceeding the speed limit at fixed camera sites fell by 70%
the number of people killed or seriously injured fell by 42% at camera sites
there were 1,745 fewer people being killed or seriously injured
100 fewer deaths per year.
the number of people killed and seriously injured fell by 50% at fixed sites
32% reduction in the number of children killed and seriously injured
number of pedestrians killed or seriously injured fell by 29%
22% reduction in collisions involving (fatal, serious or slight) personal injury
This equated to 4,230 fewer personal injury collisions per year.
ALL attributed to the fact that speed cameras were present, you would expect some of these figures to move the other way when cameras were turned off. And yet they didn't?
Points to the fact the claims were at best over-exaggerated/embellished and worst simply wrong.
You can't get away from the fact there were less accidents involving 'Exceeding the Speed Limit' after the cameras were turned off, no matter what preconceptions you may have.”
by green_man
Saturday, February 02 2013, 2:59AM
“Smoosername you are simply not accounting for everything that can make
the figures rise or fall. You are also making some very broad assumptions. You are only looking at 2010 and 2011 - and the figure of 3,600 personal injury collisions, saving around 1,000 people from being killed or seriously injured is for 2003/4 ie long before 2010/11. You exaggerate greatly by using language like 'bloodbath' too. If you know better than organisations that have compiled and used the stats, like University College London and the Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents then perhaps you'd better get the authorities to employ you
in place of them.”
by smoosername
Friday, February 01 2013, 9:44PM
“Hi green_man, why am I sceptical? Mostly because when you look at the claims, then the facts, they don't match up, or get even close. We are now in a position, since the majority of speed cameras have been turned off to look at the claims made before with regards to how effective speed cameras are and see whether these are correct.
Claim - Speed cameras prevented some 3,600 personal injury collisions, saving around 1,000 people from being killed or seriously injured.
2010 Stats - Speed cameras still being widely used.
Number of fatal accidents - 1620
Number of serious accidents - 18,043
Number of slight accidents - 101,164
Total Number of accidents - 120.827
Since then the majority of speed cameras have been turned off. So based on the above claim you would expect the number of fatal accidents to be around 1,730 and number of serious accidents 18,950 (based on a split of around 1 fatal accident to 10 serious accident). And the number of slight accidents to be around 104,700.
2011 Stats - Speed cameras mostly not being used.
Number of fatal accidents - 1,663
Number of serious accidents - 18.391
Number of slight accidents - 98,349
Total Number of accidents - 118,403
You can apply this to any of the speed camera claims in your post at January 31st @ 5:55PM and the impact that speed cameras claimed to have made over the years simply don't stack up.
Again, if you look at the number of accidents that had 'Exceeding the Speed limit' as a contributory factor before and after turn off of the speed cameras, the claims again don't add up.
2010 Stats - Speed cameras mostly not being used.
Number of fatal accidents with 'Exceeding the Speed Limit' as a factor - 221
Number of serious accidents with 'Exceeding the Speed Limit' as a factor - 1,179
Number of slight accidents with 'Exceeding the Speed Limit' as a factor - 4,436
Total Number of accidents with 'Exceeding the Speed Limit' as a factor - 5,836
2011 Stats - Speed cameras mostly not being used.
Number of fatal accidents with 'Exceeding the Speed Limit' as a factor - 213
Number of serious accidents with 'Exceeding the Speed Limit' as a factor - 1,095
Number of slight accidents with 'Exceeding the Speed Limit' as a factor - 4,268
Total Number of accidents with 'Exceeding the Speed Limit' as a factor - 5,576
So, there were less accidents with 'Exceeding the Speed Limit' as a contributory factor AFTER the majority of speed cameras turned off. Based on the claims, you would have expected it to be a blood bath on the roads with 1000's of extra accidents caused by people speeding that would have been prevented by having speed cameras.”
by green_man
Friday, February 01 2013, 5:28PM
“Scepticism is good smoosername but there have to be reasons for the scepticism that hold water. Dont foregt that the study that checked the study concluded that for the 2003/4 year 'cameras at more than 4,000 sites across Great Britain prevented some 3,600 personal injury collisions, saving around 1,000 people from being killed or seriously injured '.”
by smoosername
Friday, February 01 2013, 2:12PM
“Maybe so green_man. I agree road safety is a complex issue, therefore I'm sure you can see why I am sceptical when claims are made such as "The number of people killed and seriously injured fell by 50% at fixed sites and by 35% at mobile sites." when 'Exceeding The Speed limit' on average would have only been present in 5% of accidents before.
However, it just sometimes feels that we are spending 95% of our road safety time and effort into trying to tackle a factor that is only present in 5% of accidents. That just doesn't make sense. Why not tackle first, the factors that are causing the most?
I feel a much better way to improve road safety would be to simply have more road police. They are better than speed cameras in every single possible way you can think of. That would have a much greater impact on reducing the number of accidents on our roads.”
by green_man
Friday, February 01 2013, 1:57PM
“You are being too literal in your use of predicted figures smoosername - the situation is complex and multi-factoral - though I do agree with several aspects of your last comment.”
by smoosername
Friday, February 01 2013, 1:47PM
“Hi green_man,
Apologies, I did read the report reference but searched for 'Reduction to the mean' rather than 'reduction to mean' referenced in the report meaning nothing was found. To be fair it does a quite good job at trying to incorporate RTM into the findings, although with some assumptions/estimations.
So with cameras still being turned off and kept off in the majority of areas, surely there should be a sharp increase in accidents? Surely there should have been 800 extra deaths on our roads as that is what speed cameras were saving (There was 61 extra). Could the impact of speed cameras be over-estimated and relied on too much?
But this really comes as no surprise to me. Speed cameras can only target a contributory factor (Exceeding the Speed Limit) that is only found in 5% of accidents and hasn't been in the top 10 of contributory factors for the last 5 years.
Pedestrian failed to look properly is twice as likely to be a contributory factor in an accident than a motorist exceeding the speed limit.”
by mousemat64
Friday, February 01 2013, 12:45PM
“I was caught by a mobile camera in South Bristol. It has been there on a number of occasions, by a junction that has seen a few fatalities in years gone by.
I was 2 miles above the allowable speed limit - annoying - but it was my loss of concentration that caused me to be flashed - nobody elses fault but mine.
Having seen other motorist tearing around roads where speed cameras were previously turned on does not convince me that they are mindful of why the cameras were put up in the first place.
I think they should be on - and drivers take responsibility for themselves.”