December 15, 2005 at 10:07 pm #10926RadarModerator
Motoring: Changes to speed camera schemes
15 Dec 05 19:02
Transport secretary Alistair Darling today announced changes to speed camera policy for Britain’s roads.
Local authorities will no longer fund new cameras with money raised from fines; instead, speed camera programmes will be integrated into wider road safety schemes alongside measures such as junction improvements, traffic calming devices and reviews of local speed limits. All local authorities will be required to review limits on all their A and B roads by 2011.
It is expected that these measures will lead to fewer new cameras being installed – there are currently 6,000 in the UK – and some may be removed in favour of warning signs, 20mph zones or traffic calming devices. Authorities will also be required to give more warning of the remaining cameras, clearer signage of speed limits and before introducing a new camera, study the site’s accident record over five years rather than three, taking into account all accidents resulting in injuries. In turn, they will receive increased funding for their road safety programmes.
Road safety campaigners have quickly responded to the move, saying that the government has given in to the anti-camera, pro-speed lobby in a bid for improved public popularity. Their opponents are claiming a sort of victory, seeing the decision as a sign that the government is backing down on camera policy and admitting it has got it wrong.
Darling said today that an independent four-year report had concluded that cameras “are delivering substantial reductions in accidents and casualties”. The report, by PA Consulting and University College, London, found that vehicles exceeding the speed limit fell by 70% at fixed camera sites and that – after allowing for the general trend of improving road safety – there was a 22% reduction in collisions causing injury (around 4, 230 fewer each year) at the sites and a 42% reduction in the number of people killed or seriously injured (around 1,745 fewer, with 100 fewer deaths) – a 50% reduction at fixed camera sites and a 35% reduction at mobile sites.
“This report is clear proof that safety cameras save lives”, Darling said. “There are hundreds of people alive today who would otherwise be dead.” Conceding that the standalone camera schemes, with local authorities effectively given a free rein, may not have been ideal, he added: “But I want cameras to be linked more closely to wider road safety… in some places cameras will still be the solution and can be funded through this money [the increased funding]. In other places there will be alternative solutions which this funding can cover. In 2004, the UK had the lowest number on record of people killed in road accidents. We are committed to reducing that number even further. I firmly believe that the changes I have announced today will do that.”
Look in the Forest if you want to find trees
December 16, 2005 at 10:03 am #38981XV16Participant
This is great news, however it is not over yet by a long way, but it does show that people are starting to stand up and be counted and this latest news will certainly help make a difference, more and more people will start to take note now that the Government have admitted they were wrong. Let’s hope they continue with the new plans now they have finally come to their senses.
The dangers are still out there, in the guise of Mr Brunstrom, you are all aware of this idiots intentions to introduce covert spy tactics, this might have to be the next campaign (oh dear) once the camera wars are finally over.
I would like to take this opportunity to thank all members on this site who actually wrote to their MPs and voiced their opinion and/or took part in a more active roll, and a special thanks to all the members who have kept this section active in my absence (especially Gix).
Happy Christmas/Seasons Greetings to all.
Please note that some of the comments and articles posted may not represent my views or the views of The Bike Forum and its moderators.
“The normally careful and competent actions of a reasonable individual should be considered legal.”
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.