Today's most viewed
Police issue statement on speed cameras
In response to recent stories about the possibility of Swindon council removing speed cameras, Wiltshire Police issued the following statement.
"The Wiltshire and Swindon Safety Camera Unit has been in existence since 2002 and is part of the wider Wiltshire and Swindon Road Safety Partnership.
"In common with all other Safety Camera schemes the Unit was financed by central government until April 2007 when new funding arrangements were introduced.
"Since that date, local authorities have received additional government grants which they may choose to use exclusively or in part to continue operating Safety Cameras. These grants are fixed until 2010 and are unaffected by the numbers of offences detected or the amount of money attributable to fines arising from camera offences.
"Since 1 April 2007 all revenue raised by safety cameras has gone directly to the Consolidated Fund in the same way as other fines.
"From that date the Department for Transport has enhanced the level of funding for road safety through the Specific Road Safety Grant - £110 million per year (£440m over the period 2007/08 - 2010/11).
"This exceeds the £99.5m of costs reclaimed by Safety Camera Partnerships in 2005/06 through the old netting off funding regime. The Specific Road Safety Grant is also in addition to the road safety funding already provided through the Local Transport Plan process.
"Wiltshire County Council has confirmed that it will provide funding in support of Safety Cameras until the end of 2010. Swindon Borough Council has agreed to provide funding until April 2009 and indicated that it will review the position each year.
"Over the 12 months to the end of April, 2008, the collision statistics for roads across the Wiltshire and Swindon area, including camera sites indicated a 30.25% reduction in the number of people killed or seriously injured when compared with the baseline data required by the Department for Transport before Safety Camera enforcement began. For children under 16 years the reduction is 47.7%
"At the Core camera sites in isolation, the collision statistics indicated a 69% reduction in the number of people killed or seriously injured. For children under 16 years the reduction is 58.5%.
"Focusing only on Swindon's Core sites, in the three years before camera enforcement was introduced the average number of persons killed or seriously injured was 19 per year.
"Since safety camera enforcement began at these sites the average number of persons killed or seriously injured is 5.9 per year, a reduction of 69%.
"10 of Swindon's Core sites have not had a single fatal or serious injury collision since they were established."
1:53pm Tuesday 15th July 2008
Print 
Email this 
CommentPosted by: redhousecomputers, Prioryvale on 2:13pm Tue 15 Jul 08
Good riddance is all I can say. There are far better ways to slow traffic without the need for speed cameras, whilst they are at it...perhaps removing all the pesky speed humps around Swindon that cost me a fortune in damaged tracking and knackered tyres. Oh also if they actually made repairs to the **** roads in this town then this also would have a reduction in the amount of accidents, as I am yet to see a car stop on a piece of tarmac that doesn't exist...you only have to look at Thames down drive, to see that SBC and all government levels back up to the treasury are pocketing the money and not investing in sustainable road products... I see they have just put a camera up on the northbound A419.....why? I think maybe the coffers maybe a little empty over at the treasury.
Good riddance is all I can say. There are far better ways to slow traffic without the need for speed cameras, whilst they are at it...perhaps removing all the pesky speed humps around Swindon that cost me a fortune in damaged tracking and knackered tyres. Oh also if they actually made repairs to the **** roads in this town then this also would have a reduction in the amount of accidents, as I am yet to see a car stop on a piece of tarmac that doesn't exist...you only have to look at Thames down drive, to see that SBC and all government levels back up to the treasury are pocketing the money and not investing in sustainable road products... I see they have just put a camera up on the northbound A419.....why? I think maybe the coffers maybe a little empty over at the treasury.
Posted by: Insight, UK on 2:47pm Tue 15 Jul 08
The propaganda continues.
Please note that along with the presence of speed cameras, often comes road works and resurfacing, repair or simply improvment to street furniture and fresh road markings often painted on those newer higher grip road surfaces.
The reduction in accidents in an accident black spot where the road itself was worn out has very little to do with the presence of a speed camera if the new road surface in itself can improve stopping distances by as much as 70% even when within the posted speed limit.
Stop taking the public for fools.
Cameras are indeed a stealth tax because we already pay road tax and are soon to pay a massively hiked VED in the name of green issues.
If the government can't keep our roads in good condition with the tax they already take, they're incompetent and need to go.
A return to sensible road maintainance and policing please, nobody is falling for the hogwash anymore.
The propaganda continues.
Please note that along with the presence of speed cameras, often comes road works and resurfacing, repair or simply improvment to street furniture and fresh road markings often painted on those newer higher grip road surfaces.
The reduction in accidents in an accident black spot where the road itself was worn out has very little to do with the presence of a speed camera if the new road surface in itself can improve stopping distances by as much as 70% even when within the posted speed limit.
Stop taking the public for fools.
Cameras are indeed a stealth tax because we already pay road tax and are soon to pay a massively hiked VED in the name of green issues.
If the government can't keep our roads in good condition with the tax they already take, they're incompetent and need to go.
A return to sensible road maintainance and policing please, nobody is falling for the hogwash anymore.
Posted by: Global Templar, Marlborough on 3:40pm Tue 15 Jul 08
after reading through all the careful leftie double speak always found when government or authorities are involved the police statement confirms what the council said that they get a fixed budget while the government take all the fines over and above that paid to Swindon hence the public now know that cameras are there for profit and to tax drivers to use the very roads they have already paid for many times over with VED and VAT on fuel. New Labour cannot be trusted with regard to anypart of our transport policies, with roads they have proven to be untrustworthy in the extreme. Until we have properly funded police forces with traffic units to replace cameras the public will not be happy or served well for the money raised/spent. When will Labour realise they have been found out and no one will trust them again, time for fresh thinking on road safety and policing!
after reading through all the careful leftie double speak always found when government or authorities are involved the police statement confirms what the council said that they get a fixed budget while the government take all the fines over and above that paid to Swindon hence the public now know that cameras are there for profit and to tax drivers to use the very roads they have already paid for many times over with VED and VAT on fuel. New Labour cannot be trusted with regard to anypart of our transport policies, with roads they have proven to be untrustworthy in the extreme. Until we have properly funded police forces with traffic units to replace cameras the public will not be happy or served well for the money raised/spent. When will Labour realise they have been found out and no one will trust them again, time for fresh thinking on road safety and policing!
Posted by: devizeseddie, Devizes on 5:25pm Tue 15 Jul 08
Cameras have always been a stealth tax on motorists and nothing to do with road safety.Perfect example of this was a few years ago when average speed cameras were installed along most of the Nottingham Ring Road where speeding was a big problem. As soon as the speeders realised their time was over, they all slowed down, no-one got caught anymore, no money was raised from fines, so the cameras were taken down. Proof as if proof were needed that it's all about money, and NOT about safety.
Cameras have always been a stealth tax on motorists and nothing to do with road safety.Perfect example of this was a few years ago when average speed cameras were installed along most of the Nottingham Ring Road where speeding was a big problem. As soon as the speeders realised their time was over, they all slowed down, no-one got caught anymore, no money was raised from fines, so the cameras were taken down. Proof as if proof were needed that it's all about money, and NOT about safety.
Posted by: rosco, Chippenham on 5:50pm Tue 15 Jul 08
[quote][bold]devizeseddie[/bold] wrote:
Cameras have always been a stealth tax on motorists and nothing to do with road safety.Perfect example of this was a few years ago when average speed cameras were installed along most of the Nottingham Ring Road where speeding was a big problem. As soon as the speeders realised their time was over, they all slowed down, no-one got caught anymore, no money was raised from fines, so the cameras were taken down. Proof as if proof were needed that it's all about money, and NOT about safety.[/quote] How are they a tax? Only those that speed have to pay - taxes are what we all have to pay (like Tax disc). If you don't speed, what's the problem?
Presumably they moved cameras from Nottingham Ring Road to another area that needed speed controlling, what's wrong with that?
devizeseddie wrote:
Cameras have always been a stealth tax on motorists and nothing to do with road safety.Perfect example of this was a few years ago when average speed cameras were installed along most of the Nottingham Ring Road where speeding was a big problem. As soon as the speeders realised their time was over, they all slowed down, no-one got caught anymore, no money was raised from fines, so the cameras were taken down. Proof as if proof were needed that it's all about money, and NOT about safety.
How are they a tax? Only those that speed have to pay - taxes are what we all have to pay (like Tax disc). If you don't speed, what's the problem?
Presumably they moved cameras from Nottingham Ring Road to another area that needed speed controlling, what's wrong with that?
Posted by: Insight, UK on 7:00pm Tue 15 Jul 08
With in excess of 95% of all convictions 10mph or less over an arbitrary speed limit and all of the revenue going to the exchequer ...they're a tax, nothing more.
If they were used as an unmanned 'listening post' to gather intelegence data on persistant dangerous drivers leading to an apprehension of that dangerous driver ridding our roads of the menaces that speed cameras simply don't catch, such as drink drivers, drugs, uninsured etc etc, no one would complain, but as they simply rake in as much revenue as they can from otherwise innocent drivers who wouldn't have been fined till a camera appeared, while failing to catch those who know how to abuse the system entirely ..they're a tax, nothing more, nothing less.
With in excess of 95% of all convictions 10mph or less over an arbitrary speed limit and all of the revenue going to the exchequer ...they're a tax, nothing more.
If they were used as an unmanned 'listening post' to gather intelegence data on persistant dangerous drivers leading to an apprehension of that dangerous driver ridding our roads of the menaces that speed cameras simply don't catch, such as drink drivers, drugs, uninsured etc etc, no one would complain, but as they simply rake in as much revenue as they can from otherwise innocent drivers who wouldn't have been fined till a camera appeared, while failing to catch those who know how to abuse the system entirely ..they're a tax, nothing more, nothing less.
Posted by: Insight, UK on 7:02pm Tue 15 Jul 08
The tide has turned, they've prosecuted too many drivers and saved too few lives to justify it.
The days of this twenty year old relic hovering like a vulture on the side of the road are coming to an end!
There are superior and more cost effective methods of keeping the roads safe today and it's about time with cut the strings to the governments cash cow.
The tide has turned, they've prosecuted too many drivers and saved too few lives to justify it.
The days of this twenty year old relic hovering like a vulture on the side of the road are coming to an end!
There are superior and more cost effective methods of keeping the roads safe today and it's about time with cut the strings to the governments cash cow.
Posted by: DingDonG, looking for 0.1 of a person on 8:59pm Tue 15 Jul 08
[quote] the average number of persons killed or seriously injured is 5.9 per year,[/quote] I do hope the 0.9 person makes a "speedy" recovery.
the average number of persons killed or seriously injured is 5.9 per year,
I do hope the 0.9 person makes a "speedy" recovery.
Posted by: Chris on 10:19pm Tue 15 Jul 08
[quote][bold]rosco[/bold] wrote:
[quote][bold]devizeseddie[/bold] wrote: Cameras have always been a stealth tax on motorists and nothing to do with road safety.Perfect example of this was a few years ago when average speed cameras were installed along most of the Nottingham Ring Road where speeding was a big problem. As soon as the speeders realised their time was over, they all slowed down, no-one got caught anymore, no money was raised from fines, so the cameras were taken down. Proof as if proof were needed that it's all about money, and NOT about safety.[/quote] How are they a tax? Only those that speed have to pay - taxes are what we all have to pay (like Tax disc). If you don't speed, what's the problem? Presumably they moved cameras from Nottingham Ring Road to another area that needed speed controlling, what's wrong with that? [/quote] You show me a motorist who has never speeded and I will show you a liar.
rosco wrote:
devizeseddie wrote: Cameras have always been a stealth tax on motorists and nothing to do with road safety.Perfect example of this was a few years ago when average speed cameras were installed along most of the Nottingham Ring Road where speeding was a big problem. As soon as the speeders realised their time was over, they all slowed down, no-one got caught anymore, no money was raised from fines, so the cameras were taken down. Proof as if proof were needed that it's all about money, and NOT about safety.
How are they a tax? Only those that speed have to pay - taxes are what we all have to pay (like Tax disc). If you don't speed, what's the problem? Presumably they moved cameras from Nottingham Ring Road to another area that needed speed controlling, what's wrong with that?
You show me a motorist who has never speeded and I will show you a liar.
Posted by: Joe, Wilts on 11:46pm Tue 15 Jul 08
They may well be a tax???
But i would rather people who get caught speeding have to cough up some money than my tax burden go up!!! Keep them!!! reduce income tax and increase cameras.
Besides they are big and obvious if you are not paying attention or smart enough to slow down when you see one you deserve a fine!!!
I have never been caught by one so i ssay keep raising tax that way.
They may well be a tax???
But i would rather people who get caught speeding have to cough up some money than my tax burden go up!!! Keep them!!! reduce income tax and increase cameras.
Besides they are big and obvious if you are not paying attention or smart enough to slow down when you see one you deserve a fine!!!
I have never been caught by one so i ssay keep raising tax that way.
Posted by: Phil_S, Chippenham on 3:30am Wed 16 Jul 08
[quote][bold]Joe[/bold] wrote:
They may well be a tax??? But i would rather people who get caught speeding have to cough up some money than my tax burden go up!!! Keep them!!! reduce income tax and increase cameras. Besides they are big and obvious if you are not paying attention or smart enough to slow down when you see one you deserve a fine!!! I have never been caught by one so i ssay keep raising tax that way.[/quote] I object to most taxes. Why ? Because governments both local & national, waste the money hand over fist.
Regarding speeding cameras the point is that they only do one thing measure a speed at a particular point at a particular time. They take no account of road conditions or the way a vehicle is being driven. The money would be better spent on proper policing. Who is the most dangerous a drunk driver driving at 29 mph, or a sober driver doing 35mph.
Joe wrote:
They may well be a tax??? But i would rather people who get caught speeding have to cough up some money than my tax burden go up!!! Keep them!!! reduce income tax and increase cameras. Besides they are big and obvious if you are not paying attention or smart enough to slow down when you see one you deserve a fine!!! I have never been caught by one so i ssay keep raising tax that way.
I object to most taxes. Why ? Because governments both local & national, waste the money hand over fist.
Regarding speeding cameras the point is that they only do one thing measure a speed at a particular point at a particular time. They take no account of road conditions or the way a vehicle is being driven. The money would be better spent on proper policing. Who is the most dangerous a drunk driver driving at 29 mph, or a sober driver doing 35mph.
Posted by: Insight, UK on 8:52am Wed 16 Jul 08
For the same price as a single fixed speed camera you could equip three modern police cars with ANPR, so instead of an easily avoided camera in one location, you could cover your entire town with random spot checks and generate more fines, which would actually include the boy racers and drugs and less money would be wasted attempting to track down the estimated 300,000 fixed penalty fines that never get paid because the underclass fail to provide a legal address.
Are we grasping the inefficiency and waste of the camera partnerships yet?
It is a tax, it's not even a very efficient tax, get over it, there are superior methods of actual apprehension that aren't being used because we're stuck like a broken record on pointless twenty year old speed cameras.
For the same price as a single fixed speed camera you could equip three modern police cars with ANPR, so instead of an easily avoided camera in one location, you could cover your entire town with random spot checks and generate more fines, which would actually include the boy racers and drugs and less money would be wasted attempting to track down the estimated 300,000 fixed penalty fines that never get paid because the underclass fail to provide a legal address.
Are we grasping the inefficiency and waste of the camera partnerships yet?
It is a tax, it's not even a very efficient tax, get over it, there are superior methods of actual apprehension that aren't being used because we're stuck like a broken record on pointless twenty year old speed cameras.
What are these links for?
If you liked this article and would like to share it with others on the web who might be searching for good content we've made it easy for you to do it.
At the bottom of all articles, you'll see links to six sites. These sites - commonly called 'social bookmark' or 'social news' sites - have large communities of web users who share and rate interesting, useful and fun things on the web.
Clicking the links will automatically add the address of the story you are reading to one of these sites, letting you share it with others. Each site will ask you to register to share stories. Registration is free and once a member, you can store, recommend and search for stories that interest you.
More on Digg
More on del.icio.us
More on Furl
More on reddit
More on NowPublic/
More on Yahoo!
