I’ve never been a fan of speed cameras, not because I’m some sort of deranged speed freak, but because I don’t think they work. I’m glad to find somebody else has the same opinion. Councillor Peter Greenhalgh, in charge of transport policy for Swindon Borough Council has stated that speed cameras were “a blatant tax on the motorist”. This comment follows news that Swindon Borough Council plan to scrap its funding for speed cameras.
Roderick Bluh, leader of Swindon Borough Council (Wiltshire), told BBC radio that a decision would be made in September on how best to spend the £400,000 annual cost of the cameras.
“We believe it may be possible that the money could be spent more effectively on permanent road-calming measures and flashing signs rather than … speed cameras,” Bluh said.
This move by Swindon Borough Council is likely due to changes that mean local authorities can no longer keep money raised in speeding fines.
“We don’t get the revenue that comes from the fines to invest in road schemes and therefore this may be a way of us investing more money in our road-calming measures locally,” Bluh added.
The Wiltshire and Swindon Safety Camera Partnership, which operates the cameras, claims they have reduced deaths on the sections of road where they are sited by two thirds over three years. There is however evidence to prove that other road calming measures (such as speed activated flashing signs) are just as, if not more effective than speed cameras.
The £250,000 raised from speed cameras last year in Swindon, at £400,000 for upkeep of the 13 fixed cameras Swindon Borough Council were never going to break even anyway.
References
TRL Report for Department for Transport (TRL548)
SafeSpeed on Vehicle Activated Signs
@alan: Back in 2003 the UK Department for Transport commissioned an evaluation of vehicle activated signs and produced a report. The guts of the report concluded that VAS were cheaper to install and maintain whilst also being just as effective, if not better than fixed speed cameras.
SafeSpeed has a write up on VAS and goes a little further claiming they are up to 50 times more effective than speed cameras.
I’ll update the article with some references
@Ray: I agree with you comments, however covert cameras will only stop drivers unfamiliar with the area from speeding. Local persistent speeders will know the locations and slow only at that point. Mobile camera vans are likely more effective but are much more expensive due to the costs of van maintenance, and employing two officers per van.
In my opinion SPECS are a much better way of monitoring for speeders, although there is a ‘big brother’ aspect to them that is disconcerting.
Forgive me, but it’s not clear to me who wrote the article above, but whoever it was, I’d be very interested to have the source re the ‘evidence to prove that other road calming measures (such as speed activated flashing signs) are just as, if not more effective than speed cameras.’ Cheers.
They dont make money because they are fixed , and made to stick out like a sore thumb, make them covert, mobile, or both, and then you will get the persistant speeders, as law abiders dont set them off anyway !