Comments on: Swindon considers axing speed cameras

By: Insomniac

Insomniac — Tue, 29 Jul 2008 10:59:57 +0000

@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

By: Insomniac

Insomniac — Tue, 29 Jul 2008 10:44:11 +0000

@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.

By: alan

alan — Fri, 25 Jul 2008 19:20:09 +0000

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.

By: Ray

Ray — Fri, 25 Jul 2008 14:16:23 +0000

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 !