Council ends speed camera funding

Council ends speed camera funding

news.bbc.co.uk

Councillors in Swindon have voted to stop funding the town's speed cameras.

The Wiltshire town's borough council is believed to be the first in England to withdraw funding for fixed cameras.

The revenue from fines generated by the cameras goes to the government, but the Conservative-led borough council pays £320,000 a year to maintain them.

Councillors said new measures were needed as road deaths and injuries had begun to rise, but police said the cameras had helped to cut accidents.

The nine-member council cabinet voted unanimously in favour of withdrawing from the Wiltshire and Swindon Safety Camera Partnership on Wednesday night.

Councillors decided the £320,000 it puts into the partnership would be better spent on other safety measures like warning signs and street lighting.

(visit the link for the full news article)

A council with sense.

For too long we motorists have been a revenue generating target by police and councils. We pay enough in fuel duty and road tax as it is anyway.

This really is a breath of fresh air in this country.

The estimated £320,000 can go to such better use instead.

So, the police say that they're gonna use more mobile traps are they? Well, everyone just needs to buy a radar detector don't they?

I agree with them outside schools, but some of the places I see them located around me are absurd.

Swindon Council, I salute you. May others follow your example with a sword of common sense.

news.bbc.co.uk
(visit the link for the full news article)

I don't drive myself, so I've no vested interest in this in a personal sense. However, even as someone who relies on his two feet for anything under a few miles and public transport for bigger distances, I agree that speed cameras are a farce.

Speeding motorists are a serious issue - although I'd much rather the police genuinely clamp down on people using mobiles &c in cars - but it's been shown time and time again that these things are better at creating revenue for the government than they are at reducing accidents.

It just seems a double scam that this is funded on a local level, presumably from council tax payments - which are hard enough to justify as it is - but the actual revenue goes back to the government? Perhaps if the council actually kept the money themselves and so the money somehow went back to the local area, maybe that would have some merit, but as it stands?

Personally, and as an aside, I don't think the points system works too well either, I think the threat of a life ban from driving would be more of a deterrent and convictions that come about through driving without a license through because of this ban should be a serious custodial sentence. I think points come off the licence too quickly, particularly CD40 through to CD70. I don't see why they should ever come off the licence at all. In fact, I don't understand why people are allowed to drive after that anyway.

Great. Hopefully our local governments will soon see that stealing money from its citizens is not the most benign of acts and will never implement this system. The red light cameras are already atrocious.

[edit on 23-10-2008 by Unlimitedpossibilities]

Right from the start speed cameras were dangerous as drivers would rush up to them before throwing on the anchor to do thirty miles an hour as they passed them by. As a consequence everyone behind them was constantly in danger of running into the rear of the car in front.
It's a refreshing change to see a council, and a tory one at that, making the decision to get rid of them. Hopefully other councils will follow their lead.
As for police speed traps! If any more evidence was needed that coppers aren't doing the job they are paid to do, ie; serving the general public and keeping us safe, it is the ridiculous childish remark that they will just step up their speed traps. In an age where terrorism is meant to be rife, kids carry guns and pensioners are living in fear you would think that the police would have better things to do with their time!

Whats the problem with speed cameras?

If the road says 40, you do 40.. If it says 30, you do 30.. Never mind if people break the limit outside the camera zone - that means you need more cameras!!

Those that get caught speeding, deserve it. I lost two friends in road accidents and I love seeing people being "forced" to drive safely near a camera, and revel when someone gets a flash from one for speeding. Perhaps one of these camera's could have stopped my friends dying!

This council show that the tories are still not in touch with the world of today. Don't we have enough signs that nobody look at in England anyway? It's just a stupid political stance to try and dent the funds the government have - the same funds that get ploughed back into every council, county, town etc...

Utterly ridiculous.

reply to post by Unlimitedpossibilities

The red light cameras are already atrocious.

They are. In fact I think they are worst than speed cameras. I find it odd that (here in Seattle) we have a 60mph speed limit on the Interstate that runs through downtown Seattle, but also 60mph on stretches between urban centers which are "wide open." They should bump the speed limit up to 65-70mph in those areas and install traffic cameras around downtown where congestion is highest and there are many lanes exiting and entering the highway. These areas are where the 60mph limit should be strictly enforced...

Back to the red light cams... they are horrible. I got a ticket the other day in the mail for doing a rolling stop before taking my free right. Oops so I was going 2mph instead of zero. That's $120. What a scam!

Originally posted by Anonymous ATS
Whats the problem with speed cameras?

If the road says 40, you do 40.. If it says 30, you do 30.. Never mind if people break the limit outside the camera zone - that means you need more cameras!!

Those that get caught speeding, deserve it. I lost two friends in road accidents and I love seeing people being "forced" to drive safely near a camera, and revel when someone gets a flash from one for speeding. Perhaps one of these camera's could have stopped my friends dying!

This council show that the tories are still not in touch with the world of today. Don't we have enough signs that nobody look at in England anyway? It's just a stupid political stance to try and dent the funds the government have - the same funds that get ploughed back into every council, county, town etc...

Utterly ridiculous.

I'm genuinely sorry to hear about your friends. Unfortunately, if the road says 'do 30', there's always going to be people who 'do 35' and so on, no matter what the speed limit is on that stretch of road. The same goes for speed cameras, they've hardly solved the problems of speeding. It's been shown several times, that the priority is more about revenue than safety: hence why often they don't appear in genuine accident hot spots.
Here's a good example of what I mean.

Regarding 'funds', I'm really not sure how true that is. When money is actually in the hands of local government it is actually spent on the area that local government controls, rather than going into a large and theoretical communal pot which you'd hope would get distributed evenly throughout the country. However, as anyone outside of London can tell you, distribution of government spending is hardly equal across all areas of Britain.

Originally posted by Anonymous ATS
Whats the problem with speed cameras?

If the road says 40, you do 40.. If it says 30, you do 30.. Never mind if people break the limit outside the camera zone - that means you need more cameras!!

Those that get caught speeding, deserve it.

I am sorry for your loss. However, not everyone who "speeds" deserves a ticket. Who are we to judge? There can be gray areas that you have not specified in your post, but that I am sure you know.

When people adhere to the laws for safety purposes alone and not out of fear in losing more of there heart earned money to governments, then we should all be happy.

Overall: I think it is safe to say the transportation via cars is primitive enough so it just needs to be rectified as soon as possible.

[edit on 23-10-2008 by Unlimitedpossibilities]

reply to post by Scramjet76


Well considering the light is red maybe it means stop? At least it does where I come from. How hard is it to stop and then proceed with your turn, really is it that difficult? If so maybe you need to leave the driving to those who can do it. I like the idea of stop light cameras been nearly hit enough times by people running red lights when they should be stopping.


As for speed cameras well it is a risk we take for speeding. There are posted limits I think they should be raised in most cases but either take the risk of the ticket or obey the posted limit. The revenue generated by the tickets is either not enough or is not being used as it is supposed to most of the time though or the roads I drive would be in better shape than they are.

Raist

reply to post by Anonymous ATS


I read in a highway safety report at one time that 52% of fatal accidents were caused by speeders. A different report from the same agency reported that 70% of people sped on the highway. I will attempttofind these links.

Correct me if I am wrong, but wouldn't this mean that 48% of the accidents are caused by the 30% that drive the speed limit? You could then conclude that driving faster is actually safer than driving the speed limit.

I personally think that driving the speed limit puts you to sleep and thus results in more accidents. Drive a little faster and adrenalin starts pumping, thus raising your sense of awareness. I think most people drive at the speed that is safest for them.

Drunk drivers are a different story all together.