Campaign begins to switch speed cameras back on in UK town

By Karl Peskett | July 31st, 2010

The mother of a young boy killed by a speeding driver has begun a campaign to have speed cameras switched back on in her local area.

The council of Swindon, England, made the decision to switch its speed cameras off exactly one year ago, following the lead of Oxfordshire, which did the same due to budget cuts.

Caroline Hannah says that her seven-year-old son, Tyrese, could have been saved by speed cameras. Mrs Hannah was walking with her son and his dog when a speeding driver mounted the kerb, narrowly missing Mrs Hannah, but unfortunately crushing and killing Tyrese and his pet. Mrs Hannah has joined with a local charity to get the council to put the cameras back on line.

“I am disgusted with the lack of concern shown by Swindon Council for the safety of the public”, said Mrs Hannah. “I want them to know that people do care about road safety. The council should listen to the public who want the right to walk safely in their communities without fear of being mown down by speeding drivers.”

“They also need to take a look at the research on speed cameras instead of listening to the few fanatics who just don’t like being caught when they break the law. If there were speed cameras on Drove Road my son might still be alive. Instead he was killed by a selfish driver who knew he wouldn’t get caught for speeding.”

Mrs Hannah points to a four year national evaluation of speed camera effectiveness commissioned by the Department for Transport in 2005. The study showed there was a 70 percent reduction in speeding at fixed sites, a fall of six percent in average speeds and a 42 percent reduction in people killed and seriously injured. It also reported a positive cost-benefit ratio of speed cameras of 2.7:1 (PDF here).

Despite this, Swindon’s bean-counters looked to the cost saving and switched its cameras off. So far, no study has been conducted to see if it has had an effect on the road toll.

What’s interesting is Australia has done the opposite. The amount of cameras are increasing, with the Western Australian government in particular, reaping hundreds of thousands of dollars in just one week of switching on its red-light/speed camera combination devices.

In view of the research above, do you think that speed cameras save lives? Is the incentive there to slow down when you see a speed camera?

Qikturbo

I don’t know the full circumstances of the tragedy,but two points come to mind. 1.)what did parents do before the introduction of speed cameras,to ensure the safety of their children when near roads?
2.)the misplaced(?)view that technology(in this particular instance) can take the place of common sense and being vigil with children near roads.
Speed cameras are not quasi nannies,they are implemented to raise revenue.
Roberto

Interesting, but if a speed camera was at that location would the result not be identical, the only difference being 14 days later he/she would get a letter through the post? There is no deterrent with a speed camera, this proven by the fact people are caught daily on our roads speeding.

What Mrs Hannah fails to understand is that for every speed camera, something must be removed to pay the cost & typically this is road improvement or traffic police. So by protecting one area of road you inadvertently compromise a list of other roads in the near vicinity which the speed camera cannot cover. I will say though with increasing numbers of cloned / uninsured & unregistered cars on our roads, speed cameras are becoming a hopeless tool in catching speeding motorists.

Please note, there are countless incidents where speed cameras inadvertently malfunction & motorists under the speed limit are prosecuted when committing no offence. Information about over rulings in court are readily available online, so anybody with the attitude of “speed cameras only affect speeders”, that is just completely untrue and misinformed. Speed cameras effect everyone in that local area, and since your insurance will likely increase in that area (due to higher crime rates due to lower police numbers) you are paying a price.

Paul L

Roberto,

You clearly know nothing about UK Speed Enforcement. The chances of a vehicle being caught when not exceeding the speedlimit is almost zero. Extensive testing Home Office and the secondary check of speed carried out by a human operator ensure that only valid offences are processed for enforcement.

If the camera was to be activated for a vehicle doing less than speedlimit this would be obvious from the second photo which is manually checked by an operator hence why we have a number of calibrated lines on the road at the camera sites.

Roberto

Thank you for replying, but your answer just highlights your lack of understanding Paul.

I did not state a set percentage of motorists being caught due to error, however I did state that there are countless instances of false prosecutions. 2008 being a prime example, where a Gatso camera in Sussex malfunctioned issuing a series of fines to innocent motorists, this being proven when the judge ruled the camera was in fact “inaccurate”. Also note secondary checks of picture evidence can’t be accurate if the picture delay was incorrect due to unforeseen circumstances. Your claim of close to zero is meaningless unless you want to support with evidence (the internet at your disposal). You then go on to waffle about extensive testing, but you failed to point out what this actually involves. Damage replication & temperature fluctuations are just some of the variables which are not replicated.

You also failed to address the fact of innocent people being prosecuted due to vehicle cloning, since there is estimated over 10,000 cloned vehicles in the UK, that is 10,000 innocent people who may in the future be falsely prosecuted, many of which may not be able to fight there case due to insufficient evidence or insufficient funding.

I understand that upon reading my post you failed to grasp the concept but I hope this will help you understand.

Omale

My condolences to her, but it seems like another parent attempting to grieve a loss by redirecting their attention and focus. In all likelihood, she feels a deep sense of guilt and is attempting to come to terms with it -unfortunately this will inevitably lead to great problems for her as she is unable to truly accept the situation.

Again, my condolences.
Jason Penn

And whilst Australia is going down the speed camera route without any decrease in fatalities, Canada removed all speed cameras and continued to improve their road safety.

Condolences to this lady, but as Roberto says, speed cameras are not the answer here and skew the policies surrounding road safety because they generate revenue.

Ensuring compliance with the law must not become a revenue raiser or the law becomes skewed to wards raising revenue.
Al Juraj

It’s not actually speed that killed her son, but rather the fact that the car went onto the kerb. So even at normal speed, the tragedy would have still happened. I am sorry for her loss but I have to say she is one of those who fell to believe that speed equals danger. A camera wouldn’t have saved her child, but no camera would save her money.
http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1435885244 Yani Hendriawan

yeah this one time i was driving these kids (about 7 or years old) were throwing a football across the road. they saw me comming and just ignored me
Callum

A camera designed to take a picture of speeding vehicles wouldn’t have saved her son.
All of the statistics need to be taken in to account.
Speed cameras don’t save lives.
Kieran

Why did the driver mount the kerb? Why were they speeding? Would they have been obeying the speed limit if a camera had bee there?

Too many factors to isolate speeding as the only reason for her loss. Switching the speed cameras back on won’t do too much, except make everyone in her local area a little irritated.

On the other hand, my sincere condolences for her loss.
Jon

The ’40mph speed limit’ roads in the UK are much narrow road than Aussie’s roads… also much narrow footpath too. For ALL narrow roads and narrow pavement, speed camera is a must. Swindon Council made horrible mistake for switching off speed camera. Was it wet road when it happened?
svd

Perhaps if in the case above, the driver was driving at the legal speed the driver may not have lost control and the vehicle may not have mounted the kerb.
All those people who claim that speed cameras are there only to raise revenue – How about the penalty be changed that your vehicle is disabled for some penalty period intstead of a fine. Would this be more effective, you certainly could not claim that it was revenue raising to vent your anger at having your freedom to speed curtailed.
Reckless1

As there was no speed camera, how did this woman know the car was speeding.

She didn’t – she’s just lashing out against something, anything, in her grief and guilt about her own contribution to the tragedy.

I find the talk about the council removing the cameras due to cost inefficiency amusing. There’s no such problem her in AU – every camera is a goldmine.
Alan

Hi,

If cameras are about raising revenue then there’s some really easy tax avoidance advice!! People get caught speeding because the are simply not concentrating and yet still think they are a good driver. If you don’t like it, don’t drive. I don’t see anyone complaining about the ‘revenue’ raised from parking fines?!

Simples.

Yonny

Sigh……

Roberto

I can only imagine Alan is confused & thus his contribution was quite inconsequential to this debate.

Alan stated, “People get caught speeding because the are simply not concentrating and yet still think they are a good driver”.

I would assume Alan is spending far too much time constantly buying food for his pet Budgerigar and in doing so is basing his findings on mid sentence conversations overheard at the pet shop. As difficult as I’m sure Alan would find this to comprehend, driving under the posted limit does not prevent you from being prosecuted. False prosecutions due to a variety of reasons already mentioned (such as vehicle cloning) are not down to ‘ego trips’ as Alan is hinting at.

I would be quite interested in reading more about misinformed Alan & his “Simples” advice for easy tax avoidance. Whatever could be next, don’t pay for groceries when you can steal soup from your local store?

I’m however quite surprised & uncertain as to why Alan opted to bring forward the ‘revenue card’, SERCO, like most business services are in place to make high levels of revenue. Hardly surprising Yonny decided not to write a reply based on how far adrift Alan is from reality.

Adi

Actually, Roberto, Alan is spot-on – it’s you who are far removed from reality.

Enforcement equipment suppliers in the UK are just that – equipment suppliers. There is no connection whatsoever between the number of tickets issued to offenders and the level of income to the company that built and installed the camera. All fines (note _fines_ not _revenue_) go to the Treasury. The Treasury funds local authorities’ road safety budgets, yes, but there is no connection between the two.

Tell me – how can you possibly associate Alan’s comment about avoiding fines by obeying the law, with stealing food to avoid paying for groceries? Payment for goods is in no way related to paying penalties for breaking the law, so please try not to blur the issues by talking nonsense.

Don’t want to pay a speeding fine? Observe the speed limit and don’t go faster. It’s a limit, not a target. I suppose you’ll probably now bleat on about how cameras can’t enforce against other forms of bad driving, which is true – but they are one very effective tool in the arsenal against the selfish fools who think that they know better than the road safety engineers and care nothing for the safety and quality of life of others on and living near the roads.

Personally, I’d like to see fines paid directly to the local road safety budget, and a sliding scale of penalty points, from 2 for 10-15% over the limit, to 11 for anything 25% over the limit or higher.

Light blue touch paper, retire to a safe distance…

Yonny

Your arguments are simplistic. You do realise, I hope, that the fatuous argument “don’t speed and you won’t get fined” is not really the point.

I do have to pull you up on one point though. You mention selfish fools who think they know more than the road safety engineers – well, you’d have to add the NSW RTA (and presumably other state equivalents like Vicroads) to that list of selfish fools, as often they set speed limits without reference to the quality of the road. It is not at all unusual in NSW to see new roads of high quality with artificially low speed limits – like 80 km/h on 4 lane roads capable of handling traffic at at least 100 km/h, and with no discernible reason for the low speed limit other than that they get away with it.

I too would like to see speeding fines graduated to reflect the percentage you are over a given limit – but your proposed penalties are too high.

I do agree totally with your suggestion that traffic fines go directly to road safety or upkeep in some way – but that’s never going to happen.

It’s sad to see that the various state government money-making departments (RTA, Vicroads and so on) are winning the propaganda war.

Yonny

You have to feel sorry for the mother, and her natural attempt to look for anything that might have prevented the death of her child.

But that is a micro-level view of things. We cannot (or should not) make policy by looking at one-off instances. It may well be that the removal of speed cameras was the direct cause of her child’s death (something that is essentially unproveable anyway) but it is impossible to say that the accident would not have happened if the cameras had remained.