http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/wiltshire/7506689.stm

Fingers crossed it will spread!! Will take a loooooooooooong time though.

Would that mean more money free to spend on speed humps and "traffic calming" measures?

"that the evidence suggests, the government's own statistics suggest, that speed cameras might not be the most effective way to reduce accidents."

You don't say????

I'm amazed that the council have to donate 400K a year to the scamera partnership. I can think of about 4 cameras in Swindon...

their main gripe is that they probably don't get any return from their investment - all the revenue from fines goes to central govt.

We don't have too much in the way of crap traffic calming in Swindon either, in fact it's quite a nice place for car owners (even with all the roundabouts).

It'd be interesting to see what they do with teh money if they do sack off the speed cameras. There are a few choke points around the town where I'd be pleased to see yellow boxes and enforcement cameras for them. I'd definitely be more keen to see tehm spend another 400K a year on traffic police officers to catch the people driving dangerously, rather than just speeding.

Yipee! now they have kicked off a stink maybe the fines will be redirected back to the local council... so they can.... err ... get a benefit from them and therefore... err... we will see far more cameras on the roads...

hey hang on!

http://www.autoblog.com/media/2006/05/andy-davy-gatso-resized.jpg

[Edited on 15/7/08 by woodster]

Anyone REALLY interested in road safety would be using the money saved into helping restore the levels of police traffic patrols to the level that they were before the government switched to "policing by camera"

The ONLY motoring offence that is detected (and indeed, seems to matter) anymore is speed. All other traffic offences continue to multiply unchecked, the officers that used to detect them no longer deployed.

As ever the answer isn't road safety - it's cash.

A living breathing police patrol officer with the power to detect ALL motoring offences costs money, a speed camera with the ability to detect one traffic offence makes money - an awful lot of it in fact.

Consider the senario

Two motorists, the first has a well maintained car, with an MOT, pays his road tax and insurance, been driving 30 years - no accidents. Doesn't drink (or take drugs) when driving, has good eyesight and health, obeys the highway code.....

but....

he occasionally drives quicker than an arbitary speed limit set in the 1960's when drum brakes ruled the world.

Motorist number 2 hasn't got a licence, or tax or an MOT, doesn't understand the concept of insurance. His car has four bald tyres, defective brakes and steering. He's driving back from a heavy session in the pub smoking a little "waccy baccy" he keeps for just such occassions, but it doesn't matter much because he can't see past the end of the bonnet anyway. Bouncing from curb to curb, and from car to car he cares little - the car's not registered in his name anyway.....

but....

He's managed to pass the camera at 29.9 mph.

Both "criminals" but who would you like to share the road with?

The bottom line is that people are dying because there are fewer police patrols and cameras aren't doing anything to help.

Cash is being put before road safety, and is doing incredible damage to the relationship between the police and those who used to be their biggest supporters.

/rant

Cheers

Chris

Governments are all of the opinion that paying an actual person, whether for services rendered, or a policeman on a salary, is bad. It is a question of power, I think. They would rather pay millions to a telephone pole with no wires on it, than any human, even if it doesn't do anything.

The MP for South Swindon.......has launched a Hands off Our Speed Cameras campaign. She may even get some support from ranting greenies and the 'cars are offensive weapons' lobbies.