Safe Speed Forums

SPEED CAMS: THE PICTURE IS UNCLEAR

11:00 - 06 September 2005
The Evening Post today reveals that accident rates at many speed camera sites in the city have not fallen and that some have even risen in recent years. The findings lend further weight to claims that speed cameras are installed for no other reasons than to generate revenue. SIMON PEEVERS reports on the new doubts about the cameras' effectiveness in improving safety on our roads.

Speed cameras have become part of the street furniture in our towns and cities, and drivers are constantly on the look-out for the distinctive yellow boxes. The devices have sparked rage across the country from people who have been snapped and fined for exceeding the speed limit.

A national campaign has even sprung up in opposition to the cameras, claiming they do not stop accidents or save lives.

But the camera operators say that the infamous Gatso fixed camera, and the mobile cameras, are just two weapons available in their battle against speeding motorists, and that education and other schemes are also used to make drivers more aware of their speed.

However, today's revelation that, in many parts of Bristol, the accident rate has gone up at camera sites, will do nothing to bolster public confidence in the Avon and Somerset Safety Camera Partnership, which operates the cameras.

Following a request under the Freedom of Information Act, the Evening Post is today able to publish accident rates to illustrate the concerns that motorists like Richard Barclay and others have about the cameras.

Mr Barclay, from Backwell, said he believes that if the cameras are not reducing the number of accidents, then the only motivation for keeping them must be to generate revenue.

All the money raised through fines goes to the Treasury, which funds the speed camera partnerships.

Mr Barclay says he is not against speed cameras, nor does he condone drivers who recklessly break the speed limit, but he believes the cameras do not contribute to road safety.

A glance at some of the fixed camera data shows that accident rates at those sites which were deemed dangerous enough for a camera in the first place, have not changed, and in some places death rates have risen.

At the Brislington Hill camera site on the A4 for example, there have been deaths on the roads every year except 2003.

When the safety partnership took control of running the site in 2002, there were two deaths on that stretch, and three last year. The total number of accidents there has also risen from 11 in 2003 to 15 last year.

And at Westbury Road, Clifton, there were no fatal accidents until 2002, when the safety partnership took control of the camera, and in 2003, two people lost their lives there.

Mr Barclay was photographed by a camera on the Long Ashton bypass in 2003, but is fighting his prosecution through the courts.

He said: "I am not against speed cameras and I don't believe people should speed.

"There are sensible places for them [the cameras] such as outside schools or in busy high streets.

"But on places like the A4 or the Long Ashton bypass, you can't help thinking they are simply generating revenue for the Government.

"I am not a speeder and I was not driving unsafely at the time, but I was penalised for it.

"We are told that the speed cameras are there to help bring down the number of accidents on the roads, but if they are not doing that, you have to question what they are doing there.

"The accident rates just confirm what people already think about speed cameras.

"I have got children, I worry about speeding cars going through the area and what might happen.

"It's the boy racers who go tearing round the place who pose the danger to other drivers and pedestrians, not people who may be doing a bit over the speed limit when the conditions are safe.

"If there are more deaths on roads with cameras, it surely shows that they are not doing the job they were designed for, which is to cut accidents and stop people dying on the road."

The partnership says that overall accident rates have gone up in Bristol, so if the rates are static at camera sites, the equipment is having the right effect.

Speed cameras also only cover three per cent of the entire road network in the city, and some fixed cameras are vandalised on a regular basis, leading to drivers ignoring them.

But Paul Smith, head of the national campaign Safe Speed, says there is overwhelming evidence to support the claim that, since speed cameras were introduced in this country, accident rates have not fallen in Bristol or elsewhere.

He said: "We see on motorways where there are roadworks that accident rates shoot up when there is a camera there.

"We have seen the same kind of findings in other places in the country, as there is in Bristol.

"The number of deaths each year has remained static for years at about 3,500.

"This has not changed with the introduction of speed cameras and, as your research shows, in some places the number of accidents has even increased.

"We have found that in counties where there are no speed cameras, the number of accidents has, in fact, fallen in some places.

"This only serves to confirm people's worst suspicion about what the cameras are there for. If they are not reducing accidents, they are making money."

Mr Smith said that the speed cameras could actually contribute to an accident in some way, and that there is an effective alternative.

He said: "Cameras make people more nervous drivers because you are always looking out for the flash.

"That makes you a more dangerous driver because you are distracted and not concentrating fully on driving.

"There have also been a number of accidents because people are breaking hard to slow down before a camera, rather than gradually slowing down.

"We should look at what safe driving is and safe speed for the conditions.

"Nobody is suggesting we should be able to drive really fast past schools or places where there are clear dangers, but everybody will break the speed limit at some time and will not cause an accident.

"In one sample study, 60 per cent of people admitted to speeding, which means the Government is making an offence out of something that the majority of people do in this country, which can't be right.

"There is an alternative: the driver-activated signs which light up with the speed limit when you approach if you are going too fast.

"These have proven to be three times more effective at cutting accidents than speed cameras."

Dave Gollicker, from the Avon and Somerset Safety Camera Partnership, said drivers should not need an extra sign to tell them what the speed limit is.

He said there are a number of initiatives that the partnership uses to try and get the message across to motorists that they need to slow down.

He said: "We do have an issue with enforcement at some places with the mobile camera unit.

"There are also a number of fixed camera sites which are regularly vandalised and those two things will lead to a distorted picture. There is also fluctuation in the data, which is why it has to be looked at over a long period if you want to see any patterns.

"Accident rates in Bristol generally have gone up, so, if they are falling at cameras sites or remaining the same, then that has to be a good thing.

"Also, our cameras cover just three per cent on the entire road network.

"You should remember that the police will also stop you for speeding.

"The cameras are not the only thing we have to try and get people to slow down: there are a number of other initiatives, including educational projects and courses where we can make it clear why people have to slow down.

"We are still waiting on the Department of Transport to give us the go-ahead on one of our initiatives after two years.

"It is for us to decide whether a safety camera is not working to stop accidents.

"We have the data and have to look at why these accidents are happening and why people are not slowing down.

"We are always reviewing our operation."

For more information about speed cameras and to look at accident rates for mobile cameras and traffic light cameras, visit the Avon and Somerset Safety Camera Partnership website at www.safecam.org.uk

Accident rates in Bristol generally have gone up, so, if they are falling at cameras sites or remaining the same, then that has to be a good thing.

Dave Gollicker, from the Avon and Somerset Safety Camera Partnership, said drivers should not need an extra sign to tell them what the speed limit is.