Speed camera enforcement will reduce because of spending cuts
ENFORCEMENT of speed cameras in Nottingham will have to be reduced due to Government spending cuts.
Francis Ashton, traffic and safety manager for Nottingham City Council, said the cuts mean no new cameras will be bought, mobile patrols will be scaled down and staff will not be able to check fixed cameras and enforce fines as regularly.
-
It is feared this will lead to more drivers breaking the law and putting lives at risk.
Mrs Ashton said the authority would "fight to the death" to keep cameras operating as much as possible because they have been so effective at reducing accidents.
"There will be a reduction in enforcement and definitely no new ones," she said.
"We have no intention of switching off our cameras.
"We will fight to the death to keep them going. But where and how many and when is an issue."
She said there was clear evidence that cameras had helped make the roads safer.
Between 1994 and 1998, there was an annual average of 16 people killed and 306 seriously injured on the city's roads.
Between 2007 and 2009 – after Nottingham's cameras had been operating for several years – the annual average plummeted to six deaths and 155 serious injuries.
Average speed cameras, which check speeds between two points, are the most widely used in Nottingham, They work 24 hours a day but need people to review information.
With funding cuts, the time people can devote to reviewing is likely to be reduced.
Mobile patrols would also have to be scaled down.
Fixed cameras use a rota system where a limited number are moved to different housings. This helps to keep costs down. But cuts may mean they are moved less often and targeted where accidents rates are higher.
"The ultimate danger is more people will think they can get away with it and start speeding again," said Mrs Ashton.
Across England and Wales thousands of cameras are set to disappear because of cuts.
Notts County Council, which has lost £422,000 from its road safety budget this year, agreed to re-allocate a different grant of £350,000 to cover part of its costs. It is not yet known if a similar solution can be found next year.
Julie Townsend, of road safety charity Brake, said: "We are horrified that vital road safety work is grinding to a halt as a result of draconian funding cuts.
"We've made a huge amount of progress in reducing tragic, needless and costly road deaths and injuries in recent years – progress that is at great risk of being undone."
43 Comments
View all
by FW, Nottingham
Tuesday, July 27 2010, 11:54PM
“No, just banned I think. The NEP initially kicked him out, then got cross when he kept sneaking back under a number of implausible pseudonyms. Unfortunately, he could never resist giving himself away with a few "errrrrrrm"s”
by j, leic
Tuesday, July 27 2010, 5:39PM
“Is BJ Mann dead?”
by Neil, Gedling
Tuesday, July 27 2010, 10:33AM
“M--- ref your figures-- factor in that cars are now designed to be more "protective" to pedestrian & pasengers in the event of a collision, there are a zillion speed bumps, roads have been narrowed or even blocked off & that goes a good way to explaining why road deaths have dropped.
The camera's have only played a small part in the reduction....”
by FW, Nottingham
Tuesday, July 27 2010, 12:00AM
“Nice try to rewrite history, but unfortunately your previous attempt at basic arithmetic demonstrates that you did not realize what an average meant.”
by m, gedling
Monday, July 26 2010, 10:23PM
“thanks i know they are average, but there is a reason why they dont have both sets of figures over two years, yet another set of figures manipulated to show things in a different light,
the only reason they are moaning is that nottingham is in the scheme where the fines pay for new camera's, before you know it we would have got a camera on every road every 10 yards,
lets face it if cameras were that important to road safety then money would be no object.”
by FW, Nottingham
Monday, July 26 2010, 10:18PM
“On the bright side, fortunately the people who actually make the decisions rather than whining impotently in the comments forum are probably bright enough to know what an "annual average" is...”
by PS, Nottm
Monday, July 26 2010, 9:07PM
“m - the figures are correct and the annual average has reduced from 16 to 6. 6 is still too high and is a trajedy for all of the people and families involved. Of course, many here seem to think that their right to break the speed limit is more important than people's lives.”
by cp, notts
Monday, July 26 2010, 8:47PM
“m - annual average both sets of figures”
by m, gedling
Monday, July 26 2010, 7:38PM
“"Between 1994 and 1998, there was an annual average of 16 people killed and 306 seriously injured on the city's roads.
Between 2007 and 2009 ¿ after Nottingham's cameras had been operating for several years ¿ the annual average plummeted to six deaths and 155 serious injuries."
so the first set of figures were for four years and the last set of figures for two years .
if we double the number of deaths and serious accidents so they both cover a four year period we find that MORE serious accidents occurred during the reign of the ching ching machines,
how is that a major contribution to road safety ?”
by Andyman, Derbys
Monday, July 26 2010, 7:24PM
“Thank the lord, these abhorations are being scaled down to stop the persecution of the motorist, and the now proven lies to speed their introduction and continued use have been exposed. Enter into this equation the nerfarious and now proven illegal tactics employed by the Government to keep them in situ, and the revenue rolling in, and some sort of normality may prevail.
Hopefully Police forces will reinstate the traffic departments to their former levels, and all the other more dangerous offences which cameras do not detect, may be detected.
Most of the population are fed up with the well worn lies about how they save lives, they don't; out of all the speed cameras installed only two have been proven to save lives, so why did Labour try to suppress this document, and why was it leaked to the media
If the cameras are so effective then why are they being cut? if it was a real safety issue other cuts would be made so they remained working.”