Speed camera cash cuts will cost lives, says unit's head
PLYMOUTH road deaths could increase if Government funding cuts force speed cameras to be switched off next year, a senior police officer has warned.
Superintendent Tim Swarbrick, chairman of the Devon and Cornwall Safety Camera Partnership, said there was a realistic prospect that it could close in March next year without funding reassurances from the Government.
He warned that without the camera network, it was likely that road accidents and casualties would rise.
"It seems like we're walking blindfolded towards a cliff-edge at the moment," he said, "and no one is shouting Stop."
The partnership, a joint venture between police and the four main local authorities in the two counties, is reliant on funding grants from the Government.
However, road safety grants to councils have been cut by 26 per cent this year, forcing the partnership, which employs about 40 people, to look at cutting staff.
"We need to halve the amount of people who work there by the end of November," said Mr Swarbrick. "As a result, we have had to start a redeployment and redundancy process.
"The more worrying news is that we've had no reassurances that there'll be funding next year. We have to put plans in place to close the partnership."
Though unpopular with many motorists, the network of 90 speed cameras in Devon and Cornwall is credited with helping to reduce deaths on the region's roads significantly. Collisions, including those resulting in fatalities, have fallen by 40 per cent over the last five years. Currently, about 60 people die on the roads of Devon and Cornwall each year.
In addition to the fixed cameras, the partnership also operates mobile speed detection vans.
Mr Swarbrick, who is also head of roads policing for Devon and Cornwall, said it would be difficult for the force to take on the responsibilities now held by the partnership given the cuts planned in the public sector.
"We would have to look at what could be afforded," he said. "Councils and ourselves are being cut so it is very unlikely we would have the ability to expand and fill those gaps.
"There will be some speed enforcement and there will be roads policing but those who wish to drive dangerously or too fast will have more opportunity to do so."
Road safety charity Brake said it was dismayed at the threat to the service in Devon and Cornwall which, it said, followed an announcement by Thames Valley Safer Roads Partnership that it was ceasing operations in Oxfordshire.
Brake deputy chief executive Julie Townsend said: "We're horrified that vital road safety work is grinding to a halt as a result of draconian funding cuts made by the Government.
"We have 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.
"Road safety partnerships around the UK are delivering highly successful and economic work — particularly through the use of speed cameras. We have a vast amount of evidence showing that cameras are extremely effective in cutting casualties and slowing traffic.
"Turning cameras off, and pulling the plug on other important road safety work, is a disastrous blow for those communities relying on cameras to protect them, and an insult to those crying out for measures to cut speeds in their neighbourhoods and those families so traumatically bereaved by speed."
20 Comments
View all
by Peter, Dawlish
Tuesday, July 27 2010, 6:26PM
“Julie Townsend from Brake said,
"Road safety partnerships around the UK are delivering highly successful and economic work ¿ particularly through the use of speed cameras."
If that comment were true - deaths will increase when cameras are turned off
then. On that principle road deaths must have been increasing every year
the number of cars increased and miles of road were extended before they existed.
Before cameras, we had the safest roads in Europe with the number of road deaths
approaching a 'statistical' probability figure, where it would be virtually impossible to
reduce figures down further without effectively banning vehicles.
It may sound stupid but each movement at each junction has a collision probability
and to be a dangerous road it needs three collisions involving serious injury or death
over a rolling three years.
These roads have up to 25k vehicle movements a day, 150k per week 600k per month
7.2 million a year.
That's 3 incidents every 21.6 million vehicle movements - and that makes it a dangerous
road.
That justified engineering and certainly justified cameras.
So, 1 in 7,200,000 was to be avoided by trying to punish 7,200,000 to ensure you fine the 1”
by martin, Dawlish
Tuesday, July 27 2010, 3:40PM
“Its a pity though understandable that Supt Swarbrick cannot tell the truth and prove what he says. Swindon have found the the accident rate has gone down since they switched off the cameras, and we all know its a loss of concentration that is the main reason for accidents.”
by Steve M, somewhere in the Caribbean
Tuesday, July 27 2010, 2:04PM
“The scamera at the northbound A38 at Holden Hill has caused more accidents than it has prevented. People unaware that it is there slam their brakes on at the sight of the camera at the bottom of the hill and it causes rear end shunts. I have seen at least half a dozen episodes of this as i frequently travel to Exeter from Ivybridge.”
by Fellow Watcher, Plymuff Town Init
Tuesday, July 27 2010, 2:24AM
“@rob5gt - i've just read your comment - it's people like you who we need to rid of in this world. You post is completely stupid, and it likely to be also be a reflection of you - stupid!”
by Fern!, Brixham
Tuesday, July 27 2010, 2:21AM
“Speed doesn't kill people, stupidity does.
As soon as we remove all traffic lights and we start to think about how we drive and not be dumbed down, then perhaps this will be a thing of the past.”
by rob5gt, plymouth
Tuesday, July 27 2010, 12:55AM
“Speed cameras are so out of date. everone knows where they are, everyone speeds up then slows down. This government has got this spot on. I speed and if you say you dont speed its a bit like saying you wouldnt pick up a £20 note if you saw it in the street because thats against the law aswell!”
by david, ivybridge
Monday, July 26 2010, 10:33PM
“Well as already mentioned there is clear evidence with Swindon that they don't make a blind bit of difference re accidents.
If we are talking cuts, they should get rid of those highways agency traffic officers in the brand new 4 x 4s. All they seem to do is stop to supervise someone changing a tyre! Total waste of money.
And as far a speeding being illegal, that doesn't mean it is really "wrong". If I drive at 90 in good visibility on the A38 with hardly any traffic then I'm not harming anyone. How about the idiots driving around town, not looking where they are going, suddenly changing lanes etc. People driving without paying attention and having any road sense are far more dangerous to society than responsible drivers that travel at speed but aware of their vehicle and surroundings.
Coffee used to be illegal you know!”
by Dave, Devonport
Monday, July 26 2010, 9:39PM
“@ Boris,my point was that if people don't speed they'll never get caught by a speed camera.The safety aspect is that the culprit gets points on their licence and if they have any sense don't want any more so don't speed again.If everyone stuck to the speed limits.i.e. the law,there would be no "upsetting the dynamic",simplistic maybe but it makes sense to me.Cameras.
@ Lee also,of course,whatever reason someone is speeding they're breaking the law,a Traffic Policeman would probably suggest you were driving without due care and attention if you were stopped and you said you hadn't noticed what speed you were doing or that your attention had been diverted.Also if you get nicked by a camera on say a 70 limit the cameras are set for 80 and given the usual speedo error your instrumentation will probably show 85 or so,takes away the "distracted and drifted over" excuse.
The revenue thing,I'm just confused by one side saying the Government are making a fortune out of these thing while the other says they're being taken away "to save money".
And yes I sometimes speed but I know the law and if I do it and get caught by whatever means it's no-one else's fault but mine.,same for any other road user.”
by Taxpayer, Plymouth
Monday, July 26 2010, 3:46PM
“Tim Swarbrick beats the same old drum about cameras cutting accident rates. Why hasn't Swindon's accident rate increased after they got rid of their cameras? The rate has stayed roughly the same, so Tim's argument is flawed, I would suggest.
Get traffic officers back into the main stations rather than in their ivory towers and have them doing proper initiatives at proven accident sites.”
by Happy Driving, On the road
Monday, July 26 2010, 11:50AM
“Good news! No more dangerous sudden slowing down. Just another TAX at the end of the day. To those "Safety" officers who may lose their jobs: Hahahahahahahaha!!!”