News

Accidents rise despite presence of speed cameras

By Mike Wright
September 01, 2011

FARNBOROUGH Road saw an increase in crashes last year, despite a campaign to hit speeding drivers with fines from speed cameras, the latest figures have shown.

The A325 and Blackwater Valley Relief Road were among the main routes across the area that were targeted with mobile speed cameras.

Information released by Hampshire’s Safer Roads Partnership has shown where it is deploying devices to monitor drivers’ speed. Other roads that were targeted in Hampshire during August were the A30 between Blackwater and Hook and Reading Road in Yateley.

However, figures have not yet been released about how many people were caught speeding, nor how much the partnership makes from each speed camera, despite calls from the government to do so.

The information was released last week as part of a push by the Department for Transport to attempt to convince drivers that speed cameras were effective at cutting speeding and making the country’s most dangerous roads safer.

Yet other areas, such as Thames Valley, which covers Sandhurst, have released data on the amount of drivers who have been caught speeding by cameras.

Statistics showed that one camera on Sandhurst High Street was catching an average of 15 speeding vehicles a day in 2006, which if each driver was fined £60, could have netted the partnership £900 a day, or £328,500 a year from a single camera. By 2009 the same camera saw the daily average drop to around six speeders.

Government ministers said they wanted to see all areas following suit so residents could see how effective speed cameras were at cutting accidents.

Mike Penning, road safety minister, said: “Local residents have a right to expect that when their council spends money on speed cameras, they publish information to show whether those cameras are helping to reduce accidents or not.

“I hope that this information will help local people to make informed judgements about the impact cameras are having on their local roads.

“However, residents can only hold their council to account if it has made information available so I would urge those councils which have not yet published their data to do so as soon as possible.”

Figures released by Hampshire’s Safer Roads Partnership showed 39 people were hurt on the A325 Farnborough Road between April 2011 and April 2010, five of whom were seriously injured or killed.

The number of crashes was up slightly from 37 the year before. It dwarfed the number of accidents on the area’s main trunk road, the A331 Blackwater Valley relief road, where there were 10 crashes, one of which was serious or fatal.

On the Reading Road in Yateley there were three crashes and the A30 between Blackwater and Hook saw 10 accidents.

The release of the data on crashes and speed cameras was praised by crash charity Brake.

The organisation said it demonstrated they helped cut drivers’ speeds and potential accidents.

Julie Townsend, Brake campaigns director, said: “Rigorous academic studies have shown fixed speed cameras are exceptionally effective in reducing speeds, crashes and casualties, preventing families going through the unnecessary trauma and pain of a road death or injury.

“These studies have also demonstrated that speed cameras pay for themselves several times over by preventing costly casualties. They are therefore a proven way to improve safety without costing the taxpayer.”

| Submit Comments | View Comments (8)

« Previous Story | Next Story »

Most recent user comments 8 of 8

Show 15 | 25 | 50 per page

Can someone give me some examples showing where higher speed makes an accident less likely or less serious?

Barry, Farnborough, Hants
15/09/2011 at 08:15

Its clear that speed is not the cause of accidents, dangerous or careless driving is... I'm willing to concede therefore that inapproapriate speed would be a problem (say in the wet of i=on icy roads) but that is not what we punish - its all speed and this is wrong. Driving erratically does not get picked up bt speed cameras, neither does unsafe overtaking, nor driving too close to the car in front, nor mechanical failures or unsafe vehicles, we don't detect people using mobiles with speed cameras, not playing with stereos/MP3 players or sat navs, and we don't detect parents being distracted by kid or talking to passengers. Instead the government, police and local authroities try and fool us that they are concerned about safety when in rwlaity its clearly a tax generation measure as they specifically try and snare (and criminalise) motorists who might be driving safely (and being mindful of other traffic, pedestrians and road conditions), but also faster than some arbitrary limit set in the 1970's.

Cars today have better tyres, better suspension, brighter headlights, crumple zones, air bags, we all (surely?) wear seatbelts, we have ABS, traction control and most cars are designed to be easier on pedestrians in a crash... yet the penalties for speeding seem to be the only way "they" can think of to try and raise safety - its just not credible.

Common_Sense
11/09/2011 at 19:07

One problem with there being fewer traffic police is the number of unroadworthy vehicles out there - one or no brakelights, one headlight - makes you wonder about the state of indicators and tyres.

pjt
06/09/2011 at 14:15

Eric is right. The speed cameras are there to generate revenue. Why do we put up with this? Can somoeone with an angle grinder cut them off?

Its Douglas
04/09/2011 at 23:51

Most of the accidents on our main roads like the A331 Blackwater Relief road don't have speed as a contributory factor. If you look at the Police's own data the number of accidents where speed is a major factor it is less than 5%. Most accidents are caused by poor driving ability, poor control, anticipation or observation of other road users. We should have a system of grades of licence to allow differing levels of speed to be used & to encourage drivers to improve their skill, keeping it to a high standard if they dont want to slip back a grade. A new driver should be limited to 50, under 30yrs or less than 10k miles per year 60mph, over 30yrs or more than 20k miles per year 80 and drivers who drive extensive miles for a living, doing over 30k miles a year should be allowed a max of 90. Instead highways engineers and motor manufacturers are being encouraged to fit more gadgetry to cars or roads to take away control from the driver, the latest being lane change warnings, adaptive cruise control, self braking cars etc. Sitting a copper in van may do the coffers a lot of good but having a copper in an unmarked car, stopping bad/poor drivers, using discretion over whether to give a fine or a telling off is the way for road safety, encourage young drivers to go on a track where they will quickly find that the skill level they thought they had is not there, get them to frighten themselves with a few lurid skids or offs in a safe environment, it would radically change their attitude to driving. The Police's resource should be to tackle the hordes of drivers who have no licence, drive whilst disqualified due to drink driving, have no insurance or an unroadworthy car, all of those are infinitely worse than someone doing 90 on a dry dual carriageway in good visibility in a modern car

Mutley
03/09/2011 at 21:10

Speed isn't the primary cause of accidents - its bad driving, bad attitudes and poor judgement. Speed is a symptom not a cause - but it does make the consequences of an accident far worse.

To cut accidents you have to target the bad driving, bad attitudes and poor judgement first - if people don't accept this, remove their licenses. Once we sort out the bad driving, bad attitudes and poor judgement speed will then begin sort itself out.

Example: The speed limit, if not broken, is seen as a target by many regardless of conditions. In the last cold snap I was doing 30 in a 50 limit towards the M3. A guy behind was probably only ten feet off my back bumper - he then overtook and a little further on I passed him where he had skidded off the carriageway. Also, my journey down the M3 every morning shows just how many selfish idiots there are out there.

pjt
03/09/2011 at 10:19

Another nail in the coffin of the "speed" cameras are for "safety" argument. OF COURSE THEY ARE NOT ABOUT SAFETY!

It is about money. You want safety YOU PULL OVER DANGEROUS DRIVERS, NOT use them as an EXCUSE to do a BILLING EXCERCISE!

Fight the SCAM!

BRING DOWN THE SPEED SCAMERAS!

www.motorists.org www.banthecams.org www.camerafraud.com www.bhspi.org

and check out UK site: www.abd.org.uk

Stephen Donaldson
02/09/2011 at 15:31

"FARNBOROUGH Road saw an increase in crashes last year, DESPITE a campaign to hit speeding drivers with fines from speed cameras" Let's rephrase that: "FARNBOROUGH Road saw an increase in crashes last year, BECAUSE OF a campaign to hit speeding drivers with fines from speed cameras"

Driving involves positioning a vehicle relative to the road layout and other road users, proceeding at an appropriate speed, in the appropriate gear, and monitoring and adjusting those using the steering wheel, pedals and other controls, in response to hazards. It also involves observing, and signalling intent to other road users. Good drivers develop the ability to do all of these instinctively and even poor drivers manage to do most of them fairly well most of the time. Speed management, and cameras in particular, focuses a disproportionate amount of attention on just one aspect of driving – speed – inevitably reducing the time and attention available for the others. When most collisions involve drink/drugs, tiredness, misjudgement, poor observation or a lack of concentration, it is inevitable that such interventions will increase risk to all road users and contribute to more accidents than they could ever prevent.