Permanent speed cameras installed in north Cumbria village
By James Johnson
Last updated at 15:05, Monday, 20 February 2012
It has taken three years of campaigning but residents in a village near Carlisle are celebrating after finally getting speed cameras installed.
Have your say
I think that anything that can 'calm' traffic down and slow it down - especially where people live has to be a good thing. 20's plenty where people live.
Posted by mark on
15 March 2012 at 16:17
Hi just a question how much have these cost? and how much will it cost to maintain them? each year.Do the proceeds come back to the County Council ? Carlisle already has a problem with maintaining a fleet of portable Anti Social Behaviour CCTV cameras that are deployed around the different wards to tackle ASB, issues around funding, deployment,lampost inspection costs (for putting cameras on ) and maintainence.To me personally it seems excessive.
Posted by Damien Morris on
13 March 2012 at 08:48
Dear anon There is no law that says drivers must be aware of a speed enforcement system to make its evidence admissible. There is no law and never has been. All you need is the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 sections 81 to 89. There are no references to warning signs for enforcement systems in that Act. If you don't know don't just make it up!
Posted by Billy on
7 March 2012 at 20:20
No BM, it is NOT the case. But let's start at the beginning: Imagine if twenty years ago (when the speed camera program began), that instead of a slow build up of static cameras over many years, a national force of Speed Wardens with mobile cams who could be anywhere, anytime had been established; and who worked covertly of course. Imagine this along with a big TV, radio and newspaper campaign publicising the fact this force had been established and that speeders could potentially be caught anywhere, anytime (the publicity campaign could start a few weeks prior to the start of the project).
In such a scenario All but the dimmest and/or bloodyminded of people are going to drive within the limits the vast majority of the time, if not ALL the time.Speed cameras - all cams including mobile cams - cover about 2% of the road network, and whilst the vast majority of them - contrary to what the anti-camera lobby disseminate - are at collision blackspots, obviously it makes sense to deter the speeders - and particularly the boy-racers and other speedfreaks - on the whole of the road network.All of that said, there is no reason whatsoever why a national force of Speed Wardens - along with a widespread publicity campaign - could not be established NOW to supplement the present camera network (and preferably a civilian force, for obvious reasons). I have no doubt whatsoever that the sort of results seen on the Stocksbridge Bypass would be repeated right across the country.
Posted by Eileen on
7 March 2012 at 17:16
Eileen: Is it not the case that the example you cite in your last paragraph is because i) they are 'average speed' cameras and ii) because drivers are aware of them? Surely, when a driver becomes aware of cameras the level of alertness increases and that in turn leads to a reduction in accidents and speeding. My points were directed at the efficacy of concealed versus visible cameras. We may have to agree to disagree on which method is more effective but at east we can agree with the ultimate goal which is to improve road safety.
Posted by BM on
6 March 2012 at 06:53
BM: In your post you say:
"the chance of being caught by covert cameras doesn't stop speeding drivers from taking the risk that they might not; such is human nature."Sorry, but you are wrong. Research in Australia, for example, shows exactly the opposite is true (I'll try and dig it out). Later on in your post you say:"but speed of itself is not the danger; inadequate spatial awareness and attention and lack of driving ability is a far greater risk."So if male drivers - as they are - are around eight times more likely to kill or seriously injure someone than female drivers, does it seem remotely plausible that their "spacial awareness" is eight times worse than female drivers, or their "attention" or "driving ability" some eight times worse? I don't think so! We all know the reality, and that's why cameras and speed humps are a necessity, although my preference would be that all vehicles were fitted with black boxes and forward-facing cameras.And if so-called spacial awaeness is the problem - along with inattention and lack of driving ability - then how do you explain, for example, the 80% fall in road deaths on the Stocksbridge Bypass since average speed cameras were installed and the speed limit reduced from 60 to 50mph nine years ago.
Posted by Eileen on
5 March 2012 at 11:54
Eileen: I understand what you are saying but the chance of being caught by covert cameras doesn't stop speeding drivers from taking the risk that they might not; such is human nature, I'm afraid. Yes, they might get points on their licence after they have speeded but the very act of speeding in risky areas carries a risk of accident or injury. Your suggestion contains an element of risk to life and limb by punishing speeders after the fact and after an accident could have taken place, rather than preventing them from doing so in the first place. Speed cameras should only be used in areas where speed has a measurable impact on safety; such as linear villages on trunk roads for example but speed of itself is not the danger; inadequate spatial awareness and attention and lack of driving ability is a far greater risk. Speed cameras should therefore be highly visible so that a driver slows down before the scenario for accident arises. I know that if I see a sign for speed cameras, I become much more aware of the environment in which I am driving. Six points on a licence won't compensate for a broken limb or worse if the accident could have been prevented in the first place.
Posted by BM on
4 March 2012 at 11:02
BM: Allow me to quote myself:
'If speeders never know where or when they are likely to get caught they are much more likely to stay within speed limits most of the time.' One of the main criticisms that the anti-camera lobby make is that speeders just slow down for cameras and then speed up again, so if cameras were covert and hidden then that would discourage them from speeding most of the time, and if it didn't, then they would soon have six or nine penalty points on their licence, and in the vast majority of cases that WOULD!
Posted by Eileen on
3 March 2012 at 19:25
I dont mind that speed cameras have been installed but why is there a duplication of efforts to catch speeders today (sat.3rd March 2012)with the presence of the speeed camera van parked up in its usual layby in Warwick Bridge? What a waste of time and money to have both in operation!!
Posted by JC on
3 March 2012 at 12:54
Eileen said: "And the road safety groups always argued from the outset that cameras should be covert, and not painted bright yellow and with warning signs etc, and for the obvious reason - ie if speeders never know where or when they are likely to get flashed (and subsequently fined along with three penalty points), they are much more likely to stay within speed limits most of the time."
Which is surely the point, is it not? That statement would seem to indicate that the road safety campaigners are more interested in catching people speeding and fining them than people driving more slowly and improving road safety. Eileen seems to have somewhat contradicted herself. If safety and encouraging people to drive more slowly by whatever means is the goal then why hide the existence of cameras?