Road deaths rise after speed cameras switch-off

Oxford Mail: Road deaths rise after switch-off Road deaths rise after switch-off

DEATHS on Oxfordshire’s roads rose 50 per cent during the first six months speed cameras were turned off, police said last night.

Road safety campaigners warned the situation should never be repeated as police prepared to turn the cameras back on next week.

They were switched off last August after Oxfordshire County Council decided it would not pay its £600,000 share of their operating costs.

Since then, 18 people have been killed in road accidents in the county, compared with 12 deaths in the same period for the previous year.

It was the first time road deaths had risen for four years.

In addition, 179 people were seriously injured, compared with 160 in the previous year, as the police said that speed enforcement did act as a deterrent against dangerous driving.

Supt Rob Povey, the Thames Valley force’s head of roads policing, said: “We think this is important, because we know that speed kills and speed is dangerous.

“We have shown in Oxfordshire that speed has increased through monitoring limits and we have noticed an increase in fatalities and the number of people seriously injured in 2010.”

Kevin Clinton, head of road safety at Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents (RoSPA), said: “This shows switching cameras off was a bad mistake in the most awful way possible.

“We very much welcome cameras being switched back on, because put simply, cameras save lives. But what happened was not acceptable.

“After the General Election it became obvious that central government, local government and the police had to work out how to cope with the reduction in funding.

“There are many areas across the country where, in the same situation, faced with similar problems, they managed to keep cameras on while they sorted it out.

“It’s a great shame that did not happen in Oxfordshire.”

The county experienced the highest number of serious accidents since 2004, although there was a slight decrease in serious collisions at the sites of 72 speed camera boxes.

The cameras were switched off when the council cut its funding to the Thames Valley Safer Roads Partnership by £600,000, after the Government cut its road safety grant.

Councillors complained that fines paid by drivers caught speeding went to the Government.

When the cameras were turned off on August 1 last year the Oxford Mail warned the public were being put at risk.

But yesterday, neither Thames Valley Police nor Oxfordshire County Council accepted responsibility for the increase in accidents.

Oxfordshire County Council spokesman Owen Morton said: “Any rise in the number of deaths or serious injuries on our roads is something no-one ever wants to see.

“However, there are many factors which have a bearing on road safety and the accident statistics, which makes it difficult to make definitive statements about cause and effect.

“Accident frequencies can also be expected to vary significantly when measured over relatively short periods, and should ideally be analysed over several years to identify meaningful trends.”

The council’s cabinet member for transport, Rodney Rose, said County Hall had withdrawn funding last year to protect other services.

Supt Povey added: “When the decision was made to remove funding, Thames Valley Police were not in the financial position to pick up the shortfall.

“This was discussed with the Police Authority and they fully supported this position.

“Since that time, we have worked hard to identify savings to allow us to switch the cameras back on as quickly as possible and we have now managed to achieve this.

Comments (29)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

9:24am Sat 26 Mar 11

jf says...

They don't tell us where these accidents were? whether they were on the roads where the cameras are normally switched on-do they?

As sad as it was- I know of 3 deaths and each of those deaths were caused on roads that don't have speed cameras there.
They don't tell us where these accidents were? whether they were on the roads where the cameras are normally switched on-do they? As sad as it was- I know of 3 deaths and each of those deaths were caused on roads that don't have speed cameras there. jf
  • Score: 0

9:29am Sat 26 Mar 11

OxfordResident says...

But it doesn't actually show that fatal (or otherwise) accidents increased where cameras were - just that they increased in the whole of Oxfordshire. Searching back through the mail website definately shows fatal accidents on the M40 and A34, but also one caused by a traffic calming measure in Horspath.
Where are the precise figures for camera sites?
But it doesn't actually show that fatal (or otherwise) accidents increased where cameras were - just that they increased in the whole of Oxfordshire. Searching back through the mail website definately shows fatal accidents on the M40 and A34, but also one caused by a traffic calming measure in Horspath. Where are the precise figures for camera sites? OxfordResident
  • Score: 0

9:32am Sat 26 Mar 11

medicine man says...

There was a slight decrease in collisions at the sites of the 72 camera boxes.So they don't make any difference then.Also,could not the increase in the number of accidents be attributed to the harsh weather conditions experienced over that period .
There was a slight decrease in collisions at the sites of the 72 camera boxes.So they don't make any difference then.Also,could not the increase in the number of accidents be attributed to the harsh weather conditions experienced over that period . medicine man
  • Score: 0

9:41am Sat 26 Mar 11

hesperus says...

The key comment is "The county experienced the highest number of serious accidents since 2004, although there was a slight decrease in serious collisions at the sites of 72 speed camera boxes."

In other words the loss of the speed cameras caused LESS serious accidents so turning them off improved road safety!

No justification for the cameras other than as a cash cow, is there?
The key comment is "The county experienced the highest number of serious accidents since 2004, although there was a slight decrease in serious collisions at the sites of 72 speed camera boxes." In other words the loss of the speed cameras caused LESS serious accidents so turning them off improved road safety! No justification for the cameras other than as a cash cow, is there? hesperus
  • Score: 0

9:54am Sat 26 Mar 11

Oflife says...

Rubbish, they want to continue to fleece the motorist by entrapping them. Some places, you can safely drive at 40, others 30, and others 20. So, you're stressed out, unable to fathom what speed you're doing in different villages, towns and cities, speeding up, slowing down, wearing out your car parts, being distracted from your driving, suddenly slowing down at the sight of a camera. How about a national speed limit for the different types of roads, and one that cars can drive at economically? 20MPH is 'difficult' to maintain on a normal road due to the design of cars - try it for an extended period. Instead, a few strategically placed police cars to look for POOR drivers, rather than those who may well accidentally stray over the speed limit. They would also reduce the number of young people who drives into trees while navigating country roads after a night out. Now that would be a genuine life saver!

(I refuse to drive in this country due to the ridiculous behaviour of the councils - it's so relaxing not feeling you're being entrapped for that nice little £60 earner.)
Rubbish, they want to continue to fleece the motorist by entrapping them. Some places, you can safely drive at 40, others 30, and others 20. So, you're stressed out, unable to fathom what speed you're doing in different villages, towns and cities, speeding up, slowing down, wearing out your car parts, being distracted from your driving, suddenly slowing down at the sight of a camera. How about a national speed limit for the different types of roads, and one that cars can drive at economically? 20MPH is 'difficult' to maintain on a normal road due to the design of cars - try it for an extended period. Instead, a few strategically placed police cars to look for POOR drivers, rather than those who may well accidentally stray over the speed limit. They would also reduce the number of young people who drives into trees while navigating country roads after a night out. Now that would be a genuine life saver! (I refuse to drive in this country due to the ridiculous behaviour of the councils - it's so relaxing not feeling you're being entrapped for that nice little £60 earner.) Oflife
  • Score: 0

9:57am Sat 26 Mar 11

girlieoxford says...

the picture shown is not near ANY speed cameras! if anything speed cameras cause more nuisence with people slamming their brakes on to go through them then speeding up! i totally aggree with the speed limits and people should stick to them especially in built up areas. PS the photo shown is the Burford road in carterton where there is not a speed camera in sight!
the picture shown is not near ANY speed cameras! if anything speed cameras cause more nuisence with people slamming their brakes on to go through them then speeding up! i totally aggree with the speed limits and people should stick to them especially in built up areas. PS the photo shown is the Burford road in carterton where there is not a speed camera in sight! girlieoxford
  • Score: 0

10:00am Sat 26 Mar 11

the wizard says...

While any death on the roads is not only regretable, but also ultimately avoidable, some accidents will continue to occur through various factors. That said, for the Police or any other authority to use those figures as an excuse to turn cameras back on solely as a source to replace lost funding from elsewhere is an afront to public decency, and just shows what depths they will sink to, to prise more money at any excuse out of your pocket. I think that this is a deplorable action by people who are desperate, desperate for cash to run a ineffecient force, and desperate to wield the big brother axe over those who have broken the law, almost at any cost. What depths we have sunk to.
While any death on the roads is not only regretable, but also ultimately avoidable, some accidents will continue to occur through various factors. That said, for the Police or any other authority to use those figures as an excuse to turn cameras back on solely as a source to replace lost funding from elsewhere is an afront to public decency, and just shows what depths they will sink to, to prise more money at any excuse out of your pocket. I think that this is a deplorable action by people who are desperate, desperate for cash to run a ineffecient force, and desperate to wield the big brother axe over those who have broken the law, almost at any cost. What depths we have sunk to. the wizard
  • Score: 0

10:21am Sat 26 Mar 11

caveman123 says...

Here we go again! they say it's about road safety but when it costs them to run cameras they don't want to know and now they have the chance to keep some of the money there back on again!
The private comany that runs the speed courses is making ten's of thousands of pounds in profit it really is Policing for profit at the hands of the Police road safety is a second issue.
Here we go again! they say it's about road safety but when it costs them to run cameras they don't want to know and now they have the chance to keep some of the money there back on again! The private comany that runs the speed courses is making ten's of thousands of pounds in profit it really is Policing for profit at the hands of the Police road safety is a second issue. caveman123
  • Score: 0

10:26am Sat 26 Mar 11

MartinT says...

I am generally suspicious of the statistics bandied about to support the use of speed cameras, as they were badly abused to support the introduction of those cameras.
I find the following statistics for Swindon, itemising accidents before and after the switching off of speed cameras, very interesting.

A420
2008/09 – 2 light 2009/10 – 2 slight
A4312 Oxford Road
2008/09 – 3 slight 2009/10 – 1 serious, 2 slight
A346 Chiseldon
2008/09 – 2 slight 2009/10 – 1 serious, 2 slight
A4259 Queens Drive
2008/09 – 1 fatal, 1 serious, 6 slight 2009/10 – 6 slight

Now obviously Swindon is a smaller sample area than Oxfordshire, and Swindon council believes it is too early to draw firm conclusions. Nevertheless, there seems to be a great difference between the Oxfordshire and Swindon experiences. Why should this be?
I am generally suspicious of the statistics bandied about to support the use of speed cameras, as they were badly abused to support the introduction of those cameras. I find the following statistics for Swindon, itemising accidents before and after the switching off of speed cameras, very interesting. A420 2008/09 – 2 light 2009/10 – 2 slight A4312 Oxford Road 2008/09 – 3 slight 2009/10 – 1 serious, 2 slight A346 Chiseldon 2008/09 – 2 slight 2009/10 – 1 serious, 2 slight A4259 Queens Drive 2008/09 – 1 fatal, 1 serious, 6 slight 2009/10 – 6 slight Now obviously Swindon is a smaller sample area than Oxfordshire, and Swindon council believes it is too early to draw firm conclusions. Nevertheless, there seems to be a great difference between the Oxfordshire and Swindon experiences. Why should this be? MartinT
  • Score: 0

2:30pm Sat 26 Mar 11

theworldisendingnextyear says...

So there we have it...

TVP are afraid to tell us specific evidence in relation to accidents at camera sites because they know that accidents at those sites have NOT increased.

They then try to dilute this evidence by quoting accidents across Oxfordshire which in my opinion is so high because they do not patrol enough.

I have travelled the M40 every day for the last 3 years and i have seen TVP patrolling there a handful of times only.Therefore the moronic drive like idiots and cause accidents.

What a joke of an organisation they are.
So there we have it... TVP are afraid to tell us specific evidence in relation to accidents at camera sites because they know that accidents at those sites have NOT increased. They then try to dilute this evidence by quoting accidents across Oxfordshire which in my opinion is so high because they do not patrol enough. I have travelled the M40 every day for the last 3 years and i have seen TVP patrolling there a handful of times only.Therefore the moronic drive like idiots and cause accidents. What a joke of an organisation they are. theworldisendingnextyear
  • Score: 0

2:42pm Sat 26 Mar 11

dis-custard says...

Traffic accidents have risen because TVP are are not a visible deterrent on the roads of Oxfordshire. Despite their Headquarters being based in Kidlington, I regularly witness dozens of vehicles running red lights, speeding, tailgating and all the other things the police should be stopping.
Where exactly are the police hiding?
Traffic accidents have risen because TVP are are not a visible deterrent on the roads of Oxfordshire. Despite their Headquarters being based in Kidlington, I regularly witness dozens of vehicles running red lights, speeding, tailgating and all the other things the police should be stopping. Where exactly are the police hiding? dis-custard
  • Score: 0

4:33pm Sat 26 Mar 11

Paul Wesson says...

girlieoxford, I think the photo is Burford Road, Brize Norton just before Foxbury Farm. The fatal accident was a guy on a motorbike who cocked up the angle, IIRC. It is unlikely he would have been speeding. There is no camera there as the accident was close to a junction and near a bend. Speed cameras can't be sited in such locations.
The recent winter was particularly bad and, as we don't have winter driving training or winter tyres in our country, there will always be an increase in crashes when the inexperienced go driving in poor conditions.
I don't trust TVP on this issue. Without a map of the crash locations, times, dates, weather conditions etc we cannot form an objective view of whether the cameras are of any benefit at all.
girlieoxford, I think the photo is Burford Road, Brize Norton just before Foxbury Farm. The fatal accident was a guy on a motorbike who cocked up the angle, IIRC. It is unlikely he would have been speeding. There is no camera there as the accident was close to a junction and near a bend. Speed cameras can't be sited in such locations. The recent winter was particularly bad and, as we don't have winter driving training or winter tyres in our country, there will always be an increase in crashes when the inexperienced go driving in poor conditions. I don't trust TVP on this issue. Without a map of the crash locations, times, dates, weather conditions etc we cannot form an objective view of whether the cameras are of any benefit at all. Paul Wesson
  • Score: 0

6:34pm Sat 26 Mar 11

dis-custard says...

Paul Wesson wrote:
girlieoxford, I think the photo is Burford Road, Brize Norton just before Foxbury Farm. The fatal accident was a guy on a motorbike who cocked up the angle, IIRC. It is unlikely he would have been speeding. There is no camera there as the accident was close to a junction and near a bend. Speed cameras can't be sited in such locations.
The recent winter was particularly bad and, as we don't have winter driving training or winter tyres in our country, there will always be an increase in crashes when the inexperienced go driving in poor conditions.
I don't trust TVP on this issue. Without a map of the crash locations, times, dates, weather conditions etc we cannot form an objective view of whether the cameras are of any benefit at all.
You could have left out "...on this issue." from the opening sentence of the last paragraph Paul and I would still have agreed
[quote][p][bold]Paul Wesson[/bold] wrote: girlieoxford, I think the photo is Burford Road, Brize Norton just before Foxbury Farm. The fatal accident was a guy on a motorbike who cocked up the angle, IIRC. It is unlikely he would have been speeding. There is no camera there as the accident was close to a junction and near a bend. Speed cameras can't be sited in such locations. The recent winter was particularly bad and, as we don't have winter driving training or winter tyres in our country, there will always be an increase in crashes when the inexperienced go driving in poor conditions. I don't trust TVP on this issue. Without a map of the crash locations, times, dates, weather conditions etc we cannot form an objective view of whether the cameras are of any benefit at all.[/p][/quote]You could have left out "...on this issue." from the opening sentence of the last paragraph Paul and I would still have agreed dis-custard
  • Score: 0

7:13pm Sat 26 Mar 11

Kenner says...

All the usual drivel from the 'I am a good driver brigade' who seem to think they have special skill to drive above the designated speed limit then get self richeous and start spouting about cash cows when caught.
There is a simple rule if you drive at the correct speed you do not get fined and are less likely to be involved in an accident.
Or have i missed the point and we should all go out and do our own thing and blow the consequences to fellow road users and pedestrians.
All the usual drivel from the 'I am a good driver brigade' who seem to think they have special skill to drive above the designated speed limit then get self richeous and start spouting about cash cows when caught. There is a simple rule if you drive at the correct speed you do not get fined and are less likely to be involved in an accident. Or have i missed the point and we should all go out and do our own thing and blow the consequences to fellow road users and pedestrians. Kenner
  • Score: 0

7:52pm Sat 26 Mar 11

Muckaway says...

Kenner wrote:
All the usual drivel from the 'I am a good driver brigade' who seem to think they have special skill to drive above the designated speed limit then get self richeous and start spouting about cash cows when caught. There is a simple rule if you drive at the correct speed you do not get fined and are less likely to be involved in an accident. Or have i missed the point and we should all go out and do our own thing and blow the consequences to fellow road users and pedestrians.
What you say is true, but I bet you've been irritated by a lorry crawling along at 40mph (their max single carriageway speed) on the A40 or A420 at some point? This limit is stupid, antiquated and dangerous but it doesn't stop us getting fined by cameras for doing the terrible speed of 50 just to keep the traffic moving. To the cops' credit, they turn a blind eye to it aslong as we're driving safely. I say more traffic cops with the ability to spot wrinklies doing 35 on the A40, lane hogs everywhere and just about every kind of driver on their phone is the way to go...
[quote][p][bold]Kenner[/bold] wrote: All the usual drivel from the 'I am a good driver brigade' who seem to think they have special skill to drive above the designated speed limit then get self richeous and start spouting about cash cows when caught. There is a simple rule if you drive at the correct speed you do not get fined and are less likely to be involved in an accident. Or have i missed the point and we should all go out and do our own thing and blow the consequences to fellow road users and pedestrians.[/p][/quote]What you say is true, but I bet you've been irritated by a lorry crawling along at 40mph (their max single carriageway speed) on the A40 or A420 at some point? This limit is stupid, antiquated and dangerous but it doesn't stop us getting fined by cameras for doing the terrible speed of 50 just to keep the traffic moving. To the cops' credit, they turn a blind eye to it aslong as we're driving safely. I say more traffic cops with the ability to spot wrinklies doing 35 on the A40, lane hogs everywhere and just about every kind of driver on their phone is the way to go... Muckaway
  • Score: 1

8:43pm Sat 26 Mar 11

Son1 says...

Lets hope they get some mobile cameras on Corn St in the evenings to catch some of the chavs - they drive seriously fast!
Lets hope they get some mobile cameras on Corn St in the evenings to catch some of the chavs - they drive seriously fast! Son1
  • Score: 0

12:06am Sun 27 Mar 11

dis-custard says...

Muckaway wrote:
Kenner wrote:
All the usual drivel from the 'I am a good driver brigade' who seem to think they have special skill to drive above the designated speed limit then get self richeous and start spouting about cash cows when caught. There is a simple rule if you drive at the correct speed you do not get fined and are less likely to be involved in an accident. Or have i missed the point and we should all go out and do our own thing and blow the consequences to fellow road users and pedestrians.
What you say is true, but I bet you've been irritated by a lorry crawling along at 40mph (their max single carriageway speed) on the A40 or A420 at some point? This limit is stupid, antiquated and dangerous but it doesn't stop us getting fined by cameras for doing the terrible speed of 50 just to keep the traffic moving. To the cops' credit, they turn a blind eye to it aslong as we're driving safely. I say more traffic cops with the ability to spot wrinklies doing 35 on the A40, lane hogs everywhere and just about every kind of driver on their phone is the way to go...
Thanks for the 40mph on a single-carriageway info.
I've never seen a lorry stick to it.
Ever.
[quote][p][bold]Muckaway[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Kenner[/bold] wrote: All the usual drivel from the 'I am a good driver brigade' who seem to think they have special skill to drive above the designated speed limit then get self richeous and start spouting about cash cows when caught. There is a simple rule if you drive at the correct speed you do not get fined and are less likely to be involved in an accident. Or have i missed the point and we should all go out and do our own thing and blow the consequences to fellow road users and pedestrians.[/p][/quote]What you say is true, but I bet you've been irritated by a lorry crawling along at 40mph (their max single carriageway speed) on the A40 or A420 at some point? This limit is stupid, antiquated and dangerous but it doesn't stop us getting fined by cameras for doing the terrible speed of 50 just to keep the traffic moving. To the cops' credit, they turn a blind eye to it aslong as we're driving safely. I say more traffic cops with the ability to spot wrinklies doing 35 on the A40, lane hogs everywhere and just about every kind of driver on their phone is the way to go...[/p][/quote]Thanks for the 40mph on a single-carriageway info. I've never seen a lorry stick to it. Ever. dis-custard
  • Score: 0

4:19am Sun 27 Mar 11

Mr Peter Mcvay says...

dis-custard wrote:
Muckaway wrote:
Kenner wrote:
All the usual drivel from the 'I am a good driver brigade' who seem to think they have special skill to drive above the designated speed limit then get self richeous and start spouting about cash cows when caught. There is a simple rule if you drive at the correct speed you do not get fined and are less likely to be involved in an accident. Or have i missed the point and we should all go out and do our own thing and blow the consequences to fellow road users and pedestrians.
What you say is true, but I bet you've been irritated by a lorry crawling along at 40mph (their max single carriageway speed) on the A40 or A420 at some point? This limit is stupid, antiquated and dangerous but it doesn't stop us getting fined by cameras for doing the terrible speed of 50 just to keep the traffic moving. To the cops' credit, they turn a blind eye to it aslong as we're driving safely. I say more traffic cops with the ability to spot wrinklies doing 35 on the A40, lane hogs everywhere and just about every kind of driver on their phone is the way to go...
Thanks for the 40mph on a single-carriageway info.
I've never seen a lorry stick to it.
Ever.
Nor can a speed camera be set to distinguish between vehicles, so lorries can speed past them and not be caught, the same with motorbikes through front facing ones and average speed cameras. Discrimination against cars?.
[quote][p][bold]dis-custard[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Muckaway[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Kenner[/bold] wrote: All the usual drivel from the 'I am a good driver brigade' who seem to think they have special skill to drive above the designated speed limit then get self richeous and start spouting about cash cows when caught. There is a simple rule if you drive at the correct speed you do not get fined and are less likely to be involved in an accident. Or have i missed the point and we should all go out and do our own thing and blow the consequences to fellow road users and pedestrians.[/p][/quote]What you say is true, but I bet you've been irritated by a lorry crawling along at 40mph (their max single carriageway speed) on the A40 or A420 at some point? This limit is stupid, antiquated and dangerous but it doesn't stop us getting fined by cameras for doing the terrible speed of 50 just to keep the traffic moving. To the cops' credit, they turn a blind eye to it aslong as we're driving safely. I say more traffic cops with the ability to spot wrinklies doing 35 on the A40, lane hogs everywhere and just about every kind of driver on their phone is the way to go...[/p][/quote]Thanks for the 40mph on a single-carriageway info. I've never seen a lorry stick to it. Ever.[/p][/quote]Nor can a speed camera be set to distinguish between vehicles, so lorries can speed past them and not be caught, the same with motorbikes through front facing ones and average speed cameras. Discrimination against cars?. Mr Peter Mcvay
  • Score: 0

9:36am Sun 27 Mar 11

SOE27 says...

Who is going to monitor the police then?? Rosehill & Blackbird Leys estates are all lowered to 20mph, however on a regular basis you see the police driving at between 30-40 MPH on their routine patrols, and as for law enforcing, Nah they make up their own laws, upon the introduction of the Mobile phone ban they pulled and fined a motorist for eating a sandwich and he got 3 points, yet last year the police officer driving around the estate was driving one handed whilst eating an Ice-cream. TVP sort your staff out, before you go and legally start robbing other motorist, oh and how about monitoring the Botley Road Park and ride turn off on the Oxford Rounabout (A34), Most Tom Dick and Harry's use that as an excuse to bypass the traffic lights and every morning you can see at least 10-15 drivers still using Mobile phones and normally your "officers" turn a blind eye to it!
Who is going to monitor the police then?? Rosehill & Blackbird Leys estates are all lowered to 20mph, however on a regular basis you see the police driving at between 30-40 MPH on their routine patrols, and as for law enforcing, Nah they make up their own laws, upon the introduction of the Mobile phone ban they pulled and fined a motorist for eating a sandwich and he got 3 points, yet last year the police officer driving around the estate was driving one handed whilst eating an Ice-cream. TVP sort your staff out, before you go and legally start robbing other motorist, oh and how about monitoring the Botley Road Park and ride turn off on the Oxford Rounabout (A34), Most Tom Dick and Harry's use that as an excuse to bypass the traffic lights and every morning you can see at least 10-15 drivers still using Mobile phones and normally your "officers" turn a blind eye to it! SOE27
  • Score: 0

10:02am Sun 27 Mar 11

OXETA says...

Bring back the old "jam sandwich"
Also not sure why so many people drive like lunatics when petrol is so expensive.
Bring back the old "jam sandwich" Also not sure why so many people drive like lunatics when petrol is so expensive. OXETA
  • Score: 0

10:33am Sun 27 Mar 11

GaryOxford says...

I'd like a more information regarding the statistics. On which roads were the accidents? Were they on roads that would normally have had speed cameras or where they on roads such as the M40 and the A34 that usually only have speed cameras during roadworks. Also of the accidents, how many can be attributed to speed? As these were fatal accidents they will have been investigated so this should be known.
Unfortunately when it comes to speed cameras or limits in Oxfordshire we generally aren't given the full story.
I'd like to see the money spent on more traffic police rather than speed cameras. That would help catch bad drivers of all types, not just speeders.
I'd like a more information regarding the statistics. On which roads were the accidents? Were they on roads that would normally have had speed cameras or where they on roads such as the M40 and the A34 that usually only have speed cameras during roadworks. Also of the accidents, how many can be attributed to speed? As these were fatal accidents they will have been investigated so this should be known. Unfortunately when it comes to speed cameras or limits in Oxfordshire we generally aren't given the full story. I'd like to see the money spent on more traffic police rather than speed cameras. That would help catch bad drivers of all types, not just speeders. GaryOxford
  • Score: 0

11:57am Sun 27 Mar 11

atomicbrown says...

OK - I'm going to play devil's advocate on this one ...

I drive around this county (indeed the UK) a lot and I have noticed a change in my own behaviour since Oxfordshire's cameras were suspended.

I am generally less concerned with being snapped by a speed camera as I get closer to home as I know they have been switched.

I can not say with hand on heart that this hasn't lead to a more complacent attitude in my driving with regards to speed limits. I don't drive like a lunatic and I always keep well back from the car in front.

Now I'm a regular guy and I suspect many people (if they are honest with in them selves) would say the same thing.

With this in mind, it could well be that turning off the cameras led to a general shift in behaviour that has led to more high speed collisions generally - not necessarily concentrated at the camera sites.

Personally speaking, knowing cameras are switched on encourages self discipline when it comes to speed limits as I'm not sure where they all are (and I'm not the kind of person that would research there locations too closely even though I know you can)

Anyway - said my bit
OK - I'm going to play devil's advocate on this one ... I drive around this county (indeed the UK) a lot and I have noticed a change in my own behaviour since Oxfordshire's cameras were suspended. I am generally less concerned with being snapped by a speed camera as I get closer to home as I know they have been switched. I can not say with hand on heart that this hasn't lead to a more complacent attitude in my driving with regards to speed limits. I don't drive like a lunatic and I always keep well back from the car in front. Now I'm a regular guy and I suspect many people (if they are honest with in them selves) would say the same thing. With this in mind, it could well be that turning off the cameras led to a general shift in behaviour that has led to more high speed collisions generally - not necessarily concentrated at the camera sites. Personally speaking, knowing cameras are switched on encourages self discipline when it comes to speed limits as I'm not sure where they all are (and I'm not the kind of person that would research there locations too closely even though I know you can) Anyway - said my bit atomicbrown
  • Score: 0

2:33pm Sun 27 Mar 11

yentiw says...

Little wonder this has got the most comment!

The Oxford Mail front page yesterday and its most condescending piece of journalistic excess in its 'Comment' must the worst I have read in my life! And that includes my working in the newspaper and printing industry.

Impartial comment is expected. This rubbish journalism is wholly inaccurate as the Mail even stated:

"The county experienced the highest number of serious accidents since 2004, (THEN THE EYEOPENER - read on!) although there was a slight decrease in serious collisions at the sites of 72 speed camera boxes."

Pathetic piece of journalism. The editor should resign.
Little wonder this has got the most comment! The Oxford Mail front page yesterday and its most condescending piece of journalistic excess in its 'Comment' must the worst I have read in my life! And that includes my working in the newspaper and printing industry. Impartial comment is expected. This rubbish journalism is wholly inaccurate as the Mail even stated: "The county experienced the highest number of serious accidents since 2004, (THEN THE EYEOPENER - read on!) although there was a slight decrease in serious collisions at the sites of 72 speed camera boxes." Pathetic piece of journalism. The editor should resign. yentiw
  • Score: 0

2:39pm Sun 27 Mar 11

yentiw says...

And to add, you would have been much better condemning the 'DERELICTION OF DUTY' of the County Council in the upkeep of some of the worst maintained roads in the country. Didn't you know that potholes at every conceivable glance also contribute highly to accidents occuring. Speed cameras are simply money boxes.
No one would argue about enforcement, but it needs to be visual traffic police doing their job.
This country... oh dear.
The newspaper industry... oh dear.

Didn't used to be like this.

Lost the plot... all round.
Money is the priority. All else is secondary.
And to add, you would have been much better condemning the 'DERELICTION OF DUTY' of the County Council in the upkeep of some of the worst maintained roads in the country. Didn't you know that potholes at every conceivable glance also contribute highly to accidents occuring. Speed cameras are simply money boxes. No one would argue about enforcement, but it needs to be visual traffic police doing their job. This country... oh dear. The newspaper industry... oh dear. Didn't used to be like this. Lost the plot... all round. Money is the priority. All else is secondary. yentiw
  • Score: 0

8:44pm Sun 27 Mar 11

Muckaway says...

Mr Peter Mcvay wrote:
dis-custard wrote:
Muckaway wrote:
Kenner wrote: All the usual drivel from the 'I am a good driver brigade' who seem to think they have special skill to drive above the designated speed limit then get self richeous and start spouting about cash cows when caught. There is a simple rule if you drive at the correct speed you do not get fined and are less likely to be involved in an accident. Or have i missed the point and we should all go out and do our own thing and blow the consequences to fellow road users and pedestrians.
What you say is true, but I bet you've been irritated by a lorry crawling along at 40mph (their max single carriageway speed) on the A40 or A420 at some point? This limit is stupid, antiquated and dangerous but it doesn't stop us getting fined by cameras for doing the terrible speed of 50 just to keep the traffic moving. To the cops' credit, they turn a blind eye to it aslong as we're driving safely. I say more traffic cops with the ability to spot wrinklies doing 35 on the A40, lane hogs everywhere and just about every kind of driver on their phone is the way to go...
Thanks for the 40mph on a single-carriageway info. I've never seen a lorry stick to it. Ever.
Nor can a speed camera be set to distinguish between vehicles, so lorries can speed past them and not be caught, the same with motorbikes through front facing ones and average speed cameras. Discrimination against cars?.
Speed cameras can tell the difference between lorries and cars. There are sensors in the road that calculate axle weight; should it go off for, say a coach that can do 50mph on a single carriageway (the pic is disguarded). A common camera that catches lorries is the one near Bicester by the Thame road turning. I know a couple of drivers who've been caught. Someone sais they've never seen a lorry stick to 40; well that proves the point that the 40 limit is pointless-why should a bus/coach be allowed to go faster? Their load is far more precious...
[quote][p][bold]Mr Peter Mcvay[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]dis-custard[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Muckaway[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Kenner[/bold] wrote: All the usual drivel from the 'I am a good driver brigade' who seem to think they have special skill to drive above the designated speed limit then get self richeous and start spouting about cash cows when caught. There is a simple rule if you drive at the correct speed you do not get fined and are less likely to be involved in an accident. Or have i missed the point and we should all go out and do our own thing and blow the consequences to fellow road users and pedestrians.[/p][/quote]What you say is true, but I bet you've been irritated by a lorry crawling along at 40mph (their max single carriageway speed) on the A40 or A420 at some point? This limit is stupid, antiquated and dangerous but it doesn't stop us getting fined by cameras for doing the terrible speed of 50 just to keep the traffic moving. To the cops' credit, they turn a blind eye to it aslong as we're driving safely. I say more traffic cops with the ability to spot wrinklies doing 35 on the A40, lane hogs everywhere and just about every kind of driver on their phone is the way to go...[/p][/quote]Thanks for the 40mph on a single-carriageway info. I've never seen a lorry stick to it. Ever.[/p][/quote]Nor can a speed camera be set to distinguish between vehicles, so lorries can speed past them and not be caught, the same with motorbikes through front facing ones and average speed cameras. Discrimination against cars?.[/p][/quote]Speed cameras can tell the difference between lorries and cars. There are sensors in the road that calculate axle weight; should it go off for, say a coach that can do 50mph on a single carriageway (the pic is disguarded). A common camera that catches lorries is the one near Bicester by the Thame road turning. I know a couple of drivers who've been caught. Someone sais they've never seen a lorry stick to 40; well that proves the point that the 40 limit is pointless-why should a bus/coach be allowed to go faster? Their load is far more precious... Muckaway
  • Score: 0

4:57am Mon 28 Mar 11

Paul Wesson says...

OXETA, Driving like a lunatic doesn't increase petrol consumption. Most engines are designed to reach maximum efficiency at or about 55mph in top gear. Driving at 20 mph in third is wasteful and increases petrol consumption, as does all driving in gears below top gear. That is why around town driving figures published by manufacturers seeking to sell cars are less than the average consumption. If we all drove long distances at 55 mph we would be getting 40 mpg from the average saloon instead of the 33-35 most of us get. The 20 mph speed limit is a tax on motorists as it forces them to drive in low gear and consume more petrol. There are people who want to spread this tax across the country (BRAKE etc). I'll bet the petrol companies just love them!
OXETA, Driving like a lunatic doesn't increase petrol consumption. Most engines are designed to reach maximum efficiency at or about 55mph in top gear. Driving at 20 mph in third is wasteful and increases petrol consumption, as does all driving in gears below top gear. That is why around town driving figures published by manufacturers seeking to sell cars are less than the average consumption. If we all drove long distances at 55 mph we would be getting 40 mpg from the average saloon instead of the 33-35 most of us get. The 20 mph speed limit is a tax on motorists as it forces them to drive in low gear and consume more petrol. There are people who want to spread this tax across the country (BRAKE etc). I'll bet the petrol companies just love them! Paul Wesson
  • Score: 0

9:59am Mon 28 Mar 11

newcy says...

Good point from Paul Wesson -it would be useful if the figures for accidents related to the heavy snow were made available -and drummed into the County Council and others responsible for gritting the highways in bad weather.

Mind you, as Disc-custard points out, there are those drivers who regularly make lazy decisions while driving - such as skipping red lights, cutting other drivers up, tailgating, and what really irritates me as a pedestrian is the number of drivers who do not indicate - just swing into roads without even slowing to suggest they might be about to turn, about 55-60% of drivers on non-main roads I use on a daily basis by my reckoning.

Working on a business park with lots of blind road crossings this is particularly risky -there may be no legal obligation to indicate on non-main roads but it does make it much safer for pedestrians, cyclists and other drivers.

Another problem is the number of drivers who do not stop at crossings -we used to live in the centre of Abingdon, and many drivers did not stop at the crossings on Stert Street -regardless of lights or whether a pedestrian was actually crossinga t the time - resulting in a number of near misses, several minor collisions, at least one including a child (a motorbike actualy overtook the car stopped at the crossing -red light), and a few fatalities.

It is quite worrying having to teach young children that not only do they need to press the button and wait for the green man, but that they need to be certain that approaching traffic is definitely slowing for the light/stopping - 4x4s in Cowley centre are terrible for ignoring red lights at pedestrian crossings, and only about half of all cyclists seem to stop at crossings -I'll stop ranting before I get on to cyclists cycling two or three in a row down the middle of a road, or cyclists cycling down the middle of narrow pavements which are not marked as cycle paths - many pavement cyclists expect pedestrians to dive out of the way -into the road if pavement space is insufficicent.
Good point from Paul Wesson -it would be useful if the figures for accidents related to the heavy snow were made available -and drummed into the County Council and others responsible for gritting the highways in bad weather. Mind you, as Disc-custard points out, there are those drivers who regularly make lazy decisions while driving - such as skipping red lights, cutting other drivers up, tailgating, and what really irritates me as a pedestrian is the number of drivers who do not indicate - just swing into roads without even slowing to suggest they might be about to turn, about 55-60% of drivers on non-main roads I use on a daily basis by my reckoning. Working on a business park with lots of blind road crossings this is particularly risky -there may be no legal obligation to indicate on non-main roads but it does make it much safer for pedestrians, cyclists and other drivers. Another problem is the number of drivers who do not stop at crossings -we used to live in the centre of Abingdon, and many drivers did not stop at the crossings on Stert Street -regardless of lights or whether a pedestrian was actually crossinga t the time - resulting in a number of near misses, several minor collisions, at least one including a child (a motorbike actualy overtook the car stopped at the crossing -red light), and a few fatalities. It is quite worrying having to teach young children that not only do they need to press the button and wait for the green man, but that they need to be certain that approaching traffic is definitely slowing for the light/stopping - 4x4s in Cowley centre are terrible for ignoring red lights at pedestrian crossings, and only about half of all cyclists seem to stop at crossings -I'll stop ranting before I get on to cyclists cycling two or three in a row down the middle of a road, or cyclists cycling down the middle of narrow pavements which are not marked as cycle paths - many pavement cyclists expect pedestrians to dive out of the way -into the road if pavement space is insufficicent. newcy
  • Score: 0

10:00am Mon 28 Mar 11

newcy says...

Oops 'insufficient'
Oops 'insufficient' newcy
  • Score: 0

4:22pm Fri 1 Apr 11

senna123 says...

Fixed speed cameras are one of the greatest cons of the 20th century in terms of Additional Stealth Tax Collection!!

Road safety = more police patrols, driver awareness programs or even technology to determine average speed checks through built up areas.

But fixed cameras are a joke, vehicles slam on the brakes then speed up causing more accidents than they prevent.

Its simply addtional tax collection !!! ....and we have all been conned into thinking it improves road safety, well numerous facts will prove IT DOESN'T.
Fixed speed cameras are one of the greatest cons of the 20th century in terms of Additional Stealth Tax Collection!! Road safety = more police patrols, driver awareness programs or even technology to determine average speed checks through built up areas. But fixed cameras are a joke, vehicles slam on the brakes then speed up causing more accidents than they prevent. Its simply addtional tax collection !!! ....and we have all been conned into thinking it improves road safety, well numerous facts will prove IT DOESN'T. senna123
  • Score: 0

Comments are closed on this article.

click2find

About cookies

We want you to enjoy your visit to our website. That's why we use cookies to enhance your experience. By staying on our website you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more about the cookies we use.

I agree