MPs speak out over speed camera switch-off (From Oxford Mail)
Get involved: send your photos, videos, news & views by texting OXFORD NEWS to 80360 or email us
MPs speak out over speed camera switch-off
7:00pm Tuesday 27th July 2010 in
OXFORD East’s Labour MP Andrew Smith said it was “irresponsible” to turn off the county’s Speed cameras as part of a cost-saving measure.
Every speed camera in tOxfordshire will be switched off on Sunday following a £600,000 cut in funding to the Thames Valley Safer Roads Partnership, which coordinates road safety.
Thames Valley Police has pledged to continue to enforce the law on the roads, but has ruled out paying the six-figure sum to prevent 72 fixed speed cameras and seven traffic light cameras from being turned off.
Mr Smith said: “I think it is really irresponsible to turn these cameras off because the evidence is there that they save lives and prevent accidents by cutting speed.
“The vast majority of motorists are responsible but there is a tiny minority which will see this as a green light to drive at higher speed, which will mean more accidents, deaths and injuries.
“The authorities need to look between them at how the cameras can remain on. Announcing that they are to be turned off is itself irresponsible.”
Mr Smith suggested some drivers may change the way they drive because of the switch-off.
He added: “If people know they are not operating, there is a minority who will take advantage and sadly they are the ones who will cause accidents.
“I will be pressing for the cameras to be kept on in the interests of road safety.”
However, Wantage Tory MP Ed Vaizey believed the decision was correct.
He said: “ I think that money is tight and the county council has to take tough decisions.
“I think Thames Valley Police can give good advice on the best way to maintain road safety.
“Speed cameras were switched off in Swindon about a year ago and there has not been any noticeable reduction in road safety.”
Oxford West and Abingdon Conservative MP Nicola Blackwood wanted to ensure there was a solid road safety strategy in place for the county.
She said: “I am not concerned about the speed cameras themselves because there is not too much evidence that they reduce the number of accidents.
“At the same time, I want to be reassured that there is a coherent road safety strategy in Oxford West and Abingdon.
“As a result I will be writing to the county council, Thames Valley Police, and Thames Valley Safer Roads Partnership for reassurance.
“In some areas, 20mph speed limits have been quite effective and I think you can make intelligent use of the finance that is available.”
Henley Tory MP John Howell said: “The county council has a democratic mandate to run its own affairs and I will not stand on the sidelines and carp about every budget-making decision.
“The county council has to come up with its own programme of cuts and stand by them to the electorate.”
Asked if he thought speed cameras saved lives, he said: “I don’t know.”
Banbury Tory MP Tony Baldry said he would be investigating the issue.
Witney Tory MP and Prime Minister David Cameron was unavailable for comment.
Comments(40)
simplicissimus
says...
4:14am Wed 28 Jul 10
.co.uk/debate/articl
e-1297887/RICHARD-LI
TTLEJOHN-End-war-mot
orists-Youll-lucky.h
tml
Thank G_d Labour's been drubbed in disgrace just about everywhere except at the City Kremlin in Oxford, famously home of lost causes.
The coalition is proving to be:
Better for road users;
Better for safety;
Better for taxpayers;
Better for democracy;
Better for freedom.
Niko Bellic
says...
6:42am Wed 28 Jul 10
simplicissimus wrote:Far be it from me to argue, but dont the road accident statistics prove otherwise in Oxford? Swindon there is no change but you cant use that example seeing as the figures in Oxford have shown a decrease of a third in accidents since the cameras were switched on.
http://www.dailymail .co.uk/debate/articl e-1297887/RICHARD-LI TTLEJOHN-End-war-mot orists-Youll-lucky.h tml Thank G_d Labour's been drubbed in disgrace just about everywhere except at the City Kremlin in Oxford, famously home of lost causes. The coalition is proving to be: Better for road users; Better for safety; Better for taxpayers; Better for democracy; Better for freedom.
.
Better for Road users? Possibly.
.
Better for safety? I doubt it.
.
Better for taxpayers? Certainly not, didn't the BBC show that the average family would be a couple of hundred quid worse off this year, some people even more so, and with the impending return of stamp duty for lower priced homes... errrmmm... And then the increase in VAT, which the Tories promised not to do, and the Lib Dems promised NEVER to do.
.
Democracy? Are you being serious, millions of people voted Lib Dem, and it turned out that their votes actually got the Tories voted in. How is that for democracy!? Plus the new fixed term parliaments... probably because the Brokeback coalition knows that if there were to be a general election in a years time they wouldn't get back into power for a generation.
.
Freedom? Explain your definition, are you using the subtley racist term for immigration or are you on about military power? Exactly what freedom are you talking about?
.
The coalition has proved absolutely NOTHING thus far, other than a lot of people are going to be very upset and struggling when they find themselves out of work, or the public sector workers who will have their pay frozen (which was already common practise in the public sector) while benefit claimants still get increases linked with inflation every year. Or the crime which will go unnoticed because the number of police is being limit, and more likely to be cut, and those bobbies on the beat who are called in on their well deserved rest days yet will receive no payment at all for the additional workload. Or the NHS staff who lose their jobs at the discretion of needless middle management.
.
If you agree with their principle that putting people out of work is going to aid the economy then by all means go ahead and delude yourself, but it not good for the country one bit. So feel free to continue to tell yourself that your vote made a difference, but in reality the only difference is a step back to the 80s, and not the rose tinted cool 80s either!
LadyPenelope
says...
7:58am Wed 28 Jul 10
You get idiot drivers on the road whether you have cameras or not. Cameras are actually dangerous causing people to brake hard just in case they might be over the speed limit, even when they're not!
Paul Wesson
says...
9:10am Wed 28 Jul 10
EBTWO
says...
9:18am Wed 28 Jul 10
Like the vast majority of drivers, I don't speed, nor do I drive dangerously. I drive to the road and weather conditions. You will never stop the idiots, but removing the cameras makes the law abiding (and taxpaying) driver's life that little eaiser.
BigAlBiker
says...
9:22am Wed 28 Jul 10
LadyPenelope wrote:I agree with Lady Penelope, as a motorcyclist I was unfortunatly within 25 yards of a van when he stood on his brakes when he spotted the speed camera along the A40 towards Eynsham, resulted in me having 5 months off work, plates and screws in my hip, yes perhaps i was a little to close to the Van at 25 yards, but his ABS was awesome the way he stopped dead, spped camera's PAH, there money making devices only, oh and the Surgeon at the JR said he sees loads of injured people from the same actions as i suffered.
No change in Swindon when the cameras went off. Those that believe that speed cameras actually prevent accidents are brain washed muppets! You get idiot drivers on the road whether you have cameras or not. Cameras are actually dangerous causing people to brake hard just in case they might be over the speed limit, even when they're not!
Berty
says...
10:31am Wed 28 Jul 10
Surely we're not seeing political point-scoring and lies from the opposition in the face of such a monstrously badly managed money-making idea. Mind you, if everyone who exceeded the limit was made to pay we'd clear the national debt in days. That's if you believe what the shadow cabinet is saying. Which I don't.
Simple solution; ban cars, make everyone work from home, centralise everything and build some really big buses. Sorted.
Adrian1
says...
11:18am Wed 28 Jul 10
Bicester retired
says...
11:22am Wed 28 Jul 10
Personally, I don't have much objection to speed cameras, provided the speed limits are set at reasonable levels.
Tom Daily
says...
11:34am Wed 28 Jul 10
angelox99
says...
12:29pm Wed 28 Jul 10
thomashenry
says...
12:02am Thu 29 Jul 10
My only worry is that people will drive as if the cameras are still there (ie slowly).
There is a camera in a 40 zone at Farmoor, and come next Monday I'll be going through it at anything up 70mph!
Bring it on I say. I'll decide how fast I want to drive from now on.
Insight
says...
7:32pm Thu 29 Jul 10
...
Exclusive The Department for Transport (DfT) has "unwittingly" misled the public over the benefits of speed cameras for the last four years.
...
That was the shock admission yesterday by a DfT spokeswoman, when finally cornered by the Department’s own research. She also told us that they have now been forced to put matters right by adding an explanation to future public statements.
...
The misinformation began with a report produced by the DfT itself in 2005. On the basis of this report, it came up with the now infamous claim that speed cameras are directly responsible for reducing the level of killed and seriously injured (KSI) at camera sites by 42 per cent. Yet its own evidence, in it's own report, doesn't even support half that figure.
...
Even with this admission, it's still not clear what difference, if any, the cameras actually do make, as independent research shows that re-engineering of sites with a history of collisions, such as resurfacing, new road signs, lighting and white lines can produce a reduction in collisions of up to 35%.
******
It's not like we didn't know already, but now it's official. All these years of being patronised by the camera people with their media bombardment and extraordinary claims of success at camera sites and now the truth comes out ....they've been lying to us, the public, officials, councillors, everyone, for years!
simplicissimus
says...
12:58am Fri 30 Jul 10
Diametrically opposed to freedom, too.
GTCE: gone.
Oxon road scameras: gone.
Feckless ASBOs: going.
(Thank G_d for the Coalition!)
Am relishing the glorious prospect of the removal of Labour from power in our City, soon, also.
thomashenry
says...
11:03am Fri 30 Jul 10
Insight
says...
1:03am Sat 31 Jul 10
thomashenry wrote:Thomas, you are either a member of staff at the partnership who believes that anyone buys into the politics of fear anymore and would react emotionally to your nonsense. Or you're simply an internet Troll who dives into grown up conversations and deliberatly plays devils advocate as a wind up.
I'm not sure what effect speed cameras had, but I do know the effect that removing them will have - I can finally drive FAST :>)
Either way ... you're not very good at it!
Insight
says...
1:09am Sat 31 Jul 10
...
If it's so irresponsible Mr Smith, why did 'your' Labour government fail to supply targets and therefore funding to CPO's to perform active casualty reduction operations as your government promoted the speed camera era, through misinformation and the politics of fear. A fact that was exposed by Theresa Villiers following a freedom of information request in the houses of parliament that shows under labour over 20% of this countries traffic police have disappeared.
In spite of your disingenuous stance, surely that is true irresponsibility?
Alfie Nokes
says...
4:47am Mon 2 Aug 10
Tom Daily wrote:Didn't they 'adjust' the electoral boundaries again...
The only irresponsible event which took place was Andrew Smith being re-elected.
thomashenry
says...
9:47am Mon 2 Aug 10
Insight wrote:Well I kept to the limit today cos I'm not 100% sure if the cameras have been turned off or not.
thomashenry wrote:Thomas, you are either a member of staff at the partnership who believes that anyone buys into the politics of fear anymore and would react emotionally to your nonsense. Or you're simply an internet Troll who dives into grown up conversations and deliberatly plays devils advocate as a wind up.
I'm not sure what effect speed cameras had, but I do know the effect that removing them will have - I can finally drive FAST :>)
Either way ... you're not very good at it!
It seems they have though, because while I was doing 30 through Dean's court this morning, I was overtaken by two cars doing at least 50.
The reason people are pleased about this change is because it means they can speed with impunity, as these people were doing.
I'm just being honest about it.
Insight
says...
6:54pm Mon 2 Aug 10
thomashenry wrote:Well thomas, this is why the country needs to stop funding the obsolete partnerships and direct that wasted money back into real police who can do all of the job.
Insight wrote:Well I kept to the limit today cos I'm not 100% sure if the cameras have been turned off or not. It seems they have though, because while I was doing 30 through Dean's court this morning, I was overtaken by two cars doing at least 50. The reason people are pleased about this change is because it means they can speed with impunity, as these people were doing. I'm just being honest about it.thomashenry wrote: I'm not sure what effect speed cameras had, but I do know the effect that removing them will have - I can finally drive FAST :>)Thomas, you are either a member of staff at the partnership who believes that anyone buys into the politics of fear anymore and would react emotionally to your nonsense. Or you're simply an internet Troll who dives into grown up conversations and deliberatly plays devils advocate as a wind up. Either way ... you're not very good at it!
You say these people speed with impunity, well I hate to break it to you, but drunk drivers having been using our streets with impunity ever since the impotent camera partnerships took over the job and the previous government slashed funding for active traffic policing.
I'd suggest that the only people who want to hang on to the partnerships are either members of staff who're facing redundancy, or those who've bought a sat nav and drive around with impunity even with the impotent camares in place.
Afterall, the last thing they want is to get caught by real police and having a bunch of static cameras and no police must be their idea of heaven.
thomashenry
says...
9:54am Tue 3 Aug 10
Anti speed camera types seem to alternate between accusing them of being a money making scheme, and being a waste of money, depending on what argument suits them.
It's pathetic. Just admit it - you are pleased speed cameras are going because it means there is less chance of you getting caught speeding.
Just be honest about it.
Insight
says...
4:33am Wed 4 Aug 10
thomashenry wrote:I'm being quite honest about it, if all the money wasted on partnerships is ploughed back into real police, funding them properly, equiping them properly, because it should never have been taken away in the first place, my personal opinion is that more people will be caught on the roads breaking all sorts of laws. Afterall, it's clear that cameras are no longer a money making scheme as you put it, now that the revenue has dried up, grants are being slashed and councils up and down the land are dropping them like hot potatoes.
Insight: I take it you've never described speed cameras as 'a money making scheme' then? Anti speed camera types seem to alternate between accusing them of being a money making scheme, and being a waste of money, depending on what argument suits them. It's pathetic. Just admit it - you are pleased speed cameras are going because it means there is less chance of you getting caught speeding. Just be honest about it.
Insight
says...
4:38am Wed 4 Aug 10
The days of this level of abject incompetence are over.
Insight
says...
4:50am Wed 4 Aug 10
This means I have no intention of paying my council taxes towards something that I don't see any benefit from. This is exacerbated by the fact that since the partnerships gained control, we don't see any real police around here either.
Now your child like partnership spin of "If you don't like speed cameras, you must therefore, by definition be a law breaker yourself" is really angering a lot of people, people just like me, who have children and live on a road that appears to have been totally forgotten about and all we're presented with is arogant, half witted idiots like you!
Get over it, you're going to be redundant and no one is going to miss you ...
thomashenry
says...
11:52am Wed 4 Aug 10
Insight wrote:But the speed cameras DO make money through fines!
thomashenry wrote:I'm being quite honest about it, if all the money wasted on partnerships is ploughed back into real police, funding them properly, equiping them properly, because it should never have been taken away in the first place, my personal opinion is that more people will be caught on the roads breaking all sorts of laws. Afterall, it's clear that cameras are no longer a money making scheme as you put it, now that the revenue has dried up, grants are being slashed and councils up and down the land are dropping them like hot potatoes.
Insight: I take it you've never described speed cameras as 'a money making scheme' then? Anti speed camera types seem to alternate between accusing them of being a money making scheme, and being a waste of money, depending on what argument suits them. It's pathetic. Just admit it - you are pleased speed cameras are going because it means there is less chance of you getting caught speeding. Just be honest about it.
The problem is the government not giving the money they raise back to the people running them (ie the partnerships).
This new government are expecting councils to pay for speed cameras, without letting them have any of the money they generate. So it's no wonder that council are scrapping them.
There has never been any diverting of funds from policing to speed cameras - you've just made that up to suit your argument.
BTW, policing budgets will be cut under the current government, so don't expect to see a rise in traffic patrols.
thomashenry
says...
11:57am Wed 4 Aug 10
Insight wrote:I'm going to be redundant? What are you on about, I'm a Software Engineer.
So thomas, I'll tell you why I'm glad to see the cameras go. It's because there isn't one near my house, I can only assume that there wasn't sufficient volume of traffic to justify the expenditure of erecting one and now that funding is slashed there isn't likely to be one either.
This means I have no intention of paying my council taxes towards something that I don't see any benefit from. This is exacerbated by the fact that since the partnerships gained control, we don't see any real police around here either.
Now your child like partnership spin of "If you don't like speed cameras, you must therefore, by definition be a law breaker yourself" is really angering a lot of people, people just like me, who have children and live on a road that appears to have been totally forgotten about and all we're presented with is arogant, half witted idiots like you!
Get over it, you're going to be redundant and no one is going to miss you ...
Your gripe now seems to be that you don't have a speed camera on your road, yet you are glad that they are being scrapped?
Like I say, the only people who will benefit from the removal of speed cameras are those who like to speed.
Cameras were a self funding way of enforcing speed limits, with only speeders paying for them. An optional tax if you like; if you don't speed, you don't pay.
The Torys have decided they don't want cameras, so have changed the funding rules to make it impossible for councils to keep them.
You've got nothing to be happy about with this news unless you want to drive over the speed limit.
Insight
says...
7:09pm Wed 4 Aug 10
This was inevitable, even from the start. So to claim they are self funding is quite simply incorrect. The fact that councils are now expected to pay out of everyones council taxes if they want to keep their cameras (effectively fining everyone for speeding, even those who can't drive) I restate that I have no intention of paying for them because we don't have one and we're not likely to either.
You'll note that I'm not questioning the law, or even speed limits, so please leave the tired worn out, "if you don't speed you won't get fined" spin out of this conversation, it's not relevant.
Insight
says...
7:17pm Wed 4 Aug 10
So the out of date spin of the partnerships looks more and more threadbare and irrelevant everytime it is exploited.
thomashenry
says...
9:35am Thu 5 Aug 10
Insight wrote:You don't get to pick and choose if you pay tax or not depending on your views on how it's spent. If so I'd immediately stop paying all taxes that get spent on funding foreign wars.
In 2007 speed camera fines across the country stood at £106 million roughly breaking even on partnership operating costs of £105 Million, by 2009 inspite of many more cameras and therefore a significant increase in operating costs fine revenue has decreased to £87 Million. With the downward trend in fine revenue established and exacerbated by easy access to sat navs and even mobile phone apps that render the entire countrys stock of speed cameras redundant to an ever increasing percentage of the motoring population it is clear that contrary to the Labour spin, the government are not cutting revenue, the revenue is simply drying up and therefore the grants are dwindling.
This was inevitable, even from the start. So to claim they are self funding is quite simply incorrect. The fact that councils are now expected to pay out of everyones council taxes if they want to keep their cameras (effectively fining everyone for speeding, even those who can't drive) I restate that I have no intention of paying for them because we don't have one and we're not likely to either.
You'll note that I'm not questioning the law, or even speed limits, so please leave the tired worn out, "if you don't speed you won't get fined" spin out of this conversation, it's not relevant.
So speed cameras made a 'profit' and 2007 and a 'loss' in 2009. Big deal.
Now your complaint seems to be that too many people slow down for cameras and therefore don't get caught.
This, I think I should remind you, is the whole point of them - to stop speeding.
So now you are complaining that they work too well.
thomashenry
says...
3:13pm Thu 5 Aug 10
http://www.oxfordmai
l.co.uk/news/8312846
.SPEED_CAMERA_SWITCH
_OFF__Drivers_fined_
__5m_over_five_years
/?ref=mr
Perhaps you ought to rethink some of your viewpoints?
Insight
says...
4:22am Fri 6 Aug 10
It's bad luck for all those who staked their careers on this white elephant and for those I do feel sorry, facing redundancy in the current climate can't be a nice thought. However, it is time to move on and rehashing a failed project isn't going to put anything right.
The horse has bolted, there's little point discussing who left the barn door open!
Insight
says...
4:25am Fri 6 Aug 10
thomashenry
says...
10:55am Fri 6 Aug 10
I just find it pathetic that other people won't admit that this is the reason they are pleased to see them go.
Insight
says...
9:25pm Fri 6 Aug 10
Good luck fella, your sat nav won't save you now 'real' police will have to be returned to the roads and can catch you at it, any time, any place. Best you make sure you car is legal too, check your tyres, replace that noisy exhaust, turn that ridiculous stereo down and learn to drive responsibly ..or at least take a taxi home from the pub.
I look forward to hearing you complain about being caught on your mobile!
thomashenry
says...
1:29pm Mon 9 Aug 10
Police budgets are going to be cut, and the cost of policing speed using manpower instead of cameras is huge.
The reduction in cameras will not be balanced out by an increased police presence - I have no idea where you got that idea from.
Still, cling onto it if it makes you feel better.
Insight
says...
5:42am Tue 10 Aug 10
thomashenry
says...
12:47pm Tue 10 Aug 10
Insight wrote:More Police on the road will cost more money. Money that the government doesn't have.
So, you don't want police back on the roads then thomas, you'd prefer cameras?, just as I thought, you hate the idea of being caught now that you've got a sat nav and camera surfing off pat, you are transparant me ole china!
In fact, the government will in fact be making CUTS to the Police budget, so there will be fewer Police cars on patrol if anything.
I've never said anything about whether I want more Police on the roads or not; you've just made that bit up yourself.
What I'm trying to say to you is that there will NOT be more police on the road to compensate for the loss of cameras, like you seem to think there will be!
If you want more active policing, you need a bigger Police budget, and higher taxes. Something tells me that you are not the sort of person who would vote for higher taxes.
The reality is that it is now much easier to speed in Oxfordshire, and the chances of getting caught are now tiny. I know you don't want to believe this, but it's true.
Insight
says...
9:42am Thu 12 Aug 10
thomashenry wrote:I'd suggest thomas that the chances of being caught were rapidly reducing even before the cameras were switched off.
Insight wrote: So, you don't want police back on the roads then thomas, you'd prefer cameras?, just as I thought, you hate the idea of being caught now that you've got a sat nav and camera surfing off pat, you are transparant me ole china!More Police on the road will cost more money. Money that the government doesn't have. In fact, the government will in fact be making CUTS to the Police budget, so there will be fewer Police cars on patrol if anything. I've never said anything about whether I want more Police on the roads or not; you've just made that bit up yourself. What I'm trying to say to you is that there will NOT be more police on the road to compensate for the loss of cameras, like you seem to think there will be! If you want more active policing, you need a bigger Police budget, and higher taxes. Something tells me that you are not the sort of person who would vote for higher taxes. The reality is that it is now much easier to speed in Oxfordshire, and the chances of getting caught are now tiny. I know you don't want to believe this, but it's true.
This is adequately demonstrated in the plummeting revenue down from £106 million just two years ago to just £87 million in the last year as an ever increasing segment of society opt out of speed camera fines altogether by buying avoidance technology such as sat navs and even smart phone app's that render the entire countrys stock of twentieth century cameras redundant and that's even with many more cameras and therefore more staff and consequentially higher operating costs of the partnerships.
Couple this with much reduced grants coming back from central government as the pot of revenue dwindles and it's clear to see why so many councils have been forced to opt out and close parternships all over the country.
As you rightly say, there are to be police funding cut backs due to the squander and waste of the previous government, it's a shame all the money was wasted on these now obsolete partnerships instead of spending the money wisely on lasting road safety measures.
Therefore, I'm not totally sure what you're arguing about, unless you're just doing it for the hell of it.
The camera project is defunct and obsolete, yes we know, police cut backs are due, yes, we know, it's a hell of a mess and a stark legacy of former incompetence, yes, we know.
So why do you go on stating the obvious in an argumentative fashion?
Insight
says...
9:48am Thu 12 Aug 10
More News stories
A speed camera in Nuneham Courtenay
Andrew Smith
Ed Vaizey
Most popular
Local Information
Enter your postcode, town or place name
Ian groves says...
10:03pm Tue 27 Jul 10