Our last editorial on the subject of speed cameras in Bristol made coverage all over the UK when we were able to demonstrate that, using the Government’s own statistics, the number of those Killed and Seriously Injured at camera sites in Avon & Somerset increased substantially from 131 to 142 (8.8%) in 2002-03 according to the National Safety Camera Programme Four Year Evaluation Report, commissioned by the government from PA Consulting.
Since 2003 the number of people killed and seriously injured at camera sites have declined by 12.2% according to the Safety Camera Partnership’s 2004-05 Review. That means that since 2003 – with 297 cameras – the number of KSI’s at camera sites in Avon & Somerset has declined by only 3.4%. This works out at about one less casualty per year, which is almost at the level of statistical anomaly.
We’ll say it again. We’re NOT in favour of irresponsible driving. We do, however, want the systems to hold dangerous drivers to account to be themselves accountable. The Safety Camera Partnership were invited to talk to the BBC at the same time as we were. They declined. We rang up to interview them for the last issue of this magazine. They never returned our calls. You might also notice that they’ve pulled their advertising from this magazine.
Surely there has to be debate about the issues which affect so many members of the population?
At Accelerate Bristol we’re worried that the introduction of new cameras into the region could have a similar impact on casualty figures as the first round of cameras back in 2002/03, when the number of people killed and seriously injured at camera sites actually went up.
You may have noticed the headline on this piece. Broken promises? What can we mean?
No new camera sites to be introduced in 2006. That’s the proud claim of the Safety Camera Partnership as I write this, (ironically, in early 2007). However, the front cover of the Evening Post, 7th December 2006 boasts of the installation of new cameras on Allison Road in Brislington. The Safety Camera Partnership aren’t named in the piece – but it would be unusual for a Safety camera NOT to come under the jurisdiction of the partnership.
So, perhaps not the installation of the camera in 2006 – but certainly the announcement of a new one. Makes a mockery of the 2006 promise, doesn’t it?
If that wasn’t enough, the evidence increases that no-one – not the public, and not even the Police – see speed cameras as an effective means of slowing down the motorist.
The Select Committee on Transport’s Tenth Report says that there is “no hard evidence” of public “support for the programme and use of camera technology”, and in the same report, ACPO and the Police Federation believe that there should be less emphasis on cameras. That’s the Association of Chief Police Officers AND the rank and file of the force.
In the same report, we also find out that as of this year all revenues from speed cameras will go directly back to the Treasury. Until now, one of the arguments used in favour of speed cameras was that they effectively cost nothing, because revenues from speeding drivers were used to fund their development. From 2007, though, a fixed amount (£110m) will be paid back to local authorities regardless of revenues raised. This £110m goes back into local authorities through the Local Transport Plan system. Any surplus goes into the treasury.
In other words, the whole argument about speed cameras NOT being a tax on motorists has just gone out of the window. And how your local authority decides to spend the remaining money that they get is up to them.
The question that we have to ask is - will the Partnership be under pressure to place more cameras as a result? The Select Committee also recommended the lifting of restrictions on the placement of cameras to previous accident sites, meaning that cameras can now be placed anywhere. Will those in charge of safety cameras start to be goaled on revenue generation? Certainly, the infrastructure is being hoisted into place.
The current situation is overkill. We don’t believe in the effectiveness of cameras. They’re a sledgehammer to crack a nut – with the number of people whose daily lives are affected far outweighing the number of accidents prevented.
The restrictions on airports after the last terrorist threat were rapidly lifted once the threat was taken care of. But the drivers of Bristol’s roads put up with similar levels of inconvenience every working day, with no letup in sight.
What do you think? We really want to hear your views. Email us at mail@acceleratebristol.com.
