Time to map out a plan for Villa's future
- Says blogger Matthew Turvey
Try looking both ways for speed solution
Tuesday 14th October 2008, 9:03AM BST.
I’ve read with interest about Councillor Anthony Harris’s much-publicised campaign to oust “unsightly yellow speed cameras” from Walsall.
He claims that the cameras do not cut accidents but are simply “cash cows” targeting motorists to raise money for the Treasury.
I ask myself what action has been taken, as part of his review, to consult residents who may have campaigned for a camera to be erected? Also, if the cameras, which are set to catch people exceeding the set speed limit, are to go, then by implication he believes the speed limits on those roads must be set too low?
So what does he propose the new speed limits should be on these roads? Perhaps he feels there should be no limits. If the limits are, however, to remain because they are felt to be right in the circumstances, how can he claim that the cameras are just cash-raising items?
What deterrent does he see being used to ensure drivers stick to a speed determined as “safe” for the prevailing road conditions?
We’ve all seen people driving at stupid speeds, without any thought for other road users or pedestrians.
Personally, I have little sympathy with many of the drivers caught speeding (some on several occasions).
They can clearly afford to be hit in the pocket by a speeding fine.
I know it is a popular view to dislike speed cameras (even being promoted by some as clever to vandalise them) but I wish we could have a rational debate about their use.
I have written to Councillor Harris seeking answers to my questions but have received no reply. I wonder what he attributes the continuing decline in road deaths (the lowest since 1928) to, particularly as we have an ever increasing number of cars and drivers?
Roy Sheward, Redhouse Lane, Aldridge.
Sponsored Links
Business Awards
Read the full story here
Full coverage of awards celebrating the region's best businesses.
Lifestyle
Interactive Dining Out map
Hundreds of reviews by the Express & Star and Shropshire Star's teams to help you decide where to eat.
LIVE traffic updates
Road, rail and airport - latest
Our new, live traffic and travel updates service - check before you set out.
OUR NEW APP
Get the new E&S app
Download the Express & Star’s new app to your iPad or iPhone to get one week of access to our digital newspapers absolutely FREE.
expressandstar.com
Popular sections
Useful links
I bet this Councillor would have a heart attack if Walsall Council had to foot the bill to treat all the people injured in road accidents in Walsall.
As everyone else picks up the bill through tax to the NHS, he’s eager to pipe a different tune. I wish Councillors had to pass an IQ test before elected, we’d have more sensible governance then…
Report abuse
I have to wonder if this councillor has ever been forced to pay due to speeding.
Now if you want a cash-cow, just change the speed limit down by 10mph and don’t tell anyone – just update the cameras.
That would be a cash-cow.
However, in this country we have laws. We may not agree with all of them, some can be daft. But they are still laws.
Break them and pay. Don’t break them, don’t pay.
Perhaps people would prefer police to do more radar gun checks of speed instead? Can’t say thats a cash cow can we?
Uses up more resources better spent elsewhere, people say. Which is why we had the fixed cameras in the first place!
Report abuse
Regulation of speed is important, but people should consider whether the drop in road deaths may be due to the vast improvements in vehicle safety,rather than falling speed limits. I cannot comment on the effectiveness of the cameras in question, but am aware of criticism of cameras in general.
Report abuse
The problem with speed cameras is they are s sledgehammer to crack a nut. Government figures show only about 3% of accidents are solely related to excess speed. Speed cameras don’t pick up general bad driving, driving whilst under drink or drugs, or without a belt, or using a mobile phone, or unroadworthy cars, without insurance or MOT, or without a licence. I’d rather see real police patrols clamping down on ALL aspects of bad driving than cash cameras. Alternatively, how about someone designing a speed bump which wouldn’t be felt below 30 mph but would give you a nasty jolt above it. There must be engineers who could design such a thing?
Report abuse
the reason road deaths have fallen has nothing to do with speed camaras.and everything to do with how well cars are built,crumple zones,side inpact bars,air bags,what we want is police back in their cars patroling the roads having a zero tolarance policy towards law breakers.bad driving is the cause of padestrians being killed on our roads.some one has to make a car speed the same has some one has to pull the trigger of a gun.
Report abuse
True – its not cars that kill people, its people that kill people.
Perhaps something could be added to the cars so they detect bad driving, of whatever type?
Like Paul’s idea, a design issue rather than a major problem.
Or an electronic limiter that receives its signals from the signpost showing change of speed limit?
Speed affects damage in an accident. Many causes of accidents that have nothing to do with speed itself – speed merely adding to the problem.
Getting drivers to take a bit more care may work too. Between talking on the mobile and putting on makeup, hard for some people to concentrate on other traffic too… :)
Report abuse
Also, are those who try to effect the lives of all drivers with speed humps when they are really just angry with those who speed not aware of the Dunlop Transcalm? This is an air-filled speed hump with a valve which allows those travelling accross the hump at normal speed to be barely effected, whereas those who speed cause the speed hump to remain inflated. Surely this is a brilliant comrprimise and a welcome change from the usual scenario of residents at loggerheads over traffic calming.
Report abuse
The main problem with speed scameras are that all the ‘before’ figures for accidents are taken from an area of 3kms around the proposed site. Even accidents on parallel roads, distant traffic islands and housing estates are added together.
The ‘after’ figures are then taken at the scamera site, ie. 25metres on one road. Spot the fiddle! Some local scameras had an official 5 year accident level at the site of 0.0 prior to being put in. After, the level rose to 3.0. They were hailed as a huge success, (at raising money).
Report abuse