More speed cameras could go in Derby as second review finishes
THE second phase of a speed camera review in Derby has been completed and could trigger the removal of more cameras.
Derby City Council has 19 fixed cameras in the city but the Conservatives made it an election pledge to move away from using them to reduce speed.
-
This speed camera in Harvey Road, Alvaston, was covered up as part of the review into whether such devices are still needed.
They instigated a review of camera sites which resulted in three cameras being removed last year – in Burton Road, Nottingham Road and Chellaston Road.
The work has continued during the Conservative's joint administration of the council with the Liberal Democrats.
The results of speed studies at four more sites will be considered by the cabinet members responsible – Councillor Matthew Holmes and Councillor Chris Poulter – on Wednesday.
Officers assessed speeds with the cameras and then covered them up and continued to monitor speed before removing the covers.
Mr Holmes, cabinet member for planning and environment, said the research had shown a one-size-fits-all approach was not appropriate.
"When we started, we felt that speed cameras had had their day and there were better ways of reducing speeds," he said.
"What this has shown is that it is not as simple as that and it has allowed us to look at each road individually and outside factors which could influence speed, stats and patterns to form a view of what should be done for the best."
The latest four sites under review were in Nottingham Road, Osmaston Park Road, Derby Road near Asda and Harvey Road.
In all but one of those locations – Nottingham Road – officers said there was evidence the cameras had contributed to a reduction in accidents and recommended they stayed in place unless alternative measures were identified.
Mr Poulter, cabinet member for neighbourhoods, said in those cases alternative measures such as signs which illuminate with the speed limit if drivers exceeded it, would be explored.
"What the research showed was that there was no considerable increase in the average speed and that the average speed was still below the limit," he said.
"Officers have not recommended removal in three sites because the statistics show a reduction in casualties since their introduction.
"Those figures can't be looked at in isolation though.
"In some cases there have also been changes to road layout which could have contributed and where there is speeding, in some cases, such as near Asda, that is more likely to be late at night because in the daytime it would be hard to speed along that road.
"That's why we need to consider whether it is speed cameras or whether other, targeted measures which we could put in place at certain times, would be more appropriate and effective in reducing speed."
A decision on whether to replace the cameras with other measures will be made by the cabinet members on Wednesday.
10 Comments
by P_Bear
Friday, January 27 2012, 4:12PM
“by Derby_Stu
I am taking on green roads advice though. I am training a pack of huskys to pull my car to work, thus vastly decreasing my carbon footprint (apart from the odd husky methane moment)."
I hope you've got a good supply of poop bags,
Oh no, wait a minute, they are plastic and the EU says platic bags aren't "green". Maybe you should put the dogs in the car and push it yourself ?”
by Derby_Stu
Friday, January 27 2012, 3:41PM
“Bob, it's all relative. What to they class as speeding? 1mph over the limt or 10mph??
The cameras have gone as the council paid for and ran them through the road safety partnership and as all the fines revenue went to the treasury, councils cannot afford to run them anymore!
I am taking on green roads advice though. I am training a pack of huskys to pull my car to work, thus vastly decreasing my carbon footprint (apart from the odd husky methane moment).”
by Fasty
Friday, January 27 2012, 3:17PM
“"Since the camera was switched off 50 drivers per day had been speeding."
Any accidents?”
by B_o_b1
Friday, January 27 2012, 2:06PM
“I heard on Radio Derby one morning this week someone from the council saying that, in one location by way of example, when the camera was in operation an average of ten dirvers per day were cuaght speeding. Since the camera was switched off 50 drivers per day had been speeding.
How do they know? Unless someone had been in situ for 24 hours checking.”
by P_Bear
Friday, January 27 2012, 1:53PM
“by Green_Roads
the cameras must stay to help pay for fighting CO2 levels. Drivers can't have it both ways."
OK "green_roads" - You say sppeed cameras fight CO2 levels. Cars are at their most economical and therefore least polluting when driven at around 55-65 mph - so do your agree then that we should introduce MINIMUM speed limits of 50 & maximums of 70 on all roads - to reduce CO2 ?”
by Wafty
Friday, January 27 2012, 1:09PM
“wow - the cameras help to pay to fight CO2 levels! - you learn something new every day on these forums.....I also assume that on planet green_roads, no-one would ever be prosecuted for speeding if they could prove that they were making a necessary journey or that there was no viable public transport alternative?”
by SpeedyReidy
Friday, January 27 2012, 1:07PM
“Green_roads,
They are "speed cameras": Not 'green cameras', 'save the trees cameras' or 'lentil-o-matic hybrid cameras'.
Increased PERSONAL transport and mobility is the future. Of course we should invest in new technologies to reduce the impact of our lifestyles on the environment, but restricting us to public transport etc. etc. is just backwards. Public transport only works if you meet certain criteria and you have to compromise in too many areas for it to be appropriate for most people. If I had to rely on public transport to get everywhere, I wouldn't have time to sleep at night!”
by Green_Roads
Friday, January 27 2012, 11:36AM
“If people keep insisting to make non needed car journeys instead of taking public transport and in turn contributing to already high levels of CO2 then the cameras must stay to help pay for fighting CO2 levels. Drivers can't have it both ways.”
by DavidGaleUKIP
Friday, January 27 2012, 10:59AM
“Given the Home Office discussions about the likely costs of a successful legal challenge on those GATSOs that hadn't had their power supply units tested since their installation, I'm surprised it's taking quite so long to get rid of them.
Still no word yet either on an investigation following Derby Magistrates' Court's admission that they applied the worng penalty codes to an unknown number of driving licences thereby increasing drivers' insurance premiums unnecessairly.
Just who is going to hold these people to account?”
by SpeedyReidy
Friday, January 27 2012, 10:21AM
“The best way to improve road safety is to encourage safe and responsible driving through better driver training. - Use the "carrot" rather than the "stick" approach and in the long term you'll make a bigger difference.
Of course, you'll still get idiots disregarding everyone else and racing through housing estates at 50, but just as with the unlicensed and uninsured, speed cameras don't prevent that anyway. - Those troglodytes need to be prevented from driving altogether, and that's where proper traffic police come in.”