Previously the Wiltshire and Swindon Safety Camera Partnership (WSSCP) said cameras had reduced crashes by 64%.

Paul Smith, of the independent Safe Speed campaign said the WSSCP claims did not make sense.

Data interpretation

"There is absolutely no mechanism by which their claims could be true," said Mr Smith.

"Far from making the roads safer, cameras have damaged the foundations of British road safety by squandering massive resources on a minor safety factor."

Data supplied to the Department for Transport for the seven specific collision cluster sites on the M4 showed out of the 90 collisions analyzed, 16 (17.77%) were specifically caused by speeding, according to the officer at the scene.

A further 51 were judged to have speed as a causing factor (either inappropriate or excessive speed) and the remaining 23 collisions were not speed related.

Based on this, the WSSCP said: "Therefore out of the 90 collisions examined, 74% were judged to have excess speed or inappropriate speed as a causation factor."

Paul Smith disagrees with the partnership's interpretation of the data.

"Excessive speed is not the same as exceeding a speed limit," he said. "It includes speed inappropriate for the conditions as well as speed in excess of the speed limit."

Source: BBC News

THE Government is blocking the installation of nearly 500 new speed cameras amid signs that ministers are beginning to doubt the effectiveness of the devices.

The 38 camera partnerships, which include police forces and local authorities, have been ordered not to use cameras at any new sites. The ban includes places where there have been several fatal crashes caused by speeding vehicles.

The Association of Chief Police Officers (ACPO) condemned the ban, saying that it could cost lives because dangerous roads were being left unprotected by cameras.

The Department for Transport is reviewing the rules on deploying cameras after concerns that partnerships have failed to consider alternatives, such as improving junctions or erecting warning signs.

The review is being overseen by Stephen Ladyman, the new Road Safety Minister, who has been caught three times by speed cameras and at one stage had nine points on his licence, one offence away from a six-month ban. More than two million drivers received speed camera fines last year, a tenfold increase in less than a decade.

In a letter sent to the partnerships this week, the department said that it had decided not to approve any more sites until it received a report on the peformance of existing sites. It ordered partnerships to revise their budgets because they would receive less revenue than expected from fines. Under the scheme introduced five years ago, partnerships are allowed to keep a proportion of camera fines to pay for more cameras.

The scheme has prompted claims that partnership staff may favour cameras over other solutions because they need to ensure a steady flow of income to pay their salaries. The department is understood to be concerned that it may have exaggerated the benefits of cameras by failing to allow for the random nature of crashes.

Partnership managers accused the department of failing to give an adequate explanation for the ban. One told The Times: “We submitted our operational case in November but the department has been dragging its feet for eight months. They are clearly rethinking their policy but they haven’t got the honesty to say so.”

Ian Bell, ACPO’s speed camera liaison officer, said: “I am concerned that any delay in installing cameras where they are most needed increases the risk of speed-related crashes.

“All the sites submitted for approval to the department meet the existing criteria so it is difficult to understand why they have not been approved.”

There must have been at least four crashes involving death or serious injury per kilometre in the previous three years before a fixed camera can be installed, or two crashes for a mobile camera.

Three people died recently in two collisions on a road in Cheshire which had already had enough crashes to qualify for a camera. Lee Murphy, manager of the Cheshire partnership, said that the deaths had happened in May, six months after he had applied to the department for permission to begin mobile camera enforcement. “We were still waiting for a response when the accidents happened. We have now decided to use cameras there anyway because we just can’t wait any longer.”

Forces can deploy cameras wherever they choose for up to 15 per cent of the total time that they spend enforcing speed limits.

The Parliamentary Advisory Council for Transport Safety, which supports speed cameras, admitted yesterday that some may not be justified. Rob Gifford, the council’s director, said: “In some cases a partnership may have chosen to install a camera when an engineering solution may have been better.

“But we still believe the department should have the courage of its convictions. Cameras have been proven to work, and people may die if there is a delay in enforcing a site.”

Mr Gifford said the doubling of camera sites to about 6,000 in the past five years had helped to reduce speeding. Since 2000 the proportion of vehicles exceeding the limit in 30mph zones has fallen from 66 per cent to 53 per cent.

Paul Smith, of the anti-camera campaign Safe Speed, said: “I’m delighted that the department appears to be realising that it has used bogus statistics to justify more cameras.”

Source: The Times by Ben Webster, Transport Correspondent

There will be no new speed cameras deployed in the UK for several months pending a report into their effectiveness, the Department for Transport (DfT) has announced. The University College London probe is not expected to be completed until the end of the year, and all applications for new cameras are duly suspended.

A DfT spokeswoman told AP: "Every year, those in the camera partnership scheme submit applications to us for new camera sites. This year we are waiting for this independent review to be completed before approving any new sites. The review has been delayed.

"There should have been a report out in June, but it's taking longer than expected. We are not blocking the use of new cameras. It's important that we get everything right in relation to the whole issue of cameras," she concluded.

Source: The Register by Lester Haines