Law abiding drivers in Swindon going to be targeted by ANPR
Law abiding drivers in Swindon going to be targeted by ANPR
Author
Discussion

robinessex

Original Poster:

11,863 posts

204 months

Thursday
quotequote all
Law-abiding drivers in Swindon are going to be targeted by ANPR.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cewz8zzj94po

'Speed' cameras return 15 years after being switched off

New Automatic Number Plate Recognition (ANPR) cameras are set to be installed, 15 years after a town scrapped its speed cameras.

Swindon Borough Council was the first authority in England to switch off all its fixed speed cameras, claiming they did not lower the number of accidents on roads.

Now in a bid to identify speeding drivers, ANPR devices are being trialled at five locations.

Councillor Chris Watts said: "While these first cameras are only a trial, I'm hopeful it will be a success, and we can bring more to the borough to make sure we catch those that flaunt the speed limits."

IN 2009, THE TOWN DISMANTLED ITS SPEED CAMERAS AFTER THE COUNCIL CONCLUDED THEY WERE INEFFECTIVE IN REDUCING ROAD TRAFFIC ACCIDENTS, STATING THAT ONLY 6% OF INCIDENTS WERE ATTRIBUTED TO SPEEDING.

Now, in a bid to make roads safer, the authority is installing five cameras at Okus Road, Akers Way, Grange Drive, Croft Road and Homington Avenue.

As part of the pilot scheme, any driver caught speeding could be sent a warning letter and have their details shared with police.

A council spokesperson said the devices are not technically speed cameras as they do not automatically give out punishments.

But "should the police wish to take action" then that could result in "fines or further punishment", the spokesperson added.

Watts said although the town's roads have fewer serious injury incidents than the national average, the council is "committed to making local roads safer".

"One of the best ways to do that is to make sure people know their speed is being watched," he said.

Almost impossible to comment on this. Just another revenue-grabbing exercise by an idiotic councilor. Why not spend the cost of this on fixing the bloody potholes instead?

Antony Moxey

10,280 posts

242 months

Thursday
quotequote all
What a stupid post. If they're 'law abiding' then what are they being targeted for? And if they are being targeted then how will they be prosecuted if they're law abiding?

POIDH

2,856 posts

88 months

Thursday
quotequote all
What a nonsense post.
It is for safety of all users that we check those with most responsibility - vehicles on the road.
And if you are within the basic expectations of the law and a responsible driver, there is nothing to be objected to.
We should all welcome prosecution of drivers who speed / no insurance / a multitude of other offences here, as it makes it safer for us all.

robinessex

Original Poster:

11,863 posts

204 months

Thursday
quotequote all
Antony Moxey said:
What a stupid post. If they're 'law abiding' then what are they being targeted for? And if they are being targeted then how will they be prosecuted if they're law abiding?
Councillor Chris Watts, Cabinet Member for Environment and Transport, said:

While data shows Swindon s roads have lower than average incidents which cause serious injury, we are not satisfied and are committed to making local roads safer. One of the best ways to do that is to make sure people know their speed is being watched.

Looks as if the drivers are already driving carefully, and with speed relevant in only 6% of accidents, why the new persecution?

Master Bean

4,897 posts

143 months

Thursday
quotequote all
Why is a man living in Essex so interested in an ANPR camera in Swindon? I live here and don't really care.

king arthur

7,638 posts

284 months

Thursday
quotequote all
The problem is that once a council knows it can force everyone to observe the limit, it starts reducing them for spurious reasons.

BertBert

20,883 posts

234 months

Thursday
quotequote all
POIDH said:
We should all welcome prosecution of drivers who speed / no insurance / a multitude of other offences here, as it makes it safer for us all.
How does that work then?

BertBert

20,883 posts

234 months

Thursday
quotequote all
It's quite a clever move. As they are not enforcement cameras then they can be set at any threshold the operator likes. Generating letters for 1 or 2 mph over or even warnings on or below the limit. "Do you realise that you were nearly exceeding the speed limit there Bert?"

No governance or type approval needed. Clever and wholly unwarranted. What a complete waste of money. Morons

BlindedByTheLights

1,934 posts

120 months

Thursday
quotequote all
Council needs money = speed cameras installed again.

Insert something about road safety.

E-bmw

12,191 posts

175 months

Thursday
quotequote all
Antony Moxey said:
What a stupid post. If they're 'law abiding' then what are they being targeted for? And if they are being targeted then how will they be prosecuted if they're law abiding?
Never let the truth get in the way of a sensational headline. wink

Wacky Racer

40,609 posts

270 months

Thursday
quotequote all

remedy

2,162 posts

214 months

Thursday
quotequote all
BertBert said:
POIDH said:
We should all welcome prosecution of drivers who speed / no insurance / a multitude of other offences here, as it makes it safer for us all.
How does that work then?
Because those with no insurance tend to drive more recklessly. Will drive off from accidents more recklessly and also may not even be qualified to drive, ergo can't get insurance.

simon_harris

2,594 posts

57 months

Thursday
quotequote all
Perhaps what we should be doing is looking at Swindon and asking why the rates are lower and what lessons can we take from there and implement around the rest of the country instead.

Antony Moxey

10,280 posts

242 months

Thursday
quotequote all
robinessex said:
Antony Moxey said:
What a stupid post. If they're 'law abiding' then what are they being targeted for? And if they are being targeted then how will they be prosecuted if they're law abiding?
Councillor Chris Watts, Cabinet Member for Environment and Transport, said:

While data shows Swindon s roads have lower than average incidents which cause serious injury, we are not satisfied and are committed to making local roads safer. One of the best ways to do that is to make sure people know their speed is being watched.

Looks as if the drivers are already driving carefully, and with speed relevant in only 6% of accidents, why the new persecution?
Again, how are they being persecuted if they're abiding by the law?

Frimley111R

18,390 posts

257 months

Thursday
quotequote all
BlindedByTheLights said:
Council needs money = speed cameras installed again.

Insert something about road safety.
I am sure you're right but do the fines go to the councils?

Ours spent £330k on av speed cameras and combined accident info spread over 7 years to justify the spend.

simon_harris

2,594 posts

57 months

Thursday
quotequote all
Frimley111R said:
BlindedByTheLights said:
Council needs money = speed cameras installed again.

Insert something about road safety.
I am sure you're right but do the fines go to the councils?

Ours spent £330k on av speed cameras and combined accident info spread over 7 years to justify the spend.
Fines are usually split between the police (reducing funding from the local council?) and the camera operators (who never ever have any links to the people proposing that they be installed)

BertBert

20,883 posts

234 months

Thursday
quotequote all
Frimley111R said:
I am sure you're right but do the fines go to the councils?

Ours spent £330k on av speed cameras and combined accident info spread over 7 years to justify the spend.
There are no fines for these cameras

boyse7en

7,938 posts

188 months

Thursday
quotequote all
robinessex said:
Looks as if the drivers are already driving carefully, and with speed relevant in only 6% of accidents, why the new persecution?
That was the figure the research showed in 2009. A lot can change in 17 years in terms of road layout, amount of traffic, population size, and the propensity (or not) of the local citizens to exceed the speed limits. Obviously the council now feels that there is a justification to reinstall some cameras.

robinessex

Original Poster:

11,863 posts

204 months

Thursday
quotequote all
boyse7en said:
robinessex said:
Looks as if the drivers are already driving carefully, and with speed relevant in only 6% of accidents, why the new persecution?
That was the figure the research showed in 2009. A lot can change in 17 years in terms of road layout, amount of traffic, population size, and the propensity (or not) of the local citizens to exceed the speed limits. Obviously the council now feels that there is a justification to reinstall some cameras.
I seriously don't believe it's changed, although the police try to include speed as a more significant contributor. If you want to be pedantic, the ONLY accident solely attributable to excessive speed is exceeding the cornering capability of your car.

pavarotti1980

6,022 posts

107 months

Thursday
quotequote all
simon_harris said:
Fines are usually split between the police (reducing funding from the local council?) and the camera operators (who never ever have any links to the people proposing that they be installed)
FPNs for speeding go to central government. Only SAC fees are fed back into the local constabulary purse and they then contract the service out