Common Sense in Swindon

I see that the righteous (^TM Leg-Iron) are getting their knickers in a predictable knot over the decision by Swindon Council to do away with their speed cameras.

The decision is a pragmatic one underpinned by common sense – something that is sadly lacking in politics today – both at a local and national level.

Swindon has became the first town in the UK to do away with fixed-point speed cameras.

The nine-strong cabinet of the Tory-run council voted unanimously in favour of withdrawing from the Wiltshire and Swindon Safety Camera Partnership.

This does not mean – as the righteous would have us believe – that Swindon is about to become a boy racer’s paradise.

Police will still be out and about with hand-held speed-measuring devices. Mr Greenhalgh added: “We will be working very closely with our partners, including police in the road safety partnership to deliver a plan that reduced the number of people being killed on the roads in Swindon.”

This is how enforcement should work – it should be dynamic and respond to changes in traffic flows and patterns. The police, being people, will be able to make judgements about where to place traps (as, indeed, they used to do before the obsession with cameras). They will also be able to observe the offender’s driving and make a judgement about whether to caution or prosecute. Sometimes a ticking off along with a lecture about appropriate speed for the circumstances, along with a caution is the correct response to an otherwise competent driver who is marginally over the speed limit. This, of course, flies in the face of the righteous’ shrill assertions that “speed kills”. It does not. What does kill is bad driving, which may, or may not, involve excessive speed for the situation. Driving is a holistic activity and there is more to it than speed. Indeed, too much time concentrating on the speedometer is counter productive. The driver should be watching the road for changing conditions, road hazards and traffic and adjust the drive accordingly.

He said that in 2007/08, 70 people had been killed on the streets of Swindon and that this was proof that fixed-point speed cameras were not working to curb motorists’ excessive speed.

Well of course they don’t. Once drivers know where they are, they slow down for the camera and then speed up again. That this would happen was obvious to all but the incredibly dense (and the safety camera partnerships). Fixed speed cameras are, if anything, a tax on the unobservant, nothing more.

Swindon’s decision is a sensible one – even if is was initially motivated by the factor of who gets the money (central government) and who funds the cameras (local council). One hopes that other councils will take note and follow suit.

However…

Road safety groups have accused Swindon council of experimenting with people’s lives today after the town became the first in the UK to abolish speed cameras.

This is an assertion, nothing more. Swindon are choosing to spend money on enforcement in a more pragmatic (and probably cost effective) manner. Good for them and if the righteous don’t like it, well, it’s about time someone told them to stick it where the sun don’t shine.

Jane Whitham, a spokeswoman for Brake, the national road safety charity, said that the controversial choice could result in more deaths in the area.

“Brake wholeheartedly opposes this reckless decision,” she said. “In removing its speed cameras, Swindon Borough Council is entering into a very dangerous experiment with people’s lives.”  

Ah, yes, a charity… Well, hardly balanced viewpoint then. These days when a spokesperson for a charity pipes up, I tend to wonder where they get their money from and what is their vested interest. I then stop taking any notice of them. However, as Swindon council has explained, they are not about to stop enforcing speed limits, they are merely not using fixed cameras to do it. What they are planning to do amounts to good old fashioned policing. This is not “reckless” nor is it “experimenting with people’s lives” it is reverting to a tried and tested method that not only involves enforcement, it involves the opportunity for police to look at how people are driving and to engage with them. There is also the opportunity for them to educate. And, too, there is an opportunity (one hopes) for them to spot other, more dangerous offences and do something about them – something a fixed camera cannot do. This is hardly reckless.

Neil Greig, research and policy director at the Institute of Advanced Motorists, claimed that Swindon’s decision could diminish the reputation of speed cameras.

There was a time when I rated the IAM – indeed, I was once a member. Now they are just another of the shrill voices. How it could be possible to diminish the reputation of something that is already held in such utter contempt – and treated accordingly – by drivers is difficult to imagine.

“This move by one local authority smacks of tokenism, and may fuel public cynicism that the priority is saving cash rather than saving lives. To describe revenue from safety cameras as a ’tax’ is emotive, but not true,” he said.

I’m afraid it is true. I also understand why the local council objects to paying for them when it does not receive the subsequent revenue. However, they are not about to stop enforcement – they are merely choosing not to use this method. It is odd, is it not, that otherwise intelligent people (one presumes, charitably) are incapable of seeing beyond this one, rather poor, method of enforcement and assume (incorrectly) that doing away with it will in some way make roads more dangerous. A sensible approach to having tried something that does not work particularly well, is to either go back to what does work or try something new. Sensible, yes, but clearly not righteous.