News RSS Feed Send your news, pictures & videos


Watford speed camera upgrade scrapped as funding cut


A scheme to upgrade Watford’s speed cameras has been put on hold, as Government spending cuts continue to bite.

The Hertfordshire Safety Camera Partnership, jointly operated by the county council, police, and courts service, was in the process of upgrading the town’s stock of wet film cameras – which need to be emptied manually – to automated digital devices.

But the scheme, affecting more than a dozen cameras in the Watford area, has now been put on hold after the Government announced this week that central funding for speed cameras would be withdrawn.

Local authorities up and down the country are now working out how to plug the holes in their annual camera budgets.

In Oxfordshire, the funding reduction has led to a decision to scrap all speed cameras. In Hertfordshire, however, councillors have announced that there are no plans (for the time being) to reduce the number of cameras in the county.

Instead, explained Councillor Stuart Pile, executive member for road safety, no action will be taken until other options, including efficiency savings, had been considered.

One immediate saving has been made by cancelling the conversion scheme across the south west of the county, as no new equipment can now be purchased. No existing cameras, however, will be removed of the time being.

Councillor Pile expressed concerns at the hurried nature of the proposals, which, he argued, may actually save very little money for the government if the county’s annual £2million fines revenue (paid to the government) was depleted as a result.

He explained that no major decisions will yet be made. He said: “We are looking at things that we could be doing. One is to reduce cameras, but do we then tell people that, or will that encourage people to speed by them?

“There are lots of questions to be looked at and these questions are looked at now.

“The number of people killed and seriously in injured [in road accidents] is reducing and last year was the lowest on record. My biggest fear is about what happens if the number rises. Personally I would not wish to see a reduction in the number of safety cameras across Hertfordshire. It means that drivers who speed will get away with it, is that the right message to be sending out?”

Comments(10)

gusgreen says...
2:40pm Thu 29 Jul 10

"Speed Cameras or Safety Cameras" make your mind up! These are put up to make money from otherwise legal drivers. They do not catch those cars which are not registered,no tax,MOT or insurance who cannot be traced just a means of making money.
Proof of this is look where they are situated nearly always on a hill or other "convieient" places,also check the report above which says
"may actually save very little money for the government if the county’s annual £2million fines revenue (paid to the government) was depleted as a result."
Which bit of not making money does this not refer to.
Now put more ANPR cameras in mobile units and Police cars then thats a different matter altogether.

cameluk says...
2:49pm Thu 29 Jul 10

Hertfordshire should follow Oxfordshire and scrap all the safety cameras, there hasn't been an increase in accidents with Oxfordshire's removal of speed cameras, just a way to make more money out of motorists

Safety cameras are only concerned with making money and keeping speed down, they ignore otherwise dangerous drivers, those with no tax, insurance or had too much to drink

The Rover says...
7:04pm Thu 29 Jul 10

Safety Cameras were supposed to be used in accident hotspots, so why are there safety cameras all the way up Hempstead Road? Hardly an accident Hotspot. Its a long straight road.

Insight says...
7:21pm Thu 29 Jul 10

DfT 'unwittingly' bigged-up speed camera benefits
...
Exclusive The Department for Transport (DfT) has "unwittingly" misled the public over the benefits of speed cameras for the last four years.
...
That was the shock admission yesterday by a DfT spokeswoman, when finally cornered by the Department’s own research. She also told us that they have now been forced to put matters right by adding an explanation to future public statements.
...
The misinformation began with a report produced by the DfT itself in 2005. On the basis of this report, it came up with the now infamous claim that speed cameras are directly responsible for reducing the level of killed and seriously injured (KSI) at camera sites by 42 per cent. Yet its own evidence, in it's own report, doesn't even support half that figure.
...
Even with this admission, it's still not clear what difference, if any, the cameras actually do make, as independent research shows that re-engineering of sites with a history of collisions, such as resurfacing, new road signs, lighting and white lines can produce a reduction in collisions of up to 35%.
******
It's not like we didn't know already, but now it's official. All these years of being patronised by the camera people with their media bombardment and extraordinary claims of success at camera sites and now the truth comes out ....they've been lying to us, the public, officials, councillors, everyone, for years!

Tudor247 says...
8:30pm Thu 29 Jul 10

Loss of speed cameras- I'm devastated. Gus you've got it right mate.

CallowlandChris says...
11:15pm Thu 29 Jul 10

The Rover wrote:
Safety Cameras were supposed to be used in accident hotspots, so why are there safety cameras all the way up Hempstead Road? Hardly an accident Hotspot. Its a long straight road.
Long - Straight - Road - In - Residential - Area = Cars speeding up and crashing into cyclists, other cars and pedestrians. Basic transport psychology...


gusgreen: If they are just a way of making money, then why are they be cutting back to save money. Think it through...

cameluk: every survey into speed cameras ever done has showed that they reduce traffic accidents. FACT. Taking one camera as an example is statistically insignificant. You have to look at the bigger picture. Your Oxfordshire case study doesn't even exist.

Insight: got a source for that fantasy you just made up? Thought not...

Insight says...
2:11am Fri 30 Jul 10

CallowlandChris wrote:
The Rover wrote: Safety Cameras were supposed to be used in accident hotspots, so why are there safety cameras all the way up Hempstead Road? Hardly an accident Hotspot. Its a long straight road.
Long - Straight - Road - In - Residential - Area = Cars speeding up and crashing into cyclists, other cars and pedestrians. Basic transport psychology... gusgreen: If they are just a way of making money, then why are they be cutting back to save money. Think it through... cameluk: every survey into speed cameras ever done has showed that they reduce traffic accidents. FACT. Taking one camera as an example is statistically insignificant. You have to look at the bigger picture. Your Oxfordshire case study doesn't even exist. Insight: got a source for that fantasy you just made up? Thought not...
When the DfT first started claiming such a high benefit for speed cameras, respected academics Dr Linda Mountain of Liverpool University and Mike Maher, Professor of the Mathematical Analysis of Transport Systems at Leeds, objected. The DfT took notice, and the 2005 report included an appendix supplied by this pair showing in meticulous detail how the effect of speed cameras was almost certainly less than half the 42 per cent quoted.
A simple check of the Think! website, now that the co-olition governt has announced cuts in partnership funding shows that the claim (which still appears if you google it) has now been removed.

Insight says...
2:42am Fri 30 Jul 10

As for cameras being money makers, that's no longer the case.
In 2007, fines across the country totalled £106 million roughly breaking even on partnership operating costs that year of £105 million. By 2009 in spite inflation and of many more cameras as councils clambered on the bandwagon and therefore correspondingly increased operating costs to run the back offices full of civilians, fine revenue has collapsed to just £87 million.
The downward trend in convictions across the country as drivers opt for sat navs and even mobile phone apps that render the entire stock of speed cameras effectively redundant is established.
Therefore the government aren't actually cutting funding, the revenue is dwindling and there simply isn't the money to hand out in grants anymore. This will obviously continue as cameras across the country get switched off, unless foolish councils continue to buy into the dead duck with our council taxes.
In these times of austerity we as a country don't have resources to buy the latest digital gimmick, that just like all of it's predecessors will be obsolete and in need of renewal in just a couple of years. We need to spend money on what works and that is putting real police back on the roads and doing all of the job properly.

Insight says...
2:47am Fri 30 Jul 10

I'd suggest that arguing against putting 'real' police back on the roads in favour of wasting more millions on speed cameras is clear indication that whoever suggests it must by definition be a member of staff for the partnership and is facing redundancy.

Insight says...
2:49am Fri 30 Jul 10

You'll note that I'm not criticising the law or even speed limits either, so please don't resort to the tired old partnership spin of "if you don't support speed cameras, you must be a law breaker" no one believes it anymore and besides, I have a clean license.


Most popular






Watford Observer on Twitter Watford Observer on Facebook

Local Information

Enter your postcode, town or place name

House prices »   Schools »   Crime »   Hospitals »

Local Businesses