More accidents at nine speed camera sites in East Yorkshire
SPEED cameras have failed to cut accidents at nine sites in East Yorkshire, the Mail can reveal.
Almost seven more people have been killed or seriously injured since mobile speed cameras were introduced at the locations.
-
slow down: A speed camera in Stoneferry Road, Hull. Picture: Kate Woolhouse
Another 21 people suffered minor injuries.
They include the B1237 at Saltshouse Road and the A1033 at Thomas Clarkson Way in Hull and the A614 south of Shiptonthorpe in the East Riding.
Ruth Gore, of the Safer Roads Humber partnership, said: "When this occurs we work closely with the local highways authority to investigate what else can be done at these sites.
"In some cases this will involve simple solutions like better lining and signage and in other cases it may involve a change in speed limit or other engineering solutions.
"The solution will depend what is appropriate within the resources available and, in many cases, speed enforcement is the only viable solution at the current time."
The data starts from the date the camera was installed, which is different for each location, and runs up to March 31 last year – the most recent information available.
Ms Gore said the average speed drivers are travelling at has fallen at each location where speed cameras have been used, whether they are fixed or mobile cameras.
She said: "We have a number of sites that, while the number of people being killed or seriously injured has decreased, the number of injury collisions has increased.
"Because speeds have been reduced, the severity of injury has also reduced, so what would have been a serious injury in the past is now a slight injury as impact speeds have decreased.
"Our message to motorists is to drive safely and appropriately within the speed limit at all times."
Keith Peat, of the Association of British Drivers, said: "Speed cameras are not about road safety. They are about making money and they are extremely lucrative.
"An increase in accidents after speed cameras have been installed can and does happen.
"That's because speeding has got nothing whatsoever to do with accidents.
"Things like drink-driving, dangerous driving and careless driving cause accidents. Cameras don't stop that.
"Cameras don't stop people who are driving too fast for the conditions, for the car, or for their ability.
"Most accidents occur below the speed limit."
35 Comments
View all
by easthullamber
Thursday, November 03 2011, 9:06PM
“does anybody know if anyone got off with the a1079 30 limit?”
by Donkeydan
Thursday, November 03 2011, 9:16AM
“hcfchcfc08, "The overall road traffic safety of German autobahns is comparable to and in some cases better than that of other European highways. According to the statistics collected by the International Traffic Safety Data and Analysis Group" Taken from the first website i visited!”
by sammysecer
Wednesday, November 02 2011, 11:18PM
“What this really means is that the cameras are not stopping the accidents as predicted by the camera partnership. Just remove all the camera's get rid of all the the Quangos and their staff vehicles etc. involved, it must cost hundred's of thousands of tax payers money, put more police on the roads and use the money where it is most needed.”
by hcfchcfc08
Wednesday, November 02 2011, 11:07PM
“Donkeydan please provide a shortcut to reliable comparative data that shows the German autobahns have one of the lowest accident rates. I was under the impression that there are moves afoot to lower the speed on them. Of course it is being opposed by the same incapable types that we have here, who cannot manage to safely overtake a slower moving vehicle on normal roads and bleat that those not driving to the maximum permissible speed are idiots and should be driven from the roads, tut tut.”
by TigerTrains
Wednesday, November 02 2011, 10:46PM
“"Almost" seven people have died? What does that mean? Surely six... so just say that!”
by Posset
Wednesday, November 02 2011, 10:26PM
“I can read the healdine now "Walkington council approves the removal of speed bumps and replaces them with speed cameras - 5 years on - accidents have increased". This is not a risk worth taking so if it ain't broke don't fix it - keep the speed bumps in Walkington and spend the money that would be used to replace them on other roads that have road safety issues.”
by GetRealPlease
Wednesday, November 02 2011, 9:58PM
“Camera or know camera, just drive to the speed limit (or less if not safe to do so), concentrate on the road ahead, leave a decent gap between you and the car in front and take a good look around before manoeuvring. Oh, and try not to let the hottie on the footpath distract you (too much).
The presence or absence of cameras does not cause or prevent accidents, it's the standard of driving that does that.”
by Donkeydan
Wednesday, November 02 2011, 8:49PM
“hcfchcfc08, In who's eyes are you an excellent driver? The autobahn in Germany has one of the lowest accident rates - guess what the speed limit is? I agree that in built up areas speed limits should be applied strictly but if there is a 60mph speed limit somewhere you will find somebody doing 45mph. These are the idiots that need removing from the roads!”
by holyjoe2
Wednesday, November 02 2011, 7:18PM
“donkydan,if hcfchsfc08 is not perfect I should let you know that I am .Joe”
by hcfchcfc08
Wednesday, November 02 2011, 6:00PM
“Donkeydan
Yes I'm an excellent driver, which is more than I can say for the empty heads who keep churning out the rubbish that speed doesn't kill and that safety cameras are cash cows.
Of course most people are totalled in their garage just before turning the ignition key instead of cornering at 70mph in a country lane and safety cameras charge each of us £££££ every time we pass them. People who think that's the case are slow in the head and would be better off on the bus.”