Mum leads campaign against closure of Wiltshire's speed cameras

First published in Wiltshire by

A bereaved mother will lead a protest today against a decision to axe speed cameras.

Claire Brixey's son Ashley, 20, was killed in a crash in Limpley Stoke, Wiltshire, in 2004 when the car in which he was a passenger landed upside down in a swimming pool after the driver lost control.

Ms Brixey, who lives in Standerwick on the Wiltshire/Somerset border, has been a road safety campaigner since the crash.

In the protest today in Trowbridge, she will urge Wiltshire Council to reverse a decision to end a road safety partnership scheme and switch off its fixed speed cameras.

Ms Brixey said: "I cannot just stand by while the council puts an axe to vital road safety services that save so many young lives here each year.

They need to know how appalled local communities are about this. Most people fully support cameras and feel safer with them turned on.

"When I heard in the news the Government saying they were ending a 'war on motorists', I thought that all they were doing was enabling people to break the law and endanger lives by speeding.

"What about people's rights to use local streets safely? What about people's right to life? The Government should be prioritising saving lives on our roads not accumulating deaths. The cost of a speed camera does not compare to the cost of a life."

Ellen Booth, campaigns officer for road safety charity Brake, said: "Increasingly, decisions being made on speed cameras are more about politics and less about facts.

"The fact is that speed cameras reduce speeding and save lives."

Fixed speed cameras in Swindon were turned off on July 31 and it was announced earlier this month that the Wiltshire and Swindon Camera Safety Partnership - made up of Wiltshire Council, Swindon Borough Council and Wiltshire Police - would close.

The partnership said the decision had been taken following "a substantial cut of 27% in revenue from the Department of Transport to local authorities".

When announcing the closure, the partnership's chairman, Assistant Chief Constable Patrick Geenty, said: "Drivers should not think it is now safe for them to break the law and I want to emphasise that the police will continue to vigorously enforce speed limits across the county and promote safe driving."

Comments (35)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

9:29am Fri 20 Aug 10

The Voice Of The Silent Majority says...

Speed cameras don't save lives, they are an easy\simple way to supply a message that speeding "can" kill, it shows the government is trying to do something. Bald tyres can kill, driving while on the phone can kill, driving drunk can kill, driving with your eyes shut can kill. The problem is that the more expensive solutions like better\cleverly planned roads, actually educating motorists and dealing with the speeding culture as whole are exactly that, expensive.

So now what do we do? Put our fingers in our ears and la la la la la la because no one likes speed cameras and they financially aren't paying for themselves.
Speed cameras don't save lives, they are an easy\simple way to supply a message that speeding "can" kill, it shows the government is trying to do something. Bald tyres can kill, driving while on the phone can kill, driving drunk can kill, driving with your eyes shut can kill. The problem is that the more expensive solutions like better\cleverly planned roads, actually educating motorists and dealing with the speeding culture as whole are exactly that, expensive. So now what do we do? Put our fingers in our ears and la la la la la la because no one likes speed cameras and they financially aren't paying for themselves. The Voice Of The Silent Majority
  • Score: 0

9:52am Fri 20 Aug 10

Russlers says...

Yes i have to agree and lets face it with the new technology sat navs that tell you where all the fixed cameras are what is the point.I lose count of the people on phones,eating,drinki
ng and smoking whilst behind the wheel.Even mothers with their young kids in the car next to me texting on her phone.I am so sorry for this ladies loss and understand what she is trying to do but we would be better off in my opinion doing the following to help prevent these problems.
1.Have more undercover police on our roads with speedguns.
2.Have higher penalties for those who reoffend again and again.
3.Eating,drinking,sm
oking and phones should all be banned behind the wheel with better penalties such as taking licences away for a year which will hit people who need cars for work.
4.Better education to youngsters who think speeding to impress mates is cool to stop innocent people coming the other way losing their lives as well as routine eye and reaction tests for the over 70s and yes i am almost 70 and would be happy to comply to put the safety of other road users first.
Yes i have to agree and lets face it with the new technology sat navs that tell you where all the fixed cameras are what is the point.I lose count of the people on phones,eating,drinki ng and smoking whilst behind the wheel.Even mothers with their young kids in the car next to me texting on her phone.I am so sorry for this ladies loss and understand what she is trying to do but we would be better off in my opinion doing the following to help prevent these problems. 1.Have more undercover police on our roads with speedguns. 2.Have higher penalties for those who reoffend again and again. 3.Eating,drinking,sm oking and phones should all be banned behind the wheel with better penalties such as taking licences away for a year which will hit people who need cars for work. 4.Better education to youngsters who think speeding to impress mates is cool to stop innocent people coming the other way losing their lives as well as routine eye and reaction tests for the over 70s and yes i am almost 70 and would be happy to comply to put the safety of other road users first. Russlers
  • Score: 0

10:06am Fri 20 Aug 10

frankie007 says...

Whilst I have every sympathy with Claire Brixey & her family, speed cameras didn't help her son did they?
Whilst I have every sympathy with Claire Brixey & her family, speed cameras didn't help her son did they? frankie007
  • Score: 0

10:21am Fri 20 Aug 10

RonBeaty says...

We would congratulate Claire Brixey's on her stand about speed cameras & sorry for her loss, we know exactly how she feels.
Yes we hear all the excuses about speed cameras, but most do slow motorists down in a 30mph limit, why in fact would you want to go faster!..
There is much in Russlers, post I agree with, however speeding does kill!
As to the statement > Speed cameras don't save lives, I think you find they do, regardless of analogies used.

I know many motorists hate them & that would be for a reason. Think about it how you want, but speed does kills, or at least the impact speed does,& the causes of accidents simply prove that point.

Children & in fact older folk always have a problem trying to judge speed, that’s a scientific fact.

You can equate the injuries to falling from a height, Initial speed of travel: 35mph, Impact speed at three car lengths: 27mph, Equivalent to a fall from a building: 3rd floor balcony, usually at least leaving severe brain damage!

We wish Mrs Brixey success in this campaign, every death caused by an accident is tragic, even more so when it’s a young person.

We are used to dealing with school pupils accidents including deaths , even my own grand daughter run down by a speeding motorist in a 30 mph limit & left wheel chair bound, she was 1 foot from safety on her correct side of the road,

There were also two pupils killed in 2008 under the same circumstances, many more UK wide if you check our web site school bus safety group

In Scotland we have a 20mph limit around every school, guess what, motorists still pass you at speed.

It a surprise to me why anyone would want to speed, as most drivers speeding will be parents or grand parents, but its someone else’s child you kill or injure.
So have some respect for others children
Ron Beaty
School bus safety group
We would congratulate Claire Brixey's on her stand about speed cameras & sorry for her loss, we know exactly how she feels. Yes we hear all the excuses about speed cameras, but most do slow motorists down in a 30mph limit, why in fact would you want to go faster!.. There is much in Russlers, post I agree with, however speeding does kill! As to the statement > Speed cameras don't save lives, I think you find they do, regardless of analogies used. I know many motorists hate them & that would be for a reason. Think about it how you want, but speed does kills, or at least the impact speed does,& the causes of accidents simply prove that point. Children & in fact older folk always have a problem trying to judge speed, that’s a scientific fact. You can equate the injuries to falling from a height, Initial speed of travel: 35mph, Impact speed at three car lengths: 27mph, Equivalent to a fall from a building: 3rd floor balcony, usually at least leaving severe brain damage! We wish Mrs Brixey success in this campaign, every death caused by an accident is tragic, even more so when it’s a young person. We are used to dealing with school pupils accidents including deaths , even my own grand daughter run down by a speeding motorist in a 30 mph limit & left wheel chair bound, she was 1 foot from safety on her correct side of the road, There were also two pupils killed in 2008 under the same circumstances, many more UK wide if you check our web site school bus safety group In Scotland we have a 20mph limit around every school, guess what, motorists still pass you at speed. It a surprise to me why anyone would want to speed, as most drivers speeding will be parents or grand parents, but its someone else’s child you kill or injure. So have some respect for others children Ron Beaty School bus safety group RonBeaty
  • Score: 0

10:28am Fri 20 Aug 10

hugh jarrs says...

It's not a County Council. Since April 2009, it's been a unitary council called Wiltshire Council.
It's not a County Council. Since April 2009, it's been a unitary council called Wiltshire Council. hugh jarrs
  • Score: 0

10:40am Fri 20 Aug 10

Observer 2 says...

With issues such as this the protests will come from all sides - those in favour of cameras and those against.

Of course accidents on our roads are hard to take particularly for those involved in any shape or form, but equally this is a time to reflect on the mood set by the authorities when they were prosecuting motorists for minor indescretions, such as 2 or 3 mph over the limits.

Some may say well that was right, but by doing so there was a huge lost opportunity of educating a change of behaviour and mindset of all drivers for the sake of a few pounds in fines the revenue for which have steadily increased significantly over the years.

Instead it bred an anti brigade, either those caught or those fearing capture. A staggered educational process specifically one of education, is far better than the short sharp stick threat which has been abandoned over many other areas of society, based on personal responsibility, an area so controlled by rules and regulations now, that the blame always shifts to others.

Let us be really honest despite all of the research ( statistics can be made to prove anything - Swindon's accidents post camera reduced by one - yet that proves nothing- otherwise you could say there were fewer without cameras ) I have yet to see a camera prevent an accident. No-one can say that a driver who slowed down because of a camera either passing it , or because one was seen earlier in the day would have gone on and had an accident if it wasn't for the cameras, That is pre judging a future situation and one thing for sure no one can predict the future.( except for one thing of course ! ).

Cameras are only in a fixed place for a fixed time, they do not prevent carnage across our roads.. As a whole, education and prosecution of those flagrant breakers of limits, will do that , not those that for a few brief moments, due to an incline etc. transgress the rules laid down

I have though seen cameras cause accidents, including an 8 car shunt on the A303 where a panicking driver braked hard on sight of the fixed cameras and caused chaos behind.

Talking of the A303 that must be one of the most accident prone roads in the County and guess what must have the most camera coverage per mile of any road - yet there are still accidents.Why ???

We could remove both the barrier to safe motoring and at a stroke most of the accidents would disappear..make it all dual carriageway. But of course money is the issue , so we have to live with the consequences of accidents, yes due to driver error, but road design has to take a share of the blame.

I have seen drivers approaching the previous mentioned cameras on that road slow down to 35 mph - a safe speed yes, but one that brings frustrations and chaos to those caught up behind, and may be accidents further down the road.

One more observation.. I heard a chairperson of a community speed watch team bemoaning the fact that 90% of vehicles drove through the speed limit at 10 mph over the limit. To the best of my knowledge at the very place they carry out the activity there has been no serious accident in 40 years.

So I ask my self the question: if traffic has been doing that safely for all that time, then shouldn't we be thinking of increasing the speed limit as clearly it is one which can be supported with little danger to the public or local population. An alternative view, but as I said at the start there are always two distinct sides.

Those flagrantly breaching limits should be pursued to the hilt - was the driver in question doing 80mph in a 40 zone and indulging in drink and drugs? No camera in the world would have prevented that accident , sadly.

Educating drivers to their approach when on the roads may bring greater success and a greater buy in by the public at large. That opportunity was lost by the authorities taking the wrong route in their attempt to control poor behaviour - continually trying to beat submissive observance through fines etc will continue much of the same.

Despite the mushrooming of cameras etc, right across the country there is still carnage on the roads - they are clearly not the real answer to prevention. We need to look again.
With issues such as this the protests will come from all sides - those in favour of cameras and those against. Of course accidents on our roads are hard to take particularly for those involved in any shape or form, but equally this is a time to reflect on the mood set by the authorities when they were prosecuting motorists for minor indescretions, such as 2 or 3 mph over the limits. Some may say well that was right, but by doing so there was a huge lost opportunity of educating a change of behaviour and mindset of all drivers for the sake of a few pounds in fines the revenue for which have steadily increased significantly over the years. Instead it bred an anti brigade, either those caught or those fearing capture. A staggered educational process specifically one of education, is far better than the short sharp stick threat which has been abandoned over many other areas of society, based on personal responsibility, an area so controlled by rules and regulations now, that the blame always shifts to others. Let us be really honest despite all of the research ( statistics can be made to prove anything - Swindon's accidents post camera reduced by one - yet that proves nothing- otherwise you could say there were fewer without cameras ) I have yet to see a camera prevent an accident. No-one can say that a driver who slowed down because of a camera either passing it , or because one was seen earlier in the day would have gone on and had an accident if it wasn't for the cameras, That is pre judging a future situation and one thing for sure no one can predict the future.( except for one thing of course ! ). Cameras are only in a fixed place for a fixed time, they do not prevent carnage across our roads.. As a whole, education and prosecution of those flagrant breakers of limits, will do that , not those that for a few brief moments, due to an incline etc. transgress the rules laid down I have though seen cameras cause accidents, including an 8 car shunt on the A303 where a panicking driver braked hard on sight of the fixed cameras and caused chaos behind. Talking of the A303 that must be one of the most accident prone roads in the County and guess what must have the most camera coverage per mile of any road - yet there are still accidents.Why ??? We could remove both the barrier to safe motoring and at a stroke most of the accidents would disappear..make it all dual carriageway. But of course money is the issue , so we have to live with the consequences of accidents, yes due to driver error, but road design has to take a share of the blame. I have seen drivers approaching the previous mentioned cameras on that road slow down to 35 mph - a safe speed yes, but one that brings frustrations and chaos to those caught up behind, and may be accidents further down the road. One more observation.. I heard a chairperson of a community speed watch team bemoaning the fact that 90% of vehicles drove through the speed limit at 10 mph over the limit. To the best of my knowledge at the very place they carry out the activity there has been no serious accident in 40 years. So I ask my self the question: if traffic has been doing that safely for all that time, then shouldn't we be thinking of increasing the speed limit as clearly it is one which can be supported with little danger to the public or local population. An alternative view, but as I said at the start there are always two distinct sides. Those flagrantly breaching limits should be pursued to the hilt - was the driver in question doing 80mph in a 40 zone and indulging in drink and drugs? No camera in the world would have prevented that accident , sadly. Educating drivers to their approach when on the roads may bring greater success and a greater buy in by the public at large. That opportunity was lost by the authorities taking the wrong route in their attempt to control poor behaviour - continually trying to beat submissive observance through fines etc will continue much of the same. Despite the mushrooming of cameras etc, right across the country there is still carnage on the roads - they are clearly not the real answer to prevention. We need to look again. Observer 2
  • Score: 0

10:46am Fri 20 Aug 10

frankie007 says...

"In Scotland we have a 20mph limit around every school, guess what, motorists still pass you at speed."

That one sentence has just stuffed your argument completely hasn't it?

People who want to drive dangerously & kill people will do so regardless of any speed limits or cameras.

Speeding (exceeding the speed limit) does not kill. Inexperience, lack of concentration & driving too fast for the prevailing conditions & circumstances can kill, as can driving along staring at your speedometer to make sure you don't pick up a £60 fine for doing 10 miles over the limit on a dual carriageway at 2 o'clock. on a Monday morning.

A tip for Wiltshire Council to improve road safety, cut the grass at roundabouts & junctions. I can think of may places where even when you're at the line it's impossible to see if there's anything coming because the grass is over 3 feet tall
"In Scotland we have a 20mph limit around every school, guess what, motorists still pass you at speed." That one sentence has just stuffed your argument completely hasn't it? People who want to drive dangerously & kill people will do so regardless of any speed limits or cameras. Speeding (exceeding the speed limit) does not kill. Inexperience, lack of concentration & driving too fast for the prevailing conditions & circumstances can kill, as can driving along staring at your speedometer to make sure you don't pick up a £60 fine for doing 10 miles over the limit on a dual carriageway at 2 o'clock. on a Monday morning. A tip for Wiltshire Council to improve road safety, cut the grass at roundabouts & junctions. I can think of may places where even when you're at the line it's impossible to see if there's anything coming because the grass is over 3 feet tall frankie007
  • Score: 0

10:54am Fri 20 Aug 10

Vox Pop says...

I agree with most of the points made in the post by 'Russlers'. Fixed cameras are now largely a waste of time and money. Covert speed checks (and with unmarked cars) are the way forward. Whilst I am sure we all have sympathy with Mrs Brixey, how could a speed camera have affected the crash which killed her son? That took place on a notorious 90-degree bend on the A36 next to the viaduct at Limpley Stoke; the car in which he was a passenger was travelling from Bath towards Beckington and failed to take the left bend. The young and inexperienced driver was certainly going too fast and was rightly jailed; he was also over the alcohol limit if I remember correctly. That is a notorious bend which has claimed several other lives over the years - one crash in 1968 killed a young woman from Bath and seriously injured her passenger - she has now written a book about her experience and that is being turned into a film. But the only place for a fixed speed camera before that bend, in that direction of travel, would be on the viaduct itself and that would never happen for a number of practical reasons.
I agree with most of the points made in the post by 'Russlers'. Fixed cameras are now largely a waste of time and money. Covert speed checks (and with unmarked cars) are the way forward. Whilst I am sure we all have sympathy with Mrs Brixey, how could a speed camera have affected the crash which killed her son? That took place on a notorious 90-degree bend on the A36 next to the viaduct at Limpley Stoke; the car in which he was a passenger was travelling from Bath towards Beckington and failed to take the left bend. The young and inexperienced driver was certainly going too fast and was rightly jailed; he was also over the alcohol limit if I remember correctly. That is a notorious bend which has claimed several other lives over the years - one crash in 1968 killed a young woman from Bath and seriously injured her passenger - she has now written a book about her experience and that is being turned into a film. But the only place for a fixed speed camera before that bend, in that direction of travel, would be on the viaduct itself and that would never happen for a number of practical reasons. Vox Pop
  • Score: 0

11:09am Fri 20 Aug 10

swan_for_lunch_again says...

We have a set of laws that say though shall not speed. Those laws are not optional. We can't have a Policeman behind every car, so we place cameras where we would like traffic to slow. In that context they are superb. As technology moves on I'd like to see fixed cameras that can pan/tilt for a few hundred metres to make them more effective.

What some 'sensible' drivers who think speeding is 'ok' fail to appreciate is that it's a two sided coin. Whereas car-v-pedestrian will usually mean car wins (but driver traumatised), car-v-lorry/tractor may have different dynamics with speed being a significant metric. A rule is a rule, a law is a law. 'A few miles an hour over' is just as bad as 'a couple of beers won't hurt'. If you are one of those 'expert' drivers who feel speeding is ok for you, please be aware prisons have plenty of your comrades inside just waiting to welcome you when that 10 miles an hour become 'death by dangerous driving'.
We have a set of laws that say though shall not speed. Those laws are not optional. We can't have a Policeman behind every car, so we place cameras where we would like traffic to slow. In that context they are superb. As technology moves on I'd like to see fixed cameras that can pan/tilt for a few hundred metres to make them more effective. What some 'sensible' drivers who think speeding is 'ok' fail to appreciate is that it's a two sided coin. Whereas car-v-pedestrian will usually mean car wins (but driver traumatised), car-v-lorry/tractor may have different dynamics with speed being a significant metric. A rule is a rule, a law is a law. 'A few miles an hour over' is just as bad as 'a couple of beers won't hurt'. If you are one of those 'expert' drivers who feel speeding is ok for you, please be aware prisons have plenty of your comrades inside just waiting to welcome you when that 10 miles an hour become 'death by dangerous driving'. swan_for_lunch_again
  • Score: 0

11:18am Fri 20 Aug 10

frankie007 says...

If that extra 10 miles an hour becomes "death by dangerous driving", why don't the police bother with anyone doing less than 90 on motorways? Could it be that they apply a little common sense?

By the way, the analogy with a couple of pints of beer is totally unfounded & makes you look a ****.
If that extra 10 miles an hour becomes "death by dangerous driving", why don't the police bother with anyone doing less than 90 on motorways? Could it be that they apply a little common sense? By the way, the analogy with a couple of pints of beer is totally unfounded & makes you look a ****. frankie007
  • Score: 0

11:26am Fri 20 Aug 10

donkeysmum says...

Claire, I am so sorry for yours and your family's loss. I do remember the tragic event when it happened. Thank you for bringing it to the attention of the media once again and selflessly thinking of other people even though we all know that no amount of campaigning will bring your son back to you. As a mum to be I can't begin to imagine what it would be like to loose a child, young or old through an RTC and personally hope the powers to be keep and promote all forms of road safety (the more the better). I wish you the best of luck with your campaign and hope someone in high authority sees sense before it's too late and more people die or are seriously injured. Good luck!
Claire, I am so sorry for yours and your family's loss. I do remember the tragic event when it happened. Thank you for bringing it to the attention of the media once again and selflessly thinking of other people even though we all know that no amount of campaigning will bring your son back to you. As a mum to be I can't begin to imagine what it would be like to loose a child, young or old through an RTC and personally hope the powers to be keep and promote all forms of road safety (the more the better). I wish you the best of luck with your campaign and hope someone in high authority sees sense before it's too late and more people die or are seriously injured. Good luck! donkeysmum
  • Score: 0

11:55am Fri 20 Aug 10

RonBeaty says...

frankie007,
In Scotland we have a 20mph limit around every school, guess what, motorists still pass you at speed."

That one sentence has just stuffed your argument completely hasn't it?

Not at all , it simply shows how extremely stupid some drivers are, especially by ignoring children’s safety.

Once again it is only a percentage, possibly like your self on a monday morning on the motorway doing your extra 10 mph.

I expect if your child or in fact relative was run down,your outlook might be different, the law is the law.

But of course we often find speeding motorist are the ones who also use a phone illegally.

You quote > Inexperience, lack of concentration, would that same lack of concentration that covers missing a sign that tell you what the speed limit is, plus the fact the camera is painted with stripes & visible.
Or is simply a fact you do not want to be told what to do.

Yes my friend there are many motorists like you, in fact quite selfish behind a wheel

You also state> pick up a £60 fine for doing 10 miles over the limit on a dual carriageway at 2 o'clock. on a Monday morning.

Do you really advocate that laws should only be reserved for special times or places, only 10 miles over at 70 mph increases the time you need to think, your acting time to brake & your stopping distance, do some research first, or are they all wrong as well.
Yes some srivers never change
frankie007, In Scotland we have a 20mph limit around every school, guess what, motorists still pass you at speed." That one sentence has just stuffed your argument completely hasn't it? Not at all , it simply shows how extremely stupid some drivers are, especially by ignoring children’s safety. Once again it is only a percentage, possibly like your self on a monday morning on the motorway doing your extra 10 mph. I expect if your child or in fact relative was run down,your outlook might be different, the law is the law. But of course we often find speeding motorist are the ones who also use a phone illegally. You quote > Inexperience, lack of concentration, would that same lack of concentration that covers missing a sign that tell you what the speed limit is, plus the fact the camera is painted with stripes & visible. Or is simply a fact you do not want to be told what to do. Yes my friend there are many motorists like you, in fact quite selfish behind a wheel You also state> pick up a £60 fine for doing 10 miles over the limit on a dual carriageway at 2 o'clock. on a Monday morning. Do you really advocate that laws should only be reserved for special times or places, only 10 miles over at 70 mph increases the time you need to think, your acting time to brake & your stopping distance, do some research first, or are they all wrong as well. Yes some srivers never change RonBeaty
  • Score: 0

12:15pm Fri 20 Aug 10

RonBeaty says...

By the way, the analogy with a couple of pints of beer is totally unfounded & makes you look a ****.

Actually it makes you the sad one,its not you that has to deal with any consequences of the aftermath, that would include visiting the family with the tragic news, nor in fact having to sadly collect the body.

I have also replied further down to your post, dont know why really, its drivers like you who , under every circumsrance will always be right,sad really.
Now work calls,
By the way, the analogy with a couple of pints of beer is totally unfounded & makes you look a ****. Actually it makes you the sad one,its not you that has to deal with any consequences of the aftermath, that would include visiting the family with the tragic news, nor in fact having to sadly collect the body. I have also replied further down to your post, dont know why really, its drivers like you who , under every circumsrance will always be right,sad really. Now work calls, RonBeaty
  • Score: 0

12:21pm Fri 20 Aug 10

frankie007 says...

Firstly, I'm not your friend.

So by your logic, you won't agree that speed limits are totally irrelevant under certain circumstances & that someone doing 55 on an icy dual carriageway is OK as he is driving within the limit.

Or should we have a rigidly enforced blanket limit of say 5 miles an hour, just to be on the safe side?

Your arguments just don't hold up.

No, I don't take drugs & never have. No I don't drink & drive. No I don't use a mobile phone whilst driving. To say that I have never done the last 2, I'm afraid to say would be a lie, but with age comes a little wisdom & mercifully nobody suffered as a result.

Is it possible that you do not yet have sufficient age?
Firstly, I'm not your friend. So by your logic, you won't agree that speed limits are totally irrelevant under certain circumstances & that someone doing 55 on an icy dual carriageway is OK as he is driving within the limit. Or should we have a rigidly enforced blanket limit of say 5 miles an hour, just to be on the safe side? Your arguments just don't hold up. No, I don't take drugs & never have. No I don't drink & drive. No I don't use a mobile phone whilst driving. To say that I have never done the last 2, I'm afraid to say would be a lie, but with age comes a little wisdom & mercifully nobody suffered as a result. Is it possible that you do not yet have sufficient age? frankie007
  • Score: 0

12:43pm Fri 20 Aug 10

frankie007 says...

How about this, Do away with all compulsory speed limits, by your own admission, very few people actually take any notice of them anyway.
Make all speed limits advisory.
Do away with offences such as causing death by dangerous driving, call it what it is "murder" and punish it accordingly.

Of course, this will mean sacking or lynching all our current judiciary & standardising penalties with no discretion.
Sending someone to prison for not paying council tax whilst giving someone a slap on the wrist for attacking someone with an iron bar just doesn't send out the right signals. Nor does a ban, a fine & maybe a suspended sentence in extreme cases of dangerous driving.
How about this, Do away with all compulsory speed limits, by your own admission, very few people actually take any notice of them anyway. Make all speed limits advisory. Do away with offences such as causing death by dangerous driving, call it what it is "murder" and punish it accordingly. Of course, this will mean sacking or lynching all our current judiciary & standardising penalties with no discretion. Sending someone to prison for not paying council tax whilst giving someone a slap on the wrist for attacking someone with an iron bar just doesn't send out the right signals. Nor does a ban, a fine & maybe a suspended sentence in extreme cases of dangerous driving. frankie007
  • Score: 0

12:43pm Fri 20 Aug 10

Phorever says...

When speed cameras came out, a lot of people were saying they are just there to create income and not to save lives.
Point proven I think.
When speed cameras came out, a lot of people were saying they are just there to create income and not to save lives. Point proven I think. Phorever
  • Score: 0

12:48pm Fri 20 Aug 10

New 2 Trow says...

The crash which killed this lady's son wasnt just down to speed; drink and drugs were also a factor
The crash which killed this lady's son wasnt just down to speed; drink and drugs were also a factor New 2 Trow
  • Score: 0

12:52pm Fri 20 Aug 10

frankie007 says...

RonBeaty wrote:
By the way, the analogy with a couple of pints of beer is totally unfounded & makes you look a ****.

Actually it makes you the sad one,its not you that has to deal with any consequences of the aftermath, that would include visiting the family with the tragic news, nor in fact having to sadly collect the body.

I have also replied further down to your post, dont know why really, its drivers like you who , under every circumsrance will always be right,sad really.
Now work calls,
And you of course are never wrong.
Like I said, perhaps you have yet to achieve sufficient age
[quote][p][bold]RonBeaty[/bold] wrote: By the way, the analogy with a couple of pints of beer is totally unfounded & makes you look a ****. Actually it makes you the sad one,its not you that has to deal with any consequences of the aftermath, that would include visiting the family with the tragic news, nor in fact having to sadly collect the body. I have also replied further down to your post, dont know why really, its drivers like you who , under every circumsrance will always be right,sad really. Now work calls,[/p][/quote]And you of course are never wrong. Like I said, perhaps you have yet to achieve sufficient age frankie007
  • Score: 0

4:28pm Fri 20 Aug 10

Mouse007 says...

Phorever wrote:
When speed cameras came out, a lot of people were saying they are just there to create income and not to save lives.
Point proven I think.
er... if they were generating income why scrap them? Point NOT proven I think!
[quote][p][bold]Phorever[/bold] wrote: When speed cameras came out, a lot of people were saying they are just there to create income and not to save lives. Point proven I think.[/p][/quote]er... if they were generating income why scrap them? Point NOT proven I think! Mouse007
  • Score: 0

9:12pm Fri 20 Aug 10

Mouse007 says...

Inventions of the devil.

No use, no good, and now no more!

Good riddence.
Inventions of the devil. No use, no good, and now no more! Good riddence. Mouse007
  • Score: 0

9:18pm Fri 20 Aug 10

mcrae167 says...

Clearly as the son of this campaigner was killed 6 years ago, when speed cameras were rife, they didn't work, so get rid of them and save the money.

Bring back the good old days, when the policeman told you off and handed you a ticket, rather than this faceless, cough up I took a picture of your car approach.

Furthermore your rights are inverted with speed cameras, if they get a photo of your car, you are guilty unless you can prove otherwise, just imagine how many people would have been sent to the gallows in error if that approach had been adopted for all defendants.
Clearly as the son of this campaigner was killed 6 years ago, when speed cameras were rife, they didn't work, so get rid of them and save the money. Bring back the good old days, when the policeman told you off and handed you a ticket, rather than this faceless, cough up I took a picture of your car approach. Furthermore your rights are inverted with speed cameras, if they get a photo of your car, you are guilty unless you can prove otherwise, just imagine how many people would have been sent to the gallows in error if that approach had been adopted for all defendants. mcrae167
  • Score: 0

11:19pm Fri 20 Aug 10

Brady1972 says...

The speeding camera is a control measure against speeding! What does that tell you? (the speeding camera has been put there for a reason!).
In the world of health & Safety (not conkers etc but real issues) the rule is to eliminate hazards.
Eliminate (as in remove the hazard,which in this case is speed). How can that "man" argue with this woman on tv tonight about speed cameras? Is he saying "break the law?" (I think so!). To me it simply equates to break the law if you can get away with it!. Why don't we all just obey the laws of the road? (can't get it, as we reduce our journey time by 2 minutes max) These people who oppose these things obviously have no idea about what destruction a speeding motorist does! Can't believe that people have the brassneck to stand up and argue this case! Comments please!
Kind regards
the safety guy.
The speeding camera is a control measure against speeding! What does that tell you? (the speeding camera has been put there for a reason!). In the world of health & Safety (not conkers etc but real issues) the rule is to eliminate hazards. Eliminate (as in remove the hazard,which in this case is speed). How can that "man" argue with this woman on tv tonight about speed cameras? Is he saying "break the law?" (I think so!). To me it simply equates to break the law if you can get away with it!. Why don't we all just obey the laws of the road? (can't get it, as we reduce our journey time by 2 minutes max) These people who oppose these things obviously have no idea about what destruction a speeding motorist does! Can't believe that people have the brassneck to stand up and argue this case! Comments please! Kind regards the safety guy. Brady1972
  • Score: 0

11:44pm Fri 20 Aug 10

Observer 2 says...

As said earlier this issue will divide. At the end of the day, it is not the cameras, that prevent carnage, it is the attitude and actions of drivers that do.

Accidents by their very nature happen. Last weekend a coach on the M3went through the central reservation, flattening it like a piece of paper and straight across the opposite carriageway.

I have no knowledge of the reason why and can only hope that by some stroke of luck , no one was injured or worse.

As a society we enjoy the benefits of travel.. and no-one is guilt free of exceeding a limit at one time or another. The dracoian opinion of earlier commentators in this thread only goes to show they do not understand the real issue.

It is not about fines and locking up, it is more to do with behaviour and attitude, recognising the risks and acting appropriately.

Whether this is doing less than 50 in a 60 mph zone in inclement and icy weather, or doing 120 down a motorway. Both are dangerous in their own way.

Cameras and fines do not prevent this, personal responsibility does.

As some wise sage once wrote, "keep death off of the roads, drive on the pavements."
As said earlier this issue will divide. At the end of the day, it is not the cameras, that prevent carnage, it is the attitude and actions of drivers that do. Accidents by their very nature happen. Last weekend a coach on the M3went through the central reservation, flattening it like a piece of paper and straight across the opposite carriageway. I have no knowledge of the reason why and can only hope that by some stroke of luck , no one was injured or worse. As a society we enjoy the benefits of travel.. and no-one is guilt free of exceeding a limit at one time or another. The dracoian opinion of earlier commentators in this thread only goes to show they do not understand the real issue. It is not about fines and locking up, it is more to do with behaviour and attitude, recognising the risks and acting appropriately. Whether this is doing less than 50 in a 60 mph zone in inclement and icy weather, or doing 120 down a motorway. Both are dangerous in their own way. Cameras and fines do not prevent this, personal responsibility does. As some wise sage once wrote, "keep death off of the roads, drive on the pavements." Observer 2
  • Score: 0

10:46am Sat 21 Aug 10

Mouse007 says...

I read in the Times yesterday that Ashley was killed as a passenger in a car driven by a drunk (alcohol and drugs) which LEFT the road at 80mph - no speed camera would have prevented that awful accident.
I read in the Times yesterday that Ashley was killed as a passenger in a car driven by a drunk (alcohol and drugs) which LEFT the road at 80mph - no speed camera would have prevented that awful accident. Mouse007
  • Score: 0

10:57am Sat 21 Aug 10

frankie007 says...

Mouse007 wrote:
I read in the Times yesterday that Ashley was killed as a passenger in a car driven by a drunk (alcohol and drugs) which LEFT the road at 80mph - no speed camera would have prevented that awful accident.
Quite.
[quote][p][bold]Mouse007[/bold] wrote: I read in the Times yesterday that Ashley was killed as a passenger in a car driven by a drunk (alcohol and drugs) which LEFT the road at 80mph - no speed camera would have prevented that awful accident.[/p][/quote]Quite. frankie007
  • Score: 0

3:23pm Sat 21 Aug 10

fayella says...

What a load of nonsense. How old was the driver, how bad was the weather, what caused the accident, had the driver been drinking?

All of these facts would have contributed to the accident and none of them would have been resolved through the use of a speed camera.

I am very sorry for the woman's loss but really her energy would be better used teaching young drivers about the dangers of non paying enough attention when driving.
What a load of nonsense. How old was the driver, how bad was the weather, what caused the accident, had the driver been drinking? All of these facts would have contributed to the accident and none of them would have been resolved through the use of a speed camera. I am very sorry for the woman's loss but really her energy would be better used teaching young drivers about the dangers of non paying enough attention when driving. fayella
  • Score: 0

8:15pm Sat 21 Aug 10

Mouse007 says...

Pg 48 of the Department of Transport’s annual report, “ Reported Road Casualties Great Britain 2008", reveals that only 5% (yes FIVE %) of road casualties have exceeding the speed limit as a contributory factor.

http://www.dft.gov.u
k/adobepdf/162469/22
1412/221549/227755/r
rcgb2008.pdf

Time to concentrate on the other 95% I think and good riddance to the speed camera.
Pg 48 of the Department of Transport’s annual report, “ Reported Road Casualties Great Britain 2008", reveals that only 5% (yes FIVE %) of road casualties have exceeding the speed limit as a contributory factor. http://www.dft.gov.u k/adobepdf/162469/22 1412/221549/227755/r rcgb2008.pdf Time to concentrate on the other 95% I think and good riddance to the speed camera. Mouse007
  • Score: 0

10:50pm Sat 21 Aug 10

mcrae167 says...

This is just shamelessly using the death of her son drum up support for cursade for speed cameras.

What killed her son was the driver who was high on drugs and drunk on alcohol leaving the road at 80mph.

Carefully omitting this fact from her story in her crusade against speed cameras is deceitful and disrespectful to her deceased son.

A total fraud.
This is just shamelessly using the death of her son drum up support for cursade for speed cameras. What killed her son was the driver who was high on drugs and drunk on alcohol leaving the road at 80mph. Carefully omitting this fact from her story in her crusade against speed cameras is deceitful and disrespectful to her deceased son. A total fraud. mcrae167
  • Score: 0

10:59pm Sat 21 Aug 10

mcrae167 says...

Mouse007 wrote:
Phorever wrote:
When speed cameras came out, a lot of people were saying they are just there to create income and not to save lives.
Point proven I think.
er... if they were generating income why scrap them? Point NOT proven I think!
They generate revenue for central government, but the rules on the use of that revenue were tighted to such an extent that none of it comes back to local government coffers anymore. So hence now they aren't generating any income and we know they do nothing for road safety, they are going. The only people who should be truly concerned are Gatso employees or shareholders.

If they were this holy grail of road safety that all the anti car nanny state brigrade seem to suggest, then they would be staying without question.

As they are a useless contraption designed to irritate every motorist on the planet, at the first sign of financial burden they are off, which is what we are seeing.

Good riddence.
[quote][p][bold]Mouse007[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Phorever[/bold] wrote: When speed cameras came out, a lot of people were saying they are just there to create income and not to save lives. Point proven I think.[/p][/quote]er... if they were generating income why scrap them? Point NOT proven I think![/p][/quote]They generate revenue for central government, but the rules on the use of that revenue were tighted to such an extent that none of it comes back to local government coffers anymore. So hence now they aren't generating any income and we know they do nothing for road safety, they are going. The only people who should be truly concerned are Gatso employees or shareholders. If they were this holy grail of road safety that all the anti car nanny state brigrade seem to suggest, then they would be staying without question. As they are a useless contraption designed to irritate every motorist on the planet, at the first sign of financial burden they are off, which is what we are seeing. Good riddence. mcrae167
  • Score: 0

11:02pm Sat 21 Aug 10

mcrae167 says...

The other misnomer is that "speed kills" fortunately if you actually look at the national statistics speed is way down on the list for causal factors in accidents.

So yes speed kills, but its a fairly insignificant variable compared to the miriad of other issues that cause accidents.
The other misnomer is that "speed kills" fortunately if you actually look at the national statistics speed is way down on the list for causal factors in accidents. So yes speed kills, but its a fairly insignificant variable compared to the miriad of other issues that cause accidents. mcrae167
  • Score: 0

9:31am Sun 22 Aug 10

thebaron861 says...

personal feelings should be set aside when making these decisions, as i understand it speed was just a combination of factors which led to the accident involving the passenger. If you want to site cameras which are purely there for revenue the two on the A46 at bath and a speed limit needlessly reduced to 50mph limit on a dual carrageway are a fine example.
personal feelings should be set aside when making these decisions, as i understand it speed was just a combination of factors which led to the accident involving the passenger. If you want to site cameras which are purely there for revenue the two on the A46 at bath and a speed limit needlessly reduced to 50mph limit on a dual carrageway are a fine example. thebaron861
  • Score: 0

10:08am Sun 22 Aug 10

maninthewest says...

thebaron861 wrote:
personal feelings should be set aside when making these decisions, as i understand it speed was just a combination of factors which led to the accident involving the passenger. If you want to site cameras which are purely there for revenue the two on the A46 at bath and a speed limit needlessly reduced to 50mph limit on a dual carrageway are a fine example.
I agree! Always wondered why they placed the cameras on that road as soon as it was opened to the general motorist. More education for drivers and plain police cars to catch offenders IMHO.
[quote][p][bold]thebaron861[/bold] wrote: personal feelings should be set aside when making these decisions, as i understand it speed was just a combination of factors which led to the accident involving the passenger. If you want to site cameras which are purely there for revenue the two on the A46 at bath and a speed limit needlessly reduced to 50mph limit on a dual carrageway are a fine example.[/p][/quote]I agree! Always wondered why they placed the cameras on that road as soon as it was opened to the general motorist. More education for drivers and plain police cars to catch offenders IMHO. maninthewest
  • Score: 0

11:19am Mon 23 Aug 10

Vox Pop says...

maninthewest wrote:
thebaron861 wrote: personal feelings should be set aside when making these decisions, as i understand it speed was just a combination of factors which led to the accident involving the passenger. If you want to site cameras which are purely there for revenue the two on the A46 at bath and a speed limit needlessly reduced to 50mph limit on a dual carrageway are a fine example.
I agree! Always wondered why they placed the cameras on that road as soon as it was opened to the general motorist. More education for drivers and plain police cars to catch offenders IMHO.
Certainly the 2 Gatso cameras on the Bathampton bypass were a total con. They were in place from the day the road opened - how could it be shown to be an 'accident' black spot requiring cameras when the road had no history? Also, for the first 2 years of operation they could never work anyway - no electricity supply was in place! As I stated in my earlier post, fixed cameras have had their day - covert cameras and unmarked cars/motorbikes are the requirements to enforce speed limits in the future.
[quote][p][bold]maninthewest[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]thebaron861[/bold] wrote: personal feelings should be set aside when making these decisions, as i understand it speed was just a combination of factors which led to the accident involving the passenger. If you want to site cameras which are purely there for revenue the two on the A46 at bath and a speed limit needlessly reduced to 50mph limit on a dual carrageway are a fine example.[/p][/quote]I agree! Always wondered why they placed the cameras on that road as soon as it was opened to the general motorist. More education for drivers and plain police cars to catch offenders IMHO.[/p][/quote]Certainly the 2 Gatso cameras on the Bathampton bypass were a total con. They were in place from the day the road opened - how could it be shown to be an 'accident' black spot requiring cameras when the road had no history? Also, for the first 2 years of operation they could never work anyway - no electricity supply was in place! As I stated in my earlier post, fixed cameras have had their day - covert cameras and unmarked cars/motorbikes are the requirements to enforce speed limits in the future. Vox Pop
  • Score: 0

10:13am Tue 24 Aug 10

2CK says...

Some of the national Sunday newspapers have picked up on this story and have reminded us of the real facts concerning the crash which killed Ashley Brixey. For sure the car in which he was a passenger was speeding (at a notorious bend which has claimed lives in the past) but the lack of a camera at that part of the A36 is irrelevant. The driver of the car was drunk and had also taken drugs. Those facts must have been obvious to Mr Brixey when he got in the car for the lift out of Bath. He chose to take that risk and that is contributory negligence. There is no sensitive way to state this but as other have posted on this thread - Mrs Brixey's high profile campaign is a fraud. Her son was partly responsible for his own death - she needs to stop and consider that.
Some of the national Sunday newspapers have picked up on this story and have reminded us of the real facts concerning the crash which killed Ashley Brixey. For sure the car in which he was a passenger was speeding (at a notorious bend which has claimed lives in the past) but the lack of a camera at that part of the A36 is irrelevant. The driver of the car was drunk and had also taken drugs. Those facts must have been obvious to Mr Brixey when he got in the car for the lift out of Bath. He chose to take that risk and that is contributory negligence. There is no sensitive way to state this but as other have posted on this thread - Mrs Brixey's high profile campaign is a fraud. Her son was partly responsible for his own death - she needs to stop and consider that. 2CK
  • Score: 0

3:34pm Thu 26 Aug 10

R. Sole says...

It is too simplistic to say speed cameras have saved lives. Has that claim ever been proven as fact? What is a fact, however, is that the number of deaths on British roads has been in decline since the late 1960s, long before speed cameras were introduced. It would appear that there are other factors contributing to fewer accidents, and the introduction of speed cameras made no difference whatsoever.

It is also a fact that only about one in twenty deaths on British roads can be attributed to excessive speed. Instead of lamenting the passing of these cameras, whose sole purpose was to collect revenue and criminalise errant drivers, these campaigners should perhaps concentrate their efforts on getting Government to stop obsessing about targeting the single motorist and do more about the other nineteen out of twenty road deaths.
It is too simplistic to say speed cameras have saved lives. Has that claim ever been proven as fact? What is a fact, however, is that the number of deaths on British roads has been in decline since the late 1960s, long before speed cameras were introduced. It would appear that there are other factors contributing to fewer accidents, and the introduction of speed cameras made no difference whatsoever. It is also a fact that only about one in twenty deaths on British roads can be attributed to excessive speed. Instead of lamenting the passing of these cameras, whose sole purpose was to collect revenue and criminalise errant drivers, these campaigners should perhaps concentrate their efforts on getting Government to stop obsessing about targeting the single motorist and do more about the other nineteen out of twenty road deaths. R. Sole
  • Score: 0

Comments are closed on this article.

Send us your news, pictures and videos

Most read stories

Local Info

Enter your postcode, town or place name

About cookies

We want you to enjoy your visit to our website. That's why we use cookies to enhance your experience. By staying on our website you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more about the cookies we use.

I agree