30mph and a total exclusion zone of 200yds around all schools for both stopping and parking, with a plastic bobby on call to issue tickets to all offenders would suffice quite nicely thank you !
Give the kids a bit of exercise as well!

Maybe kids would have a better chance of being able to see the roads a bit better if their parents didn't insist in driving huge 4wheel drive vehicles. Possibly they would benefit from a bit more road safety awareness lessons as the majority of the kids I see dont pay ANY attention to the road.

Good God. A Lancashire Partnership for Road Safety employee who actually wants to improve road safety.

Great ideas, hope he lasts long enough to implement them.

So they've just cottoned on after all these years that speed cameras belong outside schools. Oh yes, I forgot, there wont be much money in it will there. Bet they'll still concentrate on fast, pedestrianless roads to keep the revenue up. If cameras are used outside schools wont parking have to be banned also so they get a clear view?

The national average of casualty reduction across the entire country since the late 90's is a paltry 7% and thats assuming that speed cameras are responsible for that almost neglible improvment, as car manufacturers are quite happy to tell you that improvment to vehicle design and safety features tested to Euro NCAP makes up the bulk of lives saved.

In the two countys in the UK who 'do not' use fixed speed cameras and whom police their roads properly, there has been a 15% and 40% improvement in road casualty reduction.

Therefore, it is logical to conclude that if speed cameras had never been released into the wild and Britains roads had continued to be policed properly, then more people, drivers and pedestrians, would be alive today.

I also hate to point out another obvious lack of logic on the part of the speed camera partnerships, but it is a fact that the majority of collisions in the UK happen at or below 20mph, mostly due to lack of concentration and to distraction so where is the sense in making that the target threshold on a road so close to our most vulnerable road users.

Before the 'If you hit me at 30 brigade' pipe up with their tired sheep like bleats, I'm sorry, but even at 20mph, if a driver doesn't see a child and doesn't brake because he isn't paying attention, that child still dies.

Stop with the cameras and use the money to police the roads properly, then instead of a three thousands deaths every year, we may see an improvment like the countys who do not use speed cameras.

Jonh:
ALL Lancashire Partnership for Road Safety employees are concerned about safety. Just because the road lobby isn't concerned about innocent people, that doesn't mean nobody is.

Bill, your argument isn't very formidable. "IF a driver doesn't see a child and IF a driver doesn't break". That's a lot of IF's, you can't ignore the fact - WHEN cars travel at 20mph they are less likely to hit pedestrians as either party has about 50% more time to get out of the way !

A "PALTRY 7%" is still saving lives.

"it is logical to conclude that if speed cameras had never been released into the wild and Britains roads had continued to be policed properly, then more people, drivers and pedestrians, would be alive today."

No, that's nonsense because the number of cars has doubled in the last how ever many years so it's impossible to police them as was done in the past. Anyway I would rather have the the police patrolling the streets instilling a sense of security.

I see you fail to challenge the fact that the two countys in the UK who have a have a vastly superior success rate at driving down casualtys and they don't use fixed speed cameras at all Pear.

7% is paltry when it's hard to even identify what effect the cameras are having in that percentage and you can see a clear 40% improvement in a county where no fixed cameras are used, so are you saying you'd prefer a 7% improvment over a 40% improvment?.

As far as your point about not being possible to police our roads as we should be, is that because of cost? because that is also nonsense, because as we speak camera partnerships are using more and more mobile camera vans, these cost money for the operatives to sit around drinking tea all day and taking pictures, which leaves many loopholes that are being exploited by criminals right across the country.

Thousands of man hours and millions of pounds are being wasted by real police officers trying to track down drivers using false plates, licenses and addresses with over 200,000 a year in London alone never being caught, one motorcyclist was caught by the same camera sixty six times, but it took over two years and a six figure sum in man power to finally catch him and then he retained his license and was let off with a suspended sentence.

Thousands of police manhours is wasted trying to break organised crime rings of people taking points for a fee from drivers photographed speeding all.

A quarter of a million faulty convictions have occurred this year alone due to operator incompetence, this must stretch into millions as well.

To tie all this up, with many more hidden vans being deployed and mobile camera operatives wages on the increase, because speed cameras as a visual deterant was an abject failure, the only element currently missing from the way it used to be done, is actually apprehending the driver by a real police officer.
If a real police officer actually caught a driver, there'd be no question of who

.....Continued


To tie all this up, with many more hidden vans being deployed and mobile camera operatives wages on the increase, because speed cameras as a visual deterant was an abject failure, the only element currently missing from the way it used to be done, is actually apprehending the driver by a real police officer.
If a real police officer actually caught a driver, there'd be no question of who was driving, there'd be no fraudualant crime rings, there'd be considerably less drink drive, there'd be less fake plates and car cloning, no insurance, mot, as can be seen in any of the country wide week long crack downs when a frighteningly high number of people are caught which the cameras are obviously missing when the crackdown team move onto another area and it's very possible that vehicle theft which has rised dramatically since speed cameras appeared and traffic police declined would also go into decline as well.

Speed cameras are the expensive limited solution, it would be cheaper to stop wasting all the back office propaganda and just put real police officers back on the road where they can do their jobs.

Stop wasting money on static cameras and camera vans, do what the americans are starting to do and for the price of just one fixed camera equip three existing police cars with ANPR and cover an entire city or borough with real police, who can apprehend, detain and question dangerous drivers, instead of sending them a bill for speeding two weeks after they've knocked down a child because they drove home from the pub at lunchtime as there's never any real patrol cars on the streets since the cameras appeared.

Long Live Speed Limits, Flyde.

If only people like you could see past the end of your propaganda twisted nose and realise that not one person on this blog has complained about speed limits or is from a so called 'road lobby' (whatever that means) then eventually the country might begin to make progress on casualty reduction, because in the presence of your precious cameras, there has been very little (if any) reduction with many countys having to admit a large increase in casualtys since the government begain withholding funding and not posting targets for casualty reduction to ACPO's who cannot deploy real traffic police as they actually want to recognising that the results of speed camera enforcment are nowhere near what was anticipated when Alistair Darling signed up to this massive proliferation.

Darling of course was more interested in capping public sector pay and saw speed camera as the cheap short cut to real police, but in the fullness of time, as with many ill conceived Labour initiatives they've actually turned out to be hugely expensive and even senior government ministers are now asking questions as to how a quango that takes over a hundred million a year can can cost so much to run in comparison to real police.

As soon as the apprehension of drivers was removed from the equation it all went wrong and you should seriously question your own stance on cameras, unless that is, you'd prefer to see people dieing who need not be.

Durham, who use no fixed cameras, had a 40% in road casualtys, can you say the same about the county you live in, if the national average is just 7% with some declaring an increase in fatal accidents since cameras arrived?