Updated: speed camera authority 'could close this year'

Bucks Free Press: Speed camera authority 'could close this year' Speed camera authority 'could close this year'

BUCKINGHAMSHIRE’S speed camera authority could close this year as a result of funding cuts, a council boss said today.

Buckinghamshire County Council’s Councillor Valerie Letheren said the Thames Valley Safer Roads Partnership could close this year.

It came after told The Bucks Free Press yesterday that speed cameras could be axed if BCC withdraws £600,000.

Eight public bodies agreed three years ago to fund TVSRP to next March. But Oxfordshire County Council, the biggest, could agree to slash funding at a meeting on Tuesday.

Bucks could now withdraw too. The partnership today warned that road deaths will not continue to fall if it suffers major funding cuts.

Cllr Letheren said Government had cut cash for council road safety activities by 27 per cent in its emergency budget.

This meant all bodies had to look at reducing funding, she said. The authority has previously said other measures such as road markings should be looked into (see link, bottom of story).

She told BCC’s cabinet this morning: “As a result of the funding cuts, Thames Valley Safer Roads Partnership are investigating whether to wind up the partnership now.

“That is dependent upon the amount of funding this year, to be agreed by each local authority partner.”

Related links

Cllr Letheren, cabinet member for transportation, said: “If no funding is forthcoming in the next financial year then the partnership will cease operations in 2010 if not sooner if Oxfordshire are pulling out.”

The said the council are looking at the ‘implication of suspending or reducing speed enforcement in Buckinghamshire’.

She said the police had to enforce speeds by law. Police enforce speeds along with the use of fixed and mobile cameras by TVSRP.

Partnership spokesman Dan Campsall said: "Since the cuts in funding were announced by Central Government on 10th June, the Thames Valley Safer Roads Partnership has been working very closely with all nine local authorities, the Police and other partners to manage an in year reduction of around 30 per cent.

"Whilst this involves some difficult decisions the partners have agreed an outline plan for the remainder of the year that will see partnership enforcement continue.

"Along with the rest of the public sector the outlook for next year will be determined by the comprehensive spending review, and until the new funding settlement for local authorities is clear there is no need to take a longer term decision on the future of the partnership.

"In the last ten years we have seen a 53% reduction in road deaths, and 3,653 less people were injured on our roads in 2009 than in 2000; the year the partnership started.

"What is clear is that you cannot continue to reduce death and injury on the roads at this rate without any resources to do so.”

Comments (15)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

11:24am Mon 26 Jul 10

Slimster says...

I can think of many more deserving schemes than this one. Don't let the door hit you on the way out guys.
+
I fully support other road safety means to alert users of a dangerous stretch of road so they don't crash on it (and not sending them a love letter up to 14 days AFTER they have sped through the area).
I can think of many more deserving schemes than this one. Don't let the door hit you on the way out guys. + I fully support other road safety means to alert users of a dangerous stretch of road so they don't crash on it (and not sending them a love letter up to 14 days AFTER they have sped through the area). Slimster

11:28am Mon 26 Jul 10

ferrellcat says...

Wheres the party
Wheres the party ferrellcat

11:40am Mon 26 Jul 10

miccles says...

Are they at last coming down to earth?? about bl**dy time.
Are they at last coming down to earth?? about bl**dy time. miccles

11:48am Mon 26 Jul 10

Robz says...

Perhaps now they can concentrate on the chavs without insurance and unroadworthy vehicles, rather than milking tax and rate payers!
Perhaps now they can concentrate on the chavs without insurance and unroadworthy vehicles, rather than milking tax and rate payers! Robz

12:04pm Mon 26 Jul 10

wayneo says...

"If no funding is forthcoming in the next financial year then the partnership will cease operations in 2010"

Oh well, nevermind.
"If no funding is forthcoming in the next financial year then the partnership will cease operations in 2010" Oh well, nevermind. wayneo

1:03pm Mon 26 Jul 10

ArnyP_HW says...

Robz wrote:
Perhaps now they can concentrate on the chavs without insurance and unroadworthy vehicles, rather than milking tax and rate payers!
Law breaking tax and rate payers who can't keep to the speed limit you mean?
[quote][p][bold]Robz[/bold] wrote: Perhaps now they can concentrate on the chavs without insurance and unroadworthy vehicles, rather than milking tax and rate payers![/p][/quote]Law breaking tax and rate payers who can't keep to the speed limit you mean? ArnyP_HW

4:18pm Mon 26 Jul 10

hondo says...

Move the cameras to traffic light controlled junctions - see the income increase!
Move the cameras to traffic light controlled junctions - see the income increase! hondo

5:09pm Mon 26 Jul 10

sandman73 says...

ArnyP_HW wrote:
Robz wrote:
Perhaps now they can concentrate on the chavs without insurance and unroadworthy vehicles, rather than milking tax and rate payers!
Law breaking tax and rate payers who can't keep to the speed limit you mean?
Sorry you mean easy target law breaking tax and rate payers who can't keep to the speed limit.
No point in going after anyone who might run away.
the paper work for the health and safety would be a nightmare in itself
No just nick the guy doing 36 in a 30 from outside the area who doesn't know where the cameras are.
[quote][p][bold]ArnyP_HW[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Robz[/bold] wrote: Perhaps now they can concentrate on the chavs without insurance and unroadworthy vehicles, rather than milking tax and rate payers![/p][/quote]Law breaking tax and rate payers who can't keep to the speed limit you mean?[/p][/quote]Sorry you mean easy target law breaking tax and rate payers who can't keep to the speed limit. No point in going after anyone who might run away. the paper work for the health and safety would be a nightmare in itself No just nick the guy doing 36 in a 30 from outside the area who doesn't know where the cameras are. sandman73

5:14pm Mon 26 Jul 10

ArnyP_HW says...

sandman73 wrote:
ArnyP_HW wrote:
Robz wrote: Perhaps now they can concentrate on the chavs without insurance and unroadworthy vehicles, rather than milking tax and rate payers!
Law breaking tax and rate payers who can't keep to the speed limit you mean?
Sorry you mean easy target law breaking tax and rate payers who can't keep to the speed limit. No point in going after anyone who might run away. the paper work for the health and safety would be a nightmare in itself No just nick the guy doing 36 in a 30 from outside the area who doesn't know where the cameras are.
Simple answer to this - don't make yourself an easy target! Whether you agree that the limit should or shouldn't be 30 - doesn't mean you have the right to exceed it, regardless of whether you know where the camera is!
[quote][p][bold]sandman73[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]ArnyP_HW[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Robz[/bold] wrote: Perhaps now they can concentrate on the chavs without insurance and unroadworthy vehicles, rather than milking tax and rate payers![/p][/quote]Law breaking tax and rate payers who can't keep to the speed limit you mean?[/p][/quote]Sorry you mean easy target law breaking tax and rate payers who can't keep to the speed limit. No point in going after anyone who might run away. the paper work for the health and safety would be a nightmare in itself No just nick the guy doing 36 in a 30 from outside the area who doesn't know where the cameras are.[/p][/quote]Simple answer to this - don't make yourself an easy target! Whether you agree that the limit should or shouldn't be 30 - doesn't mean you have the right to exceed it, regardless of whether you know where the camera is! ArnyP_HW

6:55pm Mon 26 Jul 10

wayneo says...

Unfortunately there are numerous occasions where the limit hasn't been exceeded yet convictions have ensued due to faulty equipment, tvp despite knowing that equipment was faulty, don't as a matter of course inform others who have been convicted using the same equipment of the fault or that the conviction or admission was unsafe. Welcome to modern britain where unfortunately many of the dishonest, are in the Police and the CPS.
Unfortunately there are numerous occasions where the limit hasn't been exceeded yet convictions have ensued due to faulty equipment, tvp despite knowing that equipment was faulty, don't as a matter of course inform others who have been convicted using the same equipment of the fault or that the conviction or admission was unsafe. Welcome to modern britain where unfortunately many of the dishonest, are in the Police and the CPS. wayneo

2:51pm Tue 27 Jul 10

yezboss says...

ferrellcat wrote:
Wheres the party
In a phone box near to you.

Was this about money then, I could not possibly have guessed.

Fixed speed display signs are cheaper, more effective (even on those without documents or intoxicated) and need little or no staff or maintenance.
[quote][p][bold]ferrellcat[/bold] wrote: Wheres the party[/p][/quote]In a phone box near to you. Was this about money then, I could not possibly have guessed. Fixed speed display signs are cheaper, more effective (even on those without documents or intoxicated) and need little or no staff or maintenance. yezboss

8:23pm Tue 27 Jul 10

Michael, HP7 says...

Buckinghamshire County Council’s Councillor Valerie Letheren said ...

"....the partnership will cease operations in 2010 if not sooner if Oxfordshire are pulling out.”

--
Comment:
sooner than 2010 ???? - What's that all about?

Either this named BCC bloater is talking chronic chronological nonsense or has been misquoted / misreported.

Which is it?
Michael, HP7
July 2010 A.D.
Buckinghamshire County Council’s Councillor Valerie Letheren said ... "....the partnership will cease operations in 2010 if not sooner if Oxfordshire are pulling out.” -- Comment: sooner than 2010 ???? - What's that all about? Either this named BCC bloater is talking chronic chronological nonsense or has been misquoted / misreported. Which is it? Michael, HP7 July 2010 A.D. Michael, HP7

9:36pm Tue 27 Jul 10

Idris Francis says...

Ferrelcat is absolutely right - vehicle activated signs are massively more cost effective than signs, as the DfT and Ministers have known for years. The evidence is on the Government web site

www.parliament.the-s
tationery-o ffice.co.uk/pa/cm200
607/cmselect/cmtran/
memo_roads/memo1.pdf


where Stephen Ladyman confirms that his figure of 12% advantage for cameras was wrong (his £7,500 pa cost for a camera somehow failed to include the £32,00 cost of the camera iteslf!!!!) and that signs are NINE TIMES (800%) MORE effective than cameras.

However that letter that I forced him to write is still devious and inaccurate because it uses 1st year costs only - on a sensible 10 year basis signs are 50 TIMES more cost effective.

The fully documented story is on www.safespeed.co.uk/
vas.html with my contact details.

As for Mr. Campsall, true to form, me gives the figures for casualty reductions, and without actually claiming credit for them, tries to give the impression that the falls were due to his cameras. Twas always thus- half truths in the half-light, winks, nods and whispers, never ever the truth that most of the falls in casualties were taking place, faster, before the camera era, at 7% pa instead of the 3% with cameras.

In excess of 10,000 more people have died since 1994 than would have been expected - thanks a bunch to the officials who misrepresented the prospects and the results.

Its called "Corporate Homicide" - and offence which applies just as much to public bodies as to privare companies.

My contact details are on the safespeed pages, I have data and a projector for any group that wants to know the truth
Ferrelcat is absolutely right - vehicle activated signs are massively more cost effective than signs, as the DfT and Ministers have known for years. The evidence is on the Government web site www.parliament.the-s tationery-o ffice.co.uk/pa/cm200 607/cmselect/cmtran/ memo_roads/memo1.pdf where Stephen Ladyman confirms that his figure of 12% advantage for cameras was wrong (his £7,500 pa cost for a camera somehow failed to include the £32,00 cost of the camera iteslf!!!!) and that signs are NINE TIMES (800%) MORE effective than cameras. However that letter that I forced him to write is still devious and inaccurate because it uses 1st year costs only - on a sensible 10 year basis signs are 50 TIMES more cost effective. The fully documented story is on www.safespeed.co.uk/ vas.html with my contact details. As for Mr. Campsall, true to form, me gives the figures for casualty reductions, and without actually claiming credit for them, tries to give the impression that the falls were due to his cameras. Twas always thus- half truths in the half-light, winks, nods and whispers, never ever the truth that most of the falls in casualties were taking place, faster, before the camera era, at 7% pa instead of the 3% with cameras. In excess of 10,000 more people have died since 1994 than would have been expected - thanks a bunch to the officials who misrepresented the prospects and the results. Its called "Corporate Homicide" - and offence which applies just as much to public bodies as to privare companies. My contact details are on the safespeed pages, I have data and a projector for any group that wants to know the truth Idris Francis

12:54pm Wed 28 Jul 10

srd275 says...

I love the "safety" claims.

I wonder what the partnership has been taking credit for to mask the fact the scameras are about cash!

Here is one that found that SPEED CAMERAS HAD SLOWED THE DEATH REDUCTIONS: http://www.thenewspa
per.com/news/31/3198
.asp

Another favorit is one that WAS HIDDEN BY THE UK GOV.: http://www.thenewspa
per.com/news/06/602.
asp (more accidents with Speed Cameras).

Or Wiltshire who calimed to have had a effect on accidents THAT HAVE NOTHING TO DO WITH SPEEDING! They took credit for accident "reductions" that involved tire blowouts, a pedestrian falling off a bridge drunk, and a DUI going the wrong way on a MOTORWAY! http://www.thenewspa
per.com/news/05/538.
asp
I love the "safety" claims. I wonder what the partnership has been taking credit for to mask the fact the scameras are about cash! Here is one that found that SPEED CAMERAS HAD SLOWED THE DEATH REDUCTIONS: http://www.thenewspa per.com/news/31/3198 .asp Another favorit is one that WAS HIDDEN BY THE UK GOV.: http://www.thenewspa per.com/news/06/602. asp (more accidents with Speed Cameras). Or Wiltshire who calimed to have had a effect on accidents THAT HAVE NOTHING TO DO WITH SPEEDING! They took credit for accident "reductions" that involved tire blowouts, a pedestrian falling off a bridge drunk, and a DUI going the wrong way on a MOTORWAY! http://www.thenewspa per.com/news/05/538. asp srd275

12:55pm Wed 28 Jul 10

srd275 says...

I love the "safety" claims.

I wonder what the partnership has been taking credit for to mask the fact the scameras are about cash!

Here is one that found that SPEED CAMERAS HAD NOT!!!!!!!!SLOWED THE DEATH REDUCTIONS: http://www.thenewspa
per.com/news/31/3198
.asp

Another favorit is one that WAS HIDDEN BY THE UK GOV.: http://www.thenewspa
per.com/news/06/602.
asp (more accidents with Speed Cameras).

Or Wiltshire who calimed to have had a effect on accidents THAT HAVE NOTHING TO DO WITH SPEEDING! They took credit for accident "reductions" that involved tire blowouts, a pedestrian falling off a bridge drunk, and a DUI going the wrong way on a MOTORWAY! http://www.thenewspa
per.com/news/05/538.
asp
I love the "safety" claims. I wonder what the partnership has been taking credit for to mask the fact the scameras are about cash! Here is one that found that SPEED CAMERAS HAD NOT!!!!!!!!SLOWED THE DEATH REDUCTIONS: http://www.thenewspa per.com/news/31/3198 .asp Another favorit is one that WAS HIDDEN BY THE UK GOV.: http://www.thenewspa per.com/news/06/602. asp (more accidents with Speed Cameras). Or Wiltshire who calimed to have had a effect on accidents THAT HAVE NOTHING TO DO WITH SPEEDING! They took credit for accident "reductions" that involved tire blowouts, a pedestrian falling off a bridge drunk, and a DUI going the wrong way on a MOTORWAY! http://www.thenewspa per.com/news/05/538. asp srd275

Comments are closed on this article.

click2find

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