Mobile camera to be set up in speed clampdown

12:30pm Wednesday 24th October 2012 in News Sarah Hickinbotham By Sarah Davies

LAW-BREAKERS: Hastings Drive, Warndon (43160502) LAW-BREAKERS: Hastings Drive, Warndon (43160502)

A MOBILE speed trap will soon be operating on a popular Worcester road, following complaints from people living nearby about speeding.

A mobile speed camera will be used in Hastings Drive, Warndon Villages, Worcester, from early next month to try and reduce the speed of vehicles travelling through the area.

The camera has been allocated to the area as part of Safer Roads Partnership’s Community Concern programme, which responds to community requests for speed enforcement.

People raised concerns through the local policing team about the the number of drivers breaking the 30mph speed limit and asked for action to be taken.

Data collected by the Safer Roads Partnership highlighted that drivers in the area were speeding, with at least six out of 10 breaking the 30mph limit and 15 per cent of vehicles travelling above 39.3mph.

Anna Higgins, of the Safer Roads Partnership in West Mercia, said: “The speed data collected on Hastings Drive has highlighted a significant speed problem which is affecting the quality of life for local residents. To address this issue, we are launching a new community concern enforcement site.

“We hope that the presence of a speed camera will improve driver compliance with the 30mph speed limit and improve the safety of the road for all those who use it.

"The site will be operational for at least six months and data will be collected during this time to assess the impact of our enforcement .”

Jon Fraser, Worcestershire County Council customer and community manager, said: ”Speed limits exist for a reason and anyone who exceeds them is putting themselves, passengers, other road users and pedestrians in danger.

“The message to anyone travelling too fast is a simple one. Slow down and stay safe.”

Comments(40)

rids says...
1:00pm Wed 24 Oct 12

Speed cameras need to be put on Bromwich Road to slow the moronic drivers down before a serious accident happens.

Report this post »

Sir Smeg says...
1:01pm Wed 24 Oct 12

As this road has no residential property driveways accessing directly onto it the speed limit should be increased to 40 anyway..............
sits back and waits for the inevitable flak!

Report this post »

Andy_R says...
1:01pm Wed 24 Oct 12

There are lots of dangerous roads in Worcester, but this isn't one of them. The fact that the majority of drivers go at more than 30 in complete safety shows that road obviously ought to have a 40 limit, but rather than follow department of transport advice and change the limit, the 'safer roads partnership' are simply going to cash in on the wrongly set speed limit. Yes, Jon Fraser, speed limits are set for a reason - and by setting them artificially low on wide, safe, well lit non-residential roads like this, you bring them into disrepute.

Report this post »

New Kid on the Block says...
1:57pm Wed 24 Oct 12

Which is dangerous the roads or the drivers?

Report this post »

W-B....... says...
2:18pm Wed 24 Oct 12

No flak from me, the whole system of speed cameras in Worcester is based upon revenue. The speed Scamera in New Road should be a mobile site but the Scamera partnership maintained that having a mobile Scamera wouldn't be safe for the operators, Lie.

The Scamera on Hylton Road should also be a mobile site but the Scamera partnership said flooding wouldn't allow a mobile Scamera to be sighted, even though we now have flood defences they refuse to remove the fixed Scamera.

Revenue generation and maintaining jobs is the main purpose of the Scamera partnership.

Note one Scamera in Hereford and yet 3 Scameras within 1000 yards of each other in St Johns.

Report this post »

truth must out says...
2:27pm Wed 24 Oct 12

The figures don't actually say how many drivers would have been prosecuted as the enforcement limit would be 35 mph. 30mph +10% +2mph.
I agree with SirSmeg, also who are these people who raised concerns.Have they got the ability to gauge how fast a vehicle is travelling without any testing equipment!!

Report this post »

W-B....... says...
2:30pm Wed 24 Oct 12

I must add that plus 10% plus 2mph are for guidance only, the speed Scamera in Tybridge Street has been set lower as the amount of offenders had declined.

Report this post »

MJI says...
3:01pm Wed 24 Oct 12

Hastings Drive is a through road, can't see a problem with driving over 30. I feel the same with Woodgreen Drive.
.
Warndon Villages are like this, a few main roads and a lot of small roads with houses on,now I would object to someone doing more than say 20 in a side road.
.
Also with speed cameras
.
Do people for travelling over 40 and they will think fair cop,
.
Stop them with a Policeman and they will think OK.
.
Send a letter through the post saying 33 in a 30, 3 points and a fine, and all respect is lost.

Report this post »

More Tea Vicar says...
3:51pm Wed 24 Oct 12

Sir Smeg wrote:
As this road has no residential property driveways accessing directly onto it the speed limit should be increased to 40 anyway..............

sits back and waits for the inevitable flak!
It's got an awful lot of people crossing it though.

But it does make me laugh, the council taking measures like this.

Whoever did the road designs for Warndon Villages should really not be allowed even to sweep them. They are an accident waiting to happen, and I can imagine one day there will be serious problems because of the difficulties emergency vehicles face using them.

Report this post »

The Doosra says...
4:44pm Wed 24 Oct 12

If everyone stuck to the speed limits, there would be no need for cameras.

Report this post »

140354 says...
4:56pm Wed 24 Oct 12

I thought speed cameras were only set up when there was 'actual evidence' of crashes caused by speeding and then they had to be placed within 600 mtrs of these 'black spots'. Has this regulation been changed in favour of a 'few people expressing concerns'? - Doesn't sound quite as valid to me.

Report this post »

Baldrick1955 says...
5:33pm Wed 24 Oct 12

140354 says...
4:56pm Wed 24 Oct 12
I thought speed cameras were only set up when there was 'actual evidence' of crashes caused by speeding and then they had to be placed within 600 mtrs of these 'black spots'. Has this regulation been changed in favour of a 'few people expressing concerns'? - Doesn't sound quite as valid to me.
The guidance relating to the above ruling only applies to fixed cameras, this one is a mobile speed camera.

Report this post »

WJS1950 says...
6:39pm Wed 24 Oct 12

Just in time to pay for the council's and police's Christmas parties!

Report this post »

WJS1950 says...
6:49pm Wed 24 Oct 12

The community concern programme is supposed to be the final strategy of what the Safer Roads Partnership call the Three 'Es', Education, Engineering and Enforcement. The enforcement bit is only suppose to be used if education and then engineering have been implemented but have been unsuccessful. Can the Safer Roads Partnership show this has been the case?

Also, why is the speed limit on Hastings Drive 30mph? It is a distributor road with no housing on the road itself, so it should be 40mph. The fact that over 15% of motorists are driving over 39mph suggests that 85% will not exceed 40mph and they therefore perceive 40mph to be safe and appropriate for this type of road.

Also, can the Safer Roads Partnership’ identify if this road has experienced injuries or fatalities as a result of speeding?

Nearby Woodgreen Drive and Plantation Drive should also be 40mph. Some people speed, not because they're irresponsible, but perhaps because they drive to what they consider is appropriate for a road. If speeding really was a safety-related issue, resulting in casualities, then we'd see far more that 15% of motorists exceed 39mph. But we're not. I'm not advocating speeding, but speed limits should match the road and environment, that way you get better compliance and safer roads.

Report this post »

DarrenM says...
10:20pm Wed 24 Oct 12

Funny how the Customer Mangers quote is almost word for word identical to that of a Councillors on another press release also on their website. Are they allowed to do that ? Isn't that a fraud of some kind releasing made up quotes to the press

Report this post »

ctpulley says...
10:21pm Wed 24 Oct 12

30MPH speed limits were brought in during the 1930's.
Car braking and steering were poor to say the least.
Nowadays cars are much better, but the speed limits remain the same. It is just another money making scheme by the authorities.
Milk the motorists again.

Report this post »

Jabbadad says...
10:58pm Wed 24 Oct 12

One stretch of really busy road with cars entering from the side roads, people having great difficulty crossing the road, and a kids park over a blind canal road bridge, and a reply from the Mike Digger traffic police when asked if a mobile camera could be used to catch the boy and girl racers, was that they didn't put cameras when the road was going up or down a hill for safety reasons.
Couldn't make it up could you.

Report this post »

Jabbadad says...
10:59pm Wed 24 Oct 12

Meant to say the road in question Lansdowne Road.

Report this post »

New Kid on the Block says...
12:34am Thu 25 Oct 12

They didn't seem to have a problem putting a fixed camera on Rainbow Hill.
Does the safety argument only apply to fixed cameras?
Comment please Mr Digger.

Report this post »

ideas4all says...
12:40am Thu 25 Oct 12

Nowadays they will look for any excuse for speed cameras does any one know what's happening with the one on bath rd Hastings Dr has no houses on it I think 40 sh ould b the limit I think the ppl who moaned are the odd few pedestrians u regulary see walking their dogs on this road and they to b honest have to much time in their boring lives what else are they going to do

Report this post »

More Tea Vicar says...
8:37am Thu 25 Oct 12

I am always sceptical of pretty much anything the Council says, so I do sympathise with much of the comment here.

I also agree with the 30mph rule on that and other roads in the area. Plenty of people, on foot and bikes, cross those roads.
And the access from the feeder roads tends to be from fairly tight t-junctions.

So traffic joining them often has poor sight of oncoming vehicles, and is relatively slow to pull away.

But really, most of the problems the council says it is trying to resolve are problems created by the crap design of the roads in the first place, and the council's failure to cut back the shrubbery it planted without foreseeing the possibility that it would grow and need to be cut.

Report this post »

MrWXYZ says...
11:18am Thu 25 Oct 12

15% above 40, 6 in 10 above 30. Sounds like one of the slower 30mph through roads in the county!
Nice to see some comments trying to actually argue against the speed limits on the road, rather than just blaming the police for enforcing the law thats there- or pretending its ok to speed as their car and driving skills are more advanced than the speed limits.

Report this post »

W-B....... says...
11:26am Thu 25 Oct 12

I think we all agree that Speed Limits are necessary, however some of the speed limits are absurd and the setting of them a lottery.

Report this post »

The answer is 42 says...
12:55pm Thu 25 Oct 12

There are no dangerous roads in Worcester, only dangerous drivers

Report this post »

Smyffie says...
3:07pm Thu 25 Oct 12

ctpulley wrote:
30MPH speed limits were brought in during the 1930's. Car braking and steering were poor to say the least. Nowadays cars are much better, but the speed limits remain the same. It is just another money making scheme by the authorities. Milk the motorists again.
Oh yes the 1930s........when there were far fewer cars on the road to cause an incident!

Report this post »

jibber-jabber says...
6:12pm Thu 25 Oct 12

I am amazed by this, London Road needs a camera more then this road. People drive down the hill at more then 30 and crash in to the cars parked there! even the buses go faster then 30 its a joke!

Report this post »

RichE76 says...
9:36pm Thu 25 Oct 12

You never see the safety scamera van pitching up outside a school when the kids are going in or leaving... Not enough revenue for them, always on quick roads in good conditions!

Get a good 70mph driving road, act surprised when there's a few crashes because a very small number of bad drivers try to take it at 100+, blame the road, lower the limit to 50, cash in!!

Report this post »

Biggles says...
9:38pm Thu 25 Oct 12

They are known as "scameras" for a reason !
.
Set the speed limit to the 85th percentile, as they are supposed to, and there will be the most compliance.
.
Far too easy though eh ?

Report this post »

Biggles says...
9:44pm Thu 25 Oct 12

They are known as "scameras" for a reason !
.
Set the speed limit to the 85th percentile, as they are supposed to, and there will be the most compliance.
.
Far too easy though eh ?

Report this post »

Biggles says...
9:44pm Thu 25 Oct 12

They are known as "scameras" for a reason !
.
Set the speed limit to the 85th percentile, as they are supposed to, and there will be the most compliance.
.
Far too easy though eh ?

Report this post »

Biggles says...
9:44pm Thu 25 Oct 12

They are known as "scameras" for a reason !
.
Set the speed limit to the 85th percentile, as they are supposed to, and there will be the most compliance.
.
Far too easy though eh ?

Report this post »

Safer Roads says...
10:48am Fri 26 Oct 12

For more information about the Safer Roads Partnership's Community Concern programme and how sites are selected, visit the website (http://www.srpwestm
ercia.org.uk/about-u
s/community-concern-
programme/).

In terms of concerns raised about other roads (e.g. Lansdowne Road)… Please raise these with your local parish council or local policing team in the first instance, who will bring it to the attention of the Safer Roads Partnership. The partnership will then collect speed data and take it to the appropriate forum to discuss whether it fits the criteria for a new community concern site.

Report this post »

Vox populi says...
8:10pm Fri 26 Oct 12

And like all good profit making businesses love to follow up leads.

Report this post »

Biggles says...
1:42am Sat 27 Oct 12

Vox populi wrote:
And like all good profit making businesses love to follow up leads.
PMSL.
.
You do realise, however, that they are winning ?
.
Have you any knowledge of the "black box" insurance policies now being issued, mainly, but not exclusively, by BELL, (part of the Admiral Group) ?
.
The person who dreamt up the "speed kills" cowpooh, must be very sought after in the advertising industry.

Report this post »

Malaky says...
9:33pm Sat 27 Oct 12

Like everything about the City Council, there is a total lack of moral compass here.

The cameras are there for revenue purposes, sighted permanently where they will generate most fines - not for safety reasons.

The citizens of Worcester now accept that they are the subjects of the council masters; who no longer even pretend to serve the community.

The whole tragic situation can only end in tears.

Report this post »

velocipede says...
9:54pm Sat 27 Oct 12

I understand from the Safer Roads website that Worcester City Council is not a member of the Partnership and therefore could not benefit from any fines generated from the speed cameras. The highways authority responsible for setting speed limits is Worcestershire County Council who are members of the Partnership - but incidentally also do not gain any income from speeding fines.

Report this post »

Malaky says...
1:17pm Sun 28 Oct 12

velocipede wrote:
I understand from the Safer Roads website that Worcester City Council is not a member of the Partnership and therefore could not benefit from any fines generated from the speed cameras. The highways authority responsible for setting speed limits is Worcestershire County Council who are members of the Partnership - but incidentally also do not gain any income from speeding fines.
It gets worse!

Not only bereft of moral values but also business acumen as well!

Basically, just incompetent!

Report this post »

RichE76 says...
7:46pm Sun 28 Oct 12

They don't make a profit my posterior, they get their profit distributed monthly and paid in to their bank and called a salary!

Report this post »

Malaky says...
9:34pm Sun 28 Oct 12

RichE76 wrote:
They don't make a profit my posterior, they get their profit distributed monthly and paid in to their bank and called a salary!
So, are you saying that individuals are profiting, whilst the councils they represent get nothing?

That is basic corruption!

Report this post »

W-B....... says...
9:36am Mon 29 Oct 12

If you were running a safety camera partnership then the only thing keeping you in a job is people speeding,

Report this post »

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