Sevenoaks speed cameras "save lives"
SAFETY cameras have played a vital role in reducing the number of people killed or seriously injured on Sevenoaks roads, the area's safety bosses claim.
New figures show that in the three-year period between 2006 and 2008, 17 people were killed or seriously hurt at safety camera sites.
Kent and Medway Safety Partnership has highlighted this as a 29 per cent fall from the 24 people killed or seriously injured (KSIs) in the three years before their installation.
The partnership's communications officer, Katherine Barrett, said the roadside safety cameras were installed at specific locations because of their history of speed-related crashes in which people have been killed or seriously injured.
Sevenoaks has one fixed yellow safety camera, on the A20 in Farningham, and seven safety camera van sites.
Some 519 fixed penalty notices were issued to motorists in the Sevenoaks district last year, 343 in 2008 and 2,368 in 2007.
In Malling, the speed camera in Wrotham Road, Borough Green, had five KSIs in the three years prior to installation, but none in the last three years.
Mrs Barrett said: "Where you see a yellow fixed camera, it means there have been three or more KSIs over a 1km stretch in the three years before the camera was installed.
"Our safety camera vans operate at sites where at least one person has been killed or seriously injured in a speed-related crash.
"All cameras are placed where they will save lives and these latest figures for Sevenoaks show beyond any doubt that they are making our roads a safer place," she said.
But a spokesman for the national anti-speed camera campaign speedcamera.org disagreed with the partnership's Sevenoaks statistics analysis.
He said: "One point about accidents is that they are, by nature, accidents.
"This means that they are inconsistent and the number of accidents in one three-year period can easily be different to another three-year period, even if a speed camera hasn't been erected.
"To suggest that the cameras have provided a 29 per cent drop in KSIs goes against national statistics from the Department of Transport which reveals that, in 2007, six per cent of all accidents are caused by exceeding the speed limit.
"Therefore, even if cameras could stop 100 per cent of drivers from exceeding the speed limit, they would only reduce all road accidents by six per cent at the most."
Malcolm Gale, Farningham Parish Council chairman, said of the A20 speed camera, at the junction with Scratchers Lane: "I don't think it has much of an impact, as it is a 60mph stretch of road.
"I wouldn't have thought many people are going over that on this particular stretch of road.
"It's a nasty junction and that's why it was put there in the first place."
What do you think? Leave your comment here.
9 Comments
by Motorist, Sevenoaks district, Sevenoaks district
Tuesday, March 02 2010, 2:47PM
“TJ, Paddock Wood - totally agree with you but there's no excuse for the police/local authorities acting illegally, otherwise we'll end up living in a police state.”
by Anon, Sevenoaks
Monday, March 01 2010, 6:48PM
“Good news. Good work from the police, Agree only idiots speed. They would have failed their test if they did that in their driving test.”
by TJ, Paddock Wood
Monday, March 01 2010, 2:46PM
“If you keep to the speed limits, then you won't get wound up by speed cameras. It's usually only boy racers and idiots that can't see that.”
by Motorist, Sevenoaks district
Sunday, February 28 2010, 4:47PM
“Real name not disclosed to prevent police victimisation.
In recent years, loads of these Police/Safety/Speed Camera signs have been erected in the Sevenoaks district.
Most of these signs are completely illegal as they contravene European Law which requires that there must be a camera in position within a certain distance from each sign. Many local motorists, realising that these signs are a joke, are ignoring them.
The police and the trendy greenies running our roads departments are hoping, that by positioning a sneaky mobile camera in a police van from time to time, they will comply with European Law.
No doubt if there is anyone prepared to spend the large amount of money that would be required to take the police/road authorities to the European Court, these signs without fixed cameras in place would be banned.
There are far more people killed by infections picked up in our hospitals than there are killed on the roads, and all our government do is to tell the staff to wash their hands.
On the other hand, persecution of the motorist by government and the police is a trendy thing and a great money spinner.
It's time the police stopped trying to earn their brownie points by persecuting the motorist, for which they are given targets by their managers, and got on with REAL POLICING, which is so badly lacking.
Another recent so called "safety campaign" by the police in the Sevenoaks area involved them hiding in vans with cameras to get pictures of any motorists not wearing seat belts and fining them. Quite frankly, if a person wants to risk more serious injury or even death as a result of not wearing a seat belt, then that is a matter for that person only, since it will only affect him/her. On the other hand, these sneaky tactics by the police are great money spinners.
The police are slowly losing all respect from the public.”
by dmh, Sussex
Saturday, February 27 2010, 10:31PM
“Emma
I agree that 2006+2007+2008
are three years.
The article however says "between" 2006 and 2008 which would only be 2 years.
R of Tonbridge is correct in that we need to see the actual data so we dont end up comparing apples and pears.”
by Emma, Sevenoaks
Saturday, February 27 2010, 3:21PM
“@dmh, if you count 2006 + 2007 + 2008 it does equal 3 years. :)”
by dmh, Sussex
Friday, February 26 2010, 9:21PM
“2006 to 2008 is only 2 years.”
by R, Tonbridge
Friday, February 26 2010, 3:49PM
“You cannot read anything into 1 set of figures !
I feel a FOI request is necessary to get the full figures and full picture”
by Alan Bullion, Sevenoaks
Friday, February 26 2010, 2:12PM
“Very good news for a change.”