A BIKER travelling at 109mph on the Portway and a car driver doing 144mph were among 113,000 people caught speeding last year in the Avon and Somerset police force area.

People simply should not be speeding. In my view fines should be heftier, punishments tougher and rehabiliation through driver education, training and re-testing compulsory before its legal for persistent speeders to return to driving. You dont have to be out on the roads for long to see irresponsible and poor driving so we should be installing more safety cameras, which after all only contribute to enforcing the law.

A BIKER travelling at 109mph on the Portway and a car driver doing 144mph were among 113,000 people caught speeding last year in the Avon and Somerset police force area.

The figures...released by Avon and Somerset police under the Freedom of Information Act. They show that 113,255 motorists were caught by speed cameras in the force area between April 2009 and March this year.

20’s Plenty For Us: Cutting speeds with no speed bumps

Large groups of us used to kick a ball around or race our bikes around the block in 1960’s and 70’s Knowle. Kids playing in the street is a much rarer sight now, not least because our roads are much busier. The current default speed limit of 30mph in areas where people live was set in 1934 when there were 1.5 million motor vehicles. Now there are a massive 33 million!!

Road traffic in the UK is the single biggest cause of premature deaths for boys and the second biggest cause for girls age 5-15. Every year in Bristol 500 people are killed or seriously injured on the roads, the burden falling hardest on the poorest, with 24 of every 100 child pedestrian casualties being in the most deprived neighbourhoods compared to 1 in 100 in the least deprived. At 20mph a pedestrian knocked over stands a 90% chance of surviving. At 40mph they stand a 90% chance of dying. 20mph in residential areas is clearly fast enough, and the new "20's Plenty For Us" initiative in the area is aiming to make this a reality.

Compare our residential street speed limit of 30mph with the speed limit in Northern European towns. Our limit is 60% higher than the 18.5 mph (30 kph) limits that they have for streets where people live. No wonder perhaps that 92% of pedestrian deaths are on urban roads in the UK and at 21% we have a higher proportion of pedestrian deaths on the roads than any of our European neighbours.

In Hilden, Germany, the setting of their 18.5 mph (30 kph) limit in the early 90's was the foundation of them encouraging cycling and walking. In fact now 23% of in-town trips are made by children and adults using bikes instead of cars.

Something has to change to bring us into the 21st century. Adults lead more sedentary lives in part because they spend more time in their cars. Children lead less active lives in part because we worry about the dangers posed by road traffic. The growth of physically inactive lifestyles in industrialised countries has led to what many are calling a major public health crisis. Preventable illnesses associated with inactivity and obesity include stroke, heart attack, certain cancers, diabetes, and depression.

Around 40% of people in the UK report being bothered by noise from traffic, nearly double the figure from the 1970’s. Children living near busy roads suffer significantly higher rates of asthma and West of England Partnership figures show that over 100,000 Bristolians live in areas where air quality is considered to be potentially damaging to health.

Cars travelling too fast in residential areas have helped to create social degradation. Neighbours across the road from each other don't talk to each as often as they used when I was kicking a ball about with mates, because a gulf is created by cars speeding past. As far back as 1969 Prof David Appleyard found that community was eroded on San Francisco streets with busier traffic.

A study by Kevin Leyden in 2003 found that people ‘living in walkable, mixed use neighbourhoods were more likely to know their neighbours, participate politically, trust others and be socially engaged, compared with those living in car-oriented suburbs’. Research on Bristol’s streets by Josh Hart at UWE showed that motor vehicle traffic is responsible for a considerable deterioration in residential community, measured by average number of social contacts, extent of perceived ‘home territory’, and reported street-based social activity. Several studies show that people whose homes had windows facing busy streets were more often depressed.

20's Plenty For Us was formed in order to work for the implementation of 20 mph as the default speed limit on residential roads in the UK, in place of 30mph. The balance is shifting towards roads and streets as public spaces for people rather than just motors – safer, cleaner, healthier and more civil. Quality of life would be better, with less noise, lower pollution, greater child mobility, walking, cycling and talking encouraged, better general wellbeing.

The Bristol 20’s Plenty group was recently launched to help build improved quality of life in local communities. 40 neighbourhood champions are already in place, including myself in Knowle. The target is 100 champions so if you want to be involved either as a champion yourself or as part of a team then phone us or send an email (champions@20splentyforbristol.org.uk.) or check out the national and local websites for up to date news, reports, articles, action packs, support and resources (http://www.20splentyforus.org.uk/ http://www.20splentyforbristol.org.uk/).

20mph is an idea whose time has come, with growing numbers of cities doing it, including Portsmouth, Oxford, Norwich, Leicester, Newcastle-upon-Tyne. Islington has just decided to become the first London Borough to implement an authority-wide 20mph limit where people live and Hackney look set to follow. Transport for London is making funds available for all London Boroughs to set a 20mph default. Bristol will be piloting 20mph in some residential streets in the south and east of the city soon and so getting the council to go the whole way is deliverable – which is why 20’s Plenty are working in communities, urging people to talk to their councillors!

Research has shown that the vast majority of the public, over 80% in polls, would like 20 mph on residential roads. After all its where people live!! The Parliamentary Advisory Council on Transport Safety found that 70% of drivers want it too. Recent changes in Dept of Transport guidelines have relaxed the recommendations and in many residential areas 20 mph limits may be set without any physical measures at all – which means the cost of the change is small.

Portsmouth City Council has now created 1200 streets with 20 mph – and they did it with only 6 traffic orders, in just nine months without any speed bumps at a cost of £475,000, the cost of about two sets of traffic lights. Speeds have already reduced by an average of 3mph and the whole community has a collective commitment to sharing the roads better. The cost of 20mph in Bristol is likely to be approx £1.5 million as we are bigger than Portsmouth but this is a tiny amount considering that if a person is unfortunate enough to be hit by a car at 30mph they are likely to die whereas at 20mph they are likely to live! Further information:

email - champions@20splentyforbristol.org.uk.

Contact: Steve Kinsella 01934 838624 The Old Forge Kingston Bridge, Clevedon, BS21 6TX

http://www.20splentyforus.org.uk/

http://www.20splentyforbristol.org.uk/

Transport concerns in Knowle and elsewhere in Bristol

Questions to the Bristol City Council Cabinet meeting of 27 November submitted today – for Cllr Mark Bradshaw, Member for Sustainable Development (which encompasses transport and planning I believe). They relate both to Knowle and to wider issues.

Speeding concerns in Knowle

Residents in the Wootton Park, Callington Rd and Airport Rd area of Knowle have raised concerns with me about frequent speeding, road safety issues, and high levels of both air and noise pollution. This part of Knowle is included in an Air Quality Management Area and is a noise pollution hotspot according to the council’s excellent work on noise mapping. Cutting speed limits will cut the frequency and severity of road accidents and cut air and noise pollution.

1. Will the council commit to gathering further information on speeding, road safety, air and noise pollution in and around these three roads, including gathering information on accidents and near accidents from local residents?

2. As part of any review of speeds on A roads what consideration will the council give to

a)reducing the 40mph speed limit on Callington Rd and Airport Rd to 30mph
b)reducing the 30mph speed limit on Wootton Park to 20mph
c)cutting speed limits in general across the city wherever it is appropriate eg on M32 (or parts of it), in order to improve air quality, cut carbon emissions, cut noise and improve road safety

South Bristol Link: Road Traffic Impacts.

1. Given that the only reference in the consultation documents to altered traffic levels created by a 'road' option between Hengrove and Long Ashton, is that it "may increase traffic on King Georges Road", has any traffic modelling been done that might offer a bit more certainty to the West of England planners, and might give consultees a more realistic picture of what they’re invited to comment on?

2. If one of the road options is chosen, thus creating a de facto South Bristol Ring Road, what is its likely impact on

a) traffic levels along Airport Road/ Callington Rd/Wootton Park
b) total vehicle miles (compared with 'do nothing', or the public transport option)
c) air quality in the vicinity of Callington Rd, Wootton Park, Airport Rd and the South Bristol Sports Centre

Whitchurch to City Centre Cycleway

Can you confirm to what extent (if any) the Cycling City budget will be used to fund property acquisition along the line of the proposed Callington Road Link (the disused railway cutting between Tesco Brislington and Arnos Vale) as part of the proposed Whitchurch to Centre cycle route ?

I will report any responses received on this blog.

Road safety issues: Callington Rd/Wootton Park, Knowle

'A new road would attract more through traffic along Callington Road and Airport Road. When that gets too choked up (bad enough already isn't it?*) it'll be back to the Phase 3 plan...' says Stockwood Pete (Green campaigner Peter Goodwin) in an excellent post about the South Bristol Ring Road on his new blog.

*I've recently been approached by Knowle residents just off Callington Rd for help in campaigning for lowering the existing speed limits (the existing 40mph to 30mph and existing 30 mph to 20 mph near homes) and having speed/safety cameras installed. I'm fully supporting them and have initially helped them to get some supporting information and useful contacts.

Worries about accidents/safety, air pollution and noise are high amongst residents of Wootton Park in particular. My information is that at present they have got little or no support that satisfies them from the police and local Lib Dem Councillors Hopkins and Davies. I'm due to post another and more detailed blog entry about this after I've spoken to locals again for the latest but for the moment thought I'd log my involvement. There is some demand for a petition and media campaign....

Motoring: cheaper now than in 1988 ! Sure helps to explain ongoing climate change, road deaths, air pollution, congestion, parking chaos...doesn't it.

The RAC's annual report on motoring shows that '...it now costs 18% less in real terms to buy and run a car, including fuel costs (and 28% cheaper excluding fuel costs), than in 1988.' (see reports here and here). This is despite the large and rapid recent rise in fuel prices, though figures I dug up on the history of petrol prices show that even these aren't that unprecedented. I've long been pointing out that motoring has become cheaper not more expensive and made the point again in the recent debate online about residents parking (in fact seeing the RAC figures reported today sent me hunting through my archive of old news clippings - thus the two scanned illustrations in this post). Contrary to the facts most car owners (60% according to the RAC) think motoring costs have risen, though their view has probably been skewed a lot by sudden fuel cost increases.

Cheaper motoring is why we have more people than ever owning a car and more two car and three car households. One report on the RAC pronouncements says '...the number of households with a car has grown 39% over the past two decades from 14 million to 19.5 million. The number of households with two or more cars has almost doubled from 4.3 million to 8.4 million, and the number of drivers has increased to 33.7 million from 26.1 million.'

Not only has motoring become cheaper but at the same time travelling by bus and train has become very much more expensive (by around 50% in real terms has been reported - see here for an example). The fall in the cost of motoring is not news to me. The rise in the cost of public transport isn't either (I remember quoting a 50-70% rise in bus/train travel costs from the Dept of the Environment graph, scanned in here, when campaigning in the 1990's for instance).

It should be no surprise to anyone, given this key incentive to own and run a car (along with key factors such as cheap flights...) and disincentive to take the bus or train, that we are continuing to fail to address: climate change; air pollution; noise pollution; land take for roads; congestion; parking chaos; deaths on the road...and more. Carbon dioxide emissions are 1-2% higher now than when the current Labour Govt came to power, they plan to build hundreds of miles of new roads, plan to widen motorways and are seeking a delay in meeting the latest EU air quality requirements.

People are still highly attached to their cars. The govt see this of course and are wary of upsetting voters (Gordon Brown may abandon or delay the planned 2p rise in fuel duty just before the Glasgow East by-election for instance). Few issues stir people up, as recent debates and demos show, more than the cost of fuel or the cost of parking...Seems to me that far too many people (politicians and the public) are not facing the truth either about the reality and urgency of issues like climate change or about what the cost of their motoring is or what it should be. The incentives are upside down - we need much cheaper public transport and much more expensive motoring.

Drive safely (unlike senior police officers and government ministers!)

The 5-11 Nov is road safety week. I'd urge all drivers to sign up to the Brake pledge to drive safely.

Belt Up - front and back and ensure children are correctly restrained
Slow Up - abide by limits and only overtake if totally safe
Wake Up - never drive tired and take breaks every two hours on long journeys
Sober Up - 'just say no' to alcohol and drugs if driving
Look Up - look out for people on bikes, horses and foot
Wise Up - if it's night, bright, or bad weather, go slower
Buck Up - calm yourself before driving if stressed, angry or excited
Move Up - adjust head restraints so the top is level with the top of your head to help prevent whiplash
Sharpen Up - wear glasses or lenses if you need them
Shut Up - switch your phone to voicemail
Back Up - from the vehicle in front - it's your braking space in a crisis
Check Up - check brakes, tyres, lights mirrors and windows

Its shameful that recently both a government minister and a very senior police officer have not followed road safety charity Brake's advice. What hypocrites these individuals are. Remember these news items?

First, the speeding Chief Constable...

A senior police officer in charge of road policy for Britain's chief constables is facing prosecution for exceeding a 60mph speed limit.

Meredydd Hughes, chief constable of the South Yorkshire force, was allegedly clocked by cameras driving along the A5 near Chirk in north Wales.
He has been summoned to appear before Wrexham magistrates on 21 November. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/wales/7069289.stm

And the Chief Constable has a history of speeding...

Mr Hughes has two previous speeding offences, but they were much less serious and, because they were committed more than three years ago, the six penalty points have been removed from his licence. http://www.naffedoff.com/2007/11/01/why-sy-police-chief-constable-should-receive-a-custodial-service/

Plus the government minister who used his mobile phone whilst driving...

The Government's immigration minister, Liam Byrne, has been fined and had points put on his licence after admitting using his mobile phone while driving.Byrne, who has been a Home Office minister since 2006, was fined £100, ordered to pay £35 costs and given three points on his licence by Sutton Coldfield Magistrates' Court. http://www.whatcar.com/news-article.aspx?NA=228986

I dont think magistrates were tough enough on the government minister. I hope that the Chief Constable gets a ban if found guilty, because of his history of speeding and because he of all people should be setting an example and so has particularly badly let the side down. I'd like penalties for driving offences generally to be toughened because of numbers killed and seriously injured on a daily basis on the roads.

Multiple studies show road safety cameras save lives!! (Though camera opponents will believe only what they want, whatever the facts)

Bob Bull thinks the evidence does not show that speed/safety cameras save lives and serious injuries. His letter says the figures I gave have been proved wrong (‘Speed Cameras’, Bristol Evening Post Soapbox, 20 Sept). I have to tell him that the evidence in favour of speed/safety cameras, from multiple studies, is overwhelming. I fear that he and possibly others will only believe what they want to believe, no matter what the facts are. An independent review by University College London, published 2005 of more than 4,000 cameras over a four year period, featured on the Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents website, clearly demonstrates that cameras reduce speeding and collisions a great deal. Deaths and serious injuries at camera sites were cut by 42%.


The review concluded: vehicles breaking the speed limit at fixed camera sites fell by 70%; the reduction at mobile sites was by 18%; speeding at 15 mph or more above the limit fell by 91% at fixed sites and by 36% at mobile sites; average vehicle speed across all new sites fell by 6%; people killed or seriously injured fell by 42% at camera sites, meaning there were 1,745 fewer people killed or seriously injured at the camera sites per year – including 100 fewer deaths; people killed and seriously injured fell by 50% at fixed sites and by 35% at mobile sites; there was a 32% reduction in the number of children killed or seriously injured at camera sites; the number of pedestrians killed or seriously injured fell by 29% at camera sites; a 22% reduction in collisions involving (fatal, serious or slight) personal injury at camera sites, equating to 4,230 fewer personal injury collisions per year.


The impact of the first British speed cameras, installed in West London in 1992, was assessed by the West London Speed Camera Demonstration Project in 1997. In the first three years of operation, cameras: cut deaths by 70% ; cut serious injuries by 27% ; cut slight injuries by 8%.


A 1995 study by the Police Research Group concluded that speed cameras reduced casualties by 28%.


Initial evaluation of the pilot schemes by the DfT in 2003 found that the: drivers exceeding the speed limit fell from 47% to 20%.; drivers exceeding the speed limit by more than 15mph fell from 7.4% to 0.3%.; average speeds at the camera sites fell by 10% (3.7mph).; 35% fewer people (numbering 285) were killed and seriously injured; there was a 56% reduction in the number of pedestrians killed or seriously injured at camera sites.; there were 14% (about 510) fewer crashes.


A three year review of cameras in 24 areas (“The National Safety Camera Programme: Three-year Evaluation Report” by University College, published 2004 ) found they significantly reduced speeding and collisions, and had cut deaths and serious injuries at camera sites by 40%.

Looks like Bob Bull and company are in a small minority of 18% or less since the level of public support for the use of cameras has been consistently high with 82% of people questioned agreeing with the statement that ‘the use of safety cameras should be supported as a method of reducing casualties’.


Public attitude surveys clearly show that people support safety cameras because they save lives. In a 2005 parliamentary statement the Secretary of State for Transport said that 71% of people surveyed agreed that the primary use of cameras was to save lives. Surveys conducted in the 8 pilot areas had previously found that: 70% agreed that “fewer accidents are likely to happen on roads where cameras are installed”; 67% agreed that "Cameras mean that dangerous drivers are now more likely to get caught"; 82% agreed that "Cameras are meant to encourage drivers to keep to the limits, not punish them"

Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents site has more.

What does it take to convince some people about the need for road safety cameras?

Bob Bull’s letter in todays Bristol Evening Post criticising the Green Party (‘Driver education is what is needed’, Open Lines, 10 Sept) for being very strongly in favour of speed/road safety cameras misses the point on several crucially important grounds as well as being plain wrong that cameras ‘…in no way contribute to safer roads or better driving.’. The national pilot scheme on safety cameras showed a 35% average reduction in casualties where cameras had been placed. The pilot also showed an average 56% reduction in the number of pedestrians being killed or seriously injured at safety camera sites. http://www.devon-cornwall.police.uk/dcsc/public/speed/index.htm

Bob talks about cameras in relation to accidents but completely fails to mention that speeding not only increases the likelihood of accidents but also of deaths and serious injuries in the event of accidents. Take the 30 mph limit – the police point out that in an accident at 20mph 90% of pedestrians survive, at 30mph 50% survive but when breaking the limit at 40mph 90% die. So Bob, more speed, more death. http://www.thinkroadsafety.gov.uk/campaigns/slowdown/slowdown.htm

He also misses the point that its not just the ‘..road safety groups and the Green Party…’ that have, in his terms, ‘…naively supported the speed kills campaign..’ but also our police force, local councils and central government. Are we all naïve? Bob seems to forget why a speed camera can appear in a place – local community concern, evidence of breaking the law by speeding, and a history of road collisions. So Bob, despite the vocal minority against cameras, many people do actually want them and campaign for them! http://www.transport2000.org.uk/activistbriefings/SpeedandRoadSafety.htm

No-one is against the driver education and better traffic policing he calls for but we need these things along with cameras to increase road safety and the quality of life. Finally, its notable that Bob, along with others who have written to oppose safety cameras, did not condemn the illegal destruction of them by extremely anti-social people.

Speed kills, speed cameras save (destroying cameras = more road deaths)

I must respond to the story ‘The Toughest Speed Camera in the World’ (Bristol EveningPost, 30 Aug) detailing the large number of cameras in Avon and Somerset that are damaged/destroyed and also to the several people who commented online on this story on the Posts website, condoning, excusing and/or failing to condemn this gross irresponsibilty. Compare and contrast the website of those celebrating destruction http://www.speedcam.co.uk/index2.htm (Motorists Against Detection really are MAD in more ways than one) with those wanting cameras for road safety (http://www.roadpeace.org/index.shtml).

‘On average, nine people are killed and 85 injured each day on the UK's roads. This figure would probably be higher if safety cameras were not used. By reducing speeding and making the roads safer, they save about 100 lives a year.’ (http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/TravelAndTransport/TrafficManagement/DG_10025598).

All those who deliberately damage speed cameras (better called safety cameras) show great insensitivity as they are often put up at locations of death and injury. ‘Safety cameras are generally installed on roads: with a history of road traffic collisions; where there is evidence of a speeding problem; or where there is local community concern. The Police may also use cameras to enforce speed limits.’ Why don’t these extremely anti-social people acknowledge the thousands killed and and tens of thousands injured on UK roads each year? http://www.roadpeace.org/index.shtml

Safety cameras are practical memorials where people have been killed. Every time someone vandalises a camera, they are showing their contempt for the people whose death may well have led to the camera being there in the first place. Presumeably they don’t care about the individual stories of pain and tragedy which these cameras are trying to stop from being repeated. Speed should not come before life and metal should not come before before flesh. Personally, I find it shocking that our society has often waited until there are deaths to take action, instead of being more proactive and preventive. It is a logic which we would never accept to the same extent for other modes of travel.

Road casualties should not be the forgotten victims in society. Road violence should not be a forgotten crime. There are far more road deaths than murders in a major city, yet the law on speeding is very weak indeed. Cars driven dangerously are potential killing machines, yet the police spend far too little time dealing with dangerous driving. Horrendous road deaths and injuries are not simply twists of fate, but preventable acts of social neglect.