News 
 Local News 
 News 
 General 
 No negative effects with removal of speed cameras 

No negative effects with removal of speed cameras

20 Jan, 2012 08:04 AM
NEW ENGLAND Local Area Command (LAC) Highway Patrol Sergeant Dave Bramble believes the removal of two speed cameras at Tilbuster and Llangothlin last November has had no detrimental impact.

The cameras were switched off after research from the Roads and Maritime Services determined they weren’t improving motorists’ safety.

The issue has been highlighted with the death of a young boy in a smash near Urunga earlier this month.

A speed camera situated nearby had been removed last year.

But Sgt Bramble said the removal of the Tilbuster and Llangothlin cameras had so far proven to be a sensible decision.

“The authorities thought they just weren’t required and I haven’t noticed any increase in accidents or speeding, so it doesn’t appear as though there has been any difference without them,” he said.

“At the moment, there is no real need for them in those areas.”

Both cameras were previously located on the New England Highway, with one northbound between Sunnyside Rd and Tilbuster Ponds Bridge.

The other was situated between Ben Lomond and Everetts Roads, just outside the town of Llangothlin.

The two cameras were part of a large-scale removal process by NSW Roads Minister Duncan Gay last year, with 38 switched off across the state.

Mr Gay has faced mounting questions over his decision due to the crash at Urunga.

The speed camera has since been turned back to ‘warning’ mode, which will alert motorists they are approaching the town, but not fine them for breaching the speed limit.

Despite the widespread fallout from the accident, Sgt Bramble said he could not see the Tilbuster and Llangothlin cameras being reinstated in the near future.

Print
Increase Text Size
Decrease Text Size

comments


Date: Newest first | Oldest first
Any "road safety" initiative must claim specific measurable safety improvement targets - if these targets are not met within a stated timeframe, the changes must be scrapped. For example a speed camera site proposal needs to define a measurable safety benefit target, ie reduced number of accidents within a specific distance that can be attributed solely to the camera's existence. If that target accident reduction cannot be shown within 12 months, the camera site will be said to have failed and needs to be decommissioned. Unless it can be proven that the entire network of speed cameras is meet
Posted by Klavdy, 22/01/2012 2:04:04 PM, on Armidale Express
If that target accident reduction cannot be shown within 12 months, the camera site will be said to have failed and needs to be decommissioned. Unless it can be proven that the entire network of speed cameras is meeting some measurable safety-improvement target, the entire policy of camera generated speed offences should be overturned.
Posted by Klavdy, 22/01/2012 2:04:19 PM, on Armidale Express
I would suggest that Klavdy read to speed camera audit, and he/she will then be in a better position to make an informed comment, especially about the performance of speed cameras in NSW.

When I lived in Armidale, there were some terrible accidents at Tilbuster. The road might be better now!

Posted by John May, 29/01/2012 5:43:20 PM, on Armidale Express

post a comment


Screen name  *
Email address  *
Remember me?
Comment  *
 
We invite and encourage our readers to post comments. Comments are moderated and will appear as soon as our editor has approved them. When posting comments you agree to be bound by our Terms and Conditions.

Most popular articles




Armidale Express







Weather brought to you by:

Weatherzone

Front Page

Current Issue
Privacy Policy | Conditions of Use | Advertising Terms | Copyright © 2012. Fairfax Media.
 SEND...
 SAVE...
 SHARE...