Telford speed camera set ablaze again

A speed camera in Telford was set on fire by suspected arsonists at the weekend – just weeks after it was last targeted.

The speed camera on Station Road, Ketley, after the arson attack
The speed camera on Station Road, Ketley, after the arson attack

A speed camera in Telford was set on fire by suspected arsonists at the weekend – just weeks after it was last targeted.

The fixed camera, which monitors traffic speeds in Station Road, Ketley, was set alight early yesterday morning. It was set on fire in a separate incident in early April.

Katie Jenkins, spokeswoman for Safer Roads Partnership, blasted the “mindless culprits”, claiming the damage put motorists and pedestrians at risk.

She said: “It is not unheard of for individual speed cameras to be targeted, but each incident is very regrettable. The irresponsible perpetrators should realise the cameras are put in place to protect road users.

“There will be a financial cost to repairing the camera again. Hopefully it will only be the casing and not the actual camera which is damaged.”

Police said they are treating the latest fire as criminal damage and have appealed for witnesses. Inspector Jane Fitzpatrick, of West Mercia Police, said: “We got a report of the fire from the fire service that it involved a speed camera box. Officers also attended and we are treating it as criminal damage..”

Shropshire Fire and Rescue Service sent a crew from Wellington after the fire was reported just before 4.30am. They used a hose reel jet and dry powder extinguishers.

Anyone with information can call 03003 333000 quoting incident 152S of June 12.

Subscribe to our Newsletter

Comments for: "Telford speed camera set ablaze again"

Jeffrey Borra

oh dear what a shame.

Ken Adams

Oh Dear What a Shame! I thought only you said it first.

Huw Peach

According to a publicly available report, the introduction of speed cameras led to 1,745 fewer people killed and 4,230 fewer personal injury collisions per annum in 2004.

[Source: The National Safety Programme, Four Year Evaluation Report by PA Consulting Group, in December 2005]

Richard Brunstrom

Pertinent, that, Huw. A report seven years out of date.

I assume it had clear, empirical evidence that the reduction of 1,745 deaths was solely due to the introduction of speed cameras?

Nothing to do with improved road engineering? Or improved active safety features in cars such as better crumple zones / more airbags / increased use of ABS and stability control? Or improved response times of the emergency services? Or improved care by Paramedics at accident scenes?

I'd love to see clear evidence that one speed camera has saved one life since 1993.

Huw Peach

Here's some clear evidence, Richard.

[Source: 'Road deaths rise after speed cameras switch-off', Oxford Mail, 26 March 2011]

Thames Valley Police turned off speed cameras in Oxfordshire for 8 months last year and turned them on again in April 2011.

During the switch-off period EIGHTEEN people were killed in road accidents in the county.

In the same period the previous year (when the cameras were operating) TWELVE people were killed.

During the switch-off period

179 people were seriously injured.

In the same period the previous year (when the cameras were operating) 160 people were killed.

Would you blame worse road engineering, fewer safety features in cars, worse emergency service response times and worse care by Paramedics for the 6 deaths and 19 serious injuries during the camera switch-off, Richard?

Huw Peach

Apologies. I meant this...

In the same period the previous year (when the cameras were operating) 160 people were SERIOUSLY INJURED.

What do you think, Richard?

Darren Duffy

Hi Huw

I believe your statistics are mistaken. You say that:

"During the switch-off period

179 people were seriously injured.

In the same period the previous year (when the cameras were operating) 160 people were killed."

If that were true, then it would be a very good reason to switch cameras off.

Quite correctly, you have been picked up on using old data, and I am disappointed with your response.

Let us look at Swindon, 2009 four years after your paper.

As you will be well aware (or you would have used Swindon instead of Oxford as your argument),it was predicted that turning off the cameras would cause a significant increase in accidents.

What happened?

In the first nine months after the devices were scrapped in Swindon,road casualties fell from 327 to 315, Deaths fell from 4 to 2, and serious injuries fell from 48 to 44.

Would I claim that this fall is due to the removal of the cameras?

"No, that statement has not been proven!"

"Why?"

Because as Richard correctly pointed out, there are other factors to consider.

Not every accident is down to speeding, and not every speed camera contributes a reduction in accident hotspots.

If that were the case then I imagine the resistance to them would be much lower than it is.

On top of those contributing factors Richard mentioned, try considering: weather, lighting, time of accident, driver awareness, vehicle road worthyness, road markings, road surfaces, visibility, traffic flow, road maintenance, types of vehicle involved etc, and we have not even touched the surface of causes.

Huw Peach

Hello, Darren.

1) For my original mistake with road casualty figures, see my clarification [June 20, 2011 at 12:17] above your contribution.

There were 6 more deaths and 19 more serious injuries during the Thames Valley camera switch-off.

Do you blame weather, lighting, time of accident, driver awareness, vehicle road worthyness, road markings, road surfaces, visibility, traffic flow, road maintenance, types of vehicle involved etc for that, Darren?

And would you say that speed played NO role in the increased number of accidents during the swith-off(despite it being clear from this article that drivers were speeding more during that time without cameras (‘Speeding fines soar after cameras’ comeback’, Oxford Mail, Wednesday 11th May 2011)

2) And do you agree with Richard Brunstrom that the data produced by PA Consulting Group has no validity in a discussion about the popularity of speed cameras because it was published in December 2005?

I would imagine that the Telford public would be interested in statistics showing conclusively that speed cameras led to fewer casualties.

And I would imagine most people in Telford wouldn't mind greatly if the data were published in 2004 or 2011.

And they would, I'm sure, be reassured to know that they were not alone.

In November 2010 an AA/Populus poll of 18,251 AA members showed that support for speed cameras was very high.

75% SUPPORTED SPEED CAMERAS.

With figures like this, is it any surprise that there are people campaigning to turn Swindon's cameras back on?

[See 'Bereaved mother's campaign for Swindon speed cameras' BBC, 29 July 2010]

What do you think, Darren?

Or Richard?

And do you support criminals torching something the public values and supports, Darren?

beaver

should burn them all, each speed camera costs more than the average copper earns in a year, put the police back on the streets, maybe they would catch more criminals then, this country sucks

beaver

each camera costs more than the average copper earns in a year,

Brian

No the cameras are not there to protect road users. They are there to generate money, Like keeping Jane Fitzpatrick and co in a job.

Shropsman

Errrrr ... not quite !!!!

The revenue raised from speed ... sorry must be politically correct ... 'safety' cameras goes into Central Government funds I believe, not to the local police forces .... ooops sorry did it again, police service ...

So it's more likely that the money raised goes to help provide benefits and fund the lifestyles of the mindless no-brainers who have nothing better to do than go around destroying property which Ye Olde Taxpayer has to foot the bill to repair / replace so the same can happen again !!!

Stephen

If this is true, wouldn't the obvious thing be to not speed in the first place? No speeding = no money generated. If you speed you must want to give away your cash. Simples.

Yosemite Sam

A Revenue Camera put out of action? Oh how sad.

ketley born and bread

i seen the cover being taken of this just the other day whilst driving past. these mindless criminals need to be stopped i would pay for camaras all day long than loose my life over idiots putting the peddle to the metal just for that bit more of a buzz.....i grew up in the ketley and can remember a few bad crashes on that road....one by the horseshoes pub of which a women LOST HER LIFE and another by the pudding inn (what used to be)all because of idiots...... since the camaras have been in place i have not known of a crash on that stretch. POINT PROVEN I THINK.

spencer

I love it when people start banging on about speed cameras being there to generate money..Slow down and they won't fools..

Oakengates Kid

Burn the speed cameras down and use the remains to repair the potholes

Happy Days!

dildo

some people need to grow up.....what if a member of your familys got hit by a speeding car on a stretch of road where they removed a speed camara because of mindless thugs...different kettle of fish then me thinks.......

E

Speed Cameras don't stop mindless thugs speeding, they just speed up between the cameras

Best of it is, you couldnt speed if you wanted to in Ketley due to congestion and parked cars at the shop!

bit grumpy

Yep we all speed up after a camera, and we're all guilty of wanting one in our street to slow the cars down by our house?. I think that these cameras do good, bad, and the ugly?

Darren Duffy

Your stance takes the position that you believe what you have been told. You will of course be in the majority, as is Huw, however some people like to check these things out.

I support the use of cameras at true accident zones, where speeding and not other factors can be proven to be the reason for the accidents; otherwise the camera is not tackling anything, and becomes a tax on ordinary drivers.

You will find that 30% of all major accidents involve a lorry

http://www.caraccidentclaims.co.uk/car-accident/lorries-involved-in-30-percent-of-major-car-accident-claims

50% of all accidents on the M25 involve a foreign lorry:

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/driving/article2866091.ece

and 20% of all accidents involve a motorbike.

http://www.readingmag.org.uk/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=89:bike-accident-statistics&catid=25:the-project:

Look at the positioning of the cameras, they are not at accident hotspots as you are led to believe. They vast majority are at revenue hotspots (check for yourself : http://www.speedcameramap.co.uk/)

Look at London, the place is gridlocked and yet has hundreds of cameras, while the M4 has hardly any. If this is not revenue raising I don't know what is.

There are quarter of a million miles of road and 6000 cameras.

Do you seriously think the cameras are responsible for cutting the rates?

If you check out the data and still come to the same conclusion then we will have to agree to disagree, I am not trying to convert you, just giving you a different point of view.

And yes, I have had close family members hit by cars, so that doesn't fly either.

If we set up something costing £100million to tackle accidents, then I would like to see clever targeting to do just that, not see our money being wasted by opportunists.

Huw Peach

Where are pedestrians more likely to be hit by vehicles, Darren?

On the M4/M25 or in residential areas?

75% of people SUPPORT SPEED CAMERAS [Source: AA/Populus poll, November 3rd 2010]

Those people want clever targeting of cameras in areas, where lives have been lost.

See this article about an arson attack on a speed camera, installed in the Dawley Road.

Why there?

Because a 5 year-old boy died ther crossing the road with his Mum [ http://www.shropshirestar.com/latest/2008/10/21/arson-attack-on-speed-camera/ ].

See also the extremely unpleasant comments underneath it, cheering on the arsonist.

Do you support arsonists who torch something the public regard as life-savers, Darren?

Matt

What DOES cause distress is when the camera goes off and a poor pedestrian gets the full effect of the flash on this camera in their eyes.

Of course, it could have been replaced with the type of camera that doesa not use a flash, but it wasn't.

ketley born and bread

poor poor pedestrians being harmed with a flash in there eyes.one thing can be said i would rather a flash in my eyes and affect me for a few seconds than a speeding car mounting the curb and affecting me for the rest of my life ....

some people just have no idea that these things save lives and more worried about a flash....FOR GOD SAKE......

Squire

If you don't want to pay speeding fines then don't speed, very simple really. Now us hard working taxpayers have to fund a replacement AGAIN!

Tony

This time replace it with average speed cameras - I'd like to see the scumbags climb a 10m pole to necklace one of those!

Rich

No need to burn these cameras, just slow down instead... Shame that you must spell it out to people!

Telford Steve

I don't like them, but I'd rather have cameras than speed bumps.

Ed

I can't understand why anyone is moaning about these cameras. Drive to the speed limit and you won't get fined. Stop breaking the law, idiots!

roadrunner

Isn't this a no story because I thought that the west mercia were turning off all their fixed cameras anyway?

JOHN JONES

You must have some very bad drivers in Telford. In Shrewsbury we haven't a speed camera working, we occasionally see a mobile one, Nice and safe here.

Local Resident

There are working speed cameras in Shrewsbury! Copthorne by the Hospital for instance!

Rob, Telford

" In Shrewsbury we haven’t a speed camera working"

You probably didn't recognise it because it's got "Geschwindigkeitskamera" written across it.....

Peter

According to the West Mercia 'safety' camera site, there are a number of cameras, both fixed and mobile, in Shrewsbury.

You've previously demonstrated a woeful ignorance of Telford - now it seems you don't even know your own town. I've said it before, but you really do need to get out more!

askeric dot com

Oh Dear...

A camera set on fire .. and supporters of the camera trying to claim it saves lives, better to have a flash in the eyes than be run over by a speeding car etc etc.

I have to say this is somewhat scaremongering - are we REALLY saying that the road would become a race track if the camera wasnt there??? I think NOT !!!.

Having been recently "flashed" by a camera on the open road on the A5 doing a smidgin over the 40mph limit after nearly 1,000,000 miles of blameless motoring, i went on a speed awareness course.

I was amazed on this course, NOT because people on there were "speeding" ... far form it ... we were all driving at "just above2 the speed limit. Illegal YES ... but you DON't suddenly become a danger just becuase you've gone over the limit by a few percent!!!

NO .. what REALLY surprised me was the LACK of knowledge of general Highway code principles .. and THATS what I found "dangerous"

AND - I also made the point on the course that in ALL my 1,000,000 miles of motoring ... NO ONE had ever asked ME as an expererienced motorist (By way of miles driven) What I thought about road safety, speed limits and cameras.

AND you know what... It's made me a WORSE DRIVER !!!! - I'm now driving around noting the cameras, wondering if it IS a 30mph (or 40 - RATHER THAN CONCENRATING EXCLUSIVELY ON THE HAZARDS AHEAD!! Ooh yes, all very well knowing there's street lamps etc, but its the POSTED speed limit that's important !

As an experience driver, whos been on a speed awareness course, my considered opinion is that cameras dont work

ketley born and bread

Doin a smidgen over 40 speed limits are in place for a reason and you broke that limit so you was flashed....END OF THAT POINT REALLY....

I am not saying it will become a race track but speeds will increase.any numpty can work that out..

As i am from the area and live about 300 yds from the camara in question speed limits increased when it was out of action....

To be honest and beleive it or not i have worked for events managment at silverstone (security for the gran prix) and when there is no race there are speed limits in place around the track and camaras...

roadrunner

Speed limits are there for a reason are they? Then why have all the NSL roads in Telford been reduced to 40MPH over the last few years? Is it because they are dangerous at 60MPH after about 30 years of being so? No! It's because the fools in the highways planning think that if all roads have the same speed limit it would be easier for drivers to understand...you couldn't make it up folks but I've seen it in print.

The majority of roads reduced to 40MPH are going against Department for Transport Guidelines and even now have mean speeds in excess of 40MPH and the limits are being broken by as much as 80% of drivers...what does that tell you about Telfords' speed limits policy?

andy

them roads are good for at least 100mph! lol

Richard Brunstrom

If you cannot spot a big box on the side of a road with a yellow face pointing towards you, and not deduce that it is a speed camera, then your observational skills are lacking.

You're probably the type of driver who (witnessed just two days ago) bimbles at 50mph on a motorway, gets to the roundabout at the Shifnal exit, approaches it in the left lane, does not indicate, and uses said left hand lane to turn right up Redhill Bank.

<b>These</b> are the type of drivers that cause accidents, not those who do 44 in a 40.

And addressing #15's point, when I am driving on an A-Road all I want to do - conditions permitting - is drive to the speed limit. What I do not want is to perform a perfectly acceptable overtake of a driver travelling at 40 in a 60, then get flashing high-beams and "coffee bean gestures". I'm not beaking the law by passing you, so just deal with it.

Ed

I didn't say anything about overtaking, what are you talking about?

Richard Brunstrom

You mentioned, Ed, not breaking the speed limit.

What I alluded to, and witness during 20,000+ miles of driving per year, is that - on your average A-Road - getting <b>to</b> the speed limit of 60mph is a bloody award winning achievement, thanks to the type of driver who sees it fit to travel 15mph below said limit when conditions clearly permit a speed of 60.

I will table a question to you:

<i>Do you believe that speed cameras are a) about catching law-breakers or b) for the purposes of road safety?</i>

It is a black or white answer I require, as a) has nothing to do with b). Government stats show that exceeding a speed limit is one of the most minor direct causalities in RTA's.

Over to you.

Huw Peach

I would answer your questions by saying that speed cameras are there as a deterrent to enforce the law and to make the road safer for other road users.

According to this online article ('Speeding fines soar after cameras' comeback', Oxford Mail, Wednesday 11th May 2011), people drove much faster during the switch-off period I mentioned above.

Thames Valley Police road safety officer, Sgt Chris Appleby, is quoted in the article as saying, ...

“Speed is a major factor in people being injured and killed on the roads...

... I think reactivating cameras impacts on safety.

... More people abide by speed limits and, as a result, people are safer on the roads.”

Presumably Sgt Appleby is aware of Government stats and is keen that the public understand the Thames Valley Police force's own stats about the bloody impact of the camera switch-off.

What do you think of people burning speed cameras, Richard?

andy

look....i dont like speed cameras as they kep catching me speeding. and as for your comment richard it not always easy to spot one when im texting or dialing someone on the phone, or indeed trying to open a packet of crisps while trying to read the paper. so down with them i say ! hazzzarr to them gentlemen you are truly your brothers keeps!

tom

Just another way for police to get money. Yeah they save lives but 1 or 2 mph over the limit and its a £80 fine and points on your liscence. It's such a scam! Picky Police!

brian smith

Burning a speed camera is as near to a victimless crime as you can get.

Lets face there are never any witnesses.

gerg

these things are going to heppen in poor areas like Ketley....just one of those things that happens in Telford

JOHN JONES

Local Resident. There is not a fixed speed camera on Copthorne Road, it has been removed.

There has been 3 fixed speed cameras in Shrewsbury.

1) Copthorne Rd. by the Hospital, Removed.

2)Ditherington Rd. Removed.

3) Longton Rd. In place, but not working, due to the markings on the road not painted back on the surface after road repairs.

Woody

Buy a Road Angel! Simples.

Try our beta site!

We’re getting ready to launch our brand new website for shropshirestar.com and we’d like to give you a sneak preview.

We’re still applying the finishing touches, so please bear with us if something’s not quite right.

We'd love to hear your thoughts, good or bad, via the simple feedback button that you'll see to the right side of every page.

Try the beta