‘Don’t speed on green’, motorists warned

08.51 | 11 January 2019 | | | 15 comments

New technology has been introduced in Sussex in an effort to reduce speeding offences at traffic lights.

The ‘speed on green’ cameras aim to tackle the problem of drivers speeding up in order to ‘beat the red light’.

The portable cameras, which work in the same way as traditional speed cameras, are designed to be used at locations controlled by traffic lights and where red light cameras are already in use.

They have been funded by Brighton and Hove City Council, who made the first camera operational on 7 January at a location where there is a ‘history of collisions and speeding’.

The initial trial, carried out by the Sussex Safer Roads Partnership (SSRP), took place on a 30mph road and resulted in more than 175 potential offences being detected – with speeds as high as 50mph recorded.

While the cameras are currently only being used at one location, the SSRP says the ultimate aim is to have all traffic lights across Sussex capable of detecting ‘speed on green offences’.

Gill Mitchell, lead councillor for transport at Brighton and Hove City Council, said: “I have no doubt that these new speed on green cameras will be a great aid to road safety in Brighton and Hove and will greatly enhance road safety at a number of traffic light controlled junctions where serious injury crashes have occurred.”


 

Comments

Comment on this story

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Report a reader comment

Order by Latest first | Oldest first | Highest rated | Lowest rated

    You might want to check that Bob. I don’t know Blackpool, but I’ve just randomly looked at several traffic signal junctions on Google street view and one can see that they all have the loop detectors as one would expect – I can’t imagine any signals in the country not having these standard detectors as they have been in existence for decades. You may be thinking of the above ground detectors, mounted on top of the signal heads.


    Hugh Jones
    Agree (0) | Disagree (0)
    0

    Hugh. Wrong. in Blackpool they are timed. They are not serviced by any sensors on them at all.

    Some authorities, following government guidelines understand that the sensor is a good idea for the environment by allowing the greater traffic flow say in and out of towns at busy times morning and afternoon or indeed all day. This is the case of green lanes through lights in some towns or areas. Ultimately this is good for the environment as it reduces stopped traffic building up harmful gases but it isn’t so where I live.

    Neither is it relevant as to the problem of drivers seeing a green for go light and accelerating towards it hoping to beat the lights before they change against them.


    R.Craven
    Agree (0) | Disagree (0)
    0

    Bob: traffic signals are triggered by demand to allow more efficient operation and to avoid unnecessary waits, so green and red times are not ‘set times’ as such (unless faulty when they will default to fixed times), and will therefore vary according to flow and number of vehicles etc.


    Hugh Jones
    Agree (0) | Disagree (0)
    0

    I think this issue is actually about drivers who drive faster whilst approaching the traffic lights that are already on green and that they wish to avoid having to stop on the AMBER or RED lights when they show. Not slowing on a red light hoping that it changes to amber and then green. That’s not so much of a problem.

    The vast majority of traffic lights are in urban areas and are subject to a set time laps when working. Some major roads with greater traffic flow may be on green for a lot longer time then the other more minor roads would.

    The problem is one for vehicles approaching the lights on green anb putting their foot down in order to avoid stopping as said. Unfortunately I will slow on my approach in anticipation of the change against me but that angers drivers behind by slowing them down when they want to go faster. If one actually stops on an AMBER light which one should one must expect abuse as no one stops on AMBER any more…. Except me perhaps.


    R.Craven
    Agree (0) | Disagree (0)
    0

    Bob, Try as we might to design interventions which reduce/prevent collisions using all the while improving research and evidence, I would still have to admit that whilst human beings are in charge of vehicles (and themselves as pedestrians) then no we will not prevent all collisions. Therefore in my opinion it is right to mitigate the effects of the collisions which we “expect” to occur. If it was only the humans making the mistakes and deliberate dangerous choices who get injured or killed then the justification for spending public money on the mitigating measures may be less palatable. However, I do feel that the people causing the collisions are worth trying to save. It surely makes for a society more worthwhile to belong to? It is my understanding that casualty numbers are lower now with many times more vehicles miles being driven so which “old order” do you want to go back to??

    Rod, at the RSGB conference the subject of enforcement of legislation came up on a few occasions. I think I am correct in saying that without the “threat” of the enforcement of legislation then behavioural change/following the laws is not going to happen no matter how much education/engagement is carried out. The police need to enforce somewhere so that drivers see the need to obey the law. Choosing a site with a record of casualties/offences – presumably that is why the red-light cameras are where they are – is, I would assume, a more acceptable location for enforcement? There is more that can be said on this subject but I think that is enough to make my point?


    Nick Hughes, Preston
    Agree (1) | Disagree (0)
    +1

    That’s saying the same thing David! Assuming no other traffic, as one’s vehicle approaches the red light at a moderate speed, the signal should go green, whilst you are ‘strolling up’ as you put it, the other aspects should already be showing all red. It’s only practical applicable at less trafficked junctions obviously, usually rural locations.


    Hugh Jones
    Agree (0) | Disagree (0)
    0

    > Some signalised junctions on quieter roads with fast approaches may be set to all red and only change as and when a vehicle approaches, to deter those who would accelerate if a green was showing

    Or rather, in order to allow quicker changing to the green aspect; instead of proceeding after waiting a bit on red for the other aspects to turn red, you stroll up and proceed on green.


    David Weston, Corby
    Agree (0) | Disagree (0)
    0

    Some signalised junctions on quieter roads with fast approaches may be set to all red and only change as and when a vehicle approaches, to deter those who would accelerate if a green was showing. Signal changes are not usually fixed-time driven, but respond to demand and shorter or longer green times cannot necessarily be predicted. Best to approach at a moderate speed and be prepared to stop easily without drama.


    Hugh Jones
    Agree (1) | Disagree (3)
    --2

    Don’t forget that the amber light is actually a stop light. But, in response to Bob’s comment, I remember talking with a former head of Kent (Police) Driving school who had a reputation for not stopping at traffic lights. His approach was to slow down early in the hope that the lights changed to green before he got there. It is actually better to do it this way if possible; more sympathetic to the vehicle – less use of brakes for example – and less fuel consumption.


    Nigel ALBRIGHT
    Agree (1) | Disagree (0)
    +1

    Nice one Charles and well done Rod… or should I say Manuel.


    R.Craven
    Agree (1) | Disagree (1)
    0

    I’m sure that a cheaper and infinitely more productive solution (in terms of casualty, collision and congestion reduction) would be to remove the traffic lights and erase all the road markings.


    Charles, Birmingham
    Agree (7) | Disagree (6)
    +1

    Rob

    Que!


    Rod King, Warrington
    Agree (0) | Disagree (3)
    --3

    If traffic were to be slowed down to 20 mph we would still be in a situation where drivers would speed up and break the law, perhaps even more than before. Or is it the case that slowing traffic down to 20 mph is going to be a panacea for all our traffic ills and that the powers that be have had it wrong for well over a decade.

    It’s a concern to me that the 20 scheme has supporters that believe that we have had it all wrong for decades and that we should admit we cannot stop collisions from happening and that we now need to concern ourselves more as they obviously do in nbot attempting to reduce collisions but mitigate whatever injuries collisions subsequently cause.

    Is that the kind of law and order and society that we want. I certainly don’t. One has to make a choice. It’s one of the other. The old order or the new one.


    R.Craven
    Agree (4) | Disagree (2)
    +2

    Once again we have an “only here” call to obey traffic rules. The more we say here is a special place where you shouldn’t speed then the more we imply that its OK to speed elsewhere.

    I have no objection to the detection and prosecution of people speeding near traffic lights, but I do consider that the message is just another drip feed to the idea that traffic laws are somehow open to personal interpretation as to whether they should be obeyed or no.


    Rod King, Warrington
    Agree (1) | Disagree (13)
    --12

    It’s about time to that something was done to prevent speeding up on approach to green traffic lights. Many a time I have ended up being tailgated and intimidated, If I had to stop on the Amber light which one should do before they turn red then I would be subjected to a rear end shunt.

    Makes one suspect that they are not being trained all that well.


    R.Craven
    Agree (2) | Disagree (4)
    --2