New average speed cameras are being installed across Greater Manchester as part of continued work to increase resources for law enforcement.
Transport for Greater Manchester (TfGM) is upgrading speed cameras across 25 routes with the ‘latest generation of average speed systems’ which track how long it takes a vehicle to travel between two set points on a road using automatic number plate recognition (ANPR) technology provided by Jenoptik.
TfGM and Greater Manchester Police (GMP) have worked with Jenoptik to analyse each route to ensure the cameras are placed at the most ‘optimal’ points to deliver the best improvements to road safety for all road users.
The system works by sending information automatically to the camera shortly after the vehicle has left the monitored section, an image is captured and if the vehicle is travelling too fast this will be shared with GMP.
Supt Gareth Parkin from GMP’s Specialist Operations said: “These speed camera upgrades across 25 routes in Greater Manchester are a fantastic improvement on road safety measures for all who live, work and visit the area.
“We have seen almost 600 people either lose their lives or be seriously injured between 2020 and 2022, this is completely unacceptable.
“Speeding represents one of the ‘fatal four’ that we focus on here in Greater Manchester, alongside drink and drug driving, using mobile devices behind the wheel and the non-wearing of seat belts.
“We are proud to be working with our partners at Transport for Greater Manchester to try and eradicate reckless and anti-social drivers from our roads.”
The new ANPR cameras are only approved by the Home Office for speed enforcement and will not be used for any other monitoring purposes.
They are also not capable of automatically detecting any other offences such us using a mobile phone while driving, or not wearing a seat belt.
However, if GMP identify any other offences taking place when reviewing the speeding offence imagery, then the matter will be reviewed to see whether a speed awareness course or fixed penalty notice would still be appropriate or if further action needs to be taken.
Dame Sarah Storey, Greater Manchester’s active travel commissioner, said: “As a city-region we are working to adopt Vision Zero, which targets the elimination of all deaths and life-changing injuries on our roads.
“Speeding is a leading cause behind fatal collisions , and in Greater Manchester 598 people have been needlessly killed or seriously injured between 2020 and 2022 as a result of speeding.
“Having an upgraded safety camera network that can measure spot speed and average speed to ensure that speeding drivers are detected and dealt with, is a vital part of helping realise Greater Manchester’s Vision Zero ambitions and make the region’s roads safer for everyone who uses them.”
Jenoptik has already installed more than 260 permanent average speed systems across the UK. Research from the RAC Foundation shows that average speed technology can lead to a reduction in injuries, including life-changing injuries, caused by road traffic collisions.
Average speed cameras have also been found to improve traffic flow, because more people travel at a uniform speed reducing the amount of harsh braking. This has been shown to also improve air quality and reduce emissions.
John Piper, UK sales director at Jenoptik, said: “Independent research proves that average speed cameras have a significant effect on driver behaviour that makes roads safer.
“We thank Greater Manchester for putting their trust in us to deliver safety camera solutions which are a proven, fair, effective way to reduce dangerous driving on our roads and make them safer for responsible motorists and the general public.”
Why did they not run scientific trials?
We need to know if these cameras are saving lives, or leading to more deaths.
The RAC report cited uses the FTP method that I developed (including the term “SSP” that I invented).
My method can produce the most accurate results possible, but it requires the SSP to be correctly identified.
This has not been done to the standard required when lives are at stake.
28 SSPs were “supplied” but, it appears, not checked against the data.
10 SSPs were “estimated” but I have found that previous estimates used in other reports were incorrect by such a degree, that it invalidated the results.
3 were “Calculated”, which I assume means that they did try to apply my method correctly.
We simply cannot rely on any of the RAC or camera supplier reports.
We need to PROVE what effect our interventions have.
We MUST run independent randomised controlled trials.
dave finney, slough
+8