(An update presented by Andy Fisher, Head of Regulatory Services)
The Head of Regulatory Services provided Members with an update on the Committee’s speed indicating devices (SID) and circulated a breakdown of the data obtained by the device in each of the six locations chosen by Members.
All six locations were 30 mph zones. The data showed the number of vehicles going through the SID, their average speed, the number and percentage of vehicles over the speed limit and the maximum speed recorded with the time at which the vehicle was travelling. The data varied significantly by location.
Inspector Morrice was going to update Members on where speed traps had been located. It was known that the devices should not be located repeatedly in the same areas.
One of the cameras had stopped working, but its battery had now been replaced under warranty and the minimum speed was being increase in order to prolong battery life.
In response to questions, the Head of Regulatory Services explained that it was difficult to compare the figures with previous data in order to ascertain the full impact of the devises; it would need to be professionally analysed. However, a trend was showing in that the percentage of vehicles over the speed limit had come down in some areas. There had not been a significant reduction in the maximum speed. The devices produced a considerable amount of data, which Members were welcome to view or, alternatively, the Committee could commission an in-depth analysis.
The devices had been operational for approximately 18 months. They were to be placed in 12 locations to begin with, but Members had only put forward six. Ideally, the devices would be operational for 10 days and then the batteries would take 2 days to recharge; however, this was not standard as it was subject to staff availability.
There was concern that over one-third of vehicles were travelling over the speed limit in four of the locations and at the level of the maximum speeds. The Head of Regulatory Services confirmed that the devices might be recording how much each vehicle was travelling over the speed limit, but it was not known how to draw out this information. It had been suggested that the maximum speed recorded could have been Police vehicles in some instances.
The data did show where it was more useful to site a device; at Spilsby Road vehicles were approaching traffic lights and a lower percentage were over the speed limit, whereas, on London Road, vehicles were transitioning from a 40 to a 30 mph speed limit and the number of vehicles over the speed limit was one of the highest.
There was a view that the effect of the devices was sufficient to demand action from the County Council in terms of speed cameras and traffic calming measures. There was a request that the County Councillors present should ask the County Council to take the matter very seriously.
Following discussion of the need for expert advice on the impact of the devices, it was agreed that the Road Safety Partnership, of which the Police and the Highways Authority were members, be invited to a future meeting to analyse the data and remind Members of the costs for other locations.
RESOLVED that the Committee welcomes the update and the information provided and:
1. Seeks a report from individual BTAC Members on alternative sites to Staniland Road and Spilsby Road, where there is a low percentage of speeding vehicles;
2. That monitoring of roads continues where over 30% of vehicles have been speeding;
3. Invites representatives from the Road Safety Partnership to attend a future meeting to advise the Committee on what action can be taken to reduce speeds further.