Results revealed for first week of noise camera trial on A34The noise-activated cameras, which have been purchased and installed as a joint venture between the Police & Crime Commissioner and Cheshire East Highways to to crack down on noisy anti-social motorists, was installed on Friday 21st October.
Placed on a roundabout approach on the A34 Pendleton Way, between Wilmslow and Alderley Edge, they are monitored, virtually, by Cheshire Police and during the first week of operation there were 38 activations.
Councillor Craig Browne explained "An activation occurs where a passing vehicle emits engine or exhaust noise in excess of 90dB. (The external noise emitted by passenger cars has been controlled since 1929 when the Motor Cars (Excessive Noise) regulations were introduced. New cars are now required to meet Europe-wide noise limits. These have been progressively reduced from 82 decibels (dB (A)) in 1978 to the current limit of 72 dB (A) established in 2016.)"
Initially, offending motorists will receive a letter, warning them that their driving behaviour has triggered an activation. As resources permit, police officers will be operating kerbside patrols to enable them to pull over and inspect any vehicles that are found to be triggering an activation.
The initial trial is expected to last for three months, after which and depending upon the results, Cheshire East Council working in partnership with Cheshire Police will give consideration to introducing a Public Space Protection Order (PSPO). Following the making of a Public Space Protection Order, any activations of the acoustic cameras would result in fines being issued to the respective drivers.
Councillor Craig Browne said "The trial is necessary to establish whether introducing a PSPO would be effective and offer value for money."
He added "I have long been of the opinion that there is not a single solution to the problem of anti-social and dangerous driving of these high-performance vehicles; however, the installation of acoustic cameras, coupled with the introduction of a 20mph zone (self-enforced with physical traffic calming infrastructure) in the centre of Alderley Edge, plus the implementation of Public Space Protection Order, will collectively help to address what has become a growing problem in recent years.
"I want to be clear that Alderley Edge welcomes nice cars and careful drivers; however, what we do not welcome is the type of aggressive, dangerous, noisy and antisocial driving that a minority of road users are displaying and which is spoiling the environment and enjoyment of Alderley Edge for the vast majority of residents and visitors."
He continued "I would like to place on record my thanks to Police & Crime Commissioner, John Dwyer, as well as officers from Cheshire East Highways and Cheshire Police for bringing this project to fruition."
John Dwyer, Police & Crime Commissioner for Cheshire said "Making Cheshire's roads safer is a priority in my Police and Crime Plan, so I'm pleased to have been able to fund an acoustic camera along the A34 to try and tackle inconsiderate driving that is having an impact on local residents.
"I know how frustrating these issues are, and it's because of the strength of feeling at my public meeting last year that together with the Constabulary and council we've kept this issue firmly on our agenda.
"The data we get from this trial will inform how we tackle this issue going forward. I am eager to see the difference this camera trial could make both now and in the future."
Comments
Here's what readers have had to say so far. Why not add your thoughts below.
So, at what range (distance) do these devices activate and how credible are the figures that are generated/eventually lead to prosecution . Will this type of device in general operation also entail obligatory warning signs (as are legislated for speed cameras)? Depending on whether they are being approached or are being left behind (so to speak) will affect the trigger DbA (averaging) readings - how many of these will be required for the circa 6 mile stretch from the A555 to the A34 Alderley Road junction - and at what cost?
Whilst excess noise has been the basis of the many public complaints it's actually excess speed we're all concerned about, does one get an endorsement (or even imprisonment) for excess noise or are the results just going to generate better sales for suppliers of 'acoustic defeater' exhaust systems?
Not being negative, just asking some questions that perhaps should have already been addressed.
Perhaps even a loud raspberry will also register!
-------------------------------------
"The external noise emitted by passenger cars has been controlled since 1929 when the Motor Cars (Excessive Noise) regulations were introduced. New cars are now required to meet Europe-wide noise limits. These have been progressively reduced from 82 decibels (dB (A)) in 1978 to the current limit of 72 dB (A) established in 2016.....
.....The noise levels quoted above are the maximum levels that are permitted for new vehicle types. Many vehicles produce lower levels of noise, and it is illegal to modify the exhaust system of a vehicle to make it noisier than the level recorded for that model at type approval.
A new EU regulation was introduced from July 2016. Regulation (EU) No 540/2014, phases in tighter noise limits over 10 years, together with a revised, more representative test procedure. By 2026 the limit for most new passenger cars will be 68 dB(A)"
------------------------------------
Note that these are EU regulations which are presently still law in Britain. However, this government is minded to ditch swathes of EU-derived legislation, including employment and environmental protection laws. If this happens, all bets are off (if only as a result of the law of unintended consequences which often trips governments up).
The vehicles sound is recorded from a short distance along with its registration. The system then automatically compares the reading to the maximum decibels the vehicle would have been allowed to make when it left the factory. If it is above this “normal” level, then it is an offence. It means older vehicles are allowed to be louder, but those modified to be deliberately noisy are caught.
The system can instantly alert a patrol car to intercept the noisy vehicle or else allow the police to contact the owner later. Currently, there is no standard legislation that allows the police to issue automatic fines from these noise cameras though. To do this requires an 18 month process to get a Public Spaces Protection Order. So rather than wait, Cheshire East and Cheshire Constabulary have developed this solution instead.
In parallel to this, the Department for Transport are also running noise camera trials in Bradford, Bristol, Birmingham and Great Yarmouth. If these are successful, then the technology is likely to be approved for widescale UK use, along with the legislation needed to automatically issue fines.
Whilst noise is a big nuisance, there is also a more dangerous side to this problem too. This year there were several illegal street racing meets on the A34 in Wilmslow. This involved around 50 cars and 300 spectators. They travelled from across the country, with no set route, just agreeing to stop at short notice at a town along the way. When they came to Wilmslow, they raced down the bypass until the few police officers on duty arrived. The car mob then stopped racing and moved on. Therefore, these noise cameras will also help the police identify these culprits too.
Cheshire Constabulary are trying to deter these drivers from visiting us again though and are being creative with their approach. At one event, a spectator used a drone to film the cars racing. Drones are banned this close to the airport, so the police confiscated it. They reviewed the film afterwards to identify the cars involved. The film couldn’t be used in court though, but they used it to contact the cars insurance companies instead. They asked if they had been informed that the car was being used for street racing? It they hadn’t, then the cars insurance would likely be withdrawn. Getting new insurance when previously declined bumps up premiums, while cars without insurance can be immediately confiscated by the police.
So Cheshire Constabulary and Cheshire East are taking this issue very seriously. We both think people in Wilmslow should be able to enjoy the peace of their own home without the intrusive screeching from deliberately noisy vehicles. Unfortunately, UK law is playing catch-up with this anti-social problem but we are getting nearer to solving it.
In addition to all this, traffic speeds on the A34 are also being monitored by Cheshire East Highways to see if any changes are needed on safety grounds. This is likely to be concluded and reported on early next year.
Cllr Mark Goldsmith
Residents of Wilmslow
Wilmslow West & Chorley
Thanks for a bit more detail as to what the intentions are.
Do you know why a thoroughly tried and tested model using speed averaging cameras (which can I believe can also be monitored virtually) has not be considered for the A34 (which is I think he present problem area). Legislation and the Law aspects are already in place and the system does exactly 'what it says on the tin' - it's proven to slow speeding traffic and supports prosecution of anyone that does disregard restrictions. The current national speed limit for dual carriageways is 70mph and there are already other restriction signs on the approach to some of the roundabouts.
I believe the trialling of noise monitors has something to do with initial funding, they no doubt work but can they be effective if they are not currently supported by legislation - and it seems like it also takes up even more dedicated police time (something we are all told Cheshire Constabulary is short of) to further pursue perpetrators when speed averaging systems can be almost autonomous.
Is there any comparative costs projection and operational time scales for noise monitoring vs speed averaging? How does noise monitoring perform in respect of electric vehicles - they too speed don't ya know?
I welcome an initiative but....noise is a nuisance but speeding is the actual problem.
The average petrol Lawn mower is 90 db, Humans can scream upto 129db...
Proportionate ?
Dealing with the real issue ? Cost effective ? Deterrent ?.. probably not...
Solution is with physical presence of law enforcement that we are already paying for in our taxes to deal with at the time with the PCC needs to apply resources not 1/2 measures... ( statistically not even half! )
Please be clear, this is NOT a speed issue. It is NOT a speeding problem.
Every complaint I get on this subject refers to the noise. Often those contacting me didn't see the vehicles, they just heard them from their back garden. Therefore, they don't know if the vehicles were speeding or not. They understandably assumed a normal car or motorbike must be speeding for it to make that much noise.
However, these are not normal vehicles. They have been deliberately modified to be louder. They therefore cause loud noise at low speeds too. For instance, the noise from a moped near me in the centre of town used to regularly rattle my double-glazed windows at home. Mopeds can legally use the A34 but they don't go above 40mph.
Therefore, average speed cameras would fix the wrong problem. Yes, they would stop the flash-mob car rallies that occasionally happen, but they wouldn't fix the week-in, week-out vehicle noise that causes the complaints.
Initial speed testing on the A34 also backs this up. It shows average speeds are not excessive and the crash data shows it is not a dangerous road either. Aside from the £100k a mile it costs the police to install average speed cameras, they can't just install them on a whim. They are only installed to improve road safety and the data just does not justify it.
It has taken Residents of Wilmslow a long time to get the authorities to understand this distinction and that the real problem is excessive noise, not excessive speed. We campaigned hard to get a public meeting to discuss the issue, where the scale of the suffering was self-evident. Afterwards, we lobbied to get the police and Highways teams to realise the only guaranteed way to reduce the noise was to directly tackle the decibels and not indirectly through speed reduction.
As these initial findings show, the authorities are now realising the scale of the problem. But if they think it is bad now, then it gets far worse during the summer months when motorbikes heading to the Peak District add to the overall cacophony.
Therefore, after years of suffering, we are now well on the way to getting a permanent solution to this anti-social, noise problem. One that will eventually be automated and use minimal police time too. So diverting this focus onto speed management would only delay this from ever happening.
Residents of Wilmslow has been advocating such And the newly elected P &CC heard our pleas.
This is just one of the prime examples of the RoW team (on both CEC & WTC) working for their voters & address their concerns.We heard and acted, quite a different story from the Town;s previous CE Council team. It obviously pays to support & vote RoW if you wish to improve our town's current state.
Until people recognise that exceeding the posted speed limit is a tiny factor in road traffic accidents/collisions (c7% of road collisions have 'exceeding the speed limit' as a factor, let alone the main factor), our roads will not become safer.
And as I am quite sure the anti-speed activists will disbelieve that percentage, here are the DfT's list of the prime causes of RTA/RTCs:
Driver/Rider failed to look properly - 37.8%
Driver/Rider failed to judge other person’s path or speed - 19.7%
Driver/Rider careless, reckless or in a hurry - 18.0%
Poor turn or manoeuvre - 11.6%
Loss of control - 11.4%
Slippery road - 8.1%
Exceeding speed limit - 7.4%
Pedestrian failed to look properly - 6.7%