Cheshire East Council have provided an update regarding the acoustic cameras which were installed on the A34 bypass near the Whitehall Bridge roundabout towards the end of October 2022 and have subsequently been removed.
Since the installation of the acoustic camera on 21 October 2022 until the 16 April 2024 (when the camera was removed) there were a total of 2,021 activations. An activation of the camera is defined as a situation where a vehicle using the road emits a sound which is over 90 dB (so called 'trigger event').
However, no fines coould be imposed as that wouod have required Cheshire East introducing a Public Space Protection Order. Had the Council put a Public Space Protection Order in place this would have meant that approximately £200,000 in fines could have been issued generating much funds for the council.
The noise-activated cameras were purchased and installed as a joint venture between the Police & Crime Commissioner and Cheshire East Highways to crack down on noisy anti-social motorists. Placed on a roundabout approach on the A34 Pendleton Way, between Wilmslow and Alderley Edge, they are monitored, virtually, by Cheshire Police.
Councillor Dawn Clark, vice chair of Cheshire East Council's environment and communities committee, said: "The council is currently reviewing the data provided by the
Police and Crime Commissioner on the number of activations of the camera during the trial period.
"No Public Space Protection Order is in place, as this requires a clear legal evidence base to do so. The trial was intended to collect this evidence. No fines have been issued
and the camera equipment was removed in April.
"At present, and alongside the review of the data gathered during the trial, discussions are ongoing between various parties as regards how any future permanent camera installation could be funded."
Comments
Here's what readers have had to say so far. Why not add your thoughts below.
Resources in = Results out.
Its not that hard surely if its such a problem... Dan Price needs to earn his PCC keep as policing precept keeps increasing with more cost in for less results out.
A few observations:
Why does everything take so long?
Shouldn’t all council workers be working to a deadline that they have to meet otherwise demotion occurs. Or a reduction in salary. Or no pay rise the next time they come under review. You know - some sort of performance related element to their position as often occurs in the ‘outside world’. Otherwise where’s the incentive to work better for their clients - YOU & ME?
Sounds like everyone spends most of their time in meetings with their new laptop planning the next one.
Then in the end it is nobody’s responsibility and all we get is - “a council spokesperson said - waffle, waffle etc.”
Regarding decibel cameras, it is no good making them a PERMANENT feature. They have to be moved around the roads that need monitoring. I would suggest no more than five days in one spot at a time. Offenders would be penalised more for repeat offences and after say three have their vehicle confiscated for six months plus a serious fine. Cameras could be shared around Cheshire or loaned out to other counties/areas having a similar problem - for a fee of course.
Like speed cameras that advertise their presence the various culprits in their loud motors will get to know where they are located and drive quietly by to avoid detection. Eventually with no detections being recorded, someone will declare the problem has now been solved and there is no need for the camera.
If the camera only records a noise level of 95 dB and the legal limit is 74 dB there must have been MANY offenders not recorded who made between 75 dB and 94 dB - so many violations are actually NOT recorded. Does that make sense?
Anyhow despite what I have just said, decibel cameras are already out of date and not particularly useful!
Heard of PARIFEX?
Read about them here:
https://www.itsinternational.com/daily-news/intertraffic-amsterdam-2024/ultra-light-mobile-system-automated-speed-enforcement
Have a look at THEIR stuff to solve our road problems.
They can even spot you picking your nose at the wrong time - is there ever a right time?
https://www.parifex.com/en/traffic-road/
https://www.parifex.com/en/produits-en/vigie-double-side/
All sounds too good to be true - so perhaps it isn’t or VERY expensive?
Not made in the UK though - surprise, surprise!
Then there’s other good things happening on our roads like a WORLD FIRST - but NOT ROUND HERE.
Look at this from May 2023:
https://www.rac.co.uk/drive/news/motoring-news/new-ai-speed-camera-with-4d-radar-technology-can-scan-drivers-inside-a-car/
All the Muppets who run our lives can do is NOTHING and we put up with them!
https://envirotecmagazine.com/2024/04/23/chitty-chitty-pop-bang-are-noise-cameras-ready-to-tackle-uk-traffic/
The monitoring was at just one point along approximately 5 miles of the A34 mostly dual carriageway subject to the National Speed limit of 70mph (there's about 1.5 miles of single carriageway that by-passes Alderley Edge where the NSL is 60mph - sadly with a history of road traffic accident [RTA] fatalities). The 'problem' was, in reality, excessive speed driving (unofficial evening race meets) that got morphed into an issue about noise; our PCC* decided noise monitoring would be the means to obtain data and define the problem (fuzzy thinking in my mind but hey, he get's paid to do the job). The data, such as it is, reveals an average of over 4 infractions/day - gathered from just one site (at a roundabout) of dB measurements exceeding permitted noise levels. They don't need to make further analysis about noise, that's it!
Extrapolated that means a very similar pattern (of excess noise) could be present at the other 4 roundabouts along the subject stretch of the A34 so lets say between 12 and 20 infractions/day of excessive NOISE. If they consider the real culprit (speed) then I can make out an argument of a factor at least 15 for excess speed - so 180-300 infractions/day.
Do they really need further study of the data since damaged Armco and debris scattered/battered roundabouts should be further evidence enough??
NB *the incumbant PCC of the time has subsequently changed