Letter: New Enforcement Cameras Will Make Money But Also Make Dennis Roundabout Worse

Published on: 12 Apr, 2022
Updated on: 12 Apr, 2022

From Anthony Mallard

In response to New Enforcement Cameras Proposed For Guildford Traffic Congestion Hotspot

In my view, the introduction of the enforcement cameras, whilst generating income, will not solve but exacerbate a problem of poor traffic management and poor road design.

The outcome I perceive will be, certainly at peak hours, a back-up of traffic that will likely block back on the carriageway leading to the southbound A3. The knock-on effect of that, due to traffic blocking the junctions onto the approach to the Dennis roundabout, may well stretch to traffic gridlock as far as the Woodbridge Road and the gyratory system.

It is also likely to cause a tail back of traffic on the northbound A3 and the southbound slip road towards the Dennis roundabout.

Danger and pollution will be caused by the standing traffic and the potential chaos will undoubtedly hinder the emergency ambulances in their attempts to get to and from the Royal Surrey County Hospital, placing innocent lives at risk.

However, I am not naive and the possibility of a substantial income from such cameras will almost certainly outweigh any objections.

I have completed the survey on this divisive issue and would urge others with an interest in this subject to do so. See Surrey County Council consultation on the proposals for the Dennis roundabout.

Responses to Letter: New Enforcement Cameras Will Make Money But Also Make Dennis Roundabout Worse

Jim Allen Reply

April 12, 2022 at 10:36 pm

Interesting. A speed platform has been installed on Clay Lane in Jacobs Well and the traffic now backs up to Bowers Lane. Traffic improvement? I don’t think so.
Andrew Calladine Reply

April 13, 2022 at 11:26 am

I actually don’t know where to start with this letter, it’s author is wrong in just about every aspect of the points that they make.

They provide no evidence to support any of their opinions, but state them as if it’s a fact.

To address the point on income, these types of cameras are expensive to buy, but also to maintain and administer. It’s very unlikely that any profit is made, in most cases these types of camera’s generate just enough in fines to pay for the cost of running these scheme’s.

The main reason for their introduction is to ensure drivers do not sit in the hatched area, impacting the flow of traffic to be smooth. It’s more likely to ensure that emergency vehicles will be able to navigate this roundabout more easily as there will be a reduced number of drivers blocking the hatched area.

In my opinion there should be no consultation on schemes like this. Just implement it, that’s what we vote local council’s to do.
Frank Phillipson Reply

April 13, 2022 at 1:10 pm

If enforcement, which is lacking at present, leads to yellow box areas being kept clear, it should help to allow the roads to function as they were designed.

I cannot see how trying to ensure traffic is not held up by inconsiderate drivers selfishly and illegally blocking yellow box junctions is a problem.

The existing situation results in “danger and pollution” caused by the standing traffic and does “hinder the emergency ambulances”.

Why does this measure have to be seen as just a money generator although I’m sure additional income is not unwelcome.
Martin Elliott Reply

April 13, 2022 at 10:25 pm

Strange that people guess at “facts” on box junctions. How much congestion do drivers disobeying the rules actually cause? Do signs stating CCTV enforcement (and a letter later) really increase compliance? What is the actual cost of installing cameras and maintaining them?

As Transport for London (TfL) has had authority, within London Boroughs, to enforce box junctions, Google can be used to find many reports, media articles and even local TV reports.

Unfortunately, they are mostly about the level of revenue generated, and continuing (not reduction in offending).