Police chief seeks to reassure Chesterfield residents over speeding concerns

A number of residents raised concerns over a perceived increase in speeding at a road safety performance scrutiny meeting.

At the meeting chief constable Rachel Swann fielded 44 questions from members of the public with several to do with speeding, the use of speed cameras, and signage over speed limits.

One Amber Valley resident raised ‘grave concerns’ over speeding on the B6013 whilst two Chesterfield residents highlighted issues on Walton Road and questioned whether it would take a fatality before either speed cameras were installed along the stretch of road or speed limits reduced.

In response, chief constable Swann highlighted a report prepared by the Derby and Derbyshire Road Safety Partnership (in reference to reducing speed limits) which said: “The vast majority of drivers will choose to drive at speeds they feel appropriate, and an unnaturally low speed limit will be ignored”.

The chief constable added: “We do not wait for a serious collision to occur before we consider a reduction in speed limits. There are many factors which need to be considered before a speed limit is lowered and these are detailed in the DfT circular as previously referred to.

“If either the Police of local Highways Authorities deem that there is an area which would benefit from a reduction of the speed limit or additional measures need to be added, then we will undertake a joint site visit to discuss what improvements can be made before a serious collision occurs.

Chief constable Swann was also quizzed over why the police publish in advance when and where speed cameras would be operating in the region – something she said would be kept under review.

She said: “The alerting of motorists to areas we operate in is constantly under review. When we last stopped doing this, we had complaints about stopping, but we also get complaints that we do advertise so we are never going to please everyone as there is a clear divide in public opinion on this matter. This decision is under constant review, and we may consider not publishing the enforcement areas in the future again.”