A heated debate has erupted in Devon over a controversial 30mph speed camera that has caught a staggering 6,000 drivers exceeding the limit in just three months. But here's where it gets controversial: while some see it as a necessary safety measure, others argue it's a cash grab disguised as road safety. Local councillors have overwhelmingly backed the camera, but not everyone is convinced it's in the right place or operating fairly.
“Take responsibility for your actions and slow down!” urged Cllr Sally Morgan (Lib Dem, Bovey) during a recent Teignbridge Council meeting. Her statement came in response to a motion by Cllr Phil Bullivant (Con, Bradley), who questioned the camera's installation and its adherence to national standards. Bullivant revealed that a family member had been ticketed for driving past the ‘invisible’ camera at 34mph, just 4mph over the Association of Chief Police Officers' enforcement threshold of 35mph.
And this is the part most people miss: Bullivant wasn't arguing against speed limits themselves—he emphasized that speeding is unacceptable. Instead, he sought clarity on the camera's placement and whether it met the necessary criteria. “This is about accountability and ensuring proper checks and balances,” he explained. “If a camera is installed, it must comply with the standards, and I believe this one doesn’t.”
Council leader Richard Keeling (Lib Dem, Chudleigh) offered a straightforward response: “The simple answer is, don’t speed on that road.” Cllr Rosie Dawson (Lib Dem, Dawlish North East) added that speed cameras are typically placed in areas where vulnerable groups, like children, are at risk. Cllr Colin Parker (Lib Dem, Buckland and Milber) dismissed Bullivant's concerns as ‘nonsensical,’ arguing the camera’s presence was justified.
The Devon and Cornwall Police Road Safety Team, in partnership with Devon County Council and the Vision Zero South West initiative, installed the camera near Ashburton Road—a location within 300 metres of a children’s play park, family centre, and sheltered accommodation. Over the past five years, this stretch of road has seen nine injury-related accidents. Notably, warning signs were placed near the camera, even though they aren’t legally required.
Police data shows the camera is achieving its goal: activations are decreasing monthly, with only three drivers out of every thousand now exceeding the threshold speed. Despite this success, Bullivant’s motion to investigate the camera’s installation was overwhelmingly rejected by the council.
Here’s the burning question: Is this camera a lifesaver or a revenue generator? While its placement near vulnerable areas seems justified, the debate over its compliance with national standards and the fairness of ticketing drivers just above the threshold continues. What do you think? Is this camera a necessary safety measure, or does it cross the line into unfair enforcement? Share your thoughts in the comments below!
