Calls are mounting to restore funding for the community speed watch scheme in Gloucestershire after it was quietly cut earlier this year to support the rollout of 20mph speed limits across the county. The controversy arises as the new scheme will only benefit around 40 of the approximately 400 villages and communities in Gloucestershire, leaving many rural areas feeling neglected.
Conservative councillors at Shire Hall are pushing to reinstate £360,000 in funding for the volunteer-led community speed watch programme. This scheme helps reduce speeding by recording vehicle speeds using specialist devices and deploying vehicle-activated signage to warn drivers.
Councillors believe the money could be sourced from Gloucestershire County Council’s public health budget or the Liberal Democrat video production budget. Councillor Tom Bradley (C, Campden-Vale), who advocates for the funding’s return, expressed frustration over the current Lib Dem administration’s road safety promises.
READ MORE: Laurence Llewelyn-Bowen’s Candid Take on Jeremy Clarkson’s Cotswolds Move
READ MORE: Man Seriously Injured in Cotswolds Collision
“During the election, voters were assured that safer roads would be a priority,” Bradley said. “Unfortunately, for many communities, the promises don’t align with the council’s actions. The rollout of the flagship safer roads initiative has disappointed more than it has pleased, and now cutting funds for vital community speed cameras and signage leaves residents vulnerable to speeding with no recourse.”
Cotswold Conservative Daryl Corps (Moreton, Stow and the Rissingtons) echoed these sentiments, lamenting the apparent disappearance of promised road safety improvements. “For many rural communities, the message seems to be: if you’re not included in Community 20s, you’re on your own. This creates a postcode lottery, not a comprehensive road safety strategy,” he said.
Corps added, “The parishes I represent don’t ask for much; they just want practical tools to keep roads safe. A community speed camera or a flashing sign may seem minor but can make a significant difference in a village troubled by speeding.”
On the other side, Liberal Democrat cabinet member Roger Whyborn (Benhall and Up Hatherley), responsible for road safety, defended the Community 20s programme as being based on detailed casualty and collision data, not just perceptions.
“The data consistently shows that the highest risks — and thus the greatest opportunities to prevent death and serious injury — are concentrated in specific locations,” Whyborn explained. “Diverting funding from this targeted approach could reduce the programme’s overall effectiveness.”
He further argued there is limited evidence that standalone measures like community speed watches or signage provide sustained reductions in collisions at a network level. “A data-led programme ensures investment goes where it will save the most lives,” he said.
Whyborn emphasized fairness, stating, “It’s not about equal distribution of funds but prioritizing based on where the risk and opportunity to prevent harm is greatest. The council remains committed to supporting communities through engagement and future initiatives, but limited resources must be used effectively to reduce casualties.”
The debate highlights a stark divide between rural communities feeling overlooked and council leaders focused on data-driven, targeted interventions in road safety.