THE body responsible for installing speed cameras has defended their absence along a notoriously fast stretch of road on which a pensioner was killed on Saturday.

An expert from the Sussex Safer Roads Partnership (SSRP) told The Argus that despite anecdotal evidence of irresponsible driving on the Old Shoreham Road in Hove, there have only been six incidents at the site of the weekend’s crash in the last ten years and none was caused by speeding.

At 1pm on Saturday, 85-year-old Catherine Akehurst died crossing the street outside her home by Lullington Avenue near Homebase, when she was hit by a black Toyota Celica which did not appear to brake prior to the collision. The driver has been arrested on on suspicion of causing death by dangerous driving, and on drugs charges, and released on bail. The is no suggestion he was exceeding the 30mph speed limit.

Yesterday despite the SSRP’s assurance, a councillor who campaigned for improved safety on that road nine years ago, when a biker died just one mile from the site of Saturday’s crash, said it was “ridiculous” that the issue was still under discussion.

Councillor Dawn Barnett of the neighbouring Hangleton and Knoll ward , said: “We’ll still be having this conversation when I’m dead and buried. We’ve had lots of accidents there, and lots of near misses too. I can’t believe on a road like that there’s not even any zebra crossings. But the council in its wisdom doesn’t think it’s necessary.”

“At the end of the day, the council does not listen. I don’t want to hear ‘it’s about money’, you find the money for the necessities and it’s taken a lady to die before they do listen to what the ward local councillors are saying.”

Yesterday we reported Hove Park councillor Vanessa Brown’s insistence that speed cameras and pedestrian crossings should have been installed “long ago” on Old Shoreham Road. Speed cameras are the responsibility of the Sussex Safer Roads Partnership, which is comprised of representaties from Sussex Police, East and West Sussex County Councils, East and West Sussex Fire and Rescue Services, Brighton and Hove City Council and Highways England.

Eddie Preece, Safety Camera Team Manager, told The Argus that data analysis by his team had revealed that for a 100 metre stretch either side of the site of Saturday’s crash, only six accidents had been recorded in the last decade, mainly due to either drivers or pedestrians not looking, rather than speeding.

He added: “I’m not saying people don’t speed along that road, we have a mobile unit sited by Olive Road - it’s not like we don’t do any enforcement.”

Pedestrian crossings are the responsibility of Brighton and Hove city council not the SSRP.

A council spokesman offered his sympathies to Mrs Akehurst’s family, and said: “It is too early to say what measures might be taken as a result of this tragedy, but we’re constantly looking to do everything we can to prevent accidents across the whole city.”

POINTS SYSTEM THAT DECIDES THE DANGER SPOTS

SPEED cameras, attacked by motorists as a cynical town hall money-maker, are only sited in Sussex at accident black spots which qualify under the strict criteria of the Sussex Safer Roads Partnership.

Eddie Preece, who has managed the SSRP’s six-strong safety camera team for seven years, said new camera positions are recommended on a points system.

To install a new fixed Gatso camera, which may cost £50,000 and involve significant roadworks, a site needs to pass a 65 points per kilometre threshold.

The device must be connected to the power lines and in many cases to a broadband line so digital photos can be downloaded remotely.

Points are given on the basis of accidents, with a slight accident meaning five points, a serious one ten and a fatal accident represented by 15 points.

A three-year window is analysed to calculate the points-per-kilometre score.

While that could mean an accident black spot where there were four fatalities in three years would not be deemed a suitable location for a new camera, Mr Preece said common sense would also be used when analysing the figures.

For a mobile camera site, the threshold is only 33 points, on the grounds that installation is significantly less expensive and the unit can be redeployed.

It may make for cold-hearted reading to those whose loved ones have been involved in accidents.

But Mr Preece said: “Some people criticise our criteria for being reactive but it means you can show people we’re not trying to raise revenue, when you can show people the data.”