Swindon argues whether to bring back M4 AI traffic camera

The AI-enabled camera, which detects motorists not wearing seatbelts or using mobile phones while driving, was tested between junctions 14 and 15. The scale of offending uncovered during the brief trial has shocked many, but opinions remain deeply divided over whether such technology should become a permanent fixture. For some, the camera is a necessary deterrent against dangerous driving habits that put lives at risk.

Amelia Claydon-Smith shared a tragic personal story, recalling how a loved one was killed by a lorry driver who was texting at the wheel. "How stupid are people! And how many times do we see people waving around on the road because using their phone!" she wrote, echoing the sentiments of many who believe the crackdown is long overdue.

Debbie Stinchcombe supported the return, highlighting that laws around phone use and seatbelts exist for a reason. "Even the best drivers didn't realise that these bad habits were killing so many," she said, adding that her own past use of a mobile while driving had been "thoughtless and selfish." Others like Wendy Cremin, who was seriously injured in a crash involving a distracted driver, said, "Definitely bring it back, and maybe on some other roads as well."

But not everyone supports the increased surveillance. Critics argue that the camera is more about revenue generation than safety. All about the money," said Sammy Baker, while Kevin Edwards warned, "It will be a police state next."

Mark Pannell's view was one of the most sharply critical: "Perhaps they can utilise the same technology to catch real criminals - drug and knife crime, car theft, domestic violence... But that would mean doing actual work."

Recommended reading

Several others, including Tony Hawkins and Janice Harris, echoed similar frustrations. They urged Wiltshire Police to refocus on "real crime" rather than motorists, with some suggesting the camera is a way to make up for police cuts and lack of response to incidents like burglaries.

The question of privacy also featured prominently. Boyd Gray branded the camera an "invasion of my human rights," and others questioned the fairness and reliability of AI in policing. Gareth Rees expressed concern over accuracy, stating that "pictures should be reviewed by humans before fines are issued," fearing a deluge of wrongful penalties.

Nonetheless, support for the technology remained strong overall. Commenters like Peter Wilson and Peter Mcanaw argued that if people don't want fines, they should simply follow the law. "Clearly the message isn't getting through, so unfortunately, further enforcement is required," said Wilson.

Flash sale alert? Dive deeper into the stories that shape Swindon with Swindon Advertiser Unlimited local news, an ad-free app, and a digital replica of our print edition--all with 80% fewer ads on our site

Subscribe now for a faster news experience - https://t.co/ayrpkI4RBy pic.twitter.com/mkI3QtzrfJ [1][2]

-- Swindon Advertiser (@swindonadver) April 11, 2025 [3]

Some, like Paul David Barrington, took a balanced view, agreeing the camera is justified to target reckless behavior, but warning against overreach: "Yes and no. It's good for safety, but let's not use it just to make money." There were also calls to expand the system.

Mike Barton suggested scaling the tech to town centres to combat other forms of crime, and Adam Woolhead called for 24/7 enforcement. Others, including Marvin Spinache, advocated additional average speed and number plate recognition cameras to increase deterrents. Despite the range of opinions, one thing is clear: the M4 camera trial has struck a chord with the public.

As Wiltshire Police consider whether to bring it back permanently, the debate reflects wider tensions about law enforcement in the age of artificial intelligence -- and the delicate line between protection and intrusion.

Swindon argues whether to bring back M4 AI traffic camera

Recommended reading

References