Mobile speed camera locations in Pembrokeshire for June 2025
Speeding is one of the largest contributing factors to collisions on Welsh roads, according to GoSafe - a partnership made up of authorities including the Welsh Government and Wales emergency services.
Not only is it dangerous, but it can land you a fine and points on your licence.
UK speed limits explained
What is the penalty if you're caught speeding?
The minimum penalty for speeding is a £100 fine and three penalty points added to your licence.
In certain circumstances, drivers will be eligible to attend a Driver Education Course, which will incur a cost, but you will not have penalty points added to your licence.
The GoSafe partnership aims to "make people safer on Welsh Roads by reducing casualties and saving lives".
So to keep drivers safe and reduce speeding, GoSafe has mapped the location of every single speed camera set to be active in Wales in June.
Seven common speed camera myths
Mobile speed camera locations in Pembrokeshire for June
Motorists will need to keep an eye out for a host of mobile speed cameras set up across Pembrokeshire this month, including in Haverfordwest, Pembroke, Tenby and Narberth.
The location of all the mobile speed cameras set to be active in Pembrokeshire during June, according to the GoSafe 'Safety Camera Location Search' map, are:
B4546 - The Moorings, St Dogmaels (speed limit: 20mph)
B4546 - St Dogmaels Road, St Dogmaels (20mph)
A487 - Eglwyswrw (30mph)
A487 - Simpsons Cross (20mph)
B4341 - Portfield Gate (20mph)
Ysgol Glan Cleddau (20mph)
Freystrop Village (20mph)
Johnston Community Primary School (20mph)
A4076 - Steynton Road (near school) (30mph)
Monkton Primary School (20mph)
Penrhyn Church in Wales VC School (20mph)
A4075 - Holyland Road, Pembroke (20mph)
Houghton (20mph)
A4075 - Carew Village (20mph)
A4139 - Jameston (20mph)
A4139 - Marsh Road, Tenby (20mph)
A478 - Begelly (20mph)
Stepaside School, Kilgetty (20mph)
RECOMMENDED READING:
Kiln Park Road, Narberth (20mph)
A477 - Llanteg (40mph)
Tavernspite Community Primary School (20mph)
To see the full map including the location of all fixed, red light, speed on green and average speed cameras in Pembrokeshire (and the rest of Wales), visit the GoSafe website (a link to which can be found above).
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Daily Mail
12 minutes ago
- Daily Mail
Labour is doing almost everything badly, say voters in poll showing huge public dissatisfaction with Starmer over immigration, the economy and the NHS
The public think Labour is handling almost every major issue poorly, according to bleak new polling. A survey of more than 8,000 Britons has shown that most think the Government is doing badly on all but two of 15 important policies. The YouGov research found that people are particularly scathing about the way Sir Keir Starmer 's administration is tackling three crucial areas. 'Undoubtedly, the public do mostly think the government are handling many key issues badly, with this particularly noticeable on the three issues that have consistently topped our most important issues tracker since the election: the NHS, immigration and the economy,' the pollster said. Three-quarters think immigration is being handled badly, with a majority (52 per cent) saying ministers are doing 'very badly', while only one in seven (14 per cent) give Labour positive marks. Seven in ten say the economy and NHS are being handled badly, in surveys carried out since May, compared with just one in five who support ministers' efforts. In addition, more than six in ten say the Government is doing a bad job on welfare (69 per cent), housing (66), crime (64) and inflation (62). The only faintly positive result concerns Labour's handling of terrorism, where 37 per cent say the Government is doing well and 34 per cent disagree. And on defence the public are split which 34 per cent disapproving of ministers' approach and 41 per cent backing it. However YouGov pointed out that 'the last Conservative government was also seen as doing better than average on these two issues, particularly terrorism, suggesting credit may not be due to Labour for managing these issues uniquely well'. It comes after Sir Keir plumbed new depths of unpopularity in YouGov's ratings tracker, with even half of Labour's own voters now holding an unfavourable view of him. In detailed findings that may particularly alarm No 10, the survey found that women have a particularly negative view of the Government. Only 16 per cent of women questioned said ministers were handling health well, compared with 26 per cent of men. 'Although the 20-point gender difference on the handling of the NHS is exceptionally large, the pattern is not unusual, with the government's net handling score lower among women on all but one issue polled (transport),' YouGov said. It comes amid claims five million pensioners face paying extra tax to claw back their winter fuel allowance. A complicated solution being mooted to defuse fury at Labour slashing the benefit - worth up to £300 - would see it handed to all the older generation this season. However, around half - with annual incomes over £37,000 - would repay the money later through higher tax bills. The idea has been condemned by unions amid fears bereaved families could be hit with unexpected demands for cash. Labour insiders have voiced alarm at the 'optics' of trying to recoup the allowance from the estates of those who died after getting it. Introducing a tough means test on winter fuel allowance was one of the first announcements Rachel Reeves made after entering No11, and has been blamed for triggering the dramatic slump in Labour's popularity. Only those on the lowest incomes, receiving pensioner credit, have been entitled to the handout. Keir Starmer dramatically announced a U-turn last month, without saying what exactly was being proposed or when it would take effect.
Telegraph
an hour ago
- Telegraph
The burqa is inconsistent with integration
Churchill once said, 'Nothing can save England, if she will not save herself. If we lose faith in ourselves, in our capacity to guide and govern, if we lose our will to live, then, indeed, our story is told.' Let those words settle – less as a relic of the past than as a stern admonition for the present. As we reopen a debate many in Westminster have long preferred to bury, we must ask: has Britain still the will to save herself? Or will we, through cowardice and confusion, allow our national story to end not with a bang, but a whimper? The question of banning the burqa and niqab is not a trivial sideshow in the culture wars. It is a litmus test of national self-belief. It goes to the heart of whether Britain has a solution to the complex problems caused by rapid population increase and demographic change. Starmer, predictably, has neither the inclination nor the courage to approach this subject. But a new government with spine, conviction, and a willingness to take the slings and arrows of metropolitan outrage might yet do so. And it must – for the issue before us is no longer about fabric and facial coverings. Are we, or are we not, a society confident in our values? And if the answer is yes – if we are to stem the disintegration of national cohesion and restore a shared civic space – then we must start by outlawing one of the most visible symbols of separation: the full-face veil. Libertarian objections, while intellectually consistent, fall short of lived reality. It is true that in a free society, individuals ought generally to wear what they wish. But there are limits to freedom, and always have been – limits defined by the need to preserve what the French, with admirable clarity, call le vivre ensemble: the capacity to live together. France and Belgium, far from authoritarian states, understood this when they enacted bans in 2010. In 2014, the European Court of Human Rights – an institution I criticise more often than not – nevertheless ruled correctly in S.A.S. v France. The court unanimously acknowledged that the ban infringed individual freedoms of religion and private life, but held that the interference was justified in order to protect a broader societal good: the integrity of social life in an open, liberal democracy. Interestingly, the court rejected the public safety rationale, instead identifying the core issue as one of cultural compatibility. In a Western, pluralist society, being able to see and be seen, to look one another in the face without impediment, is not merely a nicety. It is a necessity. It underpins trust, empathy, and the social contract itself. The burqa and niqab are not akin to turbans, yarmulkes, headscarves or motorcycle helmets. They are garments of erasure – of identity, of individualism, and of the mutual recognition that life in community demands. No law compelling British Sikhs to remove their turbans, or Orthodox Jewish women to discard sheitels, has ever been proposed – because those traditions do not negate the possibility of social interaction. Full facial coverings do and any ban could reasonably make exceptions for sporting, health or professional reasons or for riding a motorbike (as in France). There is also a deeper hypocrisy. When I have travelled in Middle Eastern or Catholic countries, I have covered my shoulders, legs, and hair when asked. I have done so not under duress, but in a spirit of respect. I have entered women-only spaces and abstained from alcohol when custom required it. Is it so outlandish to expect that those who come to Britain might return the courtesy? Other nations are unapologetic in defending their ways of life. Why are we so ready to abandon ours at the first hint of discomfort? Our culture – rooted in Judeo-Christian values, Enlightenment reason, and the hard-won principle of sexual equality – has made this country one of the most tolerant and liberal on earth. But tolerance cannot mean indifference. A society that tolerates everything, even its own erosion, will not survive. The answer must now be: no more. Not because we are intolerant – but because we wish to remain a society worth integrating into. A society with the courage to demand participation, not parallelism. A society with the clarity to say: there are lines, and they matter. Churchill warned us that if we lose faith in ourselves, then indeed, our story is told. That warning echoes now more than ever.
Daily Mail
an hour ago
- Daily Mail
Rape victims who face having their court cases dropped to be given the right to demand a review by a fresh prosecutor
Rape victims will have the chance to challenge a prosecutor's decision to drop their court case for the first time under a new pilot. Victims in rape and serious sexual assault trials will now be able to ask for a different prosecutor to review their case if the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) intends to offer no evidence against the accused. The six-month pilot, which will launch on Friday in the West Midlands, effectively gives victims the chance to re-activate cases preventing suspects from walking free if a new prosecutor believes there is enough evidence for the trial to continue. Today, Victims' Commissioner for England and Wales Baroness Helen Newlove hailed the pilot as 'a first step toward ending a manifestly unfair practice that denied victims a voice and robbed them of justice'. A victim's right to review a case already exists for all criminal cases, but perversely it only applies before the trial starts and cannot be used when the case has been discontinued at court. Campaigners have long demanded a change after a series of cases where it later emerged that the CPS had made an mistake but victims were powerless to reopen proceedings because the case had already been dropped mid-trial, letting the suspect free. If the scheme is successful in the West Midlands, ministers could extend it across England and Wales. The reform, backed by the attorney general and solicitor general, forms part of the government's pledge to halve violence against women and girls. It has been welcomed by Jade Blue McCrossen-Nethercott, who has campaigned for changes after her rape case was dropped on the basis that she could have unknowingly had sex while asleep due to a rare sleep disorder called sexsomnia. The 33-year-old told police in 2017 that she believed she had been raped while asleep on a sofa after waking up half-naked, finding her necklace broken on the floor. The CPS later apologised for dropping her case paying £35,000 in compensation after conceding it should have gone to trial. Today she said: 'I'm hugely excited about what this pilot could mean for victims, and I hope it proves successful enough to be rolled out across the country. This pilot is a crucial safeguard – one that could have completely changed the outcome in my case, and so many others like it. 'I was profoundly failed and let down by how my case was handled, but I've since seen people within the CPS who are genuinely working to make it better.' Ministers hope the change will help build trust in the justice system, which has been eroded by lengthy waiting times. In latest quarterly crime data released by the Ministry of Justice running to December 2024, rape and sexual offences had reached a record high in the crown court backlog. The number of sexual offences waiting to go to the crown court was 11,981, up by 41 per cent in two years. There are 3,489 adult rape cases waiting to go to trial, an increase of 70 per cent in two years. Solicitor General Lucy Rigby said: 'This government is treating violence against women and girls with the seriousness it deserves. Part of that is about empowering victims and improving their experience of the criminal justice system.' Siobhan Blake, CPS lead for rape and chief crown prosecutor of CPS West Midlands, said: 'We know for rape victims, the prospect of their case being stopped can be absolutely devastating. 'Although they can request a review of our decision-making now, if we have already stopped the case in court, there is nothing that can be done to reactivate the case if that review comes to a different conclusion. 'In those circumstances we offer an apology, but appreciate that for a victim an apology rarely goes far enough or feels like a just outcome.'
