Tuesday 4th December 2007

Speeding Fines Soar

Two million speeding tickets every year

---

Speed cameras are now 6,000 strong

Almost two million speeding tickets are being handed out to drivers every year but the number of road deaths has fallen only marginally, it has been reported.

Labour has greatly increased the number of speed cameras meaning that since the party came to power the number of fixed penalty notices for speeding is said to have trebled from 700,000 a year to more than 1.9 million.

However road deaths have fallen only slightly and the number of deaths from drink-driving has remained stable.

The Government has been accused of using cameras as a ‘cash cow’, and there is growing anger at the rising cost of motoring.

There were only a few speed cameras when Labour took office in 1997 – now that figure is said to be closer to 6,000 in England and Wales.

The figures were released by the Government in response to a parliamentary question and showed that in some areas speeding fines had increased tenfold.

In 1997, motorists were said to have incurred 712,000 fines at £40 each, making them liable to pay out an estimated £28.5 million.

In 2005, the most recent year for which the figures are available, 1.92 million fines were issued at £60 each, costing motorists an estimated £115.2 million.

Paul Smith, of campaign group SafeSpeed said: ‘Speed cameras have been a road safety disaster. Despite millions of fines each year we have not even seen the road safety improvements that we expected.

‘Safer vehicles, improvements to road engineering, improvements to post crash medical care and rescue are major factors that are expected to lead to around a 5% reduction in road deaths each year, even after allowing for the growth in traffic.

‘But we have only seen a 7% improvement in the last 8 years. This is absolutely terrible performance and it is perfectly clear to me that “bad road safety policy” is responsible.’

The Department for Transport insists the money raised from speed cameras passes through the DfT to the safety camera partnerships.

A spokesman said: ‘Safety cameras are there to save lives, not make money.

‘The best safety camera is the one which takes no fines at all, but succeeds in making everyone slow down.

‘Independent research shows a 42 per cent reduction in the number of people killed or seriously injured at camera sites - that means more than 100 fewer deaths each year.’

[noumenon]

1.9m fines from 6,000 cameras? That's less than one ticket per camera per day.

What will it rise to as the old film cameras are replaced with their digital counterparts?

[Jasandjules]

Well, who'd have thought that if they increase prosecution exponentially that profits would increase....

[spoonoff]

The 42% reduction at camera sites is true, but still statistically unsound and misleading as these statistics do not take into account the regression to mean.
i.e. it is not just the cameras causing a reduction in accidents.

[beasto]

Paul Smith seems to be the only source of reliable information on speeding.

And Immigration Watch is the only reliable source on that particular subject.

In both instances, government stats are unreliable, biased, and in thrall to pressure groups.

[Mike400]

You dont think speed cameras only exist to line Gordon Brown's trousers do you? And that the government is maybe just using the "speed camera" title to make us think otherwise?

No thats way too far fetched, the government wouldnt be interested in stealth taxes......

COME ON BROWN! Give us some respect, we arent stupid, at least BE HONEST and just rename them "TAX CAMERAS" and then we will know where we stand.

[Richards 7]

deaths are static but at camera sites there are 100 people per year still alive? So that means away from these drivers are killing themselves at a rate of 100 more per year. When there were no cameras deaths were falling year on year now they are (away from cameras) rising!!!! The interesting question therefore is why this happens away from the sites when in the pre camera days it did not. I would suggest that either people are driving erratically immediately prior to the site (I know of one crash caused by a camera and the unpredictable braking it causes) or driving standards are lower because of the mantra "slow is safe" and less cops on the road.

I will now bow to the considerable knowledge here, but thought I'd raise the question / put my thoughts down on these disliked machines

[jazzyjeff]

noumenon said:

1.9m fines from 6,000 cameras? That's less than one ticket per camera per day.

What will it rise to as the old film cameras are replaced with their digital counterparts?

Quite - hardly a cash cow is it!? I guess the majority of drivers have now got wise to cameras and now only get 'done' when entering unknown territory or where the camera signage or speed limit in force is unclear.

Surely number of road deaths isn't the right measurement? If you die on the road, generally this will be a by-product of an RTA (I assume they are removing such things as heart attacks and bridge suicides from the figures). What should be being studied is whether or not the number of ACCIDENTS has decreased. If not, then the government should pack all their cameras away and invest the money in raising the level of standard driving tuition to IAM/Roadcraft levels.

JJ

[LeTim]

Do you know in a sense I wouldn't mind the £60 fine, okay it's a pain but there you go.

It's the points I object to, if they want to have in-appropriate speed limits in odd places for purpose of harvesting cash that's one thing, but getting points for driving at 62mph on the M4 in clear, dry conditions, in light traffic on a Sunday afternoon for example....is taking the piss.

[Mike400]

jazzyjeff said:

the government should pack all their cameras away and invest the money in raising the level of standard driving tuition to IAM/Roadcraft levels.

JJ

Best idea Ive heard all morning. Speed cameras have no bearing on real road safety.
I for one think the current driving test is a farce - a driving instructor I know admits that driving instructors merely teach their pupils how to pass a government set test, not how to drive in the real world.

How can someone who has spent say 10 hours driving with an instructor, then trundled round a few local roads with an examiner, be qualified to drive a high performance vehicle on busy roads?

You should be required to learn for say six months, during that time you must complete a set number of hours with an instructor, and you should be assessed every month during those six months before sitting a final exam. Then a refresher assesment a year on to make sure you are keeping the standard....

I also think people should have to sit a basic driving test or assesment once every few years, as too many people let their driving standards fall to the wayside.

Would be nice to see the standard of driving go up.

PS shouldnt IQ tests be mandatory as well? lol

[safespeed]

beasto said:

Paul Smith seems to be the only source of reliable information on speeding.

Thank you kind sir. I put in a big effort and got a press release out at 4.00am this morning to support the article in today's Telegraph:

PR570: Fatal error: DfT defrauds again as speed camera tension mounts

news: for immediate release

The Telegraph today reports of "Anger as fines from speed cameras soar" [1].

Astonishingly a Department for Transport spokesperson is quoted as saying:
"Independent research shows a 42 per cent reduction in the number of people
killed or seriously injured at camera sites - that means more than 100 fewer
deaths each year." But the implied claim - that cameras are responsible for the
observed reduction - is wholly falsified by the VERY SAME 'independent
research'[2].

Safe Speed pointed out this FRAUD within hours of the report being published in
our PR268 [3], yet astonishingly it is still being repeated 2 years later. The
research isn't even independent. It was paid for by Department for Transport.

Paul Smith, founder of SafeSpeed.org.uk, said: "Speed cameras have been a road
safety disaster. Despite millions of fines each year we have not even seen the
road safety improvements that we expected. Safer vehicles, improvements to road
engineering, improvements to post crash medical care and rescue are major
factors that are expected to lead to around a 5% reduction in road deaths each
year, even after allowing for the growth in traffic. But we have only seen a 7%
improvement in the last 8 years. This is absolutely terrible performance and it
is perfectly clear to me that 'bad road safety policy' is responsible."

"The problem with speed cameras is that they come with side effects. The cure
has proved to be far worse than the disease. Our 'side effects' report [4]
lists 40 different negative side effects caused by the speed camera programme.
But Department for Transport cancelled their research into speed camera side
effects [5]. I can only imagine that the initial results were far too scary."

"Road deaths are 1,200 per annum above levels that anyone standing in 1993
would have confidently projected. National road deaths should be down to about
2,000 per year by now - but there's been no significant fall for a decade."

"Department for Transport quite clearly know that speed cameras are a failed
road safety policy. They are extremely busy trying to disown them.[6]"

"I could not be more disgusted with Department for Transport. Not only are they
deliberately using misleading figures to defend the failed speed camera
programme, but also they quite clearly know that the programme has failed.
Instead of owning up to their mistake they are trying to shift responsibility
to local authorities. This picture of utter incompetence and the complete
failure to take responsibility is a characteristic of this government."

"Department for Transport is not fit for purpose. They would rather save face
than save lives. Their road safety policies have failed in spades but they
don't have the decency to admit it."

"We will not get British road safety policy back on track until Department for
Transport admits their fatal error and scraps every last speed camera."

<ends>

Notes for editors

===========

[1] http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/ne...

[2] Current url for '4th year report'
http://www.dft.gov.uk/pgr/roadsafety/speedmanageme...

[3] http://groups.yahoo.com/group/SafeSpeedPR/message/...

[4] http://www.safespeed.org.uk/sideeffects.pdf

[5] http://groups.yahoo.com/group/SafeSpeedPR/message/...

[6] http://www.dft.gov.uk/pgr/roadsafety/speedmanageme...

[Peter Ward]

I thought that Tony Blair was caught out by that "100 fewer deaths" figure a couple of years ago? It was left to a spin aparachik to later explain that he actually meant "100 fewer deaths or serious injuries", ie. KSIs. I thought the deaths figure was significantly lower. Or am I mixed up here?

[chippy17]

the way to beat this is simple:

don't speed

I mean this seriously, if noone sped, therefore no tickets issued therefore cameras cannot be paid for, therefore no film, you would probably only have to do this for about a month and the whole system would collapse...

[Vipers]

Well this tells me that apart from the odd guy caught inadvertantly just over the limit, we have an awful lot of people who have total disregard for the Highway Code out there, And such, "may" be endagering other road users.

We all know the law, break it and pay the penality for it. Without these cameras, I feel there would be absolutely no deterrent for some drivers to use the roads as a race track.

Argue to doomsday, but I bet any one who ignores the speed limits, would be the first to jump on a ginormous soap box and start preching if any of his kin were to to be injured, or worst, killed by a vehicle due to excessive speed.

We all know speed doesnt kill, thaeres more to it we know

, you can be killed hit by 20 in a 30 zone, but I think you guys get my drift on this.

[GKP]

chippy17 said:

the way to beat this is simple:

don't speed

I mean this seriously, if noone sped, therefore no tickets issued therefore cameras cannot be paid for, therefore no film, you would probably only have to do this for about a month and the whole system would collapse...

Or the speed limits will be reduced until you are 'speeding'

[jwo]

but the government has made up for the reduction in speeding deaths by entering into wars that we should not be involved with... ..and creating even more deaths.

back to the points though, the dft press release is so misleading. why do they not define 'camera site'? surely people who see the camera are going to slow down to avoid the fine and then speed up again? cameras are nothing more than a cash cow witht he supposed aim of safety. road deaths have almost plateaued (+/- 100) over the last few years, whilst the number of speeding cameras continue to increase. EDUCATION, EDUCATION! is what is needed, not a £60 fine and 3pts - that just enforces don't speed near a camera.

[waynepixel]

If I am correct, haven’t pistonheads repeated this information 400 times this year already? Fascinating news.

[Dunk76]

How long before they shift the parameters of the 'SI' part of 'KSI' to help massage the statistics?

Whilst being dead is a fairly unambiguous thing to quantify, being 'Seriously Injured' is open to abuse to suit the publisher, is it not?

[slapmatt]

You'd think with all these speed cameras, that people would simply drive slower?

[Skipppy]

I wonder if the government factor in the population rises to these figures

[Nick_F]

Dunk76 said:

How long before they shift the parameters of the 'SI' part of 'KSI' to help massage the statistics?

Whilst being dead is a fairly unambiguous thing to quantify, being 'Seriously Injured' is open to abuse to suit the publisher, is it not?

Already (probably) happening, hence the substantial discrepancy between DfT police-sourced figures and NHS-sourced figures reported elsewhere.