Saturday 7th November 2015

Speed cameras to fund police spending gap?

Bedfordshire's police and crime commissioner wants M1 speed cameras to bridge funding gap ... does he mean it?

---

The suspicion speed cameras are used as much as a means of raising cash as they are safety has always been there. The official line and those who defend them have always maintained it's about the latter. But Bedfordshire Police and Crime Commissioner Olly Martins would appear to have broken rank and is openly appealing to use the county's speed cameras - specifically those on the 'smart' section of M1 - to raise as much as £1m a year to plug the hole left by government cuts to police spending.

Speaking in front of the Home Affairs Committee on Tuesday and repeated in an interview earlier today on Radio 4's Today programme, Martins suggested setting the M1 cameras to a 'zero tolerance' 70mph limit at all times - not just when temporary limits are in place - could bridge a spending gap for the force. "Strict enforcement of the speed limit could raise £1m and to me that's better than losing 25 more police officers," he's reported as saying in a story on the BBC, a line repeated in this morning's interview on Today. "I'm being faced with some really quite unpalatable choices and it's a choice between this or reducing the size of the police force I'm responsible for," he told John Humphrys.

Does he mean it though? Elected to the role of Police and Crime Commissioner in 2012 as a Labour candidate, Martins was suspended from the party in August 2014 following disciplinary action related to the death of Leon Briggs in police custody. It's safe to say he remains opposed to the Conservative government's police funding policy though and, as such, his statements could be viewed as a - successful - method of playing politics and attracting publicity to his campaign for additional funding for the Bedfordshire force. Arguably a dangerous game and his line in the Today interview that the only people with anything to fear are those breaking the 70mph limit in Bedfordshire won't inspire confidence it's purely a scare tactic intended to raise awareness for his campaign.

[Sources: Olly Martins homepage; The Guardian; BBC news; Luton Today; ChooseMyPCC]

[anonymous-user]

Good old politics and policing. A great match.

Commercial sponsorship. What planet is this genius on? I can't see one person being able to do such a stupid thing with the speed cameras, either.

One thing he isn't talking rubbish about is how Beds really struggle with the numbers they have and the volume of serious crime they deal with for a small force. He needs to be thinking of what 'his' force should not be doing any more rather than looking for poor ways to raise revenue.

[SteveSteveson]

He can say what he wants. Does not mean he can do it.

[Over over under steer]

Okay, this one's got me. He has got to be having a laugh right, and to state it on public media. Christ. Now without this descending into a for and against the public sector cuts debate, it must be made clear that when faced with cuts, some form of cutting of that department has to be made.

How could they possibly think this will endear the public to them by stating that we are getting cut, therefore we should just get the deficit from the members of the public, instead of doing what they were tasked with

How about one of the following

• double / tripling the fines for those on mobiles whilst driving
• Increasing penalties for drink driving

[marshalla]

Political posturing.

[sugerbear]

In the long term Maybe he could also look at monetizing your browsing history once everyone has forgotten the reason that Mrs May introduced it.

[0000]

Nearly a million motorists took a speed awareness course last year (up from half a million in 2010 so presumably still rising).

That seems an astonishingly high number to me, especially given that large parts of the network aren't covered by cameras. It's another million drivers who will have to take the points next time. The number of people being caught does seem to be increasing so you have to wonder why. Well, I suppose you don't, you can stick your fingers in your ears and just keep taking money off drivers until the majority have black marks against their name and more and more face time in court but I can't see it being an indefinite strategy.

He may just be playing politics, but it's not as though speeding enforcement has been anything other than that for some time.

[quigleyp]

Disregarding the fact that the only reason crime levels have fallen is because nobody bothers reporting a lot of crime nowadays, what use is a crime reference number ?
I can sum up the country's police force situation including roads policing in two words ????? Criminals Charter !

[SirSquidalot]

Speed cameras are cash cows and police force realise this shocker...

[Wizardskills]

He is only saying this because he lost the local referendum on increasing their budget through council tax.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-32694166

Not only was the question on the ballot paper so poorly worded that it would never have passed, it also cost the council £350k just to ask the question.

Edited by Wizardskills on Thursday 5th November 11:01

[smithyithy]

Over over under steer said:

How about one of the following

• double / tripling the fines for those on mobiles whilst driving
• Increasing penalties for drink driving

As much as I agree, I don't think these would raise enough revenue in the short term. Both need active patrols policing the roads, conducting stops, filing the reports etc..

I'd imagine all that takes up a lot of time and resource relative to the money it would bring in.

It annoyed me when the announced the whole 'fines for phone use' idea because without people driving around, catching people and enforcing it, it's irrelevant. The fines haven't deterred people because the chances of getting caught are minuscule. It's risk vs. reward, and for most people they're happy to roll that dice.

So in that respect I agree with you that increasing the fines (substantially, in my opinion) would help. A 1% chance of a £500 fine would deter more people than a 1% of a £100 fine. But would it help enough in the short term? I don't know.

I do feel for the police though when they're facing cuts like this. I've definitely noticed a drop in police presence both on the roads and in my local areas.

ETA: I'd happily pay my share of extra tax for increased police funding in my area, given the choice.

[0000]

smithyithy said:

Over over under steer said:

How about one of the following

• double / tripling the fines for those on mobiles whilst driving
• Increasing penalties for drink driving

As much as I agree, I don't think these would raise enough revenue in the short term.

Yeah, taking smaller amounts of money from many, many people who then continue to use the roads is a much better business model.

[smithyithy]

0000 said:

Yeah, taking smaller amounts of money from many, many people who then continue to use the roads is a much better business model.

It's hard to detect written sarcasm at times. Anyway that's not what I was implying.

I completely support vastly increased fines for those offences, but my point is that if they need money quite urgently then increasing fines and waiting for that money to roll in might not be good enough.

Although increased fines are something that should be rolled out nationwide anyway, regardless of how quickly or efficiently it raises revenue..

[pppppppppppppppp]

Enforcing the 70 limit will just increase accidents as people but their cruise control on then nod off.

[Ved]

pppppppppppppppp said:

Enforcing the 70 limit will just increase accidents as people but their cruise control on then nod off.

I drove 540 miles yesterday with 90% of that on cruise control without dying so I'm not sure I get your point.

On the subject of the post the man is just arm waving. Nothing to see here of any substance. I can only hope that some large butcher suggests they sponsor as per his suggestion just to show how silly his idea is.

[Cotic]

Ved said:

I can only hope that some large butcher suggests they sponsor as per his suggestion just to show how silly his idea is.

Ha! Very good.

[anonymous-user]

So, in order to raise revenue for social services (ie a TAX) he plans to criminalise a large proportion of the general public? Wouldn't it be easier for Bedford CC to just, you know, TAX, that same public instead?

There are roughly 600,000 people living in bedfordshire, why not just add £1.5 to their council tax bill to pay for the police service (which a lot of people would i think readily pay to keep a proper service).


Frankly, if they go ahead and turn our laws into Cash cows, then they will rapidly find that people pay even less attention to those laws than ever before. This would be the start of a very very slippery slope imo. Perhaps they should introduce a £10k fine for murder. Pretty sure that would help pay for Police services too. Or hows about £5k for a bit of kiddy fiddling, or maybe £1k for drug possession. Where would the Chief of Police like to draw the line???

[sealtt]

A strict 70mph limit is incredibly unfair, there needs to be a margin of error due to the nature of human operated vehicles, driving is more than just watching your speedo and keeping the needle at exactly one speed.

Maybe we should vote for an accompanying new rule that all police chiefs are immediately fired and have their pensions revoked if they step a toe out of line or make a single mistake. Hey - it's tough - but to me that's better than losing 25 more police officers

[Wizardskills]

Max_Torque said:

There are roughly 600,000 people living in bedfordshire, why not just add £1.5 to their council tax bill to pay for the police service (which a lot of people would i think readily pay to keep a proper service).

Wizardskills said:

He is only saying this because he lost the local referendum on increasing their budget through council tax.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-32694166

Not only was the question on the ballot paper so poor worded that it would never have passed, it also cost the council £350k just to ask the question.

[Devil2575]

pppppppppppppppp said:

Enforcing the 70 limit will just increase accidents as people but their cruise control on then nod off.

There are many reasons to object to what he has said, but this is not one of them. If you can't drive at 70 mph without falling asleep then you shouldn't be in control of anything more powerful than a bicycle.

The big problem for me is that what he has said implies that the cameras will generate a continuous and predictable stream of revenue, which I think is false. Initially it will generate more money but as people get used to it this will tail off.

I suspect there are also issues with accuracy if they're goig to stat a zero tollerance approach. Is a speed camera really accurate enough to be sure that someone recored doing 71 mph was not actualy doing 70 mph? Even if they were doing 71 mph was it indicated at 70mph in the car? I'd suggest that part of the reason for the current margin is due to an understanding of potential measurment errors, which I suspect this bloke doesn't understand.

This is the Katie Hopkins style of publicity. Say something outrageous to get attention.

[tejr]

I have 6 points. I don't like speed cameras. I HATE the idea of zero tolerance 70mph limits.

But the man highlights a good point. Maybe its a better last resort than losing more Police officers.

Cameras will effect one aspect of your life, sticking to the speed limit. Losing officers will effect various other aspects of your life.