Speed camera onslaught halted
Cash for cameras to end but row rumbles on
Cash generator no more?
The main reform removes the profit incentive from the speed camera partnerships by ensuring that their funding comes instead directly from the Department of Transport. The aim is clear: the authorities want to dispel the perception that speed cameras are there to generate profit rather than improve road safety. However, from a motorist's point of view, the result of being flashed by a working speed camera remains the same.
According to a report in The Times, the key reforms are:
- Cash for cameras scheme ends
- DfT wants fewer speeding tickets issued
- Cameras to be installed only as 'a last resort'
- Camera officials must work closely with Police and highways authority
- Digital only cameras in motorway road works (SPECS)
The Government also said it wants camera partnerships to emulate Lincolnshire, where road casualties have fallen and fewer tickets have been issued. What's more, Lincolnshire said that it needs no more cameras, unlike most other partnerships, which make annual applications to erect more.
Ministers said they approved of the Lincolnshire partnership's policy of having camera officials working alongside police road safety officers and council highway engineers.
"If all partnerships were made to work together in this way they would think much more carefully about the alternatives to cameras. We need to have a better deal with motorists to convince them that cameras are not about making money", said a spokesman.
However, the department is also planning to give partnerships greater flexibility to use cameras where there is a speeding problem but no recent history of crashes. Roads beside schools will be given priority.
Reactions
The Association of British Drivers came up with five reasons why the reforms will make little difference. It said that the plan:
- Leaves unaccountable and secretive camera partnerships intact
- Allows the continued use of cameras
- Diverts some camera funds for more road markings and signs
- Retains the focus on speed limits, not appropriate speed for the conditions
"We're pleased that the government has finally admitted that cameras are about cash, not saving casualties," said ABD spokesman Mark McArthur-Christie, "but cameras will still be used, and still be funded from fines."
The DfT said that speed cameras save lives and that it will soon publish a report to bolster its claim. DfT's plan will also remove the current restriction allowing cameras only on roads with a proven accident history. Instead, cameras will soon be placed anywhere designated as an area of "community concern."
Paul Smith, founder of the Safe Speed road safety campaign, said: "The DfT appears to be moving in the right direction, but it is far too little and far too late. TRL595 proved that fixed cameras were dangerous in motorway road works, but that's just the tip of the iceberg. Speed cameras do not make our roads safer and never will. They are a dangerous distraction and must be scrapped. They are founded only on bad science, faulty logic, commercial interest and oversimplified thinking. We will not be able to restore road safety trends until the DfT finally wakes up to road safety reality.
"After 12 years of speed cameras there is still absolutely no scientific evidence to show that they have an overall beneficial effect on road safety. This is hardly surprising, because they make road safety worse.
"Safe Speed's tireless work, pointing out gross flaws in the figures and the assumptions, is really making a difference. No other road safety organisation is focused on the principles that gave us the safest roads in the world in the first place."
Smith said that this year has seen a series of 'interesting' events in the camera programme:
- Partnership staffing freeze
- Camera report severely delayed
- Freeze on camera sites
- Chief Police Officer Richard Brunstrom quits his ACPO (association of Chief Police Officers) roads policing job
- Hypothecation scrapped
Links
Mr Whippy said:
It's clearly not in their interests, but I don't see them cracking down on drunk drivers or dangerous drivers the way they do on speeders.
How many police forces have any TrafPol at all dedicated to say stopping drivers for drink driving or DUI?
There is so much emphasis on something so trivial, yet total or apparent ignorance of much bigger problems on the road.
So I think it's in the governments interests to stop people breaking the law with impunity, but it's about time they focussed on the laws that NEED enforcing, not ones that are already covered massively yet make no significant difference to road safety!
Dave
Hm. Nicely put. It’s infuriating that police often don’t seem to care about the idiotic and sometimes shocking habits I see being performed by drivers, right in front of their windscreens. I catch myself looking at the squaddie and saying “holy sh*t - did you not just see that?”
Speeding is easy to enforce (24/7 with no police presence required) and successfully prosecute, so they go for that instead. This brings me back to this whole idea of ‘community concern’. Some busybodies in every community will think drivers are going too fast in their area, and soon their local roads have more furniture than DFS. It’s a very, very bad idea.
It also lets the gov/police off the hook. I very much doubt communities will listen to pressure groups like SafeSpeed et al. and the drive to put more emphasis on proper education, training, habits etc. suddenly becomes irrelevant.
The dumbing-down of British motoring seems well on its way, I fear...
>> Edited by ubergreg on Monday 7th November 15:36
They drive the same cars and encounter a similar range of weather as the UK (sometimes worse, though their roads are better engineered and built) yet there they are, left to their own devices on their autobahns.
They seem to have strict enforcement too, and not just of excessive (where limits do apply) or inappropriate speed, but lane discipline (among other things).
It would be nice if the UK also had a more holistic approach to driver training, road safety awareness and enforcement. How many of us have wondered aloud in this message board what the roads would be like if, say, lane discipline was emphasised and enforced wherever possible (*ahem*, blank electronic gantry signs)? Instead we get blind enforcement of static limits which almost no-one obeys. What a waste of resources.
What about that ridiculous law here banning only hand-held mobile phone use? As if having a four-way conversation with passengers, changing the radio station, or applying make-up was any safer? Is it possible to ‘legislate away’ bad habits and practices? If so, why aren’t the number of speeding fines diminishing? Why was I almost hit last Sunday by a driver holding a mobile (and why is said same such a regular occurrence)?
I don’t like the idea of having to schlep to a testing centre every five years, but if it could help weed out very poor drivers, and keep me on my toes, maybe it’s not such a bad idea. I’d rather the government take money from testing fees instead of GATSOs (where, once past, EVERYONE speeds up again, making them generally useless).
Back to ze Germans. I guess my point is that if the general standards of driving can be raised (better habits, hazard perception and risk management, possible re-testing), surely the whole argument for speeding cameras, with its blinkered emphasis on speed limits, would come crashing down alongside accident statistics.
flemke said:
A person does not have the rite to drive. It is a privilage, a luxury.
A privilege granted by whom, my friend?
As citizens/residents, we have the right to operate a motor vehicle, provided we meet the minimum criteria (i.e. competence, knowledge) for doing so. This is something all of us are simply entitled to.
I understand the point of view that it’s a privilege, but perhaps it’s being confused with being able to drive responsibly, and the fact that, for the majority of us, being able to exercise this right is not essential to our well-being or even our livelihoods (PHers might like to debate that on an emotional level
). So long as we demonstrate we can safely and responsibly operate a motor vehicle (by holding a licence, carrying proper insurance) no-one is allowed or entitled to arbitrarily take that right from us.
>> Edited by ubergreg on Tuesday 8th November 17:21
mk1fan said:
We grant ourselves this privilage by paying for the car. On the whole society does not provide you a car because you're standing there, you purchase one with your own money. You have the rite to BUY a car and any goods deemed to be legal. If you wish to drive on the public road you are entitiled to do so. Rite and entitlement are different.
I am not trying to stop people from driving. But if you choose to drive you need to conform to regulations etc... but also take on board the responsibility of driving and the duty of care to others who maybe affected by your driving and not just go 'Well that's what insurance is for'. The vast majority of drivers do not drive resposibly enough. Fact. Dare I say that the majority of PHers good do with reviewing their driving skills for the public road? This is only a presumption based on the standards of driving I see every day. I know my road driving can be improved but on the track I could keep a fair pace going.
mk1fan said:
[quote=ubergreg][quote=flemke][quote=mk1fan]
We grant ourselves this privilage by paying for the car. On the whole society does not provide you a car because you're standing there, you purchase one with your own money. You have the rite to BUY a car and any goods deemed to be legal. If you wish to drive on the public road you are entitiled to do so. Rite and entitlement are different.
I am not trying to stop people from driving. But if you choose to drive you need to conform to regulations etc... but also take on board the responsibility of driving and the duty of care to others who maybe affected by your driving and not just go 'Well that's what insurance is for'. The vast majority of drivers do not drive resposibly enough. Fact. Dare I say that the majority of PHers good do with reviewing their driving skills for the public road? This is only a presumption based on the standards of driving I see every day. I know my road driving can be improved but on the track I could keep a fair pace going.
Is owning property a privilege, or, once we meet the minimum criteria (i.e. have enough money/credit) do we have the right to own it?
Is it a privilege for all men and women to be given equal opportunities, or, once one has the necessary qualifications, have the right to gainful employment?
Is voting a privilege, or, once we reach the legal age, do we have the right to vote?
Because we live in a vast collective, our rights must be tempered with responsibility, and criteria must be established to ensure we can demonstrate at least a minimum level of responsibility. We have a right to drive, and drive what we want, when we want, as long as we and our vehicles adhere to the highway code.
If it is a privilege, then the government could suddenly say - without any explanation - "people who live in subsidised housing can't drive anymore, because they're in effect wasting our tax money on the privilege."
I live in Central London. Does that mean Mayor Ken can suddenly order me not to drive, because I should be able to take a bus to work? He can tax me, and he certainly would like to stop me from driving, but he can't do it, because it's my right to drive. That cannot arbitrarily be taken from me. Privilege is for some, rights are for all.
Your performance on a racecourse doesn't necessarily make you a safe driver on a public road; only a driver capable of operating his car near or at its limits. Safe drivers are more valuable on a public road than drivers who only boast above-average car control. And a public road is a vastly different and far more unpredictable/varied environment than a racecourse. I hope you understand why I mention your racecourse credentials in this context, and I am not suggesting you are an unsafe driver. No rational person could say their skills are beyond reproach, but the fact remains that, once a person has met the requirements set out by the DoT (whether they're high enough or not is also up for debate), they have the right to operate a motor vehicle in a responsible and law-abiding fashion from that point on.
Gassing Station | Track Days | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff