RE: Where are road safety's missing millions?
Wednesday 27th July 2005
Gatso cash cowSpeed and red light cameras swelled the government's coffers by a staggering £21.7 million last year, according to statistics for the 2003-4 financial year which were released by the Department of Transport under freedom of information legislation.
Where are road safety's missing millions?
Question mark over camera cash expenditure
Gatso cash cow
Include all fines and the total jumped to £113.5 million -- yet only £91.8 million was re-invested in both road safety and the cost of running the speed camera partnerships.
Director of the AA Motoring Trust Bert Morris asked whether the cameras were effective. He said: "The issue is whether they are really deterring people from speeding. This is a huge amount of money."
Safe Speed safety campaign founder Paul Smith said: "Having conducted an extensive investigation over thousands of hours into speed cameras and their overall effect on road safety I'm not surprised. We need drivers paying full attention to the road ahead, not looking at the speedometer and worrying about their driving licences.
"Most drivers are skilled at selecting a safe and appropriate speed according to the conditions, and absolutely do not need the distraction. The greedy partnerships must be disbanded. Despite their protestations and wildly exaggerated claims, they don't improve road safety. The DfT has put the brakes on further expansion of the speed camera programme, amid doubts about doubts about the effectiveness of speed cameras and the quality of the supporting data. And about time!"
Discussion
I have a serious concern with the phrasing of part of that report.
While it may be obvious to (at least) us that these particular drivers should not be on the road until they are skilled enough, the partnerships might jump on this statement claiming that rigorous speed enforcement is the answer.
I would suggest rephrasing that statement.
safespeed said:so what about the other drivers who are not skilled at selecting a safe and appropriate speed according to the conditions?
Most drivers are skilled at selecting a safe and appropriate speed according to the conditions
While it may be obvious to (at least) us that these particular drivers should not be on the road until they are skilled enough, the partnerships might jump on this statement claiming that rigorous speed enforcement is the answer.
I would suggest rephrasing that statement.
Yes Smeggy, but it also says "appropriate" speed.
Scamera enforcement applies only fixed limits, and doesn't care about "appropriate" even when we drive 60mph in a national in thick fog!
These people may well be choosing inappropriate speeds within the current limits for that road at any given time, making speed LIMIT enforcement useless!
Dave
Scamera enforcement applies only fixed limits, and doesn't care about "appropriate" even when we drive 60mph in a national in thick fog!
These people may well be choosing inappropriate speeds within the current limits for that road at any given time, making speed LIMIT enforcement useless!
Dave
smeggy said:
I have a serious concern with the phrasing of part of that report.
safespeed said:
Most drivers are skilled at selecting a safe and appropriate speed according to the conditions
so what about the other drivers who are not skilled at selecting a safe and appropriate speed according to the conditions?
While it may be obvious to (at least) us that these particular drivers should not be on the road until they are skilled enough, the partnerships might jump on this statement claiming that rigorous speed enforcement is the answer.
I would suggest rephrasing that statement.
I'm happy with the statement. I believe we need speed limits, and the reason we need them is for those who don't have or use 'safe speed' skills.
The argument is that too much emphasis on speed limits is a dangerous distraction to the responsible majority.
I think in the main, as long as the driving test remains reasonably tough and maybe gets tougher in some areas, drivers released onto the roads are able to drive within their own limits and are thus aware of their own limits.
Effectively, many roads in the U.K. are without any speed limit enforcement (plus roads in the Isle of Man and Germany) and do we see carnage? Do we see cars rolled over because the driver wasn't told how fast he / she may drive round a corner? Of course not. 99.9% of drivers don't need to be told and those that do won't let a camera worry them.
Cameras are for the cash they generate and nothing else and talk in favour of GPS-type limiters is really only coming from the looney fringe with no idea about real world driving conditions.
Effectively, many roads in the U.K. are without any speed limit enforcement (plus roads in the Isle of Man and Germany) and do we see carnage? Do we see cars rolled over because the driver wasn't told how fast he / she may drive round a corner? Of course not. 99.9% of drivers don't need to be told and those that do won't let a camera worry them.
Cameras are for the cash they generate and nothing else and talk in favour of GPS-type limiters is really only coming from the looney fringe with no idea about real world driving conditions.
"I have a serious concern with the phrasing of part of that report"
Agreed, however the government would not describe £22million as "staggering" indeed to them its such a small amount of money that it can be barely cost effective to collect it. Perhaps they are planning to make this into a much more economic amount of say £200m, as has been alluded to on here before.
Agreed, however the government would not describe £22million as "staggering" indeed to them its such a small amount of money that it can be barely cost effective to collect it. Perhaps they are planning to make this into a much more economic amount of say £200m, as has been alluded to on here before.
I completely agree with all of you; by now you must know my personal stance regarding the camera partnerships. However, we all also know (especially you Paul) the lengths the partnerships (and those affiliated) will go to justify their position. They have and continue to cloud the difference of the meaning between 'appropriate' and 'limit'. Remember what happened when someone posted 'the witch should be burned at the stake'?
I also agree that we do need some speed limits (but certainly not everywhere), but the current method of enforcement is wrong.
Maybe I'm too cynical.....
I also agree that we do need some speed limits (but certainly not everywhere), but the current method of enforcement is wrong.
safespeed said:Agreed, but if I were the partnerships I would be tempted to focus on controlling the 'irresponsible minority' for my justification to be (which they do anyway), regardless of the impact on the responsible majority.
The argument is that too much emphasis on speed limits is a dangerous distraction to the responsible majority.
Maybe I'm too cynical.....
Did any of you see that program a few months ago, called Britains Worst Driver ??.
My chief concern was not how appallingly atrocious was their driving, ( you had to see it to believe it ), but the fact that they all had full UK driving licences !!!!.
Ipso facto they had all past the driving test !!.
How on earth can this be ??.
"When I was a lad" , the police would pull you over for breaches of the highway code, ( and for littering, but that is another story ), and I dont mean just speeding.
Now it seems that the only thing you are censured for is speeding, you can do absolutely anything else on the roads and you will only be "punished" for speeding. This is in my view why driving standards have degenerated so markedly over the last 10 years or so, its because the authorities dont care about anything but speeding.
The reason for this is of course that when a camera gets you, you are either speeding or not. Any other offence involves A DECISION by a BiB : shock !! horror !!. and just think of the paper work.
VBR CJ.
My chief concern was not how appallingly atrocious was their driving, ( you had to see it to believe it ), but the fact that they all had full UK driving licences !!!!.
Ipso facto they had all past the driving test !!.
How on earth can this be ??.
"When I was a lad" , the police would pull you over for breaches of the highway code, ( and for littering, but that is another story ), and I dont mean just speeding.
Now it seems that the only thing you are censured for is speeding, you can do absolutely anything else on the roads and you will only be "punished" for speeding. This is in my view why driving standards have degenerated so markedly over the last 10 years or so, its because the authorities dont care about anything but speeding.
The reason for this is of course that when a camera gets you, you are either speeding or not. Any other offence involves A DECISION by a BiB : shock !! horror !!. and just think of the paper work.
VBR CJ.
What has never failed to amaze me is that upon passing the driving test a driver can drive any type/power vehicle they are "quallified" for.
This is at odds with what happens in the two wheeled world where power limits apply for a period,
Why not the same with cars so that they can start to learn real every day road skills.
Mike
This is at odds with what happens in the two wheeled world where power limits apply for a period,
Why not the same with cars so that they can start to learn real every day road skills.
Mike
Sounds a bit draconian I know, but I always thought that it should be compulsory that anybody who wanted a car driving licence should experience at least two years ,including winters, ( !! ), on two wheels - in order to learn the rudiments of driving conditions and defensive driving !!.
vbr CJ.
vbr CJ.
Of course these people passed the driving test, this is Labour, you can't have people failing it might hurt their feelings.
I have believed for a log time that the current methodology is all wrong. I firmly believe that the driving test should be harder, at the bare minimum once the written (anyone failing this doesn't deserve a licence anyway) and 'normal' test has been completed there should be a mandatory higher speed and motorway tuition and test period. How can it be right that you can go through a test never having to go above 40 mph then be deemed to be safe and competent for a Motorway?
Then we should get back to a decent sized force of highly trained traffic police like we used to have. Trained professionals who realise that driving isnt black and white, that there are times and conditions when 85 mph on motorway is perfectly safe and that there are times when 40mph is nigh on suicidal. Cameras are a distraction that cannot deal with dangerous driving in anything like the way a Police officer can.
Bin the scameras, increase the police rpesence and we may see the road becoming safer again
I have believed for a log time that the current methodology is all wrong. I firmly believe that the driving test should be harder, at the bare minimum once the written (anyone failing this doesn't deserve a licence anyway) and 'normal' test has been completed there should be a mandatory higher speed and motorway tuition and test period. How can it be right that you can go through a test never having to go above 40 mph then be deemed to be safe and competent for a Motorway?
Then we should get back to a decent sized force of highly trained traffic police like we used to have. Trained professionals who realise that driving isnt black and white, that there are times and conditions when 85 mph on motorway is perfectly safe and that there are times when 40mph is nigh on suicidal. Cameras are a distraction that cannot deal with dangerous driving in anything like the way a Police officer can.
Bin the scameras, increase the police rpesence and we may see the road becoming safer again
neil_c said:
Of course these people passed the driving test, this is Labour, you can't have people failing it might hurt their feelings.
I have believed for a log time that the current methodology is all wrong. I firmly believe that the driving test should be harder, at the bare minimum once the written (anyone failing this doesn't deserve a licence anyway) and 'normal' test has been completed there should be a mandatory higher speed and motorway tuition and test period. How can it be right that you can go through a test never having to go above 40 mph then be deemed to be safe and competent for a Motorway?
Then we should get back to a decent sized force of highly trained traffic police like we used to have. Trained professionals who realise that driving isnt black and white, that there are times and conditions when 85 mph on motorway is perfectly safe and that there are times when 40mph is nigh on suicidal. Cameras are a distraction that cannot deal with dangerous driving in anything like the way a Police officer can.
Bin the scameras, increase the police rpesence and we may see the road becoming safer again
What, and lose all that easily-collected cash, have all those nice Scamera Partnership people on the dole and have to fork out for more police cars and the wages of those who drive them!
The 'Powers that be' don't actually care about improving road safety, only the political perception that they are doing something whilst collecting in the money and creating jobs and propaganda.
mjdriver said:
Hey lets hope this finally turns the tide against those greedy and ineffective scamera vans.....one can only hope!
"Most drivers are skilled at selecting a safe and appropriate speed according to the conditions,
"Most politicians are skilled at selecting the most revenue from appropiate safe driving according to the conditions
cooperman said:
What, and lose all that easily-collected cash, have all those nice Scamera Partnership people on the dole and have to fork out for more police cars and the wages of those who drive them!
The 'Powers that be' don't actually care about improving road safety, only the political perception that they are doing something whilst collecting in the money and creating jobs and propaganda.
[yodavoice] Nail hit head, you have[/yodavoice]
This is EXACTLY the problem, these scum just want huge expensive offices for analorifices who do nothing productive but guarantee them votes next time they fiddle the voting system!!!!
Time we had a revolution methinks, complete with a gibbet on Tyburn or Castle Green!!!
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff