BBC: Speeding fines in England and Wales hit four-year high

[GPSHead]

BBC: Speeding fines in England and Wales hit four-year high

Story said:

The number of people fined by the courts for speeding offences in England and Wales has risen to its highest level since 2009.

More than 115,000 people were fined by magistrates last year, figures from the Ministry of Justice (MoJ) show.

AA president Edmund King said the rise reflected the fact that digital speed cameras were working 24 hours a day.

The Department for Transport said it was magistrates who decided when to impose fines.

The MoJ figures show 115,549 motorists were issued with fines of at least £100 in 2013.

South Wales saw one of the biggest increases, with the number of drivers fined tripling last year to 6,491, from 2,181 three years earlier.

One speed camera in Cardiff generated more than an estimated £800,000 of fines in six months.

The number of offenders fined grew over the same period by almost 1,000 in both South Yorkshire and Lincolnshire, and by close to 2,000 in Staffordshire.

London saw the most people fined last year, although the figure for the Metropolitan Police area fell to 7,736 - its lowest level in five years.

'Pot luck'

AA president Mr King told the Daily Telegraph that the increase "is a reflection that cameras are more efficient than ever".

"In the past, cameras in London would only take valid pictures for a quarter of a day and it was pot luck whether you are fined. The cameras are now working 24 hours a day."

A spokeswoman for the Department for Transport said: "Speeding can have devastating consequences and it's right that drivers should abide by the speed limit.

"These fines were issued at the discretion of the magistrates and show the number of fines issued is in decline across many police force areas."

Earlier this year it was announced the maximum fines imposed by magistrates for motorway speeding would rise from £2,500 to £10,000.

Those of us still here who are anti-camera can but hope that these figures will raise the issue's importance enough to extract some pre-election promises to at least slow the gravy train. ("Which drivers could do themselves if they just slowed down", "But why should they when the speed limit is often inappropriate?", "Because if they don't they'll get points", and off we go again!)

(Does anyone know what that "quarter of a day" thing is about? I know film cameras used to be rotated, but surely not that often, and since they had flashes, it can't be about the amount of daylight either, or can it? Anyway, I look forward to reading about all the increased safety now that so many cameras are working 24 hours a day.)

Edited by GPSHead on Saturday 27th December 19:10

[ging84]

number of speeding tickets dealt with by magistrates without any other context is completely irrelevant
given the number quoted it looks like they are dealing with about 1 in 20 tickets, the rest presumably resulting in fixed penalties or speed awareness courses, what is this article trying to say?

[allergictocheese]

The figures only apply to people dealt with outside of the speed awareness / fixed penalty arena. These will typically be people who've driven too fast to be offered those disposals or those who've accepted a fixed penalty then failed to pay it or meet any other conditions.

Personally I don't think it's much of a story. More interesting would be the percentage uplift or otherwise in total speed camera detected offences. And when I say more interesting, I mean not really very interesting.

The days of speeding all over the shop are sadly coming to an end and it's something us Pistonheaders ought to prepare ourselves for.

[aw51 121565]

GPSHead said:

(Does anyone know what that "quarter of a day" thing is about? I know film cameras used to be rotated, but surely not that often, and since they had flashes, it can't be about the amount of daylight either, or can it? Anyway, I look forward to reading about all the increased safety now that so many cameras are working 24 hours a day.)

Edited by GPSHead on Saturday 27th December 19:10

In ye olden days of early automated speed enforcement, ye olde box brownies used 'wet' film which - naturally - only allowed a limited number of exposures before the film ran out ; I'd assume that an "efficient" (ahem) camera in London using wet film would only manage to take pictures for 6 hours or so before its film was used up, hence that "quarter of a day" reference?

Of course, digital cameras don't have film so just keep on taking photos and uploading them to a central server on a regular basis (in simple terms, anyway)...

[carinaman]

Searching for the Telegraph article on it:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/road-and-ra...

I chanced upon this one:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/11291390/Boriss...

[Mr GrimNasty]

carinaman said:

Searching for the Telegraph article on it:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/road-and-ra...

I chanced upon this one:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/11291390/Boriss...

Yes, someone posted it before. But it's blindingly obvious that if the vast majority of drivers more or less stick to the limit, the vast majority will not be speeding recklessly when they do have crashes, so cameras will make little difference. That's why the argument always gets turned to the disingenuous 'oh but the risk of dying if hit at......' Risk does not equal what happens in reality.

What twists my titties is how everyone tries to distance themselves from the cash. Oh it's the Mags that 'choose' to levy the fine (as if it's their fault for imposing the penalty for the offence that has been brought before them). And the Scamera Partnerships' favourite 'the fines go to the Treasury' (deliberatly not mentioning course 'fees').

[vonhosen]

carinaman said:

Searching for the Telegraph article on it:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/road-and-ra...

I chanced upon this one:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/11291390/Boriss...

So the effects of cameras are wider than just where they are sited.

[ging84]

i sense this is shortly descending into another general anti speed camera moan, with no connection to the original article and nothing new or useful to say on the subject

[terenceb]

Anyone on here vote Conservative on the back of thier pre election promise?

[carinaman]

terenceb said:

Anyone on here vote Conservative on the back of thier pre election promise?

I voted Lib Dem. My choice was between them and the Tories due to the grumblings about the creeping surveillance state and New Labour's Snooper's Charter. So another U-Turn by the Tories.

[singlecoil]

There is a simple answer to the speed camera problem.

Stop speeding. No fines, no points.

Eventually the cameras will go rusty and fail, the offices where fines are processed will be closed and the staff made redundant and the courses will close down.

Then you can all start speeding again!

[Chrisgr31]

The reality of speed cameras and other measures to reduce road accidents is that they do not address the real issue which is drivers themselves.

There have been a number of accidents on the A26 between Crowborough and Uckfield which have lead to calls for the speed limit to be reduced. Well I should say reduced further because it has already been reduced from the NSL to 50 and now some want it reduced to 40.

Of course whether speed had anything to do with the accidents is a moot point, although of course if the vehicles had been stationary they wouldnt have happened. At least one of the accidents was caused by a car crossing the central line, for unknown reasons. There is no evidence the car was speeding though, indeed as he was being followed by a queue of traffic it's likely he wasn't. So either there was a mechanical failure with the car, the driver became medically unfit, or was distracted.

In another accident the driver was well over the drink drive limit and had taken drugs, so if drivers are going to break those rules are they going to adhere to a reduced speed limit?

Undoubtedly in some accidents there is no doubt that the vehicles were speeding, however they were almost certainly doing in excess of the NSL so if they were already breaking the speed limit is there any evidence that they would comply with a lower limit.

It is the tinkering with limits these days for political purposes that leads the system in to disrepute. The reality in my opinion is that drivers who are stopped by a police officer for speeding, whether charged or not, are far more likely to pay attention tot he fact they have been caught and learn a lesson. Those caught by cameras just whine about how unfair the system is.

With modern social media it is very easy to create a campaign calling for lower speed limits etc. You can get friends, neighbours etc involved easily, use multiple social media accounts, and rarely is there any counter argument because most people are unaware of the campaign or can't be bothered as they dont have the time.

The other soapbox of mine on this subject is that cars are too easy and comfortable to drive. You only needed to see Richard Hammond complaining about the Mustang on Top Gear last night (before it kept breaking down!) to see this. You used to have to concentrate to drive a car, they didn't have power steering, assisted brakes, they were noisy, uncomfortable etc, all of which actually kept you alert. Now driving a car is easy, but rather than using the concentration released to look out the windscreen drivers have GPS, MP3 players, mobile phones etc to distract them instead.

[Funk]

The other issue is inappropriately-low limits being created as much as increased automated enforcement. How long til we have a man and flag again?

With advances in car design, brakes and tyres, speed limits should be increasing.

[singlecoil]

Chrisgr31 said:

The reality of speed cameras and other measures to reduce road accidents is that they do not address the real issue which is drivers themselves...

Nor are they intended to, in the same way as seat belts are not designed to prevent accidents.

The function of both these devices is to limit the ill-effects that accidents can have.

[allergictocheese]

A reduction in speed limit may only have a minimal impact on the frequency of accidents however a significant one on their severity. Safety at a specific location is also but one reason to lower a limit. Reductions in noise or air pollution, a wider policy of speed reduction and the wishes of the local electorate can all play their part. Those changing limits shouldn't take a one dimensional approach and neither should those who criticise them.

[Chrisgr31]

allergictocheese said:

A reduction in speed limit may only have a minimal impact on the frequency of accidents however a significant one on their severity. Safety at a specific location is also but one reason to lower a limit. Reductions in noise or air pollution, a wider policy of speed reduction and the wishes of the local electorate can all play their part. Those changing limits shouldn't take a one dimensional approach and neither should those who criticise them.

The wishes of the local electorate? Oh yes how many of the local electorate actually take part in any of these debates? The reality is you invariably have a handful of retired people with nothing else to do getting a bee in their bonnet about a particular and then having the time to rant about it. In the meantime the vast majority of the electorate couldnt care less. Dont vote etc.

Locally we have debates about noise from Gatwick, and there are regular complaints on Twitter and Facebook about it. I can only recall looking up because of the noise of one aircraft in the last month. Its very clear there are a few very active campaigners on the subject with no one else caring.

Air pollution? Unless I am very much mistaken cars are much more econimical and have much fewer emissions than they did a few years ago. Not only that but they are actually more fuel efficient at around 56mph so therefore there is no reason to reduce speed limits to below 50mph or emission grounds.

[singlecoil]

If people don't vote about a particular issue the usual reason is that they don't care enough about that issue to make the effort.

If cars are more fuel efficient at 56mph than they are at lower speeds, then there is something seriously wrong with their design.

[Dammit]

Cars do emit far less- but their numbers are ever increasing, which is why we now have the situation wherein children should technically be given respirators if walking to school along certain routes.

[MC Bodge]

Chrisgr31 said:

The wishes of the local electorate? Oh yes how many of the local electorate actually take part in any of these debates? The reality is you invariably have a handful of retired people with nothing else to do getting a bee in their bonnet about a particular and then having the time to rant about it. In the meantime the vast majority of the electorate couldnt care less. Dont vote etc.

...and often aren't aware of it.

Notices (in small, typed text) about changes of speed limits etc are attached to lampposts on the roads in question, which can only be read by a pedestrian who stops to read it, not people who drive along the road.

Retired people with time on their hands who know little about the subject and probably don't know what different speeds look like to an onlooker shouldn't be able to exert so much influence on the local council. Reducing limits is not a panacea.

[Dammit]

In related news - it's now so bad we're going to stop looking: http://www.thesundaytimes.co.uk/sto/news/uk_news/E...