Monday 19th December 2005

Mixed reactions for scamera policy

Cameras curtailed but safety compromised say groups

---

Qualified welcome for camera containment

Reactions to the Government's announcement that the link between speed cameras and cash for the bodies that run them is to be broken, and that their spread is to be curtailed have resulted in a mixed reaction from lobby groups.

Safe Speed

Road safety campaign Safe Speed said that the measure didn't go far enough and that it raises serious issues including:

• Will urgent road safety improvements be delayed until sufficient motorists have been fined to pay for it?
• Will camera partnerships step up enforcement to pay for road safety improvements?
• Do camera partnerships have the expertise to spend the cash wisely?

Campaign founder Paul Smith said: "This announcement is very bad news for road safety. It is hugely illogical -- if the Department for Transport (DfT) still believed that speed cameras save lives, why doesn't it continue to blanket the country? Clearly it has realised that speed cameras don't work, but it lacks the courage to shut down the greedy camera partnerships, or even to admit its mistake.

"Speed cameras have proved to be a road safety red herring -- they cost lives because they focus everyone on the wrong safety factor and have replaced worthwhile road safety policies. Apparently this totally unacceptable situation is going to be allowed to blunder on costing lives."

Association of British Drivers

The Association of British Drivers (ABD) was in broad agreement with Safe Speed. It said that the move "still leaves core issues of road safety unaddressed". It said that the new proposals will:

• Leave unaccountable and secretive camera partnerships intact
• Allow the continued use of cameras
• Divert some camera funds for more road markings and signs
• Retain the focus on speed limits, not appropriate speed for the conditions

The ABD said it was concerned that the DfT "is continuing to focus on speed limit adherence and mechanistic ways of controlling drivers' behaviour."

Mark McArthur-Christie, the ABD's Road Safety Spokesman said: "We're pleased that the government has finally admitted that cameras are about cash, not saving casualties -- but cameras will still be used, and still be funded from fines. They address only one, small aspect of road safety yet they have become the centre of the UK's casualty reduction policy without a shred of honest evidence that they save lives. They need to be ripped out and attention focused on instilling the skills that make drivers safe."

The ABD is also greatly concerned about the distraction effect of cameras on drivers and motorcyclists -- a factor which has never been researched. McArthur-Christie said: "We don't know the distraction effect cameras have, and it's vital that this is quantified. When a driver approaches a camera he looks everywhere but at the road ahead -- this diversion effect is extremely dangerous."

The ABD said it "believes that the complexity of the driving process needs to be recognised by government, and incentives put in place for drivers to continue retraining and acquiring new skills throughout their driving lives."

ABD chairman Brian Gregory said: "The government says it takes road safety seriously, but it's taken them nearly fourteen years to recognise that speed cameras are a simplistic, dangerous, distracting white elephant. It says driver training and education is too expensive and might be a vote loser -- but so is 3,400 people dying on the roads each year. It's time we thought seriously about real road safety."

Other motoring groups were more forgiving -- and more accepting of the continuing use of speed cameras.

RAC Foundation

The RAC Foundation gave a broad welcome to the measure as "a positive step in improving the UK's road safety record."

It said: "Under current funding arrangements, motorists have been sceptical about the safety benefits of cameras, seeing them as a revenue raising tool rather than a road safety measure.

"The Foundation welcomes the Government's decision to reform the funding system so that local authorities and local police have freedom to choose between spending on cameras, driver education or road improvements."

Edmund King, executive director of the RAC Foundation, said: "The RAC Foundation has consistently campaigned for a broader and more flexible approach to road safety. While speed cameras have their place, they should not be the first and last resort for road safety. Road and junction layout, clearer signing of limits, and better driver education all have a role to play.

"It is good news that the Government has recognised this in its review by committing increased funding for road safety."

AA Trust

The AA Trust, the AA's think-tank, tried to steer a middle path. It said the new policy means that: "From 2007, speed cameras will no longer be the easier option for reducing road casualties but will have to be weighed against other measures to improve road safety.

"Motorists will welcome the breaking of the link between catching speeding drivers and income for camera partnerships. This means that cameras will be sited where they have the greatest impact on road casualties and not where they will help to meet financial targets.

The AA Trust said it would be "watching closely to make sure that the £110 million extra safety funding available to local authorities will be additional to their road safety budgets and will not allow them to divert existing road safety cash into other council spending."

"Speed cameras have created a nation of people torn between wanting the roads outside their houses and schools protected from speeders while wanting the freedom to interpret conditions on other people’s roads and choose the speed they see fit", says Andrew Howard, head of road safety for The AA Motoring Trust.

"The constant tirade from the "anti" lobby, which declares speed cameras to be nothing more than cash-raising machines for the Treasury, and the "pro" lobby, which sees blanket enforcement and criminalizing a quarter of UK households as the only way to reduce road casualties, constantly misses the point.

"The reality is that speed cameras work alongside other measures, such as better engineering of roads to reduce and provide better margin for mistakes, but are not the universal remedy some advocates claim. Unfortunately, with speed cameras currently being effectively self-financing, they offer a far cheaper alternative to other safety measures that have to be paid for by cash-strapped councils.

"Where government has failed is to allow a headlong dash into speed camera use without carrying the public with it. At the turn of the millennium, 83 per cent found cameras acceptable -- now it’s 69 per cent. Cameras can have a major role to play but the public must understand their use, and the motives behind them."

The AA Trust also commented on other forthcoming changes in the road and speed policy. It said that changes in the criteria for camera sites "will add flexibility for sites where there are many accidents but few serious enough to meet the criteria -- a key concern of many communities, and will allow routes with problems, rather than just sites, to be tackled. While accepting this the AA Trust believes that camera siting must still be linked to accidents.

"Changes to signing guidelines, and the nationwide review of speed limits on A and B roads are welcome. Speed limits need to be realistic and appropriate to ensure compliance."

[deltafox]

So 69% find cameras acceptable? Who HAS he been talking to?

[deltafox]

cjbolter said:

Absolutely right !!. Basically all these guys ranting off at cameras are ranting at the wrong target.

How so?

cjbolter said:

The right target to criticise is the inappropriate, and sometimes seemingly downright arbitrary, speed limit setting.

I think youll find that this is directly connected to the cynical placement of scameras.

cjbolter said:

If the speed limit appeared about right by the majority of drivers, then there would be no cause to complain about the cameras.

If the speed limits were right then the scammers wouldnt make any money so just the opposite has been engineered.

cjbolter said:

Apart from "infringement of personal liberties" point of view, and I think there are more worthwhile targets for that particular argument than "scameras".

Really? Like what for example?
I suggest that scameras are a very worthwhile "target" both for criticism (already well argued) and direct action.

cjbolter said:

Remember "New Labour", and the Sun readers Know best !!!!. vbr CJ.

Sounds like an insult to me, that sun readers are comparable in intellect to a scamera hater...... Not that i read "The Sun". Mind you, i seriously doubt any Sun "readers" can actually, technically "read".........

[deltafox]

lightstepper said:

deltafox said: Sounds like an insult to me, that sun readers are comparable in intellect to a scamera hater...... Not that i read "The Sun". Mind you, i seriously doubt any Sun "readers" can actually, technically "read"......... You have got to be kidding me, you judge people on what NEWSPAPER they read?!?! Its a NEWSPAPER for christ sakes!!! I was quite enjoying reading your point until this! (ps - I do not read the Sun or most other newspapers either but I am not bothered by people that do!)

Chill its called "sarcasm"....