End of the road for third of Scots speed cameras
Discussion
www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2090-905296,00.html
November 23, 2003
End of the road for third of Scots speed cameras
Mark Macaskill
A THIRD of speed cameras are to be removed from Scotland’s roads under government plans to regain public confidence in their use.
New guidelines issued by the Scottish executive have banned siting of cameras on roads unless they are known accident blackspots. The new ruling means about 165 of Scotland’s 500 cameras are expected to be decommissioned.
Ministers are concerned at public hostility to the massive expansion in the use of speed cameras. They want to be sure cameras are used for safety reasons rather than as a means of generating extra revenue.
Under the guidelines, a fixed-site camera can only be set up on a stretch of road if there have been at least four collisions resulting in death or serious injury and eight collisions involving personal injuries in the past three years.
The move is supported by Ian Latimer, chairman of the Association of Chief Police Officers’in Scotland road policing committee.
Latimer is concerned that speed cameras have been sited over the past 10 years without a clearly defined strategy.
His views are shared by transport experts, who point out, however, that removing cameras does carry a risk. If fatal accidents occur after a camera has been switched off, they say, there could be a public backlash.
To guard against this, those cameras which do not meet the executive’s criteria will gradually be phased out and the level of road accidents closely monitored.
“The long-term aspiration is to remove these cameras but the first step in advancing that is to reduce the extent of enforcement activity at those cameras which fall outside the criteria,” said Latimer.
Speed traps were introduced to Britain in 1994 and there are now around 5,000. In 2001, they provided evidence for more than 1m motoring offences.
Almost 880,000 were speed-related, generating more than £52m in fines. Next year 3m motorists are expected to be fined up to £60 for speeding.
Their increased use has proved unpopular with the public and many cameras have been vandalised. South of the border a secretive organisation called Motorists Against Detection, led by a self-styled vigilante called Captain Gatso, have disabled cameras by spray-painting their lenses. Gatso refers to a type of speed camera.
In the past six months, six camera sites in Scotland have been decommissioned following malicious damage. In one incident, vigilantes used fireworks to blow up a speed camera three weeks after it was put up on a road dubbed “millionaires mile”, which links Milngavie and Strathblane with Glasgow, causing about £12,000 worth of damage.
“We’ve always felt that taking out a camera is more difficult than putting it in,” said Neil Greig, head of policy at the Automobile Association Scotland.
“Will the speed go back up again, will more lives be put at risk? But police are trying to simplify the message and there are cameras which were put in with no real control or criteria to meet.
“A new scheme, where everything is by the book, will be much better. The biggest problem is that there is not enough transparency about why individual cameras are there. When that is addressed, motorists will be a lot happier.”
Critics of speed cameras have also welcomed the latest move. “It’s refreshing to see some honesty,” said Mark McArthur-Christie, spokesman for the Association of British Drivers. “There’s this business about having two deaths before we have a speed camera but we need to look at why the accident occurred. Was it actually speed-related? “These days the answer is a speed camera but this country has spent millions on speed cameras but where is the payback? It’s led to an incredible level of frustration.”
Andrew Wilkie, director of the Scottish Safety Camera Partnershipscheme, added: “The criteria are there to ensure that the aim is entirely to reduce casualties. If the criteria did not exist we would run the risk of being accused of siting cameras for revenue generation.”
Mike McDonnell, spokesman for the Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents, added: “The speed camera should always be a last resort. Latimer’s right. If we want to remove the perception that cameras are there to make money we need to show that cameras are in positions where there have actually been accidents.”
The Department of Transport denies speed cameras are being used as a means of generating revenue. A recent study conducted by the department found fatalities and serious injuries were reduced by a third on roads where speed cameras had been erected.
November 23, 2003
End of the road for third of Scots speed cameras
Mark Macaskill
A THIRD of speed cameras are to be removed from Scotland’s roads under government plans to regain public confidence in their use.
New guidelines issued by the Scottish executive have banned siting of cameras on roads unless they are known accident blackspots. The new ruling means about 165 of Scotland’s 500 cameras are expected to be decommissioned.
Ministers are concerned at public hostility to the massive expansion in the use of speed cameras. They want to be sure cameras are used for safety reasons rather than as a means of generating extra revenue.
Under the guidelines, a fixed-site camera can only be set up on a stretch of road if there have been at least four collisions resulting in death or serious injury and eight collisions involving personal injuries in the past three years.
The move is supported by Ian Latimer, chairman of the Association of Chief Police Officers’in Scotland road policing committee.
Latimer is concerned that speed cameras have been sited over the past 10 years without a clearly defined strategy.
His views are shared by transport experts, who point out, however, that removing cameras does carry a risk. If fatal accidents occur after a camera has been switched off, they say, there could be a public backlash.
To guard against this, those cameras which do not meet the executive’s criteria will gradually be phased out and the level of road accidents closely monitored.
“The long-term aspiration is to remove these cameras but the first step in advancing that is to reduce the extent of enforcement activity at those cameras which fall outside the criteria,” said Latimer.
Speed traps were introduced to Britain in 1994 and there are now around 5,000. In 2001, they provided evidence for more than 1m motoring offences.
Almost 880,000 were speed-related, generating more than £52m in fines. Next year 3m motorists are expected to be fined up to £60 for speeding.
Their increased use has proved unpopular with the public and many cameras have been vandalised. South of the border a secretive organisation called Motorists Against Detection, led by a self-styled vigilante called Captain Gatso, have disabled cameras by spray-painting their lenses. Gatso refers to a type of speed camera.
In the past six months, six camera sites in Scotland have been decommissioned following malicious damage. In one incident, vigilantes used fireworks to blow up a speed camera three weeks after it was put up on a road dubbed “millionaires mile”, which links Milngavie and Strathblane with Glasgow, causing about £12,000 worth of damage.
“We’ve always felt that taking out a camera is more difficult than putting it in,” said Neil Greig, head of policy at the Automobile Association Scotland.
“Will the speed go back up again, will more lives be put at risk? But police are trying to simplify the message and there are cameras which were put in with no real control or criteria to meet.
“A new scheme, where everything is by the book, will be much better. The biggest problem is that there is not enough transparency about why individual cameras are there. When that is addressed, motorists will be a lot happier.”
Critics of speed cameras have also welcomed the latest move. “It’s refreshing to see some honesty,” said Mark McArthur-Christie, spokesman for the Association of British Drivers. “There’s this business about having two deaths before we have a speed camera but we need to look at why the accident occurred. Was it actually speed-related? “These days the answer is a speed camera but this country has spent millions on speed cameras but where is the payback? It’s led to an incredible level of frustration.”
Andrew Wilkie, director of the Scottish Safety Camera Partnershipscheme, added: “The criteria are there to ensure that the aim is entirely to reduce casualties. If the criteria did not exist we would run the risk of being accused of siting cameras for revenue generation.”
Mike McDonnell, spokesman for the Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents, added: “The speed camera should always be a last resort. Latimer’s right. If we want to remove the perception that cameras are there to make money we need to show that cameras are in positions where there have actually been accidents.”
The Department of Transport denies speed cameras are being used as a means of generating revenue. A recent study conducted by the department found fatalities and serious injuries were reduced by a third on roads where speed cameras had been erected.
Methinks that they have just realised that many cameras aren't now paying their way as everyone knows where they are - I've seen a dramatic rise in the use of talivans in the central belt over the last year, so my bet is that they are just transferring their activity to mobile units. (I know that Edinburgh has just got some new ones)
This is just a PR exercise to get rid of some cameras that aren't making enough money - this way they can say "we are listening to motorists", and don't have to justify it on economic grounds.
Still, it's a step in the right direction...
This is just a PR exercise to get rid of some cameras that aren't making enough money - this way they can say "we are listening to motorists", and don't have to justify it on economic grounds.
Still, it's a step in the right direction...
Gassing Station | Motoring News | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff