5th November 2005

By Ben Webster, The Times' Transport Correspondent

The relentless advance of speed cameras across Britain is to be halted under government plans to restore confidence in traffic policing, The Times has learnt.

Cameras will no longer be used as revenue-raising devices, and the system of recycling speeding fines to fund increasing numbers of cameras is to be abolished.

[Funny, I thought they weren't revenue raisers?!]

Camera partnerships, which include police forces and local authorities, will be ordered to consider every other option for improving safety and will only be allowed to install a camera as a last resort.

[Funny, I thought that was already the rule?!]

Ministers believe that the "cash for cameras" scheme, under which forces keep a proportion of camera fines to pay for more cameras, has resulted in widespread distrust of the speed enforcement system, The Times has been told.

[Funny, I thought just about everbody supported the sCams?!]

The number of camera fines has increased ten-fold in the past decade, from 200,000 in 1995 to more than two million last year.

The Department for Transport remains convinced that cameras work and will soon publish its annual report on the scheme, showing that cameras save more than 100 lives a year. But the department will also announce reforms to the way inwhich the partnerships are managed and funded.

[So how come the fatality rates used to fall, but scince sCams it has flatlined?!]

Revenue from camera fines will be collected centrally and redistributed among the partnership areas for use in all aspects of road safety.

[Unlike now where they funds can't be used for real safety, only on sCam Pratnerships!]

Rather than being restricted to erecting more cameras, the partnerships will be able to use the money to make junctions safer and to improve the visibility of signs and road markings.

[Oops, they were going to say that themselves!]

No partnership will benefit more than any other from increases in revenue, removing the incentive to focus enforcement where the highest number of drivers can be caught. Motoring groups believe that the partnerships have become self-perpetuating bureaucracies that are more concerned with maintaining financial targets than tackling the least safe roads.

The department wants them to follow the example of Lincolnshire, which has managed to reduce road casualties while issuing fewer tickets.

Whereas most partnerships apply to the department each year to erect more cameras, Lincolnshire has said that it does not need any more devices.

Ministers also approve of the county’s policy of having camera officials working alongside police road safety officers and council highway engineers.

A government source said: "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." 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.

Under the existing criteria, fixed cameras can only be installed where there have been at least four crashes involving death or serious injury in the previous three years.

Cameras can be used in areas of "community concern" that have not had the required number of crashes, but only for 15 per cent of the total time they spend enforcing the limit.

The department is planning either to increase that percentage or give police greater freedom to choose how they use the allotted time.

Ministers accept that this will result in a few hundred new camera sites but believe that the removal of existing cameras will mean that the total will remain about 6,000.

There will also be new guidelines on the enforcement of temporary speed limits during roadworks. Partnerships will be encouraged to use digital cameras, which record the average speed between two points.

The department is also preparing to publish independent research refuting claims that the benefits of speed cameras have been exaggerated.

Safe Speed, the anti-camera campaign group, argues that casualty reduction at camera sites is simply the result of the frequency of crashes returning to normal.

However, academics from the University of Liverpool, who previously questioned the benefits of cameras, now accept that they are genuine.

www.timesonline.co.uk/driving

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2-1858368,00.html

 

Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm

Who pays their wages?

 

5th November 2005

By Ben Webster, Times' Transport Correspondent

Lincolnshire’s road safety team is to be the model for the Government’s new approach to speed enforcement after exploding the myth that the only way to cut road deaths is to put up more cameras.

The county has one the best records for reducing casualties, despite freezing the number of cameras. Road deaths and serious injuries fell by 18 per cent in Lincolnshire last year, more than double the national rate of improvement.

[Whereas the sCam Counties are seeing rises!]

The fall coincided with a drop in camera penalties to the lowest number for four years.

The Lincolnshire camera partnership is one of the few that is spending less on camera enforcement this year than it did last year. Motoring groups have criticised the camera partnerships for setting themselves ever-larger budgets that they then need to fund by catching thousands more motorists.

In the spring the Government blocked proposals by 39 partnerships for more than 500 additional cameras. Lincolnshire was one of only four partnerships that decided not to apply for any more cameras.

Ministers want all partnerships to follow Lincolnshire’s policy of having camera officials, highway engineers and police road safety officers all working in the same building.

When a road is identified as having a high casualty rate, a member of each group inspects the site. This ensures that all the alternatives are fully considered before any decision is made to install a camera. A spokesman for the partnership said: "Having everyone sat together reinforces the attitude that cameras are only one of many solutions to the problem of speeding. In most other regions these people work in completely different offices.

[But that is what is already supposed to happen!]

"We also believe that the camera partnership doesn’t need to spend more to reduce casualties."

Lincolnshire makes widespread use of speed indicator devices, which detect a vehicle’s speed and flash it up on a screen. These devices do not make any money but research has shown they can be more effective than cameras.

Motorists who receive community service orders for the most serious offences are ordered to visit villages blighted by speed and to help officials to erect signs highlighting the dangers of breaking the limit.

Lincolnshire’s six camera vans are used only in places where they can be seen well in advance. "We park vans in prominent positions so people have an opportunity to slow down," the spokesman said.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2-1858420,00.html

 

17th October 2005

By Ben Webster, Times' Transport Correspondent

So many drivers have been caught by speed cameras that insurers no longer automatically penalise them for having points on their licences.
More than 12 million motorists have been caught by cameras since they were introduced in 1992. Last year more than two million received three points and a £60 fine, and a quarter of households now have at least one driver with a speeding conviction.
 
Insurers used to raise premiums by at least £50 for those caught once by a camera penalty and by more than £250 for those caught three times. But many companies no longer raise premiums for a single speeding offence, and some are prepared to ignore a second.

Road safety groups said that the financial consequences of being caught speeding were now so low that the fine should be at least doubled to £120 to maintain the deterrent effect.

A survey conducted on behalf of The Times by A&A Group, a leading insurance broker, was based on drivers living in St Albans, Hertfordshire, who had four years’ no claims bonus, and drove a Ford Focus 1.6 valued at £5,000. It found that the premium for a 30-year-old woman would stay at £177 even she acquired six penalty points. At nine points, one offence away from a ban, she would pay £36 extra.

A 40-year-old man would pay £13 extra for six points and £35 more for nine points. Even a man, 21, normally deemed a high risk, would pay only £103 extra for nine points.

Insurers not increasing premiums for drivers with one speeding ticket include Swiftcover, NIG, HSBC and Ensign. Andrew Blowers, chief executive of Swiftcover, said: “There are so many ordinary, safe drivers getting three points that it is no longer an indication that they pose a greater risk.” He said that the inability of cameras to take circumstances into account meant that many drivers were being caught when they were driving safely given the conditions at the time.

“In the good old days police would make a judgment and exercise discretion but cameras cannot do that. We all know there are times when 90mph on a motorway, if it’s clear, is quite safe.

“There is no point in loading the premiums of people who have long unblemished driving records but are mortified to find themselves with three points after being flashed.”

Tony Allen, the chief executive of A&A Group, said that insurers now took a more sophisticated view of speeding offences and were more likely to take into account other factors. “If you are a high-mileage driver then it is more understandable that you get speeding penalties. Also, if someone is caught speeding by a policeman, insurers tend to see that as more significant than being caught by a camera.”

Brake, the road safety charity, said that the risk of receiving a higher insurance bill had been an important part of the deterrent against speeding.

Mary Williams, the chief executive of Brake said: “The £60 fine is just pocket money to many drivers and the insurance increase often used to hurt much more than the fine. Now premiums are not going up, it makes sense to double the fine at the very least. It’s absurd that you can be fined £1,000 for flytipping or smoking on a bus but only £60 for endangering people’s lives on the road.”........

From:

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2-1828894,00.html

 

But poor old Mary still can't see it!