|
|
 |
 |
 |
 |
Safety Groups Oppose The Big Speed Camera Switch Off
Article by: robert
Date: 29 Aug 2010
 There's been a lot of talk about speed cameras this week with many organisations joining the heated debate as to whether some local authorities were right in their decision to turn their cameras off. Now that the government has ended central funding, it will be interesting to see how many other councils join the big switch off.
The Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents (RoSPA), The AA, the Institute of Road Safety Officers and the Parliamentary Advisory Council for Transport Safety have joined six other safety groups to issue a joint statement.
The statement said:
We the undersigned agree that:
* Speed cameras help to save lives - an estimated 100 lives a year in the UK.
* Lives are saved by reducing speeding. Speeding significantly increases the risk of an accident happening; and also increases the severity of injuries in an accident.
* Cameras should continue to be used where casualty statistics show they are needed.
* Switching off cameras systematically would be close to creating a void in law enforcement on the road. Cameras currently account for 84 per cent of fixed penalty notices for speeding.
* Cuts might also threaten many speed awareness courses that give motorists an opportunity to learn about the dangers of driving too fast.
* While public spending needs to be cut, cuts must be justified by evidence. Cameras pay for themselves and currently make an important contribution to achieving compliance with the speed limit.
Signed:
The Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents (RoSPA): Tom Mullarkey MBE, Chief Executive
The AA: Edmund King, President
Association of Industrial Road Safety Officers (AIRSO): Graham Feest, Secretary
CTC - the UK’s National Cyclists’ Organisation: Kevin Mayne, Chief Executive
GEM Motoring Assist: David Williams MBE FIRSO, Chief Executive
Institute of Road Safety Officers: Darren Divall, Chairman
London Road Safety Council: Councillor Peter Herrington, Chairman
Parliamentary Advisory Council for Transport Safety (PACTS): Robert Gifford, Executive Director
Road Safety GB: Alan Kennedy, Chairman
RoSPA has issued its defence of speed cameras: “Ten Reasons to Maintain Speed Camera Enforcement”.
Also this week, The Telegraph reported the announcement of a new scheme whereby local residents of Consett in County Durham and surrounding villages are to be given training by police and a budget of £5,000 by the council to use cameras to identify speeding drivers. Offenders would not be prosecuted, but would be sent warning letters. If it proves successful, authorities hope the initiative could be rolled out nationwide.
| Comments
|
 Posted by Guivre46 on Sun Aug 29, 2010 12:12 pm |
 |
Well I find I totally agree with their statement about 'where casualty figures justify it'. Because there is the feeling that many of the sites are 'tricksy' to raise revenue rather than reduce casualties. Now we need a review about how they are used, as said already, clear marking, link to traffic lights, average speed rather than at one single point etc.
Mike R [aka Wyvern46]
Go 530T - unsupported
Go550 Live [not renewed]
Kia In-dash Tomtom |
|
| Posted by wildcard on Sun Aug 29, 2010 4:30 pm |
|
We all seem to believe that cameras are there for the revenue - a view encouraged by the populist press and speeding drivers everywhere. But how can this be so if central government funding is required to keep them running ( at least in Oxfordshire ) ?
|
|
| Posted by JimmyTheHand on Sun Aug 29, 2010 6:37 pm |
|
| wildcard Wrote: | | We all seem to believe that cameras are there for the revenue - a view encouraged by the populist press and speeding drivers everywhere. But how can this be so if central government funding is required to keep them running ( at least in Oxfordshire ) ? |
At the back of my mind is the niggling doubt that the cameras were thought of as a cheap way to police the roads and increase "statistics" in the governments favour - without actually doing anything
J. |
|
| Posted by Border_Collie on Sun Aug 29, 2010 8:23 pm |
|
| wildcard Wrote: | | We all seem to believe that cameras are there for the revenue - a view encouraged by the populist press and speeding drivers everywhere. But how can this be so if central government funding is required to keep them running ( at least in Oxfordshire ) ? |
Extract from Medway Cabinet Meeting.
| Quote: | | 4.16 The cost of the mobile CCTV vehicle on a three year lease basis would be £1,525 per month, this cost would be off set against the generated income from the PCN issue, it is anticipated that in addition to self funding the CCTV unit this will also generate surplus income to the Council. |
Believe? 4.16 is surely proof.
Formerly known as Lost_Property
And NO that's NOT me in the Avatar. |
|
| Posted by Skippy on Tue Aug 31, 2010 6:58 am |
|
| News Team Wrote: | We the undersigned agree that:
* Speed cameras help to save lives - an estimated 100 lives a year in the UK. |
So you install 5,000 cameras and you save only 100 lives per year, ie each camera saves just 1 life every 50 years, what a pathetic waste of resources. People have paid a high price for this minuscule increase in road safety.
Gone fishing! |
|
| Posted by Darren on Tue Aug 31, 2010 8:11 am |
|
| wildcard Wrote: | | We all seem to believe that cameras are there for the revenue - a view encouraged by the populist press and speeding drivers everywhere. But how can this be so if central government funding is required to keep them running ( at least in Oxfordshire ) ? |
This is because when originally conceived, revenue raised went to the camera partnerships.
Some time back this was changed so that revenue went to central government instead.
The move by partnerships to withdraw cameras is being made to illustrate this point and I guess 'encourage' the government to return them to self funding status.
Darren Griffin |
|
| Posted by Skippy on Tue Aug 31, 2010 9:11 pm |
|
| wildcard Wrote: | | We all seem to believe that cameras are there for the revenue - a view encouraged by the populist press and speeding drivers everywhere. But how can this be so if central government funding is required to keep them running ( at least in Oxfordshire ) ? |
Because the income from the cameras goes to the government, not the camera operators. The government then pay the camera operators to cover the cost of running the cameras.
Since the cost of installing, maintaining and operating a camera is less than the amount of revenue generated by that camera, the government makes a net profit.
Simples.
Gone fishing! |
|
| Posted by M8TJT on Wed Sep 01, 2010 7:15 am |
|
| Darren Wrote: | | Some time back this was changed so that revenue went to central government instead. |
Presumably this was done at about the same time that they realised how much revenue they were raising 
|
|
| Posted by Guivre46 on Wed Sep 01, 2010 7:13 pm |
|
I'm sure I read somewhere that the government were seriously considering raising the level of speeding fines to fund services for victims of crimes?
Mike R [aka Wyvern46]
Go 530T - unsupported
Go550 Live [not renewed]
Kia In-dash Tomtom |
|
| Posted by Darren on Wed Sep 01, 2010 7:18 pm |
|
| Guivre46 Wrote: | | I'm sure I read somewhere that the government were seriously considering raising the level of speeding fines to fund services for victims of crimes? |
I've no issue with criminals funding victims but why should motorists (the easy target) be penalised to pay victims of countless other crimes?
Motoring offence fines should be used to fund road safety and perhaps compensation for the victims of motoring offences. Sadly most non-motoring offenders are much less profitable targets.
Darren Griffin |
|
| Posted by Skippy on Thu Sep 02, 2010 7:36 am |
|
| Darren Wrote: | | Motoring offence fines should be used to fund road safety and perhaps compensation for the victims of motoring offences. Sadly most non-motoring offenders are much less profitable targets. |
No chance of that, look where our road tax and petrol/diesel taxes go....
If a motoring case goes to court, they add a 15 pound "victim surcharge". Seems odd to me given that we are required to have third party liability insurance which is used to compensate the victims of our motoring crimes but hey ho.
Gone fishing! |
|
|
| Click here to view more comments... |
|
 |
|
|
 |
 |
 |
 |
|
|
