Mark Field MP is wrong to suggest that speed cameras should be abolished
Dear Mark Field,
Apart from the occasional quip on Top Gear, speed cameras aren’t discussed much these days. I get the feeling that there is a grudging acceptance of their existence among motorists, even if full-scale agreement is a million miles away. Your calls for speed cameras to be abolished doesn’t really make a useful contribution to any discussion as this is clearly not an ‘either/or’ topic. Having said that, there is certainly a debate that still needs to take place on this issue.
Through the Freedom of Information act, you discovered that the number of speeding prosecutions and fines has increased sevenfold from 262,000 in 1996 to 1,865,000 in 2006. You told the BBC that you wanted the “pendulum turned back to the long suffering motorist” and that the “excessive use” of speed cameras was “more about money raising than safety on roads” and led to the “overzealous penalising of drivers”. You claim that this has ”transformed the disqualification system into one of Russian roulette”. In addition, the government had raised huge sums through fines yet the number of traffic officers on duty had fallen by 20% over the same period and the “explosion” in cameras had done little to address serious problems such as the number of people still driving unlicensed vehicles or not paying any road tax. You are now calling for more local authorities to follow Swindon’s example of stopping speed camera funding and putting the money into road safety projects instead. Not unsurprisingly, BRAKE, the national road safety charity, described Swindon’s decision as “a very dangerous experiment with people’s lives” and said that ”speed cameras are an important tool in catching drivers who insist on breaking the law and putting lives in danger.” Brake’s website reads thus: “Speed cameras are proven to cut speeds, reduce the number of crashes and reduce casualties. They do not affect anyone apart from those drivers who break the law. …If a child on foot is hit by a vehicle travelling at 35mph, they are more than twice as likely to die than if they are hit at 30mph.”
The truth is that you’re both right. More prosecutions and fines could just mean more cameras (which your FOI request found to be true) or more people speeding, neither of which particularly concern me, nor do I have any sympathy with anyone who gets caught by a speed camera – if they weren’t breaking the law, there wouldn’t be a problem. However, there are two things that do concern me. Firstly, as I understand it the Treasury recently changed the rules so that all speed camera fines go directly into their pockets and they simply give grants back to speed camera operators and local councils. This is unacceptable because councils should be allowed to keep the money to invest in local road safety schemes (or even public transport), seeing as road safety is the whole point of speed cameras. If Swindon can find a better way of using their funding then so be it – they should be judged on their outcomes, not methods. Secondly, speed cameras are often put in areas where they will catch the most people, not where they will save the most lives. Where speed cameras exist, there is good (but not perfect) evidence to suggest that they save lives and reduce accidents. I ignore those who claim that speed cameras don’t work because deaths on our roads at a national level are not coming down, as the effects of speed cameras are very localised.
I think you’ve been a little hasty in chasing after speed cameras. Speeding is incredibly dangerous in some areas, less so elsewhere, but if speed cameras are put in accident hotspots and punish those who endanger others then I support them 100%. What I don’t support is the government taking advantage of unfairly positioned cameras while at the same time overseeing a huge decline in the number of traffic police. As Edmund King, the AA president, highlighted yesterday, “a speed camera does not pick up the illegal foreign truck driver or boy racer with stolen plates but a traffic cop can”. Transport Secretary Geoff Hoon has previously indicated that traditional fixed-point speed cameras could be replaced by others which measure drivers’ average speed, which may quell some discontent from motorists. Even so, it is really important that neither central government, local councils or motoring organisations lose sight of the fact that speed cameras should be about saving lives, not squeezing more cash out of motorists.
Yours sincerely,
A.Tory
Witanagemot Blogs
“What I don’t support is the government taking advantage of unfairly positioned cameras while at the same time overseeing a huge decline in the number of traffic police.”
But isn’t that exactly the point that Mark Field was trying to get across…?
“Mr Field wants more local authorities to follow Swindon’s example – the borough has voted to stop funding them and intends to use the £320,000 it spends on cameras every year on road safety projects instead.”
The press has chosen to go with the speed camera angle (and I can’t find a report that claims he says they should ‘be abolished’) for the headline-grabbing effect, but he seems to be in agreement with you about the change that needs to happen in motoring eforcement.
I’m agnostic on this but would draw your attention to the contrary evidence that traffic calming measures, while notionally slowing drivers down, create distractions that are themselves dangerous. I think this started in Holland but there are experiments underway that seem to show that *reducing* these distractions, the signs, the barriers, the cameras actually make things safer because it forces drivers to think for themselves rather than be told what to do.
Which is an idea I like (personal responsibility) but knowing people as I do, am suspicious that people will just f*ck it up!
Traffic cameras are a bad thing and should be abolished. They are bad because as a result the roads are not policed properly, and there is much evidence that cameras are used simply as a means of collecting revenue. Speed is not the cause of accidents – bad driving is and cameras do not stop bad driving.
.. but when people do discuss speed cameras they believe them to be a revenue raising tool.
The best way to make a road or junction safer is to make it look unsafe (as I understand it). When it looks safe drivers don’t concentrate – and the opposite is true.
The only real way to catch dangerous drivers (whether they speed or not) is the use of unmarked police cars – and make it very clear that police are using these.
Speed cameras only perform one function: They’re a test to see if people are capable of noticing speed cameras. I got caught by one once and my opinion was that they had correctly punished me for not paying attention properly, which if you’re going over the speed limit, deliberately or not, is when things get dangerous. Speed itself is not dangerous. Inability to stop in the distance you can see to be clear almost certainly is.
Then keeping uninsured, untaxed, unlicensed drivers in cars that may or may not have an MOT off the road though? There’s nothing on that. Honest drivers are having to pay for those. Why can’t we concentrate on them?
I get the feeling that there is a grudging acceptance of their existence among motorists
:cough: not all of us
I ignore those who claim that speed cameras don’t work because deaths on our roads at a national level are not coming down, as the effects of speed cameras are very localised.
Hmmm. Not entirely correct. If a route becomes known as one that is dangerous to take – in the sense that you are in danger of losing your licence – then commuters (etc) will tend to divert to other routes. Usually those routes will be less safe – in the sense that you are more likely to have an accident. Thus, the accident rate around the camera drops (cue: hey presto, it worked, let’s have more!) but the general accident rate stays the same or gets worse.
It is reasonable of you to doubt the relevance of national accident rates, as the link is a little weak by the time you abstract to the entirety of the UK. However, it is instructive to look at county accident rates where (generally) the correlation between speed cameras and reductions in accidents is not very good, to say the least.
In the end, speed cameras are one of those interventions that can be used for good or for evil. Local quangocracies that are funded through the fines raised by them have however conveniently forgotten that, and as I sought to explain in my blog (link above) this has actually led to all (or most) cameras having a corrosive effect on driving standards generally.
To anyone who denies that speed cameras are now seen as the one and only way of controlling accidents, I say look at the South Bucks section of the M40. This has suffered a series of nasty accidents in recent years, which have each caused loss of life and (sometimes) closure of the entire motorway for an extended period. The local rag is vocally demanding speed cameras and speed enforcement; the local “Safer Roads Partnership” agrees and is looking at siting speed cameras on bridges over the motorway. In the meantime, it seems that police speed traps are being placed on those bridges – although not on the motorway amongst the traffic, of course.
But …. most of the accidents have been caused by lorries. Lorries that, by law, have a 56mph speed limiter fitted. Apparently, setting up a machine which will only take a photo of those lorries if they exceed 70mph will stop these accidents. Really??
There is more to road safety than just speed. So much more.
Shaun’s point of personal responsibility for drivers is correct. There are a plethora of signs around on the roads that stop the motorist thinking, or worse, tell him what speed to drive at, e.g. 60mph, so you get numpties going, “Ok, it’s foggy, but the sign says 60mph” instead of using their judgement.
And therein lies the problem: driver education. It’s why people drive along in the middle lane of the motorway (or lane 3 on a 4 lane mway) despite having clear lanes to the left of them. Even though the signs tell people to “Keep Left”, they don’t. People driving on normal roads don’t indicate, are not considerate or courteous, and really don’t think for themselves.
I suggest a re-take of the driving test every five years or as soon as possible after a motoring offence. That should do it…
On the subject of speed cameras, the are merely cash generators – when was the last time you saw a speed camera outside a school? No, there always on roads that were previously a 60, then made into a 40 “for safety” and then had a speed camera placed on them. They are heinous and should be scrapped and the money saved ploughed back into road traffic police, who Labour have removed slowly from the roads over the last few years. Speed cameras, as noted, can not detect drink / drug drivers, uninsured drivers, etc.
Scrap ‘em.
BTW, I’m a passionate motorist who enjoys driving fast safely – so sue me.
“And therein lies the problem: driver education. It’s why people drive along in the middle lane of the motorway (or lane 3 on a 4 lane mway) despite having clear lanes to the left of them.”
Oh, it should be legal to ram anyone you see doing this into the central reservation….
Some very interesting comments from everyone on this matter.
As I mentioned with Swindon, if someone can find a better way of reducing accidents than speed cameras then I’m more than happy to listen. That said, scrapping them across the country from every location seems too rash as they can serve a very important purpose in specific locations (again, assuming that they are not just being used to screw motorists).
Crap driving is indeed the cause of accidents, but lower speeds do result in less fatalities. Personal responsibility is undoubtedly part of the answer and surely no-one can complain about more unmarked police cars and traffic police because they serve an incredibly important function. Shame that the government uses speed cameras as a funding mechanism rather than as road safety devices.
Crap driving is indeed the cause of accidents, but lower speeds do result in less fatalities.
And there is the problem; being hit at 35 is undoubtedly more harmful than being hit at 30. Hence the simplistic (sorry) argument that you make. However, being hit at 30 by a driver who was driving at 30 but not looking, is far more harmful than being not hit by a driver who was travelling at 35, but paying enough attention to notice you and stop in time!
An interesting observation from the motorway this morning. I caught up with (ahem!) a marked police car. It travelled at a steady 80-85mph as measured by GPS. It changed lane without indicating, repeatedly. It moved out to overtake a car in lane 1 or 2 only after approaching very closely behind, to the point of tailgating.
If I did that in sight of a marked police car, I woudl expect to be ticketed.
The revenue link is the problem. Despite being denied, and evidence hard to find, the link is there.
The frequency of cameras is very different in different parts of the country too.
Heavily trafficked roads have many, lesser roads have none.
This is Patently’s point. The speeding risk is the same, but only the revenue producing road is targeted.
Being an ex 60,000 miles a year mile man, I can assure you that some councils took measures, like the “slow down” electric signs that were equally successful in reducing speed, but were expensive to maintain as they produce no revenue.Eventually many of the councils were won over to the cash generators, and signs were replaced with cameras.
At least 1/2 could be scrapped without ant effect on except to revenue.
“As I mentioned with Swindon, if someone can find a better way of reducing accidents than speed cameras then I’m more than happy to listen.”
Marked and unmarked police cars. So long as, unlike in Patently’s example, they can manage to obey the traffic laws themselves…
But they cost too much, and cameras are cheap.
But isn’t this all just leading towards the obvious solution of putting speed cameras in a few specific accident hotspots and using the fines to pay for more traffic police (which would obviously require the Treasury to let go of the reins)?
I fear that this is leading to tying the road-pricing satellite tracking devices to the speed dial and a mobile phone so your own car grasses you up for speeding. Problem solved – put drivers in the Panopticon!
Wow, I really ought to write this down and try and sell it to the Department of Transport as I’m missing a trick here.
Steady on Shaun, I was just talking about improving the operations of speed cameras, not invading the dashboard of every motorist! In principle I see where you are coming from but I certainly wouldn’t advocate that kind of system.
The M42 has speed cameras as part of an active traffic management scheme. Drive along the M42 between M6 and M40 and you find that the traffic tends to observe the variable limits. You still get middle lane hogs, but not as much, and my experience (as an irregular user now, but not that long ago as a regular user) was that the traffic flows better.
So I might be in favour of impersonal active traffic management schemes (although not of the arbitrary penalties!), but I don’t think it is anything to do with road safety.
We used to have marked traffic cops – that was a system that worked in reducing accidents. They should bring it back. And I speak as one who was caught twice by real policement for minor speed infringements, but never by a speed camera.
The M42 scares the living daylights out of me – and I’m a reltively confident driver.
Several thousand cars, all nose to tail, all in closely spaced lanes with only a foot or two between them, all driven by people looking only at their speedometers… not my idea of safe driving!
I am not a high-mileage driver but I belong to the Association of British Drivers – http://www.abd.org.uk – which has for a long time highlighted the inconsistencies, untruths and sheer deception put out by the DfT and local authorities on speed cameras.
As one example only, the DfT started an investigation into the collateral effects of speed cameras, but it was “pulled” after several months, probably because it was becoming clear that the cameras caused as many (or maybe more) accidents than they prevented. There are dozens of other examples as to why speed cameras are not the answer to “the problem”.
There is little control over drivers driving under the influence of drink – and increasingly, drugs – little control over foreign lorries which cause accidents disproportionate to their numbers, which in any case is a scandal in commercial terms.
Believe me, drivers do not accept, even grudgingly, that most of these cameras are necessary. Unfortunately BRAKE and similar organisations try to portray the ABD as “a bunch of boy-racers”, with some success. Nothing could be further from the truth and one of its objectives, within all road transport matters, is better road-user training for ALL road users.
speed cameras should be about saving lives, not squeezing more cash out of motorists
I totally agree!
Speeding law enforcement by speed cameras is carried out that way because it can be, nit because it is effective or right or the best way.
I support some form of speed control in areas where road safety is enhanced by reminding and reinforcing drivers about the need for caution. But, by observation a lot of cameras are placed where higher speed is not excessively hazardous. I addition the safe speed varies with traffic and general road conditions. Why is it dangerous to do 100 mph on totally empty Mway at night in good weather. And why is it safe to do 70 on the same piece of road in rush hour in bad weather?
Mark Field didn’t actually call for speed cameras to be abolished, I only wish that he had.
“Increased sevenfold from 262,000 in 1996 to 1,865,000 in 2006″.
So cameras are a really effective deterrent, aren’t they ?
As a motorist for 50 years, I find I drive to the actual road situation, rather than to a bureaucratically arbitrary speed limit. The more I have to fret about checking the speed, the less attention I have for the road environment. I defy anyone, without checking the speedo constantly, to maintain at or near the speed limit.
I have cruise control, find it useful only in motorway road works monitored by cameras, so I can keep vigilance where it belongs, OUTSIDE the car.
Alan Douglas
“More prosecutions and fines could just mean more cameras (which your FOI request found to be true) or more people speeding, neither of which particularly concern me, nor do I have any sympathy with anyone who gets caught by a speed camera – if they weren’t breaking the law, there wouldn’t be a problem”
I usuaually agree with you, but today I have to call you for a self-righteous, fatuous and ridiculous statement.
People speed. Studies suggest that most people speed only in circumstances where it is perfectly safe to do so, and keep to the limit or below when it is not. However there are many cases of ridiculously low limits, including the UK national speed limit.
There terrible case here in Essex, on the A127 dual carriageway leaving or approaching Southend. Recently average-speed cameras were installed.At the same time the speed limit was dropped from 70 mph to 50 mph. So where a few weeks ago I could have perfectly legally driven at 70 mph that would now see me fined. Nothing has changed, yet now I have to drive at significantly lower than the national speed limit for single-carriageway roads on a perfectly safe stretch of dual carriageway.
The argument is poor anyway. Speed limits are not safe speeds, they are rather arbitary and do not depend on conditions. Prosecuting for violating this arbitary limit using a machine with no discretion has the effect of concentrating people on the speed limit, not safe speed for the conditions. More people are not judging their own speed, they are deligating their responsibility to someone behind a desk, and I suspect that is why speed cameras have not reduced road deaths. However the argument has no value at all until there is some sense put back into the setting of limits.
“I ignore those who claim that speed cameras don’t work because deaths on our roads at a national level are not coming down, as the effects of speed cameras are very localised.”
Another one.
It is pointless saving lives locally if you increase the death rate nationally. Since cameras have become prevalent in traffic law enforcement the steady decline in road deaths has all but stopped. The strategy is wrong. The wrong signal is being sent to motorists. They are being told to “do not exceed teh speed limit” when they should be judging safe speed for themselves.
Richard, I mostly agree with your sentiments. However, I take issue with your assertion that “speed limits are not safe speeds” as a safe speed at any given moment on any given road will always depend on a huge number of conditions. Even so, lower speeds significantly reduce mortality rates in accident, particularly the drop from 40 to 30mph. It would be nice to think that all drivers could be trusted to use their own judgement but I think it is safe to assume that there are enough idiots in this country to prevent any politician from ever pursuing that course of action.
Alan, checking the speed constantly is extremely dangerous, which is why I advocate only putting speed cameras in very specific locations that are known to be hazardous to prevent people from being regularly distracted from their driving.
Mr Angry, Mark Field said the Swindon is the example that we should follow – which sounds an awful lot like wanting to get rid of speed cameras to me!
Lola, I also suspect that many cameras are placed in inappropriate areas as the government has clearly lost sight of what speed cameras are supposed to be used for.
It’s nice to see you cover something that goes against the general Tory grain…
Thing is, speed cameras aren’t a solution. They are an indiscriminate enforcement device for a bad law. Speed limits are set at a notional level. They are never ‘right’. They are either too high or too low. Locally one would never drive at 30 mph down the narrow cross streets between rows od terraced houses and the parked cars – even 20 is excessive. But the limit is 30. So what do you do? Have a speed camera in every street? This is self evidently mad as you’d need millions. Similarly doing 80, 90 0r 100 on a totally empty mway is not unsafe. The car is designed to do at least this. There is Armco between the carriageways, so what’s the problem.
The problem is that speed cameras are enforcing nanying. Drivers make decisions second by second. The vast majority never ever get it so wrong that people die. Young male drivers do speed, but you can deal with that by targetting them. Drivers discriminate all the time. Traffic police discriminate and will often ignore speed if the driving is good (I do not mean doing 120 in the rush hour, but doing 80 ish on an empty mway). But cameras are indiscriminate. You can get done for a moments innatention. Inattention that in no way threatens anyone or yourself. Not innattention to the road, but inattention to speed. And who really can feel the difference between 30 and 35?
Sorry, but cameras are there because they can be. They are a bureaucrats wet dream. They make speeding prosecutions a process. They take the discretion out of law enforcement. They are designed to criminalise drivers. They enable more state control of our behaviour. They take away freedom, and yes freedom to make mistakes.
BTW Having worked in highway engineering and on roadworks I actaully do support roadworks speed limits and cameras – whilst workers are on site – or if the carriageways are very restricted or misaligned. But I would differentiate in enforcement severity between working hours and non-working hours. Discretion again, y’see.