The first speed
camera in the UK was placed on
Twickenham Bridge in London in 1990 and
now there are over 4,500 all over the
country. However their popularity has
not grown with their numbers.
Protest has been slowly growing in
various forms, from militant protesters
attacking the cameras themselves to a
campaign to ‘starve the cameras’ of
funds by keeping to the speed limit.
When we invited Action Network users to
contribute their views and experiences
of speed cameras, they showed that
though drivers accept that there is a
place for safety cameras they don’t
think that the current way of using them
is fair. What follows is a summary of
the views we received.
'Cash generator'
David Marr thinks drivers are upset
about where the cameras are placed:
“Location is the key to earning drivers'
respect. Near where I stay there is a
camera located just over the crest of a
hill before a hidden junction and near
to a school. No problem. However further
along there is a camera on a long
straight through a run down industrial
area, no crossings, no houses, no
pedestrians so no accidents, looks like
a cash generator to me.”
Brian Smith agrees, and is suspicious
about the placing of a camera near him:
“The road is open, 60mph and gently
bending so it could be argued that a
camera to keep motorists on their toes
is justified. But it’s positioned just
round the bend and that smacks of
fund-raising to me.”
The management of most roadside cameras
is now the responsibility of the 27
‘safety camera partnerships’ set up
jointly by the local police authority,
the council and local magistrates. And
Martin Hooper is concerned that the
accident data which safety camera
partnerships use to decide the locations
of cameras is not easily available to
the public: “Instead, we are told that
this information is only available with
a charge of several hundred pounds, or
we are shunted off to the local
authority who subsequently tell us the
same thing.”
He feels that with cameras generating so
much revenue, the reasoning behind the
placement of each camera should be open
to public scrutiny. This may help
alleviate some drivers’ suspicions. The
general understanding among drivers,
expressed by David Marr, is that
“accidents and/or safety issues should
be the only criteria for siting
cameras”.
It’s a sense of opportunism by those in
charge of the cameras that has drivers
feeling persecuted. “It’s ridiculous
drivers are fined and taxed for
everything,” says Rob Martin.
Peter Wright believes that if the
cameras are there for safety reasons and
not fundraising, then the fines and
penalty points on the driver’s licence
should be on a “sliding scale” - the
further above the speed limit the more
severe the punishment. He feels that
this “would act as a greater deterrent
but not over-penalise those only just
over the limit”.
But Madasa Badger believes that without
large fines the effectiveness of the
cameras would be reduced: “As so many
people are getting caught by speed
cameras, the penalty is not enough of a
deterrent and should be raised rather
than Mr Blunkett’s suggestion of
lowering it.”
Traffic calming zones
Cameras are often just one measure in
schemes intended to improve safety.
Steve Newell told Action Network users
about a number of traffic calming
measures recently placed on a road near
him: “[The] speed camera has probably
convicted a number of otherwise law
abiding drivers of doing 35mph in a
30mph zone, most drivers travel at
35-40mph along this road, slowing for
the camera if they see it or know it’s
there.”
But another Action Network member
suggests why the authorities want to
keep drivers under 30mph: “Speeding
35mph in a 30mph zone. These zones are
usually to be found in built up
residential areas, near public footpaths
which flank the road, close to schools,
old people’s home, where wildlife wander
and so forth. These are all good reasons
to slow down.”
Could the cameras used in residential
zones be made a little more flexible?
Ann Rattle had an original suggestion:
“I favour the reduction of speed limits
in some areas at times when needed, e.g.
outside schools when they are in use –
but not at midnight.”
Speed
The question of speed and its
relationship to accident statistics
fuels many drivers’ feelings against
speed cameras. How often is speed the
decisive factor in vehicle accidents? As
Roger Fraser puts it: “Generally, speed
is not the problem, bad driving is! In
depth investigations in other countries
have shown that people who drive fast
tend to drive better.”
Ann Rattles also questions the link
between danger and speed: “Travelling at
100mph on a straight stretch of
four-lane motorway, between junctions
with no other traffic, is not in my mind
reckless or dangerous. A 70mph speed
limit is purely an arbitrary limit not
based on the facts of the time and
circumstances.”
This is an argument which Iain Mulady
counters: “Why is it that everyone has
an excuse for why the speed limit
shouldn’t apply to them?... If your
issue is the speed limit then go argue
that – the cameras only enforce the law
you should have been obeying in the
first place.”
Policing the roads
One thing which both sides of the
argument agree on is that cameras on
their own are not a sufficient solution.
“They do not punish the uninsured and
reckless as they are more likely to
simply ignore any fines (assuming they
are ever traced anyway). They do not
deal with the millions of motorists who
create hazards by their failure to
signal, or be observant of the world
around them,” says Ann Rattle.
Roger Fraser summed it up: “We need to
bring back police patrols to pick up the
bad driver – i.e. those who tailgate,
overtake on the inside, change lanes
without warning, etc.” It’s the one
thing that everyone on both sides of the
argument seems to agree on. None of them
would be happy if cameras are used as a
reason to reduce police patrols.
