From today, cameras in England and Wales will no longer be funded from the fines raised from those caught by the devices.
Instead, camera schemes will be integrated into wider local authority road safety activity, with English local authorities getting an additional £110 million a year for road safety for the four years from 2007/08.
This exceeds the £93 million a year currently spent by the local authority camera partnerships with police and the Government.
There will also be new requirements to improve the signposting of cameras and a requirement for all local authorities to review the speed limits on their A and B roads by 2011.
Speed cameras in Wales will become the responsibility of the Welsh National Assembly from the end of 2007-08.
Road safety
The announcement was made in December 2005 by Transport Secretary Alistair Darling when he published an independent four-year report that showed cameras continue to have an important part to play in road safety.
Road safety charities welcomed the changes, saying it would improve road safety.
Jools Townsend, head of education at Brake, said: "We are delighted that the archaic rule where local communities had to wait for death or injury before their roads could be made safer has been ditched.
"Speed cameras are a proven and effective enforcement tool, deterring drivers from breaking an important safety law and rightly leading to their punishment if they do drive too fast and risk lives."
Paul Smith, founder of safespeed.org.uk, said: "If you had 'life-saving' resources, would you be stupid enough to waste them in safe places with no history of crashes?
"The road network is huge and the number of vehicle movements is vast. All dangerous places have a history of crashes - it's as simple as that. Brake's position is absurd."
"Of course speed cameras haven't made the roads safer anyway, but that's another story.
"Brake are also using the old 'sick trick' of adding 'speed in excess of a speed limit' (12% of fatal crashes) to 'inappropriate speed for the conditions' (14% of fatal crashes).
"Speed cameras cannot address inappropriate speed, which, of course, is a driver quality issue.
"The 12% of fatal crashes includes extraordinary reckless behaviours - speeding, drunks, thrill-seeking bikers, joyriders in stolen cars, banned drivers and so on.
"The proportion involving 'otherwise responsible' motorists are of course far smaller."
What do you think? Have your say.
Tweet
Comments
Login or Register to comment
Too much profit to directly plough back is another view. It is only right that Wales are allowed to have their own noses in the trough of this money spinner. The problem is now that speed limits will be further reduced to maintain profits, the review part.
There is speeding and a momentary blip in speed for various reasons. But as the aim is to extract as much cash as possible, an argument of reason is not required.
Any accident I have read about or seen has not just been `speeding¿ based. It involves careless or dangerous driving of which speed may or may not be part.
Actual Speeding is now the reserve of the Emergency Services (on a call) stolen or unregistered cars. Not forgetting the Tourist, who may come from a country that is not out to get as much money from drivers as possible. Easily confused by what is normally a photo opportunity against one of a money making opportunity.
Complaining about other driver transgrsssions does not get speeders off the hook. Tired old rhetoric about cameras being used to raise money equally won't wash. Don't want to give money to the Treasury for redistribution? Don't speed. Not. Rocket. Science.
Yes, driving withourt due care, DUI etc should be detected and prisecuted. But that doesn't give those that get caught speeding licence to moan.
Drivers have 2 choices; they can either fight speed cameras or put up with them.
I choose to fight them.
There are many ways to do it and while some have questionable legality, it is perfectly legal to use their own law against them.
An example of this would be the fact that you are asked to identify the driver by way of a form which the police claim is a statement.
What you need to remember is that the statement has not been made under police caution so it is questionable whether it is admissible in court , a good precaution would be to write `Without Prejudice¿ on the top of the form and use the box provided to explain why you will not provide the information - Just an example, there are many more.
Ping pong is another good method, it takes six months and I will leave it to your imagination to work out how it works, but you do need a willing friend or relative.
As for Brake; it is about time that they were Broke.
Option three. Don't speed (no questionable legality issues there either).
If speed cameras are generating £110 Million in revenue every year then Clearly they are NOT working. Otherwise the revenue generated would be £0 due to everyone obeying the law.
The key statement contained in this announcement is the review of speed limits. I think we all know that this we will mean the vast majority are reduced. The level at which speed limits are set is the point which Andy from Bury and the rest of the anti car brigade choose to ignore.
Speed limits have to be set at a level that the majority of drivers can accept as a genuinely sensible level. Over the last 10 years we have seen the virtual elimination of NSL limits to be replaced by 50 or even 40 limits on motorway grade A roads. Perfectly safe 40 limit urban roads with good pedestrian separation have been down graded to 30mph. The list goes on and on. The changes made have been done so on the back of false data and political agenda.
The reason Speed cameras are universally loathed is because they have been used to enforce bad road safety policy and backed by lies and propaganda. The Government knows this which is why it has passed the whole mess onto the local authorities and their unaccountable quangos.
Expect to see more covert use of mobile guns, cameras in even more nonsensical positions and an even louder clamour from the knee jerk reaction brigade.