Home

10 Downing Street - e-petition site:

28 June 2007

We received a petition asking:

"We the undersigned petition the Prime Minister to scrap speed cameras."

Details of Petition:

"After 15 years of speed cameras on British roads, neither road deaths nor hospitalisations have fallen as expected. Drivers know as if by instinct that speed cameras are the wrong road safety policy. The extensive research and analysis conducted by the Safe Speed road safety campaign confirms that drivers have been right all along. Far from making our roads safer, speed cameras have replaced genuine life saving policies and distracted everyone from more important safety factors. Instead... - We must have road safety policies based on skills, attitudes and responsibilities - We must have effective roads policing especially to deal with 'rogue drivers' - We must avoid needlessly prosecuting skilled and responsible drivers driving safely - We must measure what is important, not make important that which is easily measured - and you can't measure safe driving in miles per hour."

All sounds very sensible.

The Government's response:

Thank you for taking the time to register your views about safety cameras on the Number 10 website.

Speeding kills. It is a contributory factor in 26% of all fatal accidents in Great Britain.

The facts are stark. If a child pedestrian is hit at 30mph they stand an 80% chance of surviving. But if they are hit at 40mph they stand an 80% chance of dying. That is why the Government is committed to achieving appropriate vehicle speeds on the roads as part of its integrated road safety strategy.

We are succeeding in changing attitudes, and in making drivers realise that one of their responsibilities is to comply with speed limits. The proportion of car drivers who comply with the 30mph limit has greatly increased over the last few years.

Safety cameras provide a valuable and cost-effective method of preventing, detecting and enforcing speed and traffic light offences. Their use is based on solid evidence. All reliable research from around the world clearly demonstrates that cameras reduce speeds and save lives.

Independent research (new window), published in December 2005, shows that safety cameras had saved around 1,745 people from being killed or seriously injured, and had prevented around 4,230 personal injury collisions on Britain's roads each year.

And while they are saving lives, safety cameras will remain a key part of our road safety strategy.

They are not saving lives - didn't the lacky who wrote this patronising drivel even read the petition?

Darn it ... the latest study just published by the Transport Research Laboratory states that the number of fatalities as a proportion of casualties in major crashes rose by a third from 7.3% in 1994 to 10% in 2005 - despite Britain's 6000 speed cameras.

Although Ministers say that cameras have prevented 1,745 deaths and serious injuries each year, road deaths have in fact risen by 33 to 3,210 in the year to September 2006.

When one considers the increases in road vehicle safety design over that time and the vast sums spent on 'improving' roads the figures don't look good for cameras.

Are we surprised?

The RAC Foundation reveals that of 45,000 police caught speeding on camera only 2% faced any penalty.

According to the latest Government casualty figures, although the number of speed cameras grew from 2800 to 3800 between 2002 and 2003, the number of people killed rose by 2.25%. In 2003, 3508 people were killed on the roads, 77 more than the year before. Speed cameras are creating more dangers than they solve, being unable to deal with the real causes of accidents.

A High Court challenge last April to the Government’s policy of using only highly visible speed cameras in safety camera partnership areas ended with a joint statement by the DfT, Transport 2000 and the Slower Speeds Initiative recognising that police forces or local partnerships could apply to the Secretary of State to amend the rules or allow an exception to them. Transport 2000 indicated that the ruling established that safety camera partnerships could apply to use covert fixed speed cameras.

Piffle

New guidelines governing roadside speed cameras have been defended by the government. The high visibility cameras painted bright yellow were unveiled recently and come with new rules on the position of camera signs as part of a drive to cut the number of accidents.

Cameras will be bright yellow in the 15 areas where police forces use money from fines to pay for more cameras, the "netting-off" scheme. Transport Minister John Spellar said the aim of speed cameras was not to catch large numbers of motorists and collect more fines, but to get drivers to slow down and thus reduce accidents.

Despite plans to introduce thousands more cameras on the UK's roads, the government is worried many drivers brake suddenly when they see one. Updated regulations will be announced for the rest of the country early next year but ministers have indicated every camera in the country will eventually be repainted.

I feel a bit bunged up ...

Under the new measures, speed cameras must now be visible from a distance of 66 yards on roads with a speed limit of up to 40mph, and 109 yards for speeds above that. Police forces will also be forbidden from putting up speed trap warning signs on long stretches of roads where there are no cameras. The signs will now have to be no more than two thirds of a mile from the nearest camera.

Mr Spellar said: "These rules should ensure that motorists are not caught by surprise by cameras. I hope that this will reinforce the government's message that cameras are there to save lives at places where there is a history of speed related accidents. They are not there as a means of raising money."

The rules for static speed cameras are:
1. Four or more people have been killed or seriously injured in three years at that site (some must be speed related collisions)
2. 85 percentile speed should be at or above the Association of Chief Police Officers’ (ACPO) recommended threshold for enforcement (currently 10% +2mph)
3. The site must pass a Health and Safety audit by traffic police officers.

What's the 85 percentile rule? Basically, if there's an 85% chance that drivers will speed then a camera is allowed, but below that chance no camera is allowed. So because 85% of drivers are too sensible to speed in dangerous areas, outside schools, in busy residential streets, etc., no cameras are permitted to catch the stupid nutters who cause all the accidents!! So all the cameras get put on dual carriageways where it is quite safe to exceed the posted limit within reason. How mad is that? Still, think of all that lovely revenue! So perhaps not so silly ..... we know cameras having nothing to do with road safety, after all, just motorists' tax. New Labour - New Taxes. Take comfort from the fact that Tony knows what's best for us. Unless you're a soldier of course. Rather you than us, mates!

Cameras in beauty spots can remain grey under the new regulations.

Each year the London Safety Camera Partnership assesses accident rates over a three year period across London. The partnership believes that there are about 800 (!!) sites in London that meet the criteria and could potentially benefit from the use of safety cameras. Some of these will be static camera sites and others will utilise mobile cameras. The partnership is working in consultation with the various highway authorities to determine new locations for safety cameras. The Partnership is funding the installation of 66 new cameras for 2003/4. It is envisaged this figure will rise to 100 for 2004/5.

The 2004 camera tables published (http://www.dft.gov.uk/stellent/groups/dft_rdsafety) reveal that for 743 locations, casualties increased rather than decreased. However, they argue that this does not mean that cameras have not been effective at all these locations:

"There are 269 locations for which the camera has not been in long enough to judge it's success - these camera sites were installed during 2001-02 and 2002-03 and the after data may be based on limited data for example one or two quarters;
There are 229 sites established before partnerships joined the netting-off scheme where the before data is taken during the period immediately preceding the partnerships entry to the scheme rather than when they were first introduced. It would therefore be wrong to conclude that these camera sites have not been effective and we will be asking partnerships to provide true baseline figures in due course to provide a more meaningful comparison.
We therefore believe that there are 245 instances where there have not been casualty reductions at locations, the majority of which (228) predate the scheme. We intend to discuss these locations with the partnerships to determine what should be done in respect of those locations."

Spot the camera .... However, the message doesn't seem to be getting through too well here. Cameras are still hidden behind signs, even signs which seem to be created just to hide cameras behind! In the true spirit of the new guidelines, this sneaky camera has been painted in reflective yellow - shame it's completely hidden to oncoming vehicles

Now you see it, now you don't. Another sneak camera. Nice and yellow again, but totally obscured by the road sign. And this one's actually located just after an on-ramp and a dangerous T junction, so the hapless motorist is trying to spot the camera rather than watching for vehicles turning out onto the main road. Clever - get the camera to create the accident black-spot.

And another one - the off-ramp sign is just big enough to conceal the camera. But why is it after the junction? Why is it there at all? Not just for making money, surely ....

PRESS RELEASE Wednesday 22nd August 2002 FLEECING, NOT POLICING! I can confirm that a militant organisation known as MOTORISTS AGAINST DETECTION (MAD) have this week started a direct action anti speed camera campaign, kicking off with the UK's most profitable speed camera located at the bottom of the M11 motorway near WOODFORD, ESSEX which is reputed to earn up to £840,000 per week, moving in to take out of action a further 29 speed cameras along the whole 27 mile length of the A406 NORTH CIRCULAR ROAD from CHISWICK in the west to BECKTON in the east side of LONDON. A spokesman for MAD calling himself CAPTAIN GATSO said today: "We represent an unheard band of motorists and bikers fed up with this continuing proliferation of speed cameras, specs cameras, bus lane, parking and now congestion cameras. We are sick and tired of driving to our speedos and braking in the vicinity of a speed camera as opposed to driving and braking as to what we can see! We are fed up with lining the pockets of police forces and councils as a stealth tax revenue raising scheme. We are not criminals, just drivers going about our daily business and we are essentially law abiding citizens. However everytime a person gets behind the wheel or rides a motorcycle they can become a criminal in respect of absolute motoring laws administered by the non-discretionary nature of speed camera systems! We totally agree with existing road traffic laws and speed cameras sited within built up and urban areas and we APPLAUD them. In fact we feel there should be more of them in towns and cities, but we are tired of having speed cameras sited on major trunk roads and motorways where there are never any children playing. They are unnecessary and achieve very little in bringing down the numbers of casualties and deaths on the UK's roads. This is supported by TRL, DETR and HOME OFFICE figures, however they add large amounts of ill-gotten gains to police and council coffers, further alienating the voting motoring public. We have spoken to numerous police officers and emergency service personnel countrywide and they agree that the majority of speed cameras are sited for revenue, not safety, and in a lot of cases they just impede general progress. Everyday now it seems we read stories about camera technology and hear people talking to radio stations moaning about them. Up until now this has made not a lot of difference which is why it is time for us all to act before it all gets out of hand. This campaign is ongoing and is being professionally organised via the internet throughout the UK and will be orchestrated by direct action to take out speed cameras on major trunk roads and motorways due to this governments continuing war on the motorist!" CAPTAIN GATSO (THE MOTORISTS FRIEND) Media enquiries to 07817 640245 ALL THE ABOVE INFORMATION CAN BE CORROBORATED BY THE METROPOLITAN POLICE, SCOTLAND YARD AND THE LONDON SAFETY CAMERA PARTNERSHIP. (We should point out at this juncture that we are not Capt. Gatso).

Government plans to introduce high visibility speed cameras may actually increase deaths rather than improve road safety, 'experts' have warned. The policy is aimed at cutting road accidents amid fears that many drivers brake suddenly when they see or are warned of speed cameras. Public health 'specialist' Paul Pilkington has warned there is no evidence to support the government's claims. Writing in the latest issue of the British Medical Journal, he said hidden cameras had been shown to reduce deaths and injury on roads, even though they rose last year. Mr Pilkington, who works in Bristol, suggested high visibility cameras would not be as effective. He said drivers would simply drive slowly in areas with cameras and accelerate in those areas without the deterrent. "These measures seem designed to placate the angry minority of motorists who believe that drivers should be warned about impending cameras, giving them the chance to slow down. But this view is not based on evidence of health benefits. Hidden cameras are associated with net falls in speeds, crashes and casualties when compared with visible ones." (He uses the word associated here because there are no figures available to back his assertion up). He added: "The introduction of high visibility speed cameras is a mistake. We need evidence that they are more effective than hidden cameras." Look Paul, old chap, it is better to get drivers to slow down in accident areas than catch them all on camera, ban 'em and eventually watch the economy disappear down the plughole. People who work and pay taxes drive cars. No cars, no business, no taxes. They you're out of a job as well, mate. Luckily a rather more sensible spokesman for the Department of Transport said that "Cameras are situated in areas where there is a history of accidents. When people see cameras ahead they do slow down. Slowing down at dangerous stretches of a road is very good."

A word from PePiPoo .... Recent Government Guidelines, which state that Speed Cameras should be made clearly visible, would appear to be causing confusion. Guidelines are not mentioned in the law so, if the speed camera that flashed you, was hidden from view it will NOT affect the allegation of speeding that has been brought against you. However, you should report the cameras location to the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions (DETR) as doing so, should result in the particular authority being removed from the “netting off scheme” which allows them to keep part of the revenue collected by their speed cameras. http://www.pepipoo.com/Cameras.htm ACPO Traffic Enforcement Guidelines are also not mentioned in the law, but they unambiguously state that traffic officers performing speed checks should do so from a position that is clearly visible to the public. http://www.pepipoo.com/files/ACPO/ACPO_full.htm#Visibility “31.2 The operator must be clearly visible to the public and the target vehicle throughout the check.” So, if you see a Traffic Officer hiding behind a bush or working from inside an unmarked transit van, why not stop and ask them if they realise that their conduct is breaching the ACPO guidelines – please don’t forget to ask them for their name, number and the contact details of their Chief Constable so that you can write a letter of complaint about the officer's conduct. Happy motoring, PePiPoo

In August, Norfolk's chief constable Ken Williams, who chairs the Association of Chief Police Officers' traffic committee, argued the need to make speed cameras more visible. He said hidden cameras alienated drivers and added: "Police officers get no joy out of issuing fixed penalty tickets, but they get a lot of satisfaction out of changing behaviour and attitudes to speed."

Mr Williams' force was one of the first to introduce bright cameras as a solution. Now they will appear in Cambridgeshire, Cleveland, Derbyshire, Essex, Lancashire, Lincolnshire, North Wales, Northamptonshire, Nottingham, South Wales, Staffordshire, Strathclyde, Thames Valley and Warwickshire.

Motorists believe the government - or the police - are just using them to collect money. Applications from 12 other police forces to join the netting-off scheme are being processed.

Richard Freeman of the Automobile Association (AA) told BBC News Online that drivers would welcome the high visibility cameras. "All our research shows that the public do not like the idea of speed cameras being hidden away or not clearly signed," he explained. "And it is a pity that we have seen a gradual erosion of camera signing. We have also seen the opposite - where there are signs but no cameras, so motorists do not know what is going on."

More than 75% of drivers still support the use of speed cameras, according to Mr Freeman. "But problems begin when people think there is an element of entrapment," he added. "Support drops off in areas where cameras are not well signed because motorists believe the government - or the police - are just using them to collect money."

Motorists escape speed camera fines

Only one in four drivers flashed by a speed camera has had to pay a fine, a major motoring report from the RAC claims.
It said most of the speeding drivers never receive a fine in the post, while a minority manage to escape conviction.

The survey found drivers believe that more than 70% of motorists speed on motorways, but only 42% are prepared to admit doing so themselves.

The RAC also said most drivers now accept traffic jams as a way of life, with many leaving extra time for delays during their journeys.In its annual motoring survey, the organisation suggests speed cameras work as a deterrent against speeding, whether drivers receive a fine or not.

A majority of the 1,800 people questioned supported the use of cameras and their proliferation across Britain. Despite the public support for the cameras motoring experts suggested they would be far more effective if punishment was swift and certain.

According to the RAC traffic jams are now seen as unavoidable, with congestion affecting eight out of ten drivers. Despite the problem most drivers preferred to find a way around the congestion rather than a switch to alternative transport. Some 24% said they start their journeys earlier, 22% take different routes, and 18% change journey times. Only 29% were confident to set off on a journey without making any provision for congestion, compared to 41% in the 1997 annual survey. Two in five blamed congestion on "too many cars on the road", while 18% blamed roadworks and one in ten said public transport was the cause. Asked to consider which regular weekly car journey they could give up, 29% would not or could not think of one.

Is everyone in Nottingham a sad bastard? Is this where policemen come from?