The number of drivers caught by speed cameras has fallen for the first time,
according to government figures which reveal that widespread complaints
about excessive enforcement have finally forced a retreat by police and
local authorities.
All of the main types of motoring offence, including illegal parking and
driving without insurance or an MoT certificate, have declined. For the
first time in more than a decade drivers are less likely to be given a
penalty than in the previous year.
The RAC Foundation said that the figures, published by the Ministry of Justice
and relating to 2005, marked a big change in the relationship between
motorists and the enforcement authorities. Edmund King, the executive
director of the foundation, said: “This shows the outcry by millions of
drivers has finally paid off and forced councils and police to exercise more
discretion. There is no doubt that enforcement was getting out of hand,
particularly with the use of speed cameras.
“The authorities have finally realised that showing a small degree of
flexibility can be more effective than huge numbers of fines, even though
they are making less money.”
There were 438 offences per 1,000 licensed vehicles in 2005, down from 466 in
2004. The total number of motoring offences fell by 450,000 to 13 million.
The number of speed-camera fines had been increasing since 1995 at the rate
of about 200,000 a year, but in 2005 it fell by 40,000, from 1.91 million to
1.87 million.
Richard Brunstrom, the former head of road policing at the Association of
Chief Police Officers, had predicted four years ago that the number of
camera fines would carry on growing until it reached three million a year.
But the number is likely to have continued falling in 2006 because the
policy that allowed police to keep a proportion of the fines to pay for more
cameras ended in April of that year.
The number of drivers being automatically disqualified for receiving 12
penalty points within three years also fell to the lowest level for more
than a decade, down 2,000 to 29,000. However, it is unclear whether this was
because drivers slowed down or because they persuaded someone to take the
points for them.
Parking fines fell sharply in 2005 after several years of substantial
year-on-year increases. The number reduced from 8.5 to 8.2 million. As with
speed camera fines, parking penalties are likely to continue to fall because
the Government issued guidelines this year that prevent local authorities
from setting targets for the issuing of tickets by private parking companies.
Police focused more attention in 2005 on more serious motoring offences, with
a 5 per cent increase in the number of breath tests to 607,000 and a 35 per
cent rise in careless driving prosecutions to 186,000. Penalties for using
mobile phones at the wheel also rose in 2005, up 53,000 to 126,800, but this
was because forces had taken time to begin penalising the new offence.
The figures revealed a discrepancy in the number of breath tests being carried
out by different forces, despite a guideline that states every driver
involved in a collision must be tested. West Midlands Police carried out
only 270 tests per 100,000 population compared with 3,200 in North Wales.
The forces with the highest rates of positive tests per 100,000 population
were South Yorkshire, Thames Valley, Dorset, South Wales, Hampshire and
Nottinghamshire.
As a recently retired police officer who does not agree that speed cameras work for the public good, I have a relatively benign way to have them accepted by the motoring public. With the technology available, why not add the very effective Automatic Number Plate Recognition system to all sited and mobile units? This would strike hard at the real criminals, i.e. uninsured, untaxed and banned drivers (it also id's cars used in real crime). Too radical? 1984's Big Brother is here so let's use it for the benefit of all society - including the outcast Motorist!
Keith, oadby, England
Graham from Brasil. I spend a lot of time in Thailand. They have ID's too, but issued FREE. The uproar against ID's in the UK was due to the fact that the government was intending charging up to 300 pounds to get one.
Likewise, cameras have been placed in money-making spots NOT in so-called accident black spots.
When the general public begin to believe that that schemes are placed to help, rather than make money, then the opposition to them will die down.
Dave Davies, Camberley, Surrey
Some months ago, a Spanish judge overturned a driving ban on a driver who had been caught on camera speeding at aprox 210km/hour or 130mph. The driver was driving on an empty carriageway and, according to the judge, had caused no danger to anyone other than himself. I believe the reason so many of us resent speed cameras is that these instruments are not able to measure the relationship between speed and risk to others.
helen, madrid,
I have to admit to driving fast where and when possible - but seldom at more than the legal limt.
My daily commute of 35 miles each way encompasses the western edge of London - M3 - M25 - M40 - A40 - a total of 30 miles dual carriage way and 5 miles of A roads. My normal travel time - leaving home at 6.30 - is over an hour so average speed is usually under 35 mph. I never even see 70 mph either way and I never gets 'flashed'!
I have to confess that I normally keep to the l/h lane because most slow vehicles are in the outside lane - braking and accelerating all the time. I stay with the HGV's keeping a steady speed and seldom having to brake until some idiot lane jumper cuts in front of me as he makes the last second dash for his exit.
Graham Probert, Camberley, Surrey
I'm sorry, but I don't understand what 'excessive enforcement' means. I agree with contributors who have said, in effect, 'If you don't want the fine, don't break the law'. I would add that, in a democracy, if you don't like the law, you have the power of a vote to change it.
The tone of contempt for lawmakers and lawkeepers in some of these comments would probably change were those using it to see a family member killed or maimed by a speeding driver.
These correspondents are possibly in the same camp as those who become heated about introducing identity cards in a country bursting at the seams with illegal incomers and local criminal elements. Where I live we have identity cards and it's no problem: live a crime-free life and the card is just an extra piece of paper in your wallet.
This nostalgia for a Britain inhabited by free-spirited yeomen able to police their own actions without state 'interference' is a sadly outdated dream.
Graham Howells, BrasÃlia, Brazil
Noting all the comments so far about speed 'limits' and people who exceed them... are those in favour of 'limits' the same tree huggers who don't drive in the first place? Because, if you don't drive, you should stop trying to dictate the freedom of those of us who do use the roads for which we 'pay' for through our road tax and fuel taxes.
Secondly, why are we again picking the 'easy' PC targets of those who 'speed' (or drive 4x4s)? What about setting the same 'speed cameras' to 'snap' when someone is MARKEDLY slower than the 'safe' speed??????
MT, London,
The easiest way to set a driving ethos to reflect the country's wishes is to have a referendum on whether or not speed cameras should be used or the police should be responsible for enforcement of road traffic offences. The polling, if done, tends to reveal everyone in Britain hates speed cameras and the supersiciliousness of Mr Plod. In a democracy, people should be able to live free from what they don't want. Eradicating speed cameras and holier than thou police forces can never be an election issue and are therefore the most susceptible issues for referenda. Let the motorways become autobahns, create a Greek or Italian style weak and powerless traffic police and those who aren't killed in the carnage will be happier and live longer in motoring friendly Britain. Include the abolition of breath testing on the ballot too. Darwin is good for traffic as he is in most other walks of life and when societies shoot Nanny they tend to be happier and more productive.
Clockwork Apple, Hong Kong,
you commit a driving offence you pay the fine....... You don't speed you don't pay how about that for a policy. - Marc, London
If you don't want a ticket don't speed, it's very simple. - Les, Northampton
Tell that to the thousands (millions?) who have been fined, and even banned, for passing a mis-set camera within the limit, or a camera "policing" a lowered limit where they "forgot" to sign it, or those scammed when a new 30 was "signified" by taking the old higher limit off the lamposts on a fast road, or the one's "caught" by faulty, miscalibrated or misused cameras, or ones affected by rain, vibration at the camera or on the vehicle, or reflections, etc, etc, etc.....
Mr B J Mann, Nottingham,
Speed cameras would not have been introduced if motorists were not speeding in the first place. It is the motorist that is responsible for the number of cameras. Motorists know the rules, they should abide by them. - RDS, Blackpool, UK.
Actually, the rules for setting speed limits are that they are supposed to be set at the speed most drivers would drive at or below in the absence of limits.
NOT the speed most drivers would drive at or above in the absence of limits
And the rules for enforcing them are that they should be used as a tool for prosecuting those who drive MARKEDLY in EXCESS of the SAFE speed (NOT the limit) for the road.
Did someone mention knowing the rules and abiding by them?
Mr B J Mann, Nottingham,
A basic mathematics question, about GCSE Standard:
If you undertake a 100 mile journey and, instead of averaging 70 mph, you average 80 mph, approximately how much time will you save to the nearest minute? ....... The answer is *ELEVEN MINUTES*! Graham Marsden, Portsmouth, UK
Here's an even simpler one, Graham:
You undertake a days driving at 30mph on dual carriageways that should be 70's, and, instead of averaging 70 mph, you average 30 mph, approximately how much time will you lose to the nearest minute?
*MULTIPLIED BY 365 DAYS.*
**MULTIPLIED BY THIRTY MILLION DRIVERS!**
Over to you Graham!
Mr B J Mann, Nottingham,
It's total rubish to say that:
quote "finally forced a retreat by police and local authorities.
People just know where the cameras are now
David, Coventry,
You have not mentioned the obvious possibility that the fall in convictions is because those motorists who thought it is OK to speed, have now realised that it is not. Perhaps the speed cameras are working. More power to them!
Les, Northampton,
It is hardly surprising that the number of fines related to Speed Cameras is coming down. The Police and Local Authorities no longer have the ability to make profits from then. No surprise then that they lose interest in collecting the fines! It only goes to prove that they were only in it for the money in the first place!!
John Lowry, Kenilworth, Warks
The only good thing about speed cameras is that they have caught the Chief Constable of South Yorkshire ( who is head of road policing), for speeding for the third time! What a farce! The whole money driven, morally corrupt system, which also includes the Courts, Camera Partnerships and MP's should be purged from this country, along with those inflation proof pensions they have gained form this scam.
Terry Hudson, Herne Bay, Kent
Whatever the issue it comes down to basic education of the populace. I was appalled at the number of spelling and grammatical errors in just the few comments here, a clear indication of the lowering of standards in all avenues of public life, with individuals having no sense of pride in their activities anymore.The lack of basic training of motorists is apparent everyday, with ignorant parking, poor lane discipline, signalling, mainly women but men as well reversing from drives into rush hour traffic, often with a load of screaming kids in the back, total disregard for other motorists or their own or their siblings safety, wing mirrors obviously not used by the way they are out of adjustment.......we as a nation are just lazy b's with no consideration any more for our fellow men (sorry and women) and yes I am sometimes one of them, because 'bad apples' make bad apples.
Anthony Lowery, Norwich, Norfolk
In a harsh winter, upwards of 50,000 old people die because they cannot afford heating. The govt gives them a £20 christmas bonus.....if the govt really want to save lives, they would focus their efforts here and not on motorists....but, of course, they wont raise any revenue from these old people....in fact they would drain the economy with their state pensions....
deepak katwa, middlesex, uk
It is not the speeders of the world that are the main problem. It is those without insurance, MOT or tax. It is these people the forces should be hounding.
John, Egremont,
I'm looking forward to the day when someone explains to those who can't drive how there are many, many significantly more dangerous things to do on the road than drive 1mph over an arbitrarily-decided speed limit. Turning without indicating is a good one - doing that at 5mph can cause an accident or even kill a cyclist as it's effectively a brick-wall suddenly positioned in the middle of the road. As a pedestrian, walking into a road without looking can kill (and it's not the motorist's fault if the pedestrian is typing a text rather than looking where they're going). Buses dropping pedestrians off in the middle of the road is a dubious practice. Overgrown hedges on junctions that no-one can see round? Bus stops on junctions. Overly-complicated road signing (roads changing because of the time, day, and vehicle in question) that confuse. All of these are quite dangerous enough without anyone needing to speed.
Tom, London,
A basic mathematics question, about GCSE Standard:
If you undertake a 100 mile journey and, instead of averaging 70 mph, you average 80 mph, approximately how much time will you save to the nearest minute?
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
The answer is *ELEVEN MINUTES*!
Graham Marsden, Portsmouth, UK
I drive over 20,000 miles per year and I have no problem with speed cameras, in fact I welcome them. Why do motorists think it is OK to break the law. If you don't want a ticket don't speed, it's very simple.
Les, Northampton,
George Johnson, how do you know 15% of idiots/incompetents are causing 85% of the accidents? Where do you get your statistics from?
More to the point, where do credible people get their statistics from? Is there actually any evidence that speeding is linked to accident rates?
Perhaps if people were encouraged to use their judgment and common sense, instead of believing the only thing they have to do to be a safe driver is keep their eyes focussed on the speedometer, they would be better able to avoid accidents?
Leon, Leeds,
It's hardly suprising the number of parking tickets issued has reduced, in Newark, Notts we have not had traffic wardens for about 2 years so people are free to park where they like. The only time the police do anything is if a vehicle is causing an obstruction. And what do the council do about the lost revenue in public car parks? They put the prices up to park, so the honest law abiding people who park in the correct places are penalised!
CSM, Newark, Notts, UK
The almost complete abscence of traffic patrols means people get away with bad and dangerous driving (which consists of lots more than excessive speed), and an excellent chance of getting away with dribvng while banned or uninsured. Bad driving mean more accidents, which means higher insurance costs, which means more temptation to drive uninsured, which means higher insurance costs for the rest of us. High insurance costs are the fault of the police for not enforcing the driving laws.
OrdinaryDriver, Manchester,
Speed cameras were only introduced because motorists drive above the legal limit. Speed cameras would not have been introduced if motorists were not speeding in the first place. It is the motorist that is responsible for the number of cameras. Motorists know the rules, they should abide by them.
RDS, Blackpool, UK
The level of Police activity particularly in Suffolk with mobile cameras is getting oppressive. Suffolk police setup clandestine traps in front of fixed cameras to trap what I would describe as average motorists. These days it's easy to pick up 3 points without driving dangerously. If this is the way we are going to be policed then they need to re-think how long the points stay on your licence as 3 years for driving 6 mph above the speed limit seems out of kilter with the apparent leniency served out for serious crime!
Tim, Cambridge, UK
Look out for the rise in vehicle or fuel tax to compensate for the loss in revenue.
tony, birmingham, uk
Can we get rid of the hypocrisy of calling them Safety Cameras.
Steve, Cambridge,
A lot of slow drivers are dangerous, for example mothers in 4x4s are a particularly loathing of mine as they are frequently lacking in road awareness and are completely indecisive. They take so long to pull out that the space has gone by the time they trundle slowly into a road, causing problems for other drivers. But they don't care because in their big jeeps they're fine, just pity the poor people they hit.
Speedy driving isn't a problem per se, the problem is clueless people with no common sense and slow reactions.
Claire, Reading, UK
Why would anyone want to drive in Wales? The Taliban (ban) been the objective have taken over, Brunstrom is a complete crack pot (pot) his type of policing has no place in the UK.
Philip Jowett, Swadlincote,
Marc, speeding in itself isn't dangerous. If you want to use that argument then I'm afraid the logical extension of that is that you can't move without commiting an offence.
I've seen plenty of drivers safe at 100mph plus, and plenty who are a danger at 20mph. What you need is attention to the surroundings, total concentration, be a bit of a phsycologist and to learn how to control a motor vehicle properly.
I see more screen mounted sat-navs that are a danger to the public than speeding. Also however I often see speeding drivers who are a danger, not because of their speed, but that's often accompanied by drastic lane changing, tailgating, one handed driving. These last three are the elements that make those drivers dangerous.
Paul, Milton Keynes, UK
If - having exceeded your points limit you are now 'banned' from driving what will you do to keep your job and home - I suggest that you will continue driving. However - getting insurance and an MOT is now a problem - so - what do you do? You take a calculated risk that you will not be caught and drive on. If you do get caught then the resulting penalty will in all likelihood be less than what you would have paid out in Insurance and MOT. So - solving a speeding problem by issuing penalty points causes another more serious problem. Good joined up thinking - not!
CD, Epworth, UK
About six years ago I was driving through the Mendips with some American friends. We were looking for a place for his company to invest $ 500 million in a new plant and distribution centre for Europe. Somerset was my idea. We never saw the camera, nor the flash, but in the middle of open countryside, unknown to me, a hidden speed camera gave me a ticket and an endorsement on my license - the only one in 47 years.
My friend shelved the idea of Somerset - he didn't think it fair or reasonable to subject American managers to that kind of secret police activity.
I advised the local authority's speed ticket office that their camera would cost them half a billion dollars of investment and many jobs. They weren't interested.
Sadly, districts also get the local governments they deserve.
Adrian Hill, Bern, Switzerland
Some of these car haters should dissapear from the country and try and live elsewhere. Cars are a nessesary fact of life.
Speed cameras are there to extort money from motorists, the fact that they use the safety moniker is just usefull to the wretched politicians
Alex Lee, Carshalton, Surrey /UK
Regarding driving without insurance: why don't the insurance companies issue an "insurance disc" to be displayed on the windscreen alongside the road tax disc? The cost would be negligible and the benefits, to the insurance companies and the public, considerable.
Tom Williams, Oxford, UK
This is a disgrace, you commit a driving offence you pay the fine! Speeding is dangerous and driving without insurance or an MoT certificate a serious risk to other road users. You don't speed you don't pay how about that for a policy.
Marc, London,
This is real simple. There should be more speed cameras and the speed limits should be better enforced. One mile over the limit should be, should remain, an offence. Drivers who cannot or will not obey the law should be taken off the road.
15% of idiots or incompetents, it does not matter which, are committing 85% of the offenses. 15% of idiots or incompetents are causing 85% of the deaths and injuries. We need to get road deaths down from 3,000 to below 500 a year. We need to get these idiots off the road.
And no, it is not about do you want to obey the limits, it is not about do you enjoy driving more slowly. It is, do it or get off the road!
George Johnson, London,
Lawless behaviour in Britain is now a function of democracy. Another sign of a failing society,
Eddie Reader, birmingham, england
These speed cameras recently featured on the BBC Watchdog programme which publicises rip offs and scams perpetuated on the general public. I am not surprised to see the Police featuring alongside con merchants and other criminals who prey upon consumers. Perhaps if the Police realised that they are now regarded alongside dodgy builders and mail order rip off merchants they might change their ways. I saw on the programme last night that local authorities are also now being featured for their rubbish collection fines. All in the name of "safety" or "the environment". This sort of fundamental corruption in public services now seems to be the norm with over empowered bureaucrats abusing their powers in a hitherto unheard of fashion.
Simon, Maidstone, Kent
This shows the effect Sat Nav systems are having on evading speed traps, nothing else. We already know there are hardly any Police around to catch bad driving anymore, so it's no surprise that other offences dropped too. Where I live in Sutton Coldfield cars are parked with impunity on the pavement, totally blocking it for pedestrians and I have never seen a ticket on one yet. It seems in the UK that most people think a path is somewhere to park their car as it's so long since they walked anywhere.
Neil, Birmingham, U.K
If the police are placing being less emphasis on prosecuting for no insurance cover, MOT and licences the this will mean that other drivers will pay. Too many car drivers are apparently not insured and if I remember the police used to find that such offences are committed by those that are often involved in her crimnal ativity as well.
DMM, Eastbourne,
Or put another way, another 3.5bn pounds extracted from the motoring public above and beyond the vicious taxes already imposed on vehicles and their owners.
Pu Li, Guangxi,