August 12, 2008

The Governments commitment to using speed cameras, to improve on road safety, was backed by a relatively simple premise – that speed, or safety cameras should reduce accidents and improve safety on the roads.  That was the case, right up until the government changed the rules with new legislation that passed virtually unnoticed. 

The handbook of Rules and Guidance or the National Safety Camera programme for England and Wales for 2006/07 stated that: Performance measurement must be monitored on a regular basis.  It states that “Partnerships are required to monitor the success of the programme in their area, both to inform local enforcement strategies, and to help the achievement of national road safety objectives. Standard reporting tools are available to do this.”

In April 2007 the government tore up the rule book and has to all intents and purposes established a new revenue stream for the chancellor.  April’s regulation changes saw all of the criteria establishing suitability of camera sites change from requirements to guidelines.  This relaxing of the laws concerning placement of speed cameras, coincided with the government keeping all of the revenue generated through fines. 

This change came just a year after they had set out their handbook updating rules and regulations.  2007's new regulations stated that the cameras no longer have to be painted yellow, or be visible from 60m (200ft), and no longer have to be sited only where there is a history of road accidents (so much for hiding behind the veneer of safety).  The cameras are now funded from a system of grants taken from a central road safety fund of £110 million, with the revenue from the fines going straight into the coffers of the government instead of the local authority.

The system of road safety cameras in the UK has little alignment across the nation with responsibility for the cameras often very hard to establish.  The regulations for where the cameras can be placed are up for review as and when it suits the government.  Even under conditions when ‘safety cameras’ make the roads more prone to accidents, the cameras stay in place. 

While previously, the government was able to hide behind the argument that the cameras promoted of safer driving, it now has removed many of the regulations that promote safe, sensible driving.  Making the cameras obvious and placed in highly visible areas did make motorists slow down, even if only for the time that they were in sight of the camera. 

Many authorities publish details of their camera locations and the cameras performance with regards to facilitating the reduction of accidents.  Actually accessing the statistics from speed cameras isn’t especially easy.  There is no standardisation across the country detailing who is responsible for the cameras.  For example in Nottinghamshire the County roads are administered by the council and the trunk roads are dealt with by the highways agency.  The county roads statistics are available from the internet, but upon calling the highways agency, to get figures for the trunk roads, you are directed back to the police force.  The police require a freedom of information act request made via post.

Nottinghamshire County Council's published statistics on-line come in the form of a series of spreadsheets.  The tables need a little explanation at first but once the acronyms and abbreviations have been explained it all makes reasonable sense.  The figures in the main conform to the stipulations that cameras need to be placed in areas where there are a high concentration of accidents, but they don’t all adhere to this requirement.

There are three sites of fixed cameras in Nottinghamshire, two in Mansfield and one Elkersley, at which the rate of accident has actually risen.  A spokesperson for the council stated that these were ‘legacy’ sites and had been in operation before the national camera programme had been rolled out.  The sites were areas that were blighted by unsociable behaviour and reckless driving, and as such the option of removing the cameras had been viewed as unsuitable. 

The Avon and Somerset safety camera partnership also present their statistics on-line and here too there are interesting figures.  The A4 Portway camera in Bristol was upgraded to a REDSPEED digital camera in 2007 despite there only having been two accidents at the site in the last three years (2004).  Surely this site, with only fourteen accidents over the last ten years could not be considered to have a high concentration of accidents.

The West Yorkshire casualty reduction partnership states that ‘There needs to have been at least 3 collisions causing death or serious injury per km in the previous 3 years.’ When a camera is requested by a member of the public.  The camera located on the A629 Halifax Rd, with four people killed or seriously injured in the last ten years does not meet that criteria.  While I’ve no wish that more people had been killed of injured anywhere on the roads, it’s hard to argue that the criteria for a speed camera has been met.

There are many different authorities that publish their statistics online.  Almost all will surely have details of cameras that don’t adhere to the policies set out in the most recent handbook, available 2006/2007, stating that there needs to be an accident history prior to the camera’s introduction.  While there is information regarding cameras available via the internet and telephone investigations, but the amount of money, or tickets issued for individual cameras is not available and not subject to the freedom of information act, so it’s impossible to establish if cameras are kept in locations purely based on their revenue generation alone.

One thing is for sure, speed cameras are a profitable exercise and in some places have a positive effect on the safety of roads.  There are enough safety cameras that are detailed online to have either no effect on safety, or even a detrimental effect on the safety of the roads that they inhabit, to question why they are still active.

Many authorities have space on their websites for residents to request a camera on a stretch of road.  In order to make the request applicants have to show a need for a camera.  Perhaps if enough people requested the removal of a camera due to lack of accidents then councils would re-evaluate their plans and look at the necessity of each camera in turn.  Until then motorists will have to keep their eyes peeled and their speed down.

Leave a comment

Type into the box below