Two speed cameras earn £1.2m in 10 weeks
by Chris Brooke

The extent to which police are making money from motorway speed traps was laid bare yesterday (3 Jul 05) as two cameras were shown to have raised £1.2million in fines in ten weeks.

Since mid-April, the temporary cameras at one spot on the M4 have caught more than 20,000 drivers - equivalent to one every 5 minutes.

Situated at road works near near junction 18 out-side Bristol, the cameras on either side of the carriageway are designed to trap motorists breaking the 40mph limit (which would normally be 70) that was put in place to protect workers building a crawler lane (the cameras still operate when the workers are not working in the evening).

Only one in ten of those caught had committed serious enough offences to go to court.

The figures have led to renewed claims that police forces are using speed traps as a way of generating income.

Paul Smith, anti-speed camera campaigner and organiser of a recent 'go-slow' M4 protest, said: "Speed cameras are about making money."

What we have got with this system is cash hungry quangos with wage bills to pay and plans to implement, and they live on a fine income. Nobody wants to see road workers injured, everyone wants to see these projects executed efficiently, sensibly and with a minimum of risk.

But I wouldn't mind betting that most of the time those drivers were issued tickets there were no road workers on the motorway. (This is true, see the proof below: )

Those caught breaking the 40mph limit face an automatic £60 fine and three points on their license. At the current rate, the two cameras could raise £6million a year.

In an illustration of the resentment the cameras have caused, vandals set the one on the westbound carriageway on fire last week. It has since been replaced.

Figures for 2003, the latest year available, show speed cameras in England and Wales raised £144million in £60 fixed penalty tickets.

Police get £500,000 in overtime to man the speed cameras and PCs sent on trips to factory in Holland
By David Pilditch

A police force has clocked up an overtime bill of more than £500,000 operating speed cameras, it was revealed yesterday. Motoring groups joined politicians to condemn the wage cost, which is bankrolled by imposing fines on motorists.
  Officers in Essex - dubbed the speed camera capital of Britain - are pocketing more than £220 a day from the scheme.
  Speed camera convictions have soared to more than 1.6million in a year - an increase of nearly 400 per cent over five years - with motorists forking out nearly £100million over 12 months, new figures show.
  Simon Burns, Tory MP for West Chelmsford, Essex, said: "If all this money is being generated it would be much better spent on employing more police officers rather than paying overtime.
  "Many motorists believe cameras are being used as a way of fleecing them of their cash. They shouldn't be operated as money-making machines.
  " Essex Safety Camera Partnership, which runs the scheme, pays overtime to six police officers a day who carry out 10-hour camera patrols when they would normally be on rest days.
  In other parts of the country camera patrols are carried out by civilians, but the scheme in Essex employs only uniformed officers. There is no bar to senior ranks volunteering but traffic police sergeants and constables - who are limited to two patrols a month - are usually employed. Before going out on duty, each officer is sent on a five-day training course, which includes a visit to the Dutch factory where the cameras are made. Accounts show officers were paid more than £485,000 in overtime in 2004-5 with NI contributions of £44,736. Essex Police charged the camera partnership - made up of police and representatives from the county council and magistrates court - £47,420 for training costs, £48,242 for travelling expenses and £40,095 in subsistence allowances. A partnership spokeswoman said: "We looked into hiring civilian staff to operate the mobile cameras. But a cost analysis concluded using police officers on their rest days was the best use of resources. It effectively means there are an extra six police officers on the streets."   But Chief Constable Roger Baker, who took over Essex Police last week pledging safer roads, has come under fire. RAC Foundation executive director Edmund King said: "The problem with the scheme is that if the costs are high you need to be issuing more tickets to pay for it. "Our concern is we believe there's an over-concentration of speed cameras.  We would like to see money being spent on other road safety solutions which don't necessarily generate income."
   Figures released by Home Office Minister Hazel Blears show speed camera
convictions generated £99,423,000 in 2003 - the last year for which figures are available. That compares with £16,920,000 in 1999 - a
revenue rise of nearly 600 per cent. The number of £60-a-head tickets issued jumped from 423,000 to 1,657,000.
    The figures emerged in an answer to a question in Parliament from Conservative MP Nigel Evans. He said: "These figures show speed cameras are nothing to do with road safety - they are all about money. More speed cameras are going up, more money is being raked in but the number of deaths on the road are not being reduced."   He added: "This has got completely out of control. So much money is being raised now that the government has no incentive to regulate itself. As far as this government is concerned speed cameras are now a  licence to print money."   Paul Smith, founder of the Safe Speed road safety campaign does thinks speed cameras are dangerous.   He said: "Speed cameras are a dangerous distraction to drivers, police and local authorities alike.   "In almost every case there's something else that is more important to road safety than strict speed limit compliance. Speed cameras must all be scrapped and those responsible must resign. They have blood on their hands." 

Chiefs stopping cops' speeding prosecutions

Every Surrey police officer caught breaking the speed limit by a roadside camera in the last five years, without any blue lights flashing, has had their notice of prosecution withdrawn by a senior officer.
  Figures obtained by The Rush show that in the past five years, 55 officers were observed speeding by one of the country's speed cameras and sent a notice of intended prosecution. On each occasion, the vehicle's blue lights were not flashing. The sequence of lights on a police vehicle mean that one should be seen at any time.
  A further five were observed speeding through what the force describes as other methods, such as by a senior officer.
  In every case, the officer was not prosecuted. Since January 2000, only four officers have been disciplined after having been observed breaking the speed limit. Police will not disclose cars' speed.
  Last year, seven marked police vehicles were observed breaking the speed limit by Surrey cameras. The force has had to disclose the information under the Freedom of Information Act.
  Acting assistant chief constable Lynne Owens said: "Surrey Police has a robust and transparent approach to dealing with police vehicles being driven through speed cameras in excess of the limit.
  "Naturally, exemptions apply where police vehicles are attending an emergency call - in such circumstances blue lights are used when traffic conditions require it.
  "Once a notice of intended prosecution has been generated, we closely scrutinise a written report submitted by the driver to their commander. If the exemption criteria are not met, the case will be referred to a more senior office, who must be satisfied that the law permits waiving proceedings under the circumstances and is able to account to a court or disciplinary tribunal on the action that has been taken."
  An RAC spokesman said police driving procedures needed review. He said "You don't want a situation where officers feel that they can't break speed limits. The question that we are more centred around is the processes that they have to tell them whether they should have their lights on.
  "These rules and procedures need some clarification. There is a potential risk to other road users, who wouldn't expect other vehicles to be travelling at the speed unless they are travelling using marked cars with sirens and blue lights."
  ACC Lynne Owens said: "Our courses comply with ACPO National Driver manuals and we were the first force to run a BTEC Higher Diploma for Police Driving Instructors. We have trained instructors from 39 out of the 43 forces. The ratio of instructors to drivers is 2:1 in Surrey, as opposed to 3:1 in most forces."

Speed cameras move accidents to other roads

Fears that speed cameras may only divert accidents to different stretches of road have sparked a Government investigation into the side-effects of the street traps.
  The Transport Department probe follows conflicting official figures that show that while road deaths fell at camera sites, they rose overall across the whole road network.
  Road safety experts say Britain's 6,000 cameras may have a knock-on effect as drivers simply slow down when approaching one, only to put their foot down once past it.
  They are also concerned that motorists steer clear of them by using other routes without cameras where the risk of accidents subsequently increases.
  The Transport Department has made no public announcement of its investigation but a circular sent to universities and research institutes invites tenders for a two-year study to begin in September. "There is a need to establish the broader effects of speed cameras away from the specific camera sites and, in particular, to investigate whether the use of speed cameras caused a migration of accidents to other locations," its says.
  Deaths in 2003, the latest year for which figures are available, rose two per cent to 3,508 from 3,431 in 2002.

  Concerns were also raised by an internal Transport Department audit last year that found the number killed or seriously injured had gone up at one in seven camera sites. It listed 743 locations where casualties increased by up to nine per cent. This was despite an official announcement suggesting casualties were down 40 per cent on average - equal to saving 100 lives each year.
  The RAC blamed an 11 per cent reduction in traffic police since 1996 for the failure to reduce the toll.
  North Wales Chief Constable Richard Brunstrom is among those to suggest that motorcyclists, in particular, are being killed in accidents while speeding away from traps.
  Motoring groups welcomed the research project but warned it could herald yet more cameras.
  "This could be a double-edged sword," said Andrew Howard, head of road safety at the AA Motoring Trust.
  "Speed cameras may drive some of the problems elsewhere but they could be used as an argument for either no speed cameras or more cameras."
  The RAC said it is also alarmed at the possibility of "blanket coverage" of cameras and called for more traffic police and better road design. "We don't want this research used to justify yet more speed cameras," said Sue Nicholson, head of campaigns at the RAC Foundation for Motoring.
  A Transport Department spokesman denied that the research was an admission that cameras may have an adverse affect on casualties.
  "There is no evidence of displacement of accidents caused by cameras," he said.
  "We routinely undertake road safety research and this new research into understanding accident occurrence and speed behaviour will help to improve our understanding of the wider effects of cameras."
  But Paul Smith, founder of the campaign group Safe Speed, said Transport Secretary Alistair darling should now pull the plug on all cameras. "the Transports Department must face up to the fact that speed cameras do not make the roads safer," he said.