Safe Speed Forums

Speed cameras fail to catch bad drivers


MPs' report is expected to call for more police patrols and random checks

Gaby Hinsliff, political editor
Sunday October 29, 2006
The Observer

Over-reliance on speed cameras instead of police traffic patrols may be hampering the battle against drunk and careless drivers, a high-powered Commons committee is expected to warn this week.

The number of police officers dedicated to enforcing road traffic laws fell by 21 per cent between 1999 and 2004 as cheaper roadside cameras became increasingly popular. But while cameras are efficient at catching people speeding they cannot detect offences traditionally picked up by human patrols, such as drink-driving, unlicensed drivers or those not wearing seatbelts - major causes of road deaths.

With 3,200 people losing their lives on the roads every year the transport select committee is expected to argue in a report that traffic policing must be rebalanced to make cutting deaths a priority.

It comes as new figures obtained by the Conservative transport spokesman, Chris Grayling, reveal that 85 per cent of fines for driving offences in Britain are now triggered by cameras, with only 15 per cent due to tickets written by officers. At the same time, prosecutions in magistrates' courts for driving without due care and attention have fallen by a third between 1997 and 2003.

One source close to the committee said its report was expected to make clear that speed cameras should not be relied on by police forces as a way of keeping order on the roads: 'I would be very surprised indeed if they do not come up with some very clear messages on policing.'

The committee heard from the Transport Research Laboratory - formerly the government agency for transport research, since privatised - that the most effective form of traffic policing is random, so that drivers do not know when they are going to be caught. Such tactics are the opposite of fixed speed cameras, whose locations become well known to local drivers. It also heard evidence that heavy enforcement is directly related to greater likelihood of wearing a seatbelt.

Dr Jeremy Broughton, senior research fellow at the laboratory, told the committee that the number of roadside breath tests carried out had fallen as the number of police officers fell, but that simultaneously the number of people killed in drink-drive accidents was rising - suggesting drink-drivers were getting away with it because they were less likely to encounter a police patrol.

Chris Lines, head of road safety at Transport for London, also told the committee it wanted to see more road policing, particularly to stop hit-and-run accidents, adding that in some parts of the capital 'nearly a quarter of our serious and fatal casualties are hit-and-runs'.

The report is not expected to call for speed cameras to be abandoned but to call for policing policy to be changed, so that cameras are not used as an excuse to withdraw personnel from enforcing traffic laws. Although the government says the number of traffic police is rising again, the MPs heard evidence that officers who were not full-time on traffic duty but patrolling for other reasons were being counted as part of the total.

Grayling told The Observer it was time for a change in tactics. 'We think there is a definite connection between the fact that the improvement in drink-driving rates has stalled and that there are fewer police officers on the roads. Police forces are relying too much on things other than police officers to police the roads.'

A spokeswoman for the Home Office, which is responsible for traffic policing, said speed cameras freed resources that could then be put into traffic officers tackling other offences such as dangerous or drink-driving. 'Speed enforcement activity is concentrated at known accident black spots and where there is a history of speed-related accidents. Police have the discretion to enforce traffic laws anywhere within their force area in whatever way they choose.'