(I'm guessing this will go to print tomorrow)
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0, ... 29,00.html
Government puts brakes on speed cameras
By Sam Knight
Speed cameras will no longer be funded by the fines they generate, an arrangement which has been blamed for the proliferation of devices across the country, the Government said today.
Instead, Britain's 6,000 cameras will be incorporated into a broader road safety plan, according to the Transport Secretary, Alastair Darling, who announced the change alongside a four-year study of the effectiveness of speed cameras.
"I want cameras to be linked more closely to wider road safety," said Mr Darling. Under the new plan, speed cameras will be paid for by a central fund of £110 million, which will also be available to local authorities to pay for other road safety improvements, such as 20mph zones and pelican crossings.
"In some places cameras will still be the solution, and can be funded through this money. In other places there will be alternative solutions which this funding can cover," said Mr Darling.
Currently, £93 million is spent every year on speed cameras alone. The devices, which cost £32,000 each, are maintained and built by 38 "safety camera partnerships" of local authorities, police forces and local courts across the country. The partnerships are entitled to cover their costs with fines each year before passing on the surplus to the Treasury.
The close relationship between speed cameras and their funding stream has led to accusations that the devices are simply used to generate income for the Government rather than to tackle dangerous driving.
Paul Smith, the founder of Safe Speed, a motorists' organisation that opposes speed cameras, said today's announcement proves the failure of the entire camera programme.
"The speed camera programme has been an unmitigated disaster," said Mr Smith, a former road engineer. "The supporting science has been bunk, the foundation claims have been bunk, and the road safety results have been disastrously disappointing."
"The Department for Transport has failed in its duty to provide effective road safety policies, preferring to fiddle and fudge in a misguided attempt to convince the public that its fatally flawed road safety policies are effective," he added.
But Mary Williams, chief executive of Brake, a road safety charity which supports speed cameras, said that the plan announced today made sense and would allow money raised by cameras to pay for a range of safety devices.
"All revenue from cameras should be ploughed back into road safety measures, including implementing 20mph zones in communities," she said. "There are many communities crying out for the simplest of measures, such as a pelican crossing outside a school gate, but being told that funding is just not available from their local authority."
Edmund King, executive director of the RAC Foundation, also supported the proposal. "We have consistently campaigned for a broader and more flexible approach to road safety," he said. "While speed cameras have their place, they should not be the first and last resort for road safety. Road and junction layout, clearer signing of limits, and better driver education all have a role to play."
Andrew Howard, head of road safety for the AA Motoring Trust, agreed: "The reality is that speed cameras work alongside other measures, such as better engineering of roads to reduce and provide better margin for mistakes... Unfortunately, with speed cameras being self-financing, they offer a far cheaper alternative to other safety measures that have to be paid for by cash-strapped councils."
Mr Darling announced the change to coincide with the publication of a study of the performance of speed cameras since 2000, when the first "safety camera partnerships" were set up.
The report, which studied 4,000 camera sites across the UK, concluded that the cameras reduced deaths and serious injuries by 42 per cent in the areas they operated, saving more than 100 lives every year.
"In 2004, the UK had the lowest number on record of people killed in road accidents. We are committed to reducing that number even further. I firmly believe that the changes I have announced today will do that," said Mr Darling.
Login
Register
FAQ
Search
Members
