Almost 2m speeding tickets a year adds up to an estimated £115.2m a year.

[Fop 1]

Almost 2m speeding tickets a year

Generic picture of a Gatso camera next to a busy road

There are about 6,000 speed cameras in England and Wales

Almost two million speeding tickets are being issued to motorists in England and Wales each year, according to Home Office figures.

 

In 2005, the most recent year for which data is available, 1.92 million fines were given - up from 712,000 in 1997.

 

At £60 per fixed penalty notice, this adds up to an estimated £115.2m a year.

 

The Tories said motorists were being used as a "cash cow", but the government insisted speed cameras were used to save lives not make money.

 

The figures were released in response to a parliamentary question, and gave a region-by-region breakdown of the number of fines issued.

 

In the City of London and Warwickshire, the total has increased about 20-fold since 1997. In Nottinghamshire and Northamptonshire, the rise was about 13-fold.

 

The number of fines fell in Durham and North Yorkshire, counties which did not take part in the government's speed camera programme.

 

Fine raised

 

In 2000, the government created 38 "road safety partnerships" and since then the number of speed cameras has reached about 6,000 in England and Wales.

 

In 1997, when a fixed-penalty notice was £40, speeding tickets raised an estimated £28.5m.

 

 

We believe it should be about compliance rather than capture

Vince Yearley

Institute of Advanced Motorists

 

That bill has increased sharply, in part due to a rise in the cost of a fine to £60 in 2000.

 

The Department for Transport (DfT) said fines were not central government revenue, but were collected by the court service and passed through the DfT to the safety camera partnerships to be reinvested.

 

Conservative transport spokeswoman Theresa Villiers said the figures would lead people to wonder whether fines were being used "just to raise revenue".

 

"Enforcing the law should be the overriding motivation behind speed cameras and penalties. They should not be used just as a cash cow," Ms Villiers said.

 

"The government needs to rethink ways of improving road safety, including cracking down on uninsured drivers."

 

The number of road deaths has fallen by 7% since 1998 to 3,172 in 2006.

 

Vince Yearley, spokesman for the Institute of Advanced Motorists, said: "We believe it should be about compliance rather than capture. Help people drive at the speed limit.

 

"After all, you don't have to set a speed camera off, so if you know there's one there and you know what the speed limit is you shouldn't have a problem."

 

Mr Yearley said cameras should be made more visible and speed limits should be posted on camera warning signs so drivers can avoid unwittingly going too fast.

 

He added: "We should remember, speed is very rarely the cause of a crash, it's an aggravating factor. Cameras can't do anything about the tailgater, the drunk driver or the driver who is distracted and tired."

 

'Continuous deterrent'

 

The Home Office said cameras were targeted at "known accident hot spots" and acted as a "continuous deterrent" without the need for a uniformed presence.

 

 

The best safety camera is the one which takes no fines at all, but succeeds in making everyone slow down

Department for Transport

 

This, it said, freed up police officers to deal with other crimes.

 

It added that according to the latest figures the proportion of motorists exceeding the 30mph speed limit had continued to fall year-on-year since 1998.

 

But Paul Smith, of Safe Speed, who is a self-styled campaigner against speed cameras, said more than 28,000 people had signed a Downing Street petition calling for them to be scrapped.

 

Mr Smith told the Daily Telegraph newspaper: "They have a significant negative impact on road safety - they are actually making matters worse."

 

But a DfT spokesman said: "Safety cameras are there to save lives, not make money. The best safety camera is the one which takes no fines at all, but succeeds in making everyone slow down.

 

"Independent research shows a 42% reduction in the number of people killed or seriously injured at camera sites - that means more than 100 fewer deaths each year."

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7126806.stm

[Happy Face 29]

Seems to be a flat out contradiction between the two sides....

 

"They have a significant negative impact on road safety - they are actually making matters worse."

....

"Independent research shows a 42% reduction in the number of people killed or seriously injured at camera sites - that means more than 100 fewer deaths each year."

 

The independent research backed up opinion seems more believable than the unsubstantiated claim.

 

Drivers who insist Cameras are a cash cow are as bad as smokers who insist they should be able to smoke in pubs and restaurants, just get over it or stay in.

[Meenzer 15873]

Ah, but how many of those 100 non-deaths are ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS?

[Guest alex]

Don't speed and you won't get fined.

[zico martin 95]

Don't speed and you won't get fined.

 

Don't drive or walk on the road and you wont be hit by a speeding car

[Guest alex]

Don't speed and you won't get fined.

 

Don't drive or walk on the road and you wont be hit by a speeding car

Hardly the same thing though, is it? What you mention is normal behaviour that is totally necessary in every day life whilst speeding is irresponsible and unnecessary.

[Fop 1]

Seems to be a flat out contradiction between the two sides....

 

"They have a significant negative impact on road safety - they are actually making matters worse."

....

"Independent research shows a 42% reduction in the number of people killed or seriously injured at camera sites - that means more than 100 fewer deaths each year."

 

The independent research backed up opinion seems more believable than the unsubstantiated claim.

 

Drivers who insist Cameras are a cash cow are as bad as smokers who insist they should be able to smoke in pubs and restaurants, just get over it or stay in.

 

 

100 deaths per year (a figure that is very iffy given how it is calculated).

 

 

But lets take those 100 fewer death a year and accept it as correct (), that is still £1,000,000 per person, and yet they will NOT give you anti-dementia drugs or cancer drugs that cost a fraction of that.

[zico martin 95]

Don't speed and you won't get fined.

 

Don't drive or walk on the road and you wont be hit by a speeding car

Hardly the same thing though, is it? What you mention is normal behaviour that is totally necessary in every day life whilst speeding is irresponsible and unnecessary.

 

yeah i dont know why i said that really. been a long boring day at work and I'm knackered now

 

I personally see that speeding is bad per se. Would removing the speed limit on motorways really cause more accidents? Usually when I drive on them ( mostly above 70mph) there is no other traffic to worry about on the outside lane so whats the problem?

 

driving fast doesnt necessarily equate to dangerous driving imho

[Fop 1]

Don't speed and you won't get taxed.

 

Nah, you still will.

 

 

 

Don't drive dangerously and you won't kill anyone, of course driving dangerously has little to do with absolute speed.

 

And spend a £1,000,000 a year on keeping a pensioner alive and they'd be very happy I'm sure.

[Fop 1]

Don't speed and you won't get fined.

 

Don't drive or walk on the road and you wont be hit by a speeding car

Hardly the same thing though, is it? What you mention is normal behaviour that is totally necessary in every day life whilst speeding is irresponsible and unnecessary.

 

Doing 40 in a 30mph zone in the middle of the day is dangerous, doing 40mph on the same stretch of road at 4am is likely not dangerous at all (and much less dangerous than say an police car or ambulance doing it during the day).

 

There's plenty of road I can think of where it is not dangerous to do 70-80mph on what is a 60mph road at more or less any time of the day (the conditions may make it dangerous, but then in bad enough conditions even 40mph would be dangerous).

 

If you've ever driven or rode on the Isle of Man you can see that arbitrary speed limits do very little for safety.

[Happy Face 29]

Fop, are you against fines for driving without insurance? Or Tax? Neither save lives.

 

Also do you agree that the age of consent, legal age to drink and the legal age to drive are necessary though just as arbitrary.

[zico martin 95]

Fop, are you against fines for driving without insurance? Or Tax? Neither save lives.

 

Also do you agree that the age of consent, legal age to drink and the legal age to drive are necessary though just as arbitrary.

 

 

where is the similarity then? i dont think there's an argument that there are valid reasons for all of the above, can you explain what's wrong with driving at 90 mph on an empty motorway?

[Fop 1]

Also do you agree that the age of consent,

If you fancy kids that is your problem.

legal age to drink

Which is different under adult supervision..... although frankly the "legal" age to buy booze and drink these days seem to be 11.

and the legal age to drive are necessary though just as arbitrary.

Again the legal age to drive (or ride) anyway seems to be 5 given the number of mini-motos I see bombing around streets (mostly doing under 30mph but that's not much help when it rounds a blind corner on the pavement at 29mph and into you).

 

 

 

 

 

 

Fop, are you against fines for driving without insurance? Or Tax? Neither save lives.

 

Nope but speed cameras do NOTHING for any of that, and they do save lives as the tend to make sure the driver is licensed and the car MOT'd, both of which contribute a lot to road safety and negating dangerous driving.

 

Thing is I'm not even against speed cameras, just moronic tax raising use of them, instead of targeted safety usage that would save lives (but not raise anything like as much £££'s).

 

Where as most of the morons in favour of revenue cameras seem to fail to understand revenue cameras simply do not equal increased road safety in any meaningful way, they just equal more revenue.

Edited December 4, 2007 by Fop

[Fop 1]

Fop, are you against fines for driving without insurance? Or Tax? Neither save lives.

 

Also do you agree that the age of consent, legal age to drink and the legal age to drive are necessary though just as arbitrary.

 

 

where is the similarity then? i dont think there's an argument that there are valid reasons for all of the above, can you explain what's wrong with driving at 90 mph on an empty motorway?

 

He's just trying to troll is all.

[Happy Face 29]

Fop, are you against fines for driving without insurance? Or Tax? Neither save lives.

 

Also do you agree that the age of consent, legal age to drink and the legal age to drive are necessary though just as arbitrary.

 

 

where is the similarity then? i dont think there's an argument that there are valid reasons for all of the above, can you explain what's wrong with driving at 90 mph on an empty motorway?

 

Some people under 16 are more grown up and able to cope with a sexual relationship than others over 16. Some people under 18 can cope with alcohol more sensibly than others over 18, some 16 year old drivers are better than some in their 20's. But the law needs some arbitrary figure. Some people can quite happily do 90 on an empty motorway, but how high should it go? You can't say to people "do whatever speed you think is safe personally".

[Fop 1]

Fop, are you against fines for driving without insurance? Or Tax? Neither save lives.

 

Also do you agree that the age of consent, legal age to drink and the legal age to drive are necessary though just as arbitrary.

 

 

where is the similarity then? i dont think there's an argument that there are valid reasons for all of the above, can you explain what's wrong with driving at 90 mph on an empty motorway?

 

Some people under 16 are more grown up and able to cope with a sexual relationship than others over 16. Some people under 18 can cope with alcohol more sensibly than others over 18, some 16 year old drivers are better than some in their 20's. But the law needs some arbitrary figure. Some people can quite happily do 90 on an empty motorway, but how high should it go? You can't say to people "do whatever speed you think is safe personally".

 

And yet on the IOM that is still what they do (on national limit stretches), and "amazingly" it isn't constant carnage, even with the massive influx of morons on bikes that occurs once a year.

 

Not that I'm saying that is the way for the rest of the UK, but then neither are revenue cameras for road safety.

[Happy Face 29]

Fop, are you against fines for driving without insurance? Or Tax? Neither save lives.

 

Also do you agree that the age of consent, legal age to drink and the legal age to drive are necessary though just as arbitrary.

 

 

where is the similarity then? i dont think there's an argument that there are valid reasons for all of the above, can you explain what's wrong with driving at 90 mph on an empty motorway?

 

Some people under 16 are more grown up and able to cope with a sexual relationship than others over 16. Some people under 18 can cope with alcohol more sensibly than others over 18, some 16 year old drivers are better than some in their 20's. But the law needs some arbitrary figure. Some people can quite happily do 90 on an empty motorway, but how high should it go? You can't say to people "do whatever speed you think is safe personally".

 

And yet on the IOM that is still what they do (on national limit stretches), and "amazingly" it isn't constant carnage, even with the massive influx of morons on bikes that occurs once a year.

 

Not that I'm saying that is the way for the rest of the UK, but then neither are revenue cameras for road safety.

 

Like the Isle of man has some sort of road safety record to be proud of.

[luckyluke 2]

Don't try discussing with Fop and you won't want to stab yourself in the eye with a fork.

 

FYP

[Fop 1]

Fop, are you against fines for driving without insurance? Or Tax? Neither save lives.

 

Also do you agree that the age of consent, legal age to drink and the legal age to drive are necessary though just as arbitrary.

 

 

where is the similarity then? i dont think there's an argument that there are valid reasons for all of the above, can you explain what's wrong with driving at 90 mph on an empty motorway?

 

Some people under 16 are more grown up and able to cope with a sexual relationship than others over 16. Some people under 18 can cope with alcohol more sensibly than others over 18, some 16 year old drivers are better than some in their 20's. But the law needs some arbitrary figure. Some people can quite happily do 90 on an empty motorway, but how high should it go? You can't say to people "do whatever speed you think is safe personally".

 

And yet on the IOM that is still what they do (on national limit stretches), and "amazingly" it isn't constant carnage, even with the massive influx of morons on bikes that occurs once a year.

 

Not that I'm saying that is the way for the rest of the UK, but then neither are revenue cameras for road safety.

 

Like the Isle of man has some sort of road safety record to be proud of.

 

Given that it has no effective speed limit (on national speed limit roads) and the huge influx of bikers, yeah I'd say it does (and pretty much proves your point as completely BOLLOCKS ). Especially when you further consider the type of roads and conditions there.

 

Of course the reality of the situation has nothing to do with it, you just want to "argue" (very badly) with me.

Edited December 4, 2007 by Fop

[JawD 99]

Gawd I hate this subject nearly as much as I hate those that spout "dont speed and it wont be an issue" etc

 

I do a hell of a lot of motorway driving. The problem isnt speed, its tossers tailgating / undertaking / lane sitting for no reason. If everyone stuck to 70 you'd still get HGVs doing 55-58, still get the need to get past them and still get the idiots driving 5ft behind you no matter the road conditions.

 

It aint jusrt about speed, its general driving skills and lack of awareness.

 

For me, Id like to see some motorways increased to 80mph and more built up area's dropped to 20mph.

[Fop 1]

Gawd I hate this subject nearly as much as I hate those that spout "dont speed and it wont be an issue" etc

 

I do a hell of a lot of motorway driving. The problem isnt speed, its tossers tailgating / undertaking / lane sitting for no reason. If everyone stuck to 70 you'd still get HGVs doing 55-58, still get the need to get past them and still get the idiots driving 5ft behind you no matter the road conditions.

 

It aint jusrt about speed, its general driving skills and lack of awareness.

 

For me, Id like to see some motorways increased to 80mph and more built up area's dropped to 20mph.

 

Yup, although a blanket 20mph in built up areas (as is being proposed by the Government presently) is a bit too far.

 

Same with speed cameras - it they are SAFETY cameras and not revenue cameras they should only be used in areas where they will make a difference and need to be seen to make sure people are doing the safe speed there.

[Shearergol 0]

Be interesting to see the figures for road accidents in places where there aren't any cameras.

 

You see it all the time - people speed up to the point of the camera, slow down in time, and then speed off. Personally I think that causes more problems than it solves.

 

There does need to be a set speed limit, but as nearly every other country in Europe has proved, it can be higher than 70 on a motorway.

 

Of course, they could just stop all of these fines and put petrol up to more than the 108.9p a litre it is at the moment. Fucking wankers. If they gave me an alternative to get to work I'd use it, so why aren't they spending the money on that??

[Dr Kenneth Noisewater 0]

Be interesting to see the figures for road accidents in places where there aren't any cameras.

 

You see it all the time - people speed up to the point of the camera, slow down in time, and then speed off. Personally I think that causes more problems than it solves.

 

There does need to be a set speed limit, but as nearly every other country in Europe has proved, it can be higher than 70 on a motorway.

 

Of course, they could just stop all of these fines and put petrol up to more than the 108.9p a litre it is at the moment. Fucking wankers. If they gave me an alternative to get to work I'd use it, so why aren't they spending the money on that??

Don't know whether it's still the case, but up until last year County Durham was the only police force not to use speed cameras and they had the lowest accident rate per mile of road of any force in the country.

 

Trained, experienced traffic officers are a better safety device than any revenue camera. But of course they cost money rather than accumulating it.

[Happy Face 29]

Given that it has no effective speed limit (on national speed limit roads) and the huge influx of bikers, yeah I'd say it does (and pretty much proves your point as completely BOLLOCKS ). Especially when you further consider the type of roads and conditions there.

 

Of course the reality of the situation has nothing to do with it, you just want to "argue" (very badly) with me.

 

Given that you started the topic I foolishly assumed you wanted a discussion on it.

 

Have you even driven on IOM? Given that it only has a few hundred miles of road and some of the least busy roads you could find at that, I'd say it's bollocks to even bring the place up as a comparison. You can drive from one side of the island to the other and barely see another car.....yet still it's fatalities are high.

[JawD 99]

Gawd I hate this subject nearly as much as I hate those that spout "dont speed and it wont be an issue" etc

 

I do a hell of a lot of motorway driving. The problem isnt speed, its tossers tailgating / undertaking / lane sitting for no reason. If everyone stuck to 70 you'd still get HGVs doing 55-58, still get the need to get past them and still get the idiots driving 5ft behind you no matter the road conditions.

 

It aint jusrt about speed, its general driving skills and lack of awareness.

 

For me, Id like to see some motorways increased to 80mph and more built up area's dropped to 20mph.

 

Yup, although a blanket 20mph in built up areas (as is being proposed by the Government presently) is a bit too far.

 

Same with speed cameras - it they are SAFETY cameras and not revenue cameras they should only be used in areas where they will make a difference and need to be seen to make sure people are doing the safe speed there.

 

Well yes, you cant grade all current 30mph built up zones the same. Given new housing estates have much smaller roads etc then they of course should be at 20, area's with schools or playfields (if theres any left). but some should stay as 30mph where there is more open space etc.