In Part One of our article, we showed how the public have got mixed feelings about speed cameras. The majority think that our photo-snapping, fine-issuing friends do save lives. However, a substantial number also think cameras are put in places where they will generate cash for the authorities.
Our conclusion in that post was that speed cameras probably do make roads safer, though they don’t work any better than other speed reduction measures. We also reported that they only prevent serious accidents at the precise area where they’re installed.
Bearing this in mind, this time, we’re asking if speed cameras are placed with public safety in mind, or whether filling the coppers’ coffers is a factor.
Who gets the revenue from speed cameras?
The amount of money that speed cameras can generate, in the form of speeding fines, is substantial. According to flexed.co.uk, the ‘top ten’ cameras in the UK generated £3.16 million in a year – and that was in 2015. The site goes on to say:
one camera earned over £1,600 per day from motorists caught speeding. The camera in question is located on the A1 Northbound at Great Ponton, Lincolnshire and was responsible for catching more than 6,000 drivers in 2015 – this equated to £606,400 earned in fines for the period.
More recently, research by Carwow estimates that over the last five years, UK speed cameras have raised £391 million in fines.
The money doesn’t go directly to police forces, but rather into the Treasury’s Consolidated Fund – essentially the Government’s bank account. Police forces can then apply for grants and for recovery of costs. And that’s where the claims of generating revenue gain traction.
Speed cameras fund policing, say the Police.
According to a report by the HMICFRS Justice Inspectorates:
[Police forces] are, however, allowed to recover costs for the administration of offences and provision of educational schemes, such as speed awareness courses. Crucially, what constitutes recovery of costs is open to interpretation.
Ah, there’s a world of meaning in that last sentence. In case we’re in any doubt about what it means, we have the example of Police and Crime Commissioner, Olly Martins. In 2015, he told the Home Affairs Select Committee that he wanted to permanently switch on M1 speed cameras to make up for Bedfordshire Police’s funding shortfall:
Mr Martins claimed proposals to slash £20 million from the force’s £100 million budget left Bedfordshire Police in a ‘desperate financial plight’ and left him to look at other means to generate funds.
“Strict enforcement of the speed limit could raise £1 million and to me that’s better than losing 25 more police officers,” Olly Martins told the committee.
Downing Street was forced to step in and hurriedly point out that speed cameras were not to be used for revenue generating. But it was already out there, and straight from the horse’s mouth.
A damning HMICFRS report
We’ve already quoted from a 2020 report from the police watchdog, HMICFRS. It’s a hefty, wide-ranging document that looks at all aspects of road policing in England and Wales.
However, just one part of it hit the headlines: the placing of speed cameras to generate revenue.
Here’s the basics of what it says:
- The police don’t have sole control of where cameras are sited. Road safety partnerships do this. In some cases, the only police involvement comes from the admin team that counts revenue or speed awareness courses.
- Community Speedwatch schemes, which focus on driver education, are sometimes ignored in favour of using cameras.
- Police officers, including some senior ones, suspect that cameras are placed in ‘good hunting grounds’ instead of areas where there’s a history of collisions.
- Police force budgets do potentially benefit from speed camera revenue.
To unpick the last one, police forces can claim costs of £45 per person (2020 figures) for providing speed awareness courses. However, depending on the circumstances, this may exceed their actual costs. And though the Association of Chief Police Officers agreed that any excess generated should be ploughed into ‘policing the roads’, this isn’t binding and no guidelines were set.
How much revenue gathering goes on?
That ‘good hunting grounds’ quote made excellent copy for journos, and was included in virtually every article we found in the motoring and wider press.
Here’s another quote that didn’t get so much coverage:
In most of the forces that we visited, the rationale for using camera-based technology for enforcement was clear, and the decisions about where they are placed were supported by a process intended to maintain public confidence in their use.
Throughout the report, the potentially dodgy practice is usually preceded by the phrase ‘in some cases’.
Now, the HMICFRS report isn’t shy about criticising the police: it contains some very direct and sharply worded comments. So, we suspect that when they use the words ‘in some cases’, rather than ‘widespread’ or ‘common’, that’s exactly what the authors mean. Misplacing of speed cameras to gather revenue definitely happens, but it’s not the norm.
You may well ask why police forces resort to such tactics to meet their budgetary needs. That’s one we won’t be tackling on here!
The WVS blog covers all sorts of motoring issues, from light hearted to contentious. If you’re in South Wales, and you need your car serviced, repaired or MOTed, we’ll be here to give you a main dealer level of care at affordable prices. To book your vehicle in, or for any enquiries, get in touch. We specialise in VW Group marques like Volkswagen, Skoda, SEAT and Audi, but we’ve got shedloads of experience with other cars too.