Police forces urged to make changes to speed camera enforcement

10.37 | 16 October 2020 | | | 10 comments

Police forces and safer roads partnerships across the country are being urged to adopt a new speed camera enforcement strategy that will increase the threat of detection for motorists.

In a report published on 15 October, Road Safety Support says there has become a complacency among drivers in relation to speed camera use in recent years.

The report recommends an urgent step change in order to increase the perception of speed camera detection, to jolt motorists into driving more carefully on all roads – not just those where they expect to see a camera.

Mobile speed camera vans, which are highly visible and can be utilised over a wider area, should be used to support traditional roads policing efforts, the report states. 

It says mobile cameras can detect offences over a greater range and deliver far greater general deterrence to the motoring public.

Trevor Hall, managing director of Road Safety Support, said: “Police forces and safer roads partnerships have very effective technology at their fingertips that we know reduces casualties; we have the evidence. 

“We just need to adopt a new strategy to use it more efficiently and, through regular, proactive communications, help the public to understand that if they speed or commit other offences on the roads, there is every chance that they will be caught.”

‘Leave traditional camera enforcement behind’
‘Raising the Game’ was written by Road Safety Support’s enforcement experts, who have worked in speed camera operation in the UK since the 1990s. 

It explains how many UK police forces are still using a similar criteria that was developed back in 1992 when speed cameras were first introduced in the UK.

The report was initially released exclusively to Road Safety Support members – all but four of the UK’s police forces and safer roads partnerships. But the not-for-profit company has now taken the decision to publicly release the strategy to encourage as many authorities as possible to adopt its recommendations, in an effort to save lives.

It has been backed by det chief supt Andy Cox, of Lincolnshire Police, who is the national lead for fatal collision investigation reporting to the National Police Chiefs’ Council (NPCC).

At the start of the Covid-19 pandemic, in his previous role as Vision Zero lead at the Metropolitan Police, he launched a campaign against ‘extreme speeders’.

Det chief supt Cox said: “Since lockdown, speeding enforcement rose to prominence up and down the country with high amounts of extreme speeding cases being experienced. 

“A clear link was identified with these very risky acts and an increased risk of fatal and serious collisions.

“Speeding remains the biggest risk to road safety and should be the number one focus and priority for traffic enforcement. 

“I would urge all forces to download this report, if they haven’t already done so, and follow the recommendations in it in relation to enforcement and communications.”



Comment on this story

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Report a reader comment

Order by Latest first | Oldest first | Highest rated | Lowest rated

    I have a dash camera front and rear on my car. Would the Police be interested in the info these hold? Some of the driving is absolutely disgusting. Speeding, somene throwing a dogs poop bag onto the road in front of me. It looked full.
    The car was going inthe opposite direction.
    Thank you

    Jeannette Grubb, Worcestershire
    Agree (0) | Disagree (0)

    Martin makes a good point that I agree with.

    Personally, I have always felt that the degree of outcry from the ABD is a good indicator of the effectiveness of any road safety intervention.

    And whilst the police do not receive any income from fines, they do receive administration fees from anyone attending a Speed Awareness Course. I agree with this. Just as in environmental issues it should be “the polluter who pays”, so in illegal driving above the speed limit it should be the “transgressor who should contribute towards their own detection”. Those objecting to this principle have a simple remedy – don’t drive illegally!

    Rod King, Lymm
    Agree (0) | Disagree (17)

    There are some interesting comments here, but the voting pattern suggests to me, that the forum has been infiltrated by the Alliance of British Drivers or similar.

    Martin, IPSWICH
    Agree (7) | Disagree (17)

    The police do not directly receive the fine income. In the UK that link was completely broken many years ago. Let us hope safety camera funding allocation stays separate from fine income generation.

    Pat, Wales
    Agree (10) | Disagree (22)

    In my experience, the persistent speeder’s driving is typically compromised across the board and manifests itself in reckless and careless actions on a regular basis, increasing the likelihood of collisions – they therefore need removing from the roads, which is why they need to be targetted…discreetly if necessarily. In other words, it’s not just about targeting and reducing excess speeds per se – it’s about removing the speeders themselves.

    Hugh Jones, Cheshire
    Agree (10) | Disagree (43)

    I thought speed cameras were there to save lives and should only be used at accident blackspots? This seems to be saying that they should just be used as a deterrence (except when covert). Not a surprise that an organisation that receives its funding from partnerships, who in turn get their cash from speeding motorists, supports more fines.

    Dave Edwards, Birmingham
    Agree (49) | Disagree (6)

    > To catch the hardcore, arrogant speeders, how about covert fixed cameras and/or unmarked camera vans?

    Well, oddly enough one of the co-authors of his document had put forward these proposals in the past as well as within this latest white paper so it’s not really anything new.

    But then again this co-author was caught exceeding the NSL by about 30mph and temporarily banned from driving (a fair while ago might I add) so presumably he is aware of how much these ideas are actually worth.

    David Weston, Newcastle upon Tyne
    Agree (52) | Disagree (1)

    I am always desperately disappointed when a relatively senior Police officer makes highly inaccurate comments such as “Speeding remains the biggest risk to road safety and should be the number one focus and priority for traffic enforcement.”. He, like many anti motorist commentators ignore the Government accident statistics compiled from Police collected data. The stats clearly show that ‘speeding’ is a relatively minor contributory element. The politicised hype helped along by the occasional bad driving idiot had convinced many that excessive or inappropriate speed is the root of all evil. The stats tell a different story but do not pander to public fears or raise revenue. Sadly, though a separate debate, the Police hierarchy have engaged in a political campaign to grab motoring related fine income by manipulating the public. When Police forces get to keep fine income, we effectively have a Police state. Road safety before politics….

    K Harris, Bristol
    Agree (54) | Disagree (10)

    Agreed Hugh. We need to create a culture whereby drivers can expect to have a speed limit enforced any time and any place. Speed limits are not optional depending on driver attitude to risk.

    Rod King, Lymm
    Agree (13) | Disagree (57)

    To catch the hardcore, arrogant speeders, how about covert fixed cameras and/or unmarked camera vans?

    Hugh Jones, Cheshire
    Agree (15) | Disagree (51)

By continuing to use the site, you agree to the use of cookies. more information

The cookie settings on this website are set to "allow cookies" to give you the best browsing experience possible. If you continue to use this website without changing your cookie settings or you click "Accept" below then you are consenting to this.