Dorset Road Safe
finances – serious lack of clarity
One of the main accusations against speed cameras has been that they are to
raise money for the authorities that set them up and run them. No, say the Dft,
no, say the “safety” camera partnerships, “It’s not about money, because all
money goes to central government”.
But despite the misleading assurances listed below, it is now becoming
crystal clear that proceeds from speed cameras and other “road safety”
activities are in fact largely available to the local authorities that set them
up, therefore amongst other problems prejudicing what should be objective
assessment of road safety policies. If you dig deep, you will find a Dorset
Police Authority document which shows for example that £1.4 million was
collected last year from driver awareness courses. This is likely to shoot up
close to £2 million this year due to a staggering and unjustified 43% increase
in the fee, from £70 to £100. But Dorset Road Safe and the DfT don’t want you to
know about it, and tell us that no money is returned to local authorities, to
avoid any motivation for the authorities to use speed cameras to raise money!
Most of us were under the impression that our taxes are efficiently used
for adequate policing and that proceeds from speed cameras etc. went to the
government to prevent any confusion, suspicion, conflict of interest or abuse,
because that was what we were told.
We were wrong. The motivation that Dorset Road Safe and the DfT are so
keen to tell us does not exist, does! And there are other motivations –
equipment suppliers, jobs, saving face for those who were too easily persuaded
of the benefits of speed cameras, etc. The simple fact that it is so easy still
to speed on the 99.9% approx. of road space not in front of a camera suggests
that the claimed benefits simply aren’t possible. And is all this motivation
distorting road safety decisions?
The following observations (mostly relating to the Greed on Green), for example,
seem to be too much of a coincidence to indicate anything other than a
deliberate attempt to manufacture high numbers of “offences” and profit:
-
Increasing of offence counts by not being too concerned how long it takes for a
NIP to arrive, so they can keep you speeding for longer and get 2 or 3 fines in
the pipeline before you even know what’s happening.
-
Reduction of a limit, on what was designed as, and has the feel of, a national
speed limit multilane main road and didn’t have an accident problem anyway, down
to 30
-
Retaining plenty of big 50 signs leading up to the short 30 limit in front of
the camera adding to the “faster” road feel.
-
Also
a road that carries a good quantity of out of area traffic to a ferry terminal
-
A new
enforcement method that people are not familiar with
-
Attempting to prevent news getting out by trying to claim FOI exemption
-
When
it is confirmed that a single camera is doubling the previous entire DRS income,
no new assistance to help drivers to slow.
-
Extremely poor and inconsistent communication
-
Lack
of proper policing, more expensive and with less cash return even if it would be
much more effective at reducing casualties
-
Totally excessive and sharply rising “Driver awareness” course fees
-
And
now the final piece of the puzzle: Dorset authorities can access the profits of
the whole process, even though they tell us they don’t, through driver awareness
courses, for which they charge more than the course should cost several times
over.
Never has such a blatant abuse of responsibility by local authorities
been more clearly demonstrated. Unless the entire system can be properly cleaned
up, ALL proceeds including any that result from courses, etc. must go to central
government. Then local authorities can decide on speed limits, safety policy,
etc. without being distracted by what will make the most money. Then we might
see more effective road policing and proper reductions in accidents, deaths and
injuries.
Income from Driver Awareness courses in Dorset, available to Dorset
authorities
In the quotations below, they are usually careful to use the word “fine”.
But whether a “fine” or a “course fee”, it’s all money!
-----------------------------
http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/speed_camera_enforcement_on_hole
5. Dorset has never retained "revenue" from
safety cameras. All fines paid go to the Treasury Consolidated Fund.
-----------------------------
http://www.dorsetroadsafe.org.uk/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=363&Itemid=130
8.
IS HOLE’S BAY A “GREED ON GREEN” CAMERA
Contrary to recent publications by anti-camera
websites and individuals, if a fine is paid by an offender for exceeding the
speed threshold at Hole’s Bay or any other camera site the money goes to the
Treasury Consolidated Fund, the fine paid does not and never has gone to the
DSCP or the relevant council.
-----------------------------
http://www.dorsetroadsafe.org.uk/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=10&Itemid=130
Dispelling the Myths
Myth: Safety cameras are just an easy way of
making money for the police.
FACT: Safety cameras are there to save lives
and make the roads safer not to make money.
Neither the police nor any other partners in
the safety camera scheme make any profit from the speed and red light fines. All fine revenue is passed to the
Treasury. Safety Camera
Partnerships are funded by a grant from Central Government. This means there is
no incentive for safety camera partnerships to place cameras anywhere other than
where they are needed to improve road safety.
……
Cameras are not hidden to catch drivers out or
placed where they will record the most speeding offences. Cameras are there to
encourage motorists to drive within the speed limit so the most successful
cameras are those which record the LEAST number of offences not the most and in
doing so save lives.
-----------------------------
Extracts from emails from Mr Gray, Road User
Safety Division, DfT:
22nd June 2009:
“However, the claim you make about a safety
camera being used by Dorset Safety Camera Partnership to raise revenue for “new
toys” does not make sense as all fine revenue is passed to the Treasury.”
30th June, 2009:
“It is clear from your on-going correspondence
that however many times I explain the road safety benefits of safety cameras you
will continue to believe they are placed only to raise revenue. This, of course,
is entirely up to you, but the fact remains that revenue raised by cameras is
passed to the Treasury and not retained by safety camera partnerships. Therefore no partnership, including
Dorset, has any incentive to place cameras other than for road safety reasons.”
1st Feb, 2010:
“All speeding fine revenue is passed to the
Treasury Consolidated Fund.
Therefore there is no motivation or incentive for Dorset Safety Camera
Partnership to place safety cameras other than for road safety reasons.”
3rd June 2010:
“The Department want to encourage local
authorities to introduce the most effective solution to address road safety
problems, rather than simply lowering speed limits…..
Cameras should be used only where they are
effective in tackling a safety problem.”
6th Aug 2010:
“Thank you for your email of 8 July about the
use of a safety camera at Holes Bay road, Poole. Safety camera placement and
operation are matters for local road safety partnerships.” (Ian – nothing to do
with you then Mr Gray, of the Road User Safety Division, Department for
Transport?!)