Gives a whole new meaning to "highway robbery", doesn't it? The beauty of the thing is that more and more busy-bodies will be needed to levy more and more fines to pay for more and more busy-bodies to levy etc. etc. Some saying about geese and gold and eggs comes to mind.

Before 1995 the death-toll from road accidents had been declining at about 6% a year for over 30 years, thanks to improvents in roads, vehicles and driver education. With the proliferation of speed cameras, that has come to an end and the annual body-count is stuck at around 3400.
If the historical improvement in road safety had continued, the death toll would be down to around 2500 a year by now.
Of all the blunders and scandals New Labour has become associated with, the great speed camera disaster is the worst.

Scotland Yard's 'C3i' project has been in progress now since 1996. It is if I remember correctly a PPP biggy and is scheduled to be completed in 2006. No doubt the costs, as is always the case in these projects, has increased exponentially. Perhaps you could get your stringers to find out Melanie. It involves a complete revamp of the command, control, communication and information structure throughout the Met; it's new 'central nervous system' and is costing a pretty penny. I wonder how much, so far? We're told that when it is complete, we can all sleep more soundly in our beds. Somebody has to pay for it and many other high tech camera schemes all over the country.

Now, what source of daily revenue to help pay for it can be quickly garnered from the general public, stealthily and rapidly? The 'speed fiends' of course. They are solvent, otherwise law abiding and compliant, have their name and address plastered all over their cars (their registration number). So rejig all the restricted speed areas, so that every motorist get's caught at least twice a year, by the general law of averages. Then whip up public concern about 'speed kills' and photograph a few victims of road accidents, I repeat - accidents, and distressing dramatised depictions related thereto. In order to justify heavily fining every motorist who speeds, even though 99% are driving quite safely within the prevailing road conditions at the time. If not, why aren't they charged with careless, reckless or dangerous driving? Mere speed does not kill. Most drivers have their own safety at heart to start with. All speed limits are tailored to apply to the lowest common denominator. Competent drivers drive safely even though they occasionally clip the speed limit in areas where speed limits are deliberately strategically applied to collect ticketed revenue. I guess most people who are reading this are motorists. How many times have you exceeded the speed limit this week? How often were you driving dangerously when you did it? How often have police prosecuted drivers for dangerous driving this week, as opposed to ticketing them for speeding misdemeanours? If speed is so dangerous, why so few prosecutions for it?

Now, say the politicos, we need to deal with the public clamour about victims of accidents and victims of crime being neglected by the the criminal justice system. Let's compensate them.
Ahhh. But where do we get the money from? Tell you what, these 'speeding fiends' really need to be taught a lesson ....

Baroness Scotland appeared on Newsnight on Monday and even had Paxo spluttering and lost for words.

Of all the wacky schemes popping out of the Home Office over the past few years, from cardboard cut-out policemen, to police marching drunks to a cash point to collect an on-the-spot fine, today's reported wheeze for further revenue collection from already beleaguered motorists is so far off the planet it will probably find Beagle 2 and ride back to Earth on it; no doubt exacting a penny per mile from each motorist who parks 19 inches from the kerb, to help pay the bill for the failed experiment. It is unbelievable. It is stupid. It is deceitful and, like most of the other projected 'solutions' from this government it will not be implemented. It's brainstorming without a brain in sight. Particularly in the case of Scotland the Batty. Even though Jeremy Vine gave her a much less rough ride on the Vine midday radio show today, she still sounded like a new actress without a script. Who is kidding whom (or is it who)?

Scotland Yard's 'C3i' project has been in progress now since 1996. It is if I remember correctly a PPP biggy and is scheduled to be completed in 2006. No doubt the costs, as is always the case in these projects, has increased exponentially. Perhaps you could get your stringers to find out Melanie. It involves a complete revamp of the command, control, communication and information structure throughout the Met; it's new 'central nervous system' and is costing a pretty penny. I wonder how much, so far? We're told that when it is complete, we can all sleep more soundly in our beds. Somebody has to pay for it and many other high tech camera schemes all over the country.

Now, what source of daily revenue to help pay for it can be quickly garnered from the general public, stealthily and rapidly? The 'speed fiends' of course. They are solvent, otherwise law abiding and compliant, have their name and address plastered all over their cars (their registration number). So rejig all the restricted speed areas, so that every motorist get's caught at least twice a year, by the general law of averages. Then whip up public concern about 'speed kills' and photograph a few victims of road accidents, I repeat - accidents, and distressing dramatised depictions related thereto. In order to justify heavily fining every motorist who speeds, even though 99% are driving quite safely within the prevailing road conditions at the time. If not, why aren't they charged with careless, reckless or dangerous driving? Mere speed does not kill. Most drivers have their own safety at heart to start with. All speed limits are tailored to apply to the lowest common denominator. Competent drivers drive safely even though they occasionally clip the speed limit in areas where speed limits are deliberately strategically applied to collect ticketed revenue. I guess most people who are reading this are motorists. How many times have you exceeded the speed limit this week? How often were you driving dangerously when you did it? How often have police prosecuted drivers for dangerous driving this week, as opposed to ticketing them for speeding misdemeanours? If speed is so dangerous, why so few prosecutions for it?

Now, say the politicos, we need to deal with the public clamour about victims of accidents and victims of crime being neglected by the the criminal justice system. Let's compensate them.
Ahhh. But where do we get the money from? Tell you what, these 'speeding fiends' really need to be taught a lesson ....

Baroness Scotland appeared on Newsnight on Monday and even had Paxo spluttering and lost for words.

Of all the wacky schemes popping out of the Home Office over the past few years, from cardboard cut-out policemen, to police marching drunks to a cash point to collect an on-the-spot fine, today's reported wheeze for further revenue collection from already beleaguered motorists is so far off the planet it will probably find Beagle 2 and ride back to Earth on it; no doubt exacting a penny per mile from each motorist who parks 19 inches from the kerb, to help pay the bill for the failed experiment. It is unbelievable. It is stupid. It is deceitful and, like most of the other projected 'solutions' from this government it will not be implemented. It's brainstorming without a brain in sight. Particularly in the case of Scotland the Batty. Even though Jeremy Vine gave her a much less rough ride on the Vine midday radio show today, she still sounded like a new actress without a script. Who is kidding whom (or is it who)?

Sorry - I didn't send it twice, but the gremlins hiccoughed. One for your censor M.
FP

Of course, the difficulty with the anti-Gatso campaign's argument is that speeding isn't a victimless crime. Roads kill (3,600 people a year) and speeding contributes to those deaths. A 90% survival chance if you're hit at 20mph is reduced to 50% at 30mph and only 10% at 40mph.

Try explaining to the parents of a child killed by a speeding motorist that they would have received some compensation for their child's death, but for the fact that the £5 surcharge on the fine was a "stealth tax" and oppposed by those who champion "victims' rights" most - the Mail, Telegraph and Times. They may not be too impressed by the "victimless crime" argument.

BeefQueen

I am just suggesting that the wilfully guilty few are punished for deliberate acts of dangerous driving with the appropriate statutes, rather than punishing lots of people for occasional lapses against draconian 'regulations' which are often imposed for revenue collection. The latter is easy and the former requires some effort. That's all. And there are civil remedies also for victims, to extract compensation from the guilty. In the end we all pay anyway one way or another, I guess, but to suggest that minor traffic offences should incur punishment that will compensate for burglary, offences against the person or criminal damage by psychopaths or louts who often get off scot free is plain daft. Our motoring identity is too heavily taxed already, considering the services we get for it. I take your point about the tragedy of road accidents, having attended many in my time, and it is well made. But the vast majority of motorists who get nobbled for minor infractions are not, in my experience, responsible for such tragedies. At the risk of repeating myself - catching the guilty requires skill and effort. Collecting money by camera technology is easy. And we all know which of those options local and central government choose.

Of course, Frank, I take it you fully accept that someone convicted of speeding has committed a criminal offence. Someone who speeds is wilfully driving a car and drives it over the speed-limit. Speeding also causes death on the roads.

The other point to remember is that this additional money being raised will compensate all victims of crime - including those who have been injured or bereaved as a result of road accidents caused by speeding.

And, finally, catching the guilty can be easy - that's whaty speed cameras do.

There used to be a distinction. You didn't used to get a CRO number for traffic offences. It did not get reported in the Crime Book. It was a traffic violation and not treated as a crime. Under this government I'm not sure, it's a long time since I was in harness. I have no wish to excuse drivers who drive dangerously and if they do that's what they should be prosecuted for. Speeding ain't necessarily dangerous, despite the mantras, which is why they are dealt with for violating the speed limit, only. Please don't elevate an infringement of this type to a Federal Rap.

But I'm talking about the increasingly draconian imposition of arbitary and absolute laws devised by traffic nuts who want not only to control the world with cameras, but also extract the costs of the cameras from the people they are spying on, then squeeze the motorist even further by making him pay penalties for every other crime in the book whilst they are at it. Let the punishment fit the crime. And I don't want to be punished just because one day I just MIGHT harm someone. I rarely speed anywhere, but just occasionally, it might happen if the prevailing conditions are right and I exercise discretion. Almost every motorist does - and safely. Particularly police officers. What the controllers want is to ban the car altogether, it seems, and drive us all on to their appalling public transport systems. It's a war of attrition, don't you think? I know what to expect if I drive through a speed trap (just once in 42 years of driving - 43 mph in a 40mph area!) I was pissed off as it was was, I would have been apoplectic if I had received a letter saying that I was being surcharged, in addition to the ticket, to help compensate for the burglary some little scroat had performed at my neighbours house. If the government want to improve police'public relations I suggest they dump this garbarge before some bleeding heart passes it through as a PMB.

We're not going to agree on this, I know. But if you had worked with some of the Traffic Cops that I knew, you might understand better. Some of them were fanatical nuts.

"Speeding also causes death on the roads."

So there are still a few who believe this.
As I pointed out in my previous comment, speed-limit enforcement has HALTED the long-term decline in the death-toll on the roads.
Sales of warning devices which beep when a car apporaches a speed camera have risen sharply; significantly, their owners have 50% fewer accidents. Trying to avoid speeding (or being caught) adds to the workload on the driver of a car; when a machine takes care of the gatsos and allows the motorist to drive normally, the result is safer driving.
Speed cameras have become a major distraction for every motorist unwilling to part with £400 or so for one of these devices; the result is that the ANTI-speeding campaign is causing death on the roads.

Grim Reaper

You are probably right, it's feasible. We should get to the days when both the police officer on the street and the motorist had a degree of sensible discretion, before the imposition of political absolutes and cameras and ticket machines that are operated by robots or worse. It is a chilling omen of even worse things to come. Who was it who said "rules are made for the guidance of wise men and the obedience of fools."

Frank Pulley: "I rarely speed anywhere, but just occasionally, it might happen if the prevailing conditions are right and I exercise discretion. Almost every motorist does - and safely."

Just because almost everyone breaks the law doesn't make it right. I find it interesting that you feel that you have some "discretion" to choose to commit a criminal offence. One knows it's against the law; one shouldn't do it and one certainly can't complain when one is fined to do so.

The problem is that, as long as people think speeding is acceptable and as long as they avoid that accident, they will speed, and speed more quickly and for longer as they continue to do so.

The facts are there: survival rates for pedestrians plummet the faster someone goes. It's obvious that one can't exercise as much control of a vehicle at 40mph as they can at 20mph. Speeding therefore kills.

If I drive and speed, I know I've broken the law. I expect to be punished. I certainly wouldn't begrudge £5 (£5!) to go to a victim of crime.

In my US state (California), I personally always try to observe the speed limit, yet I find myself put at a disadvantage when I do observe the speed limit and no one else does (especially on the freeway). When I observe the speed limit, other drivers create even more hazardous conditions by continually trying to pass me, etc., tailgaiting me, etc.

We have a speed limit of 65 miles per hour, but we also have a law stating that drivers should be moving "at the flow of traffic." What do you do when the average "flow of traffic" is much higher than the speed limit?

Some people who go over the speed limit may actually be trying to avoid accidents rather than cause them.

Not sure if you have this problem in the UK as well.

Yes Susan we do. Many accidents are caused by drivers dithering at slow speeds. But most accidents here are caused by dangerous driving, for example lane changing by trucks who hog the road, or young men from the testosterone zone, road racing on public roads. It must also be pointed out that many accidents involve careless or drunken pedestrians stepping out in front of traffic. If the traffic control freaks had their way we would all be restricted to 2mph, with a steward on foot in front bearing a red flag. Better still they would like to ban the motor car altogether because it is a symbol of personal freedom. In the meantime they will impose as many strictures as they can and send out their little militias of people dressed like Argentinian Generals, armed with Psion automatic ticket machines, and nail us for the heinous crimes of driving or parking quite safely, but not within the rules of their game. During my three decades as a police officer, I rarely found it necessary to do anything other than to occasionally warn motorists of their responsibilty to drive and park safely. They appreciated it and the esteem in which police were held was much higher than it is now. And for those who keep banging on about speeding or parking badly being crimes, not in policing terms they are not. They are traffic violations. And they incur penalties that can be imposed outside court procedures. Some offences under the Road Traffic Act are regarded as crimes, such as dangerous driving, causing death by dangerous driving, driving under the influence of alchohol, driving while disqualfied or driving without insurance. You get a CRO number for those offences and depending on the circumstances you could to prison if convicted. Throw the book at 'em, I say. But the speeding laws are applied far too rigorously and in recent years speed traps have been deliberately contrived to collect revenue. I'm not condoning breaking the law, but I am against petty bureaucats engineering the law in a way that is designed to help to fill government coffers from the pockets of those most available and identifiable - the motorist, particularly when I see the way that money is spent. These people would be mortified if everybody observed all the traffic regulations, their milch cow would die and they would all be out of a job.

Frank Pulley: "Some offences under the Road Traffic Act are regarded as crimes, such as dangerous driving, causing death by dangerous driving, driving under the influence of alchohol, driving while disqualfied or driving without insurance."

Hhmm - would that include speeding?

Frank Pulley: "But most accidents here are caused by dangerous driving, for example lane changing by trucks who hog the road, or young men from the testosterone zone, road racing on public roads."

In other words, speeding.

Thanks for proving my point.

Unidentified poster

No - by driving DANGEROUSLY whilst driving at speed. Which is different and does not prove your point. Get it into your head that it is possible to exceed a speed limit without causing danger. It depends on the competence of the driver. When I was trained to drive to 'the system' as a police officer, by expert driving instructors at Hendon Police Driving School, I was taken out on to the open road and shown how to drive safely at speeds up to 120mph. Police driving instructors (and their pupils under training) were exempt from some provisions of the RTA. It is therefore possible to exceed the speed limit safely and it happens all the time.

But youngsters who are attempting to race each other recklessly whether exceeding the speed limit or not on public roads, are committing an offence per se and speed may just be one component of it. It is indeed possible to drive too fast when not exceeding the speed limit if road conditions demand, obviously.

I am not advocating that anyone should break any traffic regulations, and I agree that if caught speeding they must expect to be dealt with, but when they are they should be dealt with for what they are doing. If they are merely speeding in circumstances that are not dangerous, they should be dealt with for exceeding the speed limit, unless the police officer is satisfied that a 'result' could be achieved by 'advice' (in other words a polite bollocking). When the speed is dangerous because of prevailing road conditions or the driver's actions are erratic or reckless, then the correct offence should be applied - viz. careless,reckless, dangerous driving. Heavier penalties would ensue. But that would not only act as act as a deterrent and improve police public relations, taking a sensible and discretionary attitude to enforcement would cut down potential revenue. Again we are talking about a stealth tax. Do some research and find out how many offences of careless, dangerous or reckless driving were successfully prosecuted last year as opposed to speeding tickets. That should tell you something.

And I return to the original point, perhaps ad nauseum, but necessarily it seems: to suggest that a driver clipping the speed limit when no danger is involved (see above) should not only be punished by a fixed tariff ticket (and appropriate points on his licence) but also be surcharged to compensate victims for the crimes of dishonesty and violence by others is not just political expediency at it's worst, it is batty. And I might add typical of the unnecessary and daft tinkering with the statutes that has become the hallmark of this loopy administration. The collection of revenue from motorists by robotic means has nothing at all to do with road safety, whatever the planners may tell you.