At a recent court hearing in Devizes, an out of county driver, detected travelling at 107 mph on the M4 was fined £750 with £50 costs and was disqualified from driving for 28 Days.

The Wiltshire & Swindon Safety Camera Partnership was formed in April 2002 and became fully operational in October 2002. The Partnership consists of seven members; they are, Wiltshire Police, Wiltshire County Council, Swindon Borough Council, HM Courts Service, Highways Agency, Crown Prosecution Service and the NHS. The partnership covers the geographical areas of Swindon Unitary Authority and Wiltshire County.

These organisations are collectively charged with reducing all road traffic fatal and serious injury casualties by 40% and child casualties by 50% by the year 2010. This is based against the annual average of casualties for the five years 1994 - 1998.

Until April 1st 2007, funding for the partnerships was solely provided from the hypothecation of fine revenue. That simply means that the speeding fines collected, paid for the operations of the camera partnership. Each year, the partnership was required to submit an operational plan for funding which was robustly scrutinised by the Government. There is a popular misconception that funding comes from local taxpayers, this is in fact untrue. Money has never been provided by the local tax payer but from fines paid by drivers who broke the law by speeding.

Since 1 April 2007 the Department for Transport (DfT) enhanced the level of funding available for road safety by means of a specific road safety grant which is paid to the local authorities as part of the Local Transport Plan. This is extra money that has not been available to them (the local authorities) before and is in addition to road safety funding already provided through the Local Transport Plan process. Once again, funding does not come from local tax payers.

Since cameras have been operating in Wiltshire and Swindon, there has been over a 70% reduction in killed and serious injury casualties at the core camera sites. (These sites are those where the number of accidents has warranted placing a camera – either fixed or mobile – under DfT rules). Not only have cameras saved lives and heartache but they have saved a substantial amount of money as the DfT estimate that each fatal collision costs the community over £1.4m.

The long term aim of the Wiltshire & Swindon Safety Camera Partnership is to:

1. Change driver’s attitudes to speed.
2. Educate drivers as to what the consequences are of using inappropriate and/or excessive speed.
3. Drastically reduce the number of collisions thus ensuring that less and less people die on our roads.

THE ONLY DRIVERS THAT NEED FEAR A SAFETY CAMERA ARE THOSE WHO ARE BREAKING THE LAW BY EXCEEDING THE SPEED LIMIT!

At a recent court hearing, a motorist who was detected travelling at 126mph on the M4 was fined £500 with £35 costs and disqualified from driving for 6 months.

A recent article published in the September 30th edition of the News Of the World newspaper concerned ‘Top Earning’ Speed Cameras. It is an unfortunate fact that the article contained totally misleading and incorrect information which subsequently provided a biased and factually incorrect report which stated that ten of the Wiltshire & Swindon Safety Camera Partnership’s cameras had amassed £2.5 million between them.

The facts are: Of the 42,417 detected offences at these ten camera sites, 29,274 were dealt with by means of a Conditional Offer of a Fixed Penalty which meant that £1,756,440 in fines were passed to the Department of Constitutional Affairs (the Treasury) – some £¾ million less than that stated in the news item. None of the revenue from fines is directly passed to the Partnership which is currently funded by a government grant through the Local Transport Plans of the Wiltshire County Council and Swindon Borough Council.

The object of this news release is to provide the correct information and in order to do this; the request made on behalf of the News of the World under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 and this Partnership’s subsequent response is reproduced below:

The Request:

1. In the 06/07 financial year what were the ten cameras in your area that recorded the most speeding offences? Please give the exact positions of these cameras. How many offences (fixed penalty notices being issued) did these ten cameras detect in total?

Please note I am NOT asking for the top ten cameras in numerical order.

The Response:

I write in connection with your request for information dated 7 August 2007 concerning the number of offences detected by the ten cameras in our area that recorded the most speeding offences.

Your request has now been considered and the information asked for is enclosed. I have listed the cameras in no specific order and the location of each camera is given with an ordnance survey map reference.

You requested:

1. In the 06/07 financial year what were the ten cameras in your area that recorded the most speeding offences? Please give the exact positions of these cameras.

Camera Map Reference
A36 South Newton. 085345
A338 Pennings Road, Tidworth. 235480
A303 Nr Solstice Park, Amesbury. 170421
A303 Nr Solstice Park, Amesbury. 173421
A303 Nr Cholderton nr metrepost 12/42 216431
A36 Between Crockerton & Heytesbury nr metrepost 12/42 888432
A303 Mere Bypass 811328
A419 Roadworks – Temp 40mph Swindon 192815
A419 Roadworks – Temp 40mph Swindon 194834
M4 nr metrepost 149/9 On Sutton Benger overbridge approx 3.1 Kms east of Junction 17 947795

and

How many offences (fixed penalty notices being issued) did these ten cameras detect in total?

The total number of fixed penalty notices issued from these cameras for the period 06/07 was 42,417.

From the figures given in our response, it can be seen that the combined total of offences detected by the ten cameras quoted for which Notices of Intended Prosecution were issued, was 42,417 – This is not the number of fines received as a result of the enforcement.

The writer of the news article erroneously assumed that all of these notices resulted in a fine of £60 being paid. This is not the case as some offences may have been disposed of in a number of other ways:

1. Offences dealt with in court as the speed detected was outside of the Fixed Penalty Offer criteria.
2. Offences dealt with in court as the driver did not hold a driving licence issued by DVLA.
3. Driver opted for a court hearing.
4. Driver had too many current penalty points.
5. Driver was a visitor and not resident in UK.
6. Driver invited to attend a Speed Awareness Workshop.

Where excess speed and red-light running are identified as a problem, cameras are still regarded as an extremely efficient way of reducing casualties and collisions and in Wiltshire, have so far achieved reductions in fatalities at core camera sites of 71% and an overall reduction of 67.4% in all Killed and Seriously Injured (KSIs) at core sites.

- CHANGES TO THE ROAD TRAFFIC ACT -

The enactment of Part 29 of the Road Safety Act 2000 that increases the penalty points for offences in relation to Section 172 of the Road Traffic Act 1988 (as amended) takes place on Monday 24th September 2007.

Section 172(2) of the Road Traffic Act, 1988 (as amended) places a duty, on any person required to do so, to provide such information in that person’s possession as may lead to the identity of the driver of a vehicle where that driver is alleged to be guilty of an offence. Section 172(3) goes on to state that a person who fails to comply with a requirement under subsection (2) shall be guilty of an offence.

In accordance with the new enactment, the penalty points for failing to furnish information in that person’s possession as may lead to the identity of the driver of a vehicle where that driver is alleged to be guilty of an offence will increase from 3 to 6.

From various courts around the county, these are some of the findings handed down to motorists who speed or who have failed to furnish the details of the driver of the vehicle at the time of the event:

One driver who was detected travelling at 97 mph on the A303 Mere By-Pass was found guilty and fined £1000 with £35 costs and 6 penalty points.

A keeper of a vehicle was convicted on two counts of failing to furnish the details of the driver at the time of the event – he was fined £450 with £455 costs and 3 penalty points for EACH offence – a total of £1810 with 6 penalty points.

A motorist who drove at 52mph in the 30 mph speed limit in The Street, Charlton, near Malmesbury was fined £500 with £35 costs and 6 penalty points.

A driver who failed to show for trial was convicted in his absence for driving at 94mph on the M4 and was fined £400 with £455 costs and 4 penalty points.

ISSUED ON BEHALF OF THE WILTSHIRE AND SWINDON SAFETY CAMERA PARTNERSHIP (WSSCP)


July 2007

Speed Cameras on the M4….Lives are being saved.

WSSCP has been carrying out speed enforcement on the Wiltshire section of the M4 for two years and the true value of this initiative is clear for all to see. During this period along the entire length of the Wiltshire stretch fatal and serious injury casualties have been reduced by 32%, all casualties (fatal serious and slight) have been reduced by 46%

Specifically at the camera sites fatal and serious injury casualties have reduced by 49%, all casualties reduced by 54%

The strategy of placing camera sites at various points along the motorway has resulted in altering driver behaviour almost throughout the Wiltshire stretch.


On average 84,000 vehicles use the Wiltshire section of the M4 in any 24 hour period. Although motorways are usually the safest types of road, taking into account the volume of traffic that they carry, 12 percent of Wiltshire’s road traffic fatalities happen on this short 53km stretch of motorway.

Research studies show that the risk of collision increases considerably when there are wide variations in traffic speeds. If all traffic travels at a steady pace and drivers maintain a safe distance between vehicles, this risk is greatly reduced.

Permanent speed enforcement signs warn motorists that they are entering an enforcement area. Speed checks are carried out from enforcement vehicles parked on over bridges on the motorway.

“This dramatic reduction in crashes is as a direct result of our strategy to enforce the national speed limit on this section of the motorway. No other changes have been made to slow traffic down or to make the road any safer. Motorists are paying attention to their driving and feedback from the public has been very positive. Most importantly, this improvement has been maintained over the whole of the two year period and clearly demonstrates a positive change in driver behaviour”, said Nisha Devani, Manager of the Safety Camera Unit.

Notes to the Editor:
Further information:
Nisha Devani, Central Road Safety Unit Manager, (01380 731465)

During 2006, two workers were killed and 19 seriously injured in the course of their work on Highways Agency roads.
Whilst the number killed has fallen from the figures for 2005, there has been an alarming increase in excess of 58% in the number seriously injured.
The Highways Agency and its contractors are committed to reducing the number of deaths and injuries on our roads, and are asking drivers to help them stop the death toll and serious injury figures rising.

All road users are urged to drive with care and consideration, and when approaching roadworks you should:
• Keep within the speed limit – it is there for your safety.
• Get into the correct lane in good time – don’t keep switching from one to another.
• Concentrate on the road ahead, not the roadworks either side of you.
• Be alert for works traffic leaving or entering the roadworks.
• Keep at a safe distance from the vehicle in front and avoid unnecessary hard braking – there could be queues ahead.
• Observe all the signs – they are there to help and inform you.

Highways Agency Construction Casualties 2000 – 2006 (all construction workers) (Source: Highways Agency).

Year Fatal Serious

2000 3 13
2001 3 18
2002 3 27
2003 2 10
2004 1 17
2005 5 12
2006 2 19
Totals 19 116

“In the years 2005 and 2006, seven roadworkers were killed in the course of their work on England’s motorways and major roads, making the motorway one of the most dangerous working environments in Britain”

“To reduce the accident toll, all road users are urged to drive with care and consideration, and in particular, to slow down near roadworks, keep within the signed speed limits and pay attention to road signs and works traffic. Speed limits are in place to protect both drivers and the workforce”.
“Roadworkers on motorways and major ‘A’ roads are a vulnerable group of workers. Everyone is entitled to a safe workplace, yet road workers risk death and injury at work every day, often working at night, making sure our roads remain safe and in good condition”.

Notes to editors:
1. The Highways Agency is an executive agency of the Department for Transport. It manages, maintains and improves the network of trunk roads and motorways in England on behalf of the Secretary of State.
2. Since 2000, 19 roadworkers have died while working on the Highways Agency network
3. Further information is available on the Highways Agency website: www.highways.gov.uk, by following the link from the story on the home page called: ‘Safety at Roadworks’.

4. The Highways Agency has published a safety advice leaflet called: ‘Driving Through Roadworks’. Copies are available to the public from Highways Agency Publications. Telephone: 0870 1226 236, quoting reference number HA113/04. advice leaflet are available to will be distributed by the Agency at exhibitions and events.

5. A vehicle travelling at 70mph on a motorway will enter roadworks approximately 51 seconds after seeing the ‘roadworks 1 mile ahead’ sign.

Information Issued by the Highways Agency Press Office. For further information please contact 020 7081 7443. Out of hours the Highways Agency Duty Press Officer can be contacted by phoning 020 7081 7443.

The Wiltshire & Swindon Safety Camera Partnership Annual Report can be found in the Publication Library or at http://www.safetycameraswiltshire.co.uk/files/annualreport.pdf

The following is an extract from the Atworth Village Magazine:

On Sunday morning, 11th February, a parent was interviewed on BBC Radio 4 in regard to the growing tendency amongst the public to denigrate the use of Radar Speed Unit Vans. The parent was strongly in favour of the Speed Units. His little daughter had been killed by a speeding car through his village. A coroner said that the child would not have been killed had the driver kept within the speed limit.

Here in Atworth, only thanks to years of constant pressure by residents and the Parish Council, Wilts Constabulary have done their best to prevent death/accidents caused by speed driving through Atworth. They provide a Radar Speed Unit Van. The officers in this van have been subjected to abuse by some residents who accuse them of ‘making money’ from motorists. Yet it is a ‘law’ that motorists must not exceed the limits, they are set for safety! So these grumblers obviously think it is in order to break the law and risk lives and terrible injury!

Last year, at 5.23pm on June 2nd, a motorcyclist sped up the hill from Pye Corner into Atworth. His registered speed was 93 miles per hour as he passed Fleetwood Rise. (A series of photos are taken to ensure the validity of the speed). The motorcyclist was traced, and appeared in Devizes Magistrates Court – he was fined £300 plus £35 court costs and was disqualified for three months.

Do readers (of the Atworth magazine) consider this a ‘fair deal’ for 93mph through Atworth at 5.23pm when kids fresh home from school are making their way to the Rec or cycling up to Bear garage, crossing the road taking the dog for a walk? Perhaps your comments may help boost the morale of the Police who are shocked by the leniency of this particular sentence

Mavis

I do know that the presence of a Radar Speed Unit is an excellent deterrent for hundreds of motorists and the majority of residents in Atworth are EXTREMELY grateful to the Safety camera partnership Team.

Yours Sincerely

Mavis King

Safety Camera Unit Comment:

Atworth is a Wiltshire village situated on the A365 west of Melksham.

This site is an exceptional/community concern site where local residents requested the presence of an enforcement vehicle. Subsequent to a speed survey being carried out, where it was ascertained that 78% of motorists were exceeding the speed limit, enforcement commenced in Atworth.

The Radar Units referred to in the text above are in fact LTI 20.20 Laser Speed Measuring Devices which are tripod mounted in a marked Safety Camera Partnership enforcement vehicle.

The following press release was issued as a direct result of the content of the 'Tonight With Trevor McDonald' programme which was transmitted on Friday 9 March 2007.

Association of Chief Police Officers of England, Wales and Northern Ireland


PRESS RELEASE
10 Victoria Street, London, SW1H 0NN
Tel: 020 7084 8950 (switchboard) or 8946/7/8 (Press Office)
Fax: 020 7084 8951
Website www.acpo.police.uk


69/07 22 February 2007

ACPO response to the accuracy of the LTI 20:20


Meredydd Hughes, ACPO lead on roads policing and Chief Constable of South Yorkshire Police said:

"ACPO is aware of the material presented by those who seek to cast doubt on the accuracy of the LTI 20:20. This material is often scientifically unsound, and misrepresents the use to which the equipment is put.

In a programme of this nature, purporting to be balanced, it is disappointing that the makers of it were unwilling to allow the ACPO spokesman to give a live interview, nor to allocate more time to the Authorities' position, but only to offer a heavily edited short response. This is a pity, since the real losers in the debate will be the public who deserve the full and complete facts to allow them to judge accurately the issues raised.

The Roads Policing Enforcement Technology (RPET) Sub Committee works on behalf of ACPO in partnership with the Home Office, Department for Transport and the Home Office Scientific Development Branch (HOSDB) to oversee the type approval process for all enforcement equipment in England and Wales. Equipment is rigorously tested by the manufacturer, the Home Office Scientific Development Branch and police forces on the complete range of vehicles -including motorcycles - before the equipment is approved for operational use. The Home Office and Police Service have no financial or vested interest in the equipment, and would not wish, for obvious reasons, for defective equipment to be used by them. The testing is therefore rigorous in the extreme.

Forces are responsible for ensuring their staff are trained to use the equipment in accordance with the guidance drafted as part of the testing process. When the equipment is being used by police operators, it is used properly and again we reiterate that the training given to operators who use this device is the responsibility of forces.

It is also prudent to point out that United States equipment; its use and case law have no relevance in the UK.

Viewers should be made aware of the Court ruling on 26 January 2007 when Humberside police and ACPO won a case which conclusively proved the accuracy of the LTI 20:20 laser speed gun and the validity of the Type Approval process. The Court was aware of all the material and views of the so called "experts" used in this programme. Costs in excess of £9,000 were awarded against the defence. All technical arguments suggesting the equipment was inherently inaccurate were rejected.

The LTI20:20 is a portable tripod mounted or hand held speed detection device. Fixed site speed cameras are fitted by local authorities in conjunction with their local police force in a safety camera partnership. The calibration of safety camera partnership equipment is a matter for them and seems irrelevant to this programme and the equipment under discussion."



Ends
NOTES FOR EDITORS:

• The ACPO Press Office can be contacted via 020 7084 8946/47/48 (office hours) or via 07803 903686 (out of office hours).

• The Association of Chief Police Officers (ACPO) is an independent, professionally led strategic body. In the public interest and, in equal and active partnership with Government and the Association of Police Authorities, ACPO leads and co-ordinates the direction and development of the police service in England, Wales and Northern Ireland. In times of national need ACPO, on behalf of all chief officers, coordinates the strategic policing response.

• ACPO’s 341 members are police officers of Assistant Chief Constable rank (Commanders in the Metropolitan Police and City of London Police) and above, and senior police staff managers, in the 44 forces in England, Wales and Northern Ireland, and other forces such as British Transport Police and States of Jersey Police.

If it has been more than 10 working days since you sent your licence and fine and it has not yet been returned, then please contact H M Court Service on 01793 699 846.

Offences detected by Safety Cameras.
Disclosure (provision of photographic and other evidence)

It is a legal requirement that a Notice of Intended Prosecution is issued to the registered keeper of a vehicle when certain road traffic offences (eg. Excess speed or failure to conform to a red traffic signal) are disclosed. The registered keeper must then provide the necessary information as to the identity of the driver at the time of the alleged offence. At this stage there is no legal obligation to provide any other information to the recipient of a Notice of Intended Prosecution.

When a Conditional Offer of fixed penalty is made to a nominated driver, the individual concerned may accept that fixed penalty or elect for a court hearing. There is no requirement in law to supply or disclose any other evidence or information to an alleged offender at that stage.

Although not a legal requirement, in order to provide as much information and support to an individual as possible, the Wiltshire and Swindon Safety Camera Partnership do provide further details of alleged offences via the website or in hard copy. It must be recognised that this additional information is supplied by the Partnership in the interests of openness, transparency and to assist the individual in making an informed decision. Whilst this may include detail which would form part of a prosecution case, it would not necessarily constitute all of the available evidence. The Partnership will not supply any other material until a case enters the Court system either because the driver declines a fixed penalty or is unable to comply with the conditions of the offer.

If the matter is to be dealt with at court a defendant is required to enter a plea at the initial hearing. At this stage, a summary of evidence will be provided to the driver (known as advance information or advance disclosure). If the driver then pleads ‘Not Guilty’ a full file of evidence is sent to the Crown Prosecution Service. All requests for additional material are then subject to disclosure rules in accordance with the Criminal Procedure and Investigation Act 1996, Section 8, sub-sections 1 & 2.

Please see below press release from Northumbria Safety Camera Partnership (LTI 20:20 is used for speed detection by the Wiltshire & Swindon Safety Camera Partnership)

Press Release

17 February 2006

For immediate release

Begins:

Speeding motorcyclist gets hard lesson about the cost of speeding

A motorcyclist caught at excessive speed on the A69 Nafferton Eastbound has had his appeal dismissed by the judge in Newcastle Crown Court. A mobile safety camera caught the motorcyclist travelling at 97 mph, 27 mph over the speed limit. Having already paid hundreds of pounds in fines and costs, Mr. Harris has had thousands of pounds of legal and expert witness costs, for both him and the prosecution awarded against him. The judge ruled that Mr. Harris would have to pay £4,555 in costs as he tried to undermine confidence in the speed detection equipment that police used and they had the right to show that it is effective and accurate.

Mr Harris was told to drop the appeal on expert advice, as the equipment was accurate after Mr Garratt, a prosecution expert witness had compiled a report, which supported the speed recorded by the device by measuring time over distance. However, the judge would not allow the appeal to be withdrawn within 3 days of the hearing and stated that he would hear the case and give judgement.
Having already pleaded guilty to the offence and accepted the fine and costs at magistrates court, using legal aid, Mr Harris then decided to challenge the equipment that was being used by way of appeal in the Crown Court. Enlisting the services of Dr. M Clark, a road traffic and detector consultant, he tried to dispute that the LasTec LTI 20.20 laser speed measuring device was accurate. Although having admitted not seeing the camera enforcement sign, the enforcement vehicle or his speedometer, he claimed he was not speeding.
However, the prosecution enlisted expert witnesses, Mr. F Garratt, Managing Director of Tele-Traffic (UK) Ltd., who supplies the equipment and Mr. J Dunne, Technical Vice President of Laser Technology Inc. from America, regarded as one of the leading experts on pulsed laser technology. They challenged Dr. Clark’s tests carried out on the LTI 20.20 as he did not use the Home Office approved technology, which has to meet strict criteria. Mr Garratt had spent more than 55 hours compiling a report, which backed up the speed readings with time over distance and highlighted Dr. Clark’s inaccuracies concerning the equipment.

Jeremy Forsberg from Safe Speed for Life said, “This proves that our equipment is accurate and frivolous cases like this won’t stand up. Trying to undermine the work of the police who are trying to reduce casualties and then reneging is irresponsible. It is not acceptable for Mr. Harris to drive at those speeds and treat the roads like a racetrack. What is more, he admitted to not being aware of his speeds, which is irresponsible driving. This case shows that we are confident in that equipment used to enforce speed limits and that we will not tolerate this type of anti-social behaviour where people’s lives are put at risk for a thrill.”

The officer carrying out the enforcement said, “I’m glad this case is finally over. After accepting the fine, the guy said he wasn’t speeding. I can tell you, he was. Those speeds are just dangerous, not only for him, but other road users as well. This case has wasted a lot of people’s time and money. I hope the gentleman realises that he was excessively over the speed limit; he did break the law and posed danger to others. The equipment I use is accurate and is an important tool for ensuring people realise that they cannot put people’s lives at risk through excessive speeds.”

The stretch of road where the safety camera was in operation, the A69 at Nafferton Eastbound had collisions resulting in 2 people killed or seriously injured and 4 minor injuries on the road before the Northumbria Safety Camera Partnership went live in 2003. Since the partnership has gone live there have been no fatalities or serious injuries and no collisions resulting in minor injuries.

Mr Forsberg added, “The majority of motorcyclists are law abiding and it is people like him that give them a bad name. That’s unfortunate for the majority and the ones who stray over the limit and need to be made more aware of their behaviour. Excessive speeds like this are for the racetrack not the highway and this shows we are willing to go all the way to ensure that people slow down and stop endangering life. We will not hesitate to use this and other speed detection devices to ensure people realise they cannot speed. It’s a small price to pay for Mr. Harris, if it saves a life. People who lose loved ones because of speeding pay a much bigger cost.”


Ends

Note to editor:

Lastec 20/20 cameras employ sophisticated and accurate laser video technology. When the camera trigger is squeezed, it emits a rapid stream of tiny and completely harmless laser beams that bounce off passing vehicles and record their speed in 2/5 of a second—less than the blink of an eye.

The equipment is so accurate it can take a reading from just the wing mirror of a targeted moving vehicle, meaning that law-abiding motorists need not fear triggering the beam by mistake. By the same token, speeding motorists will not be able to claim that the beam was affected by another vehicle just in front, behind or at the side of their vehicle.

The cameras operate effectively in poor light conditions, including at night, and also operates in rain without the beam being refracted by water drops.

The equipment is calibrated daily, before and after each time it is switched on and is used by experienced, trained police officers.



Mr Francis Garratt LL.B is Managing Director of Tele-Traffic (UK) Ltd since the company was founded in 1992. Prior to this he has 35 years’ experience as a police officer and for much for that time was involved in traffic policing at all levels up to Chief Superintendent. Tele-Traffic supplies the LTI 20.20 laser speed measuring device and the Lastec Local video system to the UK Police Forces

Mr. Jeremy Dunne is Technical Vice President of Laser Technology Inc., Englewood, Denver, Colorado. He has twenty-year experience with this Company and is regarded as one of the worlds leading experts on pulse laser technology. He has led design teams for all the Laser based devices by the company and particularly the LTI 20.20 SpeedScope.



For more information contact:

Jeremy Forsberg
Communications Manager
Safe Speed for Life
Northumbria Safety Camera Partnership
01670 717 910
07776141475
jeremyforsberg@gateshead.gov.uk