printer friendly version

Speed cameras and police/public relations

Necklacing, bombings, shootings and targeted violent assaults – it sounds like the experiences in South Africa during the darkest years of apartheid. But this is happening in the relatively docile areas of the English West Midlands, among other parts of the UK. Throw in the addition of chainsaw attacks, arson, packaged firecrackers, and ramming with vehicles and it has the ingredients for an American movie. But these activities are not being directed against people – they are being directed against speed cameras in the streets of the UK situated in scenic areas such as Warwickshire, Herefordshire, Worcestershire, Northumbria and Lancashire.

Why has a largely law-abiding UK public reacted so violently to speed cameras? Key to this response has been a feeling that cameras are being used as a way to generate additional revenue for Government and local councils rather than as standard police practice to create a safer and healthier society. The perception has gone so far that some people refer to it as 'stealth taxation'. These feelings are exaggerated when police claim to be attempting to reduce deaths but sites noted for accidents are ignored while those gaining maximum revenue from passing motorists are favoured for camera placement. Sudden braking in areas around camera sites where people see the cameras at the last moment and slam their brakes on is also seen to increase the chance of accidents in these areas rather than reducing it. That much of the money gained from fines does not go into ensuring the improvement of local policing makes this even more aggravating for local citizens, and allegations of reduced policing on the roads to counteract what people see as more serious offences creates the perception that the largely law abiding public are being picked on and victimised. Other cameras used by the police and positioned on the road, such as those for number plate recognition and traffic control, have remained largely untouched.

Picking on the cameras

The vandalism of speed cameras is being done by a small minority of the population. However, what is more telling is that the usually conscientious UK population is not typically on the side of the police in this respect. A Royal Automobile Club (RAC) survey indicated that fewer than one in four passing drivers would contact police after witnessing an offence aimed at damaging speed cameras.

A brewery boss became so angry after being caught by speed cameras that he has named one of his ales 'Highway Robbery' in protest, with a camera dressed in the traditional dress of a highwayman on the label. Sales of the beer are reportedly good.

Indeed, cameras are criminalising an increasing proportion of the UK population - the RAC has indicated figures show that 13,5 million drivers break speed limits each day. Ticketing rates rose from 1,1 to 1,5 million between 2001 and 2002 and are likely to be appreciably higher by now. According to research done by Brunel University, 54% of those drivers prosecuted for speeding did not know what the prevailing speed limit was at the time.

Rank-and-file police have attacked speed cameras, indicating that they are responsible for destroying the relationship between officers and law-abiding citizens. The police in the UK hold great store in maintaining a relationship with the public and this relationship is responsible for eliciting cooperation in dealing with crime and public order in a far broader context.

The need for speed

There is obviously a need to balance acceptable speed limits and safety needs. Speed cameras have reduced accident rates, fatalities and speed generally in a number of designated high accident areas. Support for cameras by relatives of accident victims is passionate at times.

According to an AA Motoring Trust spokesman, three quarters of drivers still support speed cameras but the way they are being used has been causing growing concern. Public reaction has led to a difference in the perspectives of the police. Recently, Britain's most senior policeman, Sir John Stevens, the Metropolitan Police Commissioner, has criticised the use of speed cameras as revenue generation devices. He notes that he has instructed his traffic chiefs to ensure that cameras are only placed at locations where there is a record of accidents due to bad driving and where speed cameras could play a part in reducing the likelihood of this occurring. He goes on to note that he wants his policing to target the 'dangerous drivers, the road hogs, and the menaces who are driving unlicensed and uninsured'.

An RAC executive director similarly notes that there is a role for camera enforcement at traffic lights and proven accident sites. There appears to be some general acknowledgement that this emphasis in policy is coming through. Also, in my personal discussions with a security executive in the UK recently, he noted that he had seen a revision in policy in his area with cameras being relocated in dangerous or known accident spots.

Courses for horses

Many of the arguments that arise in the UK will resonate with South Africans. Some of the same dynamics exist here as those experienced in the UK. While we have a strong focus that 'speed kills', those who drive the roads whether in city centres or on the highways connecting them are familiar with a constant state of traffic violations committed almost at will. To be fined for exceeding the speed limit via camera while these other offences continue around you in the same location can be highly frustrating.

I have, however, certainly noticed an increase in the number of times traffic police are stopping people on the side of the road and checking anything from licences and outstanding fines to roadworthiness. I am sure many people would appreciate more traffic presence on the road itself the same way that drivers in the UK would, with fines from offences like speeding contributing to assist this kind of deployment.

Calls for more education, enforced training rather than fines, and more human discretion in policing process are all aspects that have come up in the UK that are of similar benefit here. My exposure to SA traffic police shows there is an amount of human discretion in evaluating conditions with perceptions of fairer outcomes all round.

There is a further aspect in the UK that perhaps shows their maturity in these matters. Given that cameras are designed to trap offenders in areas which are designated as danger areas or characterised by high levels of accidents, some of the UK police regions are quite happy to publicise these locations. It is possible in the West Midlands, for example, to get a CD detailing every fixed and mobile speed site in the area. Police indicate that the aim of this is to counter criticisms that the main purpose of the device is just to make money. With this goes a strategy to help improve public acceptance of cameras and the need for safe driving conditions.

A recently available commercial satellite-based system provides a similar indication of where cameras are to drivers when they are on the road. The company promotes this as a speed management device when approaching a dangerous area rather than as a way of evading detection. Whether you think such an approach is justified or not, the UK lessons and the focus on police/public partnerships can certainly provide other countries with learning points.

Ironically, while I was in the UK recently, the newspapers reported that a young motorist lost his life after losing control at high speed and accidentally crashing into a speed camera positioned on the side of the road. Speed does kill.

For more information contact Craig Donald, Leaderware, 011 787 7811, craig.donald@leaderware.com, www.leaderware.com

Dr Craig Donald is an industrial psychologist and specialist in human factors in security and CCTV. He is the co-developer of the Surveillance and Monitoring Assessment Exercise (SAMAE) for the selection and placement of CCTV operators and presenter of the CCTV Surveillance Skills training course.

Share this article:

Further reading: