|
Thank you for your letter of 5 October enclosing a paper produced by a constituent concerning human rights and speed enforcement. I share your constituent's concern about vehicle speeds but I do not accept that speed limit policies and enforcement contravene the Human Rights Act. I would like to assure your constituent that this Department's speed related safety policies are designed with vulnerable road users in mind and we are effective at reducing vehicle speeds and therefore the risk of accidents. We will continue to develop policies to achieve safe appropriate vehicle speeds to ensure our roads are safe for all road users. Recently published figures show that 3221 people were killed and a further 31130 seriously injured on our roads in 2004. Whilst this is the lowest number of road deaths since records began over 70 years ago, these figures remain unacceptably high. Analysis of casualty statistics in Great Britain has shown excessive speed to be a contributory factor in 28% of all collisions which result in a fatality. Clearly increased compliance with speed limits, as part of a wider package of road safety measures, will play a significant role in reducing the number of accidents on our roads. No firm evidence exists one way or the other on whether or not hidden cameras obtain better casualty reduction results than highly visible cameras. I would stress, however, that if drivers are not made aware of the presence of cameras they might not adjust their speeds accordingly so severely limiting any road safety benefits. Therefore, on balance, I believe that making cameras visible is the right way forward. Outside of the safety camera programme the police can enforce speed limits covertly and do so in a number of ways. The law requires only that the speed limit be properly signed. While the guidelines on deployment are based on identified speed related accidents and casualties, there is limited scope within the scheme to allow for placement of cameras at sites that do not meet the guidelines. For example there may be public concern about motorists driving too fast through a village or past a school, despite the fact that there has not been a casualty problem. In such circumstances the partnership might decide to enforce either temporarily or infrequently with cameras to allay local concern. Your constituent refers to the digital camera SPECS system that measures the speed of vehicles between two fixed points and can cover large distances. These are usually suited to urban high-speed roads with serious accident histories. This is just one of several approved and effective camera systems that local authorities and the police may use and it is a local operational matter to decide which is appropriate in each case. The law does not stipulate that speed enforcement must be carried out by a police officer. However, it is an operational matter for individual chief officers of police to decide whether or not to use civilians to undertake speed enforcement duties. My understanding is that most forces do not support the use of civilians for these purposes. The Association of Chief Officers of Police (ACPO) are aware that the public expect that such duties be carried out only by uniformed officers. As the primary purpose of placing safety cameras is to save lives and reduce injuries, it would not be helpful if local authorities or the police appeared to gain financial advantage from the scheme. If fine revenue was directed towards the implementation of alternative road safety measures, this could leave the scheme open to accusations of cameras being placed solely to raise revenue. The present rules ensure that those who place cameras have no incentive to do so other than for road safety reasons. However, there are arguments for expanding the current scheme to allow revenue from fixed penalty fines to be used for measures other than cameras that can be used to combat speeding. These raise a number of issues that would need to considered carefully before decisions are taken. The issue of compensation claims for vulnerable roads users involved in accidents with drivers is an issue for individual insurance companies and is not something in which this Department would become involved with. The implication of your constituent's suggestion is that drivers involved in an accident would have to prove that they were not negligent. This goes against the fundamental prinicple of UK law which states that an individual is innocent until proven guilty. I am not keen to see this principle compromised. I acknowledge there are concerns from vulnerable road users about overtaking vehicles. However it would be impossible to enforce a strict distance of 1m for overtaking. The Highway Code has an entire section devoted to road users requiring extra care. Drivers should heed this advice at all times. Repeater signs on street lit 30mph roads is a difficult issue to resolve. Consistency is required in order to make repeater signs on street lit 30mph roads enforceable. To place repeater signs on some roads and not others may confuse drivers and compromise enforcement. This is a view shared by the police and the Magistrates Aasociation. We would have to place repeater signs on every single street lit 30mph road to ensure consistency. This has substantial cost implications. I would much rather this money was spent on proven traffic calming measures at sites where there is a history of speed related accidents. |