Issue 124 : August - September 2002
	Customs & Cruisers V-Rod Trike Welsh National Show The Farmyard Party Touring in Russia Speed Debate

The Great Speed Debate

speed The debate on speed and specifically the role of speed cameras in law enforcement is bringing a critical and inevitable issue to the fore - the issue is - what kind of a world do we want to live in? Ian Mutch discusses.

The catalyst that has brought this issue to a head is the government's policy that cameras should be painted brightly so that we can all see them. They must also be removed from places where experience of road accidents does not justify their placement. All manner of objective reasoning is being used to support this move and it isn't all unsound, MAG certainly endorses it. The most important point however is that the government could see that they were pushing people too far too fast and risked alienating majority public support.

The fanatics in the extreme road safety lobby are of course apoplectic about this change in policy which they view as a cop out to those who like going fast.

The dilemma facing politicians is that technology now enables total law enforcement on speed and zero tolerance could be used to ban every motorist in the country tomorrow. The cost of so many cameras would be high but it is technically feasibly if not financially or politically feasible . . . yet.

Engine management devices and the application of universal Intelligent Transport Systems (ITS) could eventually lead to either economically viable zero tolerance or actual speed control of engines to prohibit breaches of the law.

Is this what we want ?

From the perspective of what is currently viewed as the rabid safety lobby the answer is emphatically YES. To be fair - if one's objective is to reduce road accidents by any means possible then that is not an illogical position to adopt.

Those, like Oliver Carston, who is in the vanguard of ITS in this country, have an entirely legitimate viewpoint, given that one accepts their raison d'aitre. ie the unacceptablity of any road casualties justifies any controls on the freedom of the road user, even the ultimate prohibition of private transport.

In moving towards painting cameras bright colours and establishing a set of conditions under which they can be employed, the government is bending to a public backlash against the road safety lobby although they certainly won't admit it.

The rage of the 'foaming mouth' end of the road safety lobby is meanwhil, something wonderful to behold and in engaging lawyers whose abbreviated case is set out in the lower half of this page, they have declared war on all of us irresponsible enough to feel that we can ever 'interpret' speed limits for ourselves.

This debate is real heartland stuff for MAG because it goes beyond the pragmatic argument about what works, to the ethical question of the balance between risk and freedom.

This is the same kind of philosophical territory that the helmet law debate occupied, only this time more people are hot under the collar because more people like going fast than like the wind in their hair.

This also brings us back to the Mullhouse Declaration, already 3 years old and, like the American Declaration of Rights, perennially significant. To remind readers of those words -

'We further caution all governments that to impose unduly on popular freedom is to imperil the respect in which government and the rule of law is held.'

This section of the declaration which related to ITS, drew critical comment at the time as being 'political twoddle.'

How satisfying that we should now see the very manifestation of that 'twoddle' evidenced in a clear policy shift.

I must admit that I am surprised by how quickly the pace of the game has moved, and how swiftly the derided words of the Mullhouse Declaration have been legitimised by recent history.

I can sense Neil Liversidge, the architect of 'Mullhouse,' cheerfully dispensing cutlery to those now queuing at the kitchen door to eat their words.

Let us not be lulled into a false sense of security by this first sign of retreat however. The camera policy shift may reflect no more than a blip in the march of conformity. I suspect that even those who have agreed the change of policy recognise that they have simply moved too fast but not in the wrong direction. The softening up process will continue, the demonisation of speed per se proceeding with the assistance of gruesome images and traumatic tales.

The development of more sophisticated ITS systems will accelerate. There will be gyroscopic elements to accommodate the needs of motorcycles and the arguments will be refined as the public mood is moulded.

Against this seductive ratchet of oppression stand the stout bowmen of liberty - yep that's us - MAG.

MAG drew a line in the sand back in 1973 with the helmet law. We were not prepared to trade certain pleasure for promised safety. As it turned out the safety gains were illusory but leaving that aside, the principle we established is common to the current situation. MAG has sustained a philosophic commitment to principle for 29 years and now the relevance of that stance becomes clearer and hopefully better supported.

MAG has been the voice in the wilderness for so long; will the riders of GB now support us ? 0870 444 8448 - your call.

Transport 2000 challenge camera code in courts

The speed debate is hotting up with road safety groups responding aggressively to the backlash from road user groups like MAG who have argued against the use of cameras as instruments of entrapment and revenue generation and in favour of controls on the siting and design of cameras to encourage road users to slow down at danger spots rather than employing camouflage techniques to raise money . . .

Lawyers acting on behalf of campaign groups Transport 2000 and the Slower Speeds Initiative have written to Transport Minister John Spellar to challenge new guidelines for speed camera partnerships. The groups are hoping to reach an agreement with the Minister but are prepared to take the matter to the courts if necessary.

The guidelines state that cameras must be highly visible to motorists and can only be installed at places where there have been four or more deaths or serious injuries or a very heavy crash history. If sites do not meet the criteria, the Government expects the cameras to be removed.

Vicky Cann, Assistant Director of Transport 2000, said: "The pilot studies showed that where cameras weren't painted yellow, lives were saved and speeds were reduced. The Government is backing away from one of the few transport successes of its first term, seemingly to appease a minority of vociferous motorists."

Paige Mitchell, Co-ordinator of the Slower Speeds Initiative, said: "These rules defeat the whole purpose of the scheme. People will have to die before cameras can be installed. Many communities up and down the country will be refused speed cameras because not enough people have been killed on their stretch of road. Speed cameras should be there to enforce speed limits. Full stop."

Richard Stein of solicitors Leigh Day and Co, acting for the groups, said: "Speed cameras should be used to enforce the criminal law. In which other areas of criminal law enforcement does the Government consider it necessary to always give an offender advance warning that evidence gathering is taking place? Lives and the integrity of the criminal law are being put at risk."

The Letter -

The following is a letter sent to Transport Minister John Spellar MP by Transport 2000

Dear Mr Spellar,

New Speed Camera Partnership Rules -

We act on behalf of Transport 2000 and the Slower Speeds Initiative.

Although there is regrettably still precious little in the public domain, it has recently been reported in the specialist press that your department has prepared and distributed to speed camera partnerships new guidelines that will apply from June . . .

The main features of the new rules appear to be as follows:

All cameras (whether fixed or mobile) must be highly visible. This includes painting camera housings yellow and ensuring they are not hidden behind trees, signs or bushes. Mobile camera operators must wear reflective clothing and use specially marked vehicles. In all cases, signs must be placed before the site and signs may only be placed in areas where cameras are present. The precise locations of all speed cameras will be published.

Cameras will only be installed where strict casualty criteria are met. For example, for fixed sites, it appears that at least 4 killings or serious injuries (KSI) must have happened over a 1km stretch of road in the previous 3 years before a camera may be sited.

Speed limits may not be enforced using any existing, or new, partnership cameras unless it can be shown that these particular siting and visibility requirements are met in all cases.

We note that there has been no attempt to consult any of our organisations on these new rules. No draft rules have ever been published, nor does it appear that your Department intends to do so. In addition, no evidence has yet been published supporting the new approach. This is highly regrettable.

Speed is a major contributory factor in about one-third of all road accidents. This means that each year excessive and inappropriate speed helps to kill around 1,200 people and to injure over 100,000 more. This is far more than any other single contributor to casualties on our roads.

The speed review has confirmed a strong link between vehicle speeds and the risk and severity of collisions. If a pedestrian is hit by a moving car, the likelihood of being killed rises dramatically with a small increase in impact speed.

Drivers often do not take notice of what the limit is, understand the reasons for it, or respect it anyway. They will drive faster down a clear straight road even where limits are set to protect pedestrians and cyclists, especially children. Opinion polls show that causing death by drinking and driving is now regarded as a serious crime, but many people do not regard breaking the speed limit as a criminal act at all.

We must... persuade drivers to behave responsibly all the time, not just when they think they might get caught.

One of the greatest challenges to the Government and the police alike is to change the cultural attitude that regards speeding as a trivial offence. Our efforts to publicise the dangers are being matched by an increase in enforcement, mainly through speed cameras and moves to increase penalties.

Our basic concerns are twofold. First, whether there is any evidence that these new speed camera partnership rules will in fact reduce speed and casualties overall. Second, the fact that the new rules have the practical effect of rendering speed limits (which are part of the criminal law) optional, save where a camera is visible.

Government policy is based on (1) casualty reduction; and (2) speed reduction. It is accepted by all that speed cameras have an important part to play in achieving those policy goals.
Whilst painting cameras yellow may be a useful hint to drivers to slow down at a particular point in the road, the fact is that "motorists tend to slow for cameras and increase their speed once past."
Motorists in partnership areas will therefore be given the message that if they cannot see a camera well ahead, there is no camera and therefore no question of the law enforcement which speed cameras bring. The message is that speeding only matters, and is only an enforcement priority, in particular pinpointed locations where there have been deaths and serious injuries.
This surely gives the false impression that it is the policy of the criminal law, and the Government and police, that speeding is only a matter of concern and enforcement in those locations. It is surely Government and legislative policy (and the reality) that speeding is never safe or to be condoned.
No evidence has been produced that a mandatory and inflexible rule requiring full visibility will not lead to speeding elsewhere and casualty migration onto unmonitored stretches of road.
There are many long stretches of road that are dangerous and have a history of speed related casualties. However, it may not be possible to identify a specific 1 kilometre site with 4 KSIs in the last three years. In such cases, the new rules say partnership cameras will never be available.
Under the revised rules, there is no power to place a camera on a site which is obviously dangerous, but where there have been no deaths or serious injuries as yet. This may be due to pedestrians and cyclists avoiding the area because of its history of speeding.
Speeding is a crime. Parliament has addressed the question, as a matter of legislative policy. Breaking the speed limit is an offence, because speeding operates against the public interest. Speeding is a crime not because of specific danger of specific harm in a specific location, but because of general danger of general harm throughout the road network in general, as we cannot precisely predict where accidents will happen.
By making speeding a strict liability offence, Parliament has decided that speeding is in itself wrong because it massively increases the risks of serious accidents and death on the roads.
Speed limits are not optional, or advisory, nor is it necessary to prove risk of harm before enforcement can take place. Speeding is not a tort, actionable when it gives rise to specific harm. Nor it is a crime which involves an identifiable victim. It is a strict liability crime, because of Parliament's recognition that obedient driving saves lives, across the board.
The effect of the new rules is to shift speed limit enforcement away from attempting to catch speeders and to encourage general compliance with the law to only enforcing speed limits where there is direct proof of harm on previous occasions at a particular place. That is an unlawful fetter on the enforcement of the criminal law. Your approach is a blanket one which rules out any question of speed enforcement using speed cameras save in a particular way and in particular kinds of place.
Your press announcement on 3 December 2001 states that "our aim is not to catch speeding motorists". However, that is precisely the purpose for which speed cameras have been authorised for use by Parliament under the Road Traffic Act 1988. Your approach proceeds on the premise that there is some kind of legitimacy in a speeding motorist not being taken by surprise. That is an approach which is contrary to public policy and the policy of the criminal law. A person who is breaking the criminal law has no legitimate expectation of prior warning before detection.
In what other areas of criminal law enforcement does the Government consider it necessary to always give an offender advance warning that evidence gathering is taking place?
Is it now Government policy that all forms of non-obvious speed enforcement (including the use of unmarked police cars and unmarked radar detection sites) should not now be carriedout? If so, please explain why speed cameras should be treated differently and required always to be visible, as a matter of evidence, logic and principle.
Again, on the basis that visible speed cameras in particular locations can make roads safer at those specific locations, what was the rationale of the Government foreclosing any broader use or potential use of speed cameras for more general speed enforcement? Why was it assumed that if a visible speed camera can be a benefit used in a particular way, all speed cameras can only properly be used in that way and there is no broader benefit from having a broader enforcement approach?

We are anxious to examine the new rules, the rationale, and the evidence. For now, we remain largely in the dark. We hope very much we can engage you in a discourse and avoid the prospect of ultimately having to invite the attention of a Court to the way in which law enforcement is about to change.

Leigh Day & Co.

home | top
StreetBiker is the official publication of the Motorcycle Action Group