August 12th, 2008

Find me a Cash Cow

Posted in The Job - General by 200

I came across the below set of figures recently. Just have a quick scan through & see if you can guess what the figures represent. Notice that most forces’ figure has risen in the last 10 years (that figures were available) while only a small number have gone down.

Force 1997 2006
Avon & Somerset £291,760 £3,156,360
Bedfordshire £348,000 £2,904,420
Cambridgeshire £593,480 £1,230,120
Cheshire £431,400 £1,714,200
Cleveland £129,560 £1,142,640
Cumbria £195,280 £1,921,380
Derbyshire £697,520 1,187,840
Devon & Cornwall £2,446,000 £2,549,220
Dorset £446,880 £3,095,940
Durham £128,520 £169,020
Essex £1,844,920 £3,642,300
Gloucestershire £250,400 £804,360
Greater Manchester £2,195,760 £3,616,920
Hampshire £1,098,400 £2,964,240
Hertfordshire £704,160 £4,908,300
Humberside £389,400 £2,203,080
Kent £1,148,240 £2,830,740
Lancashire £952,520 £3,471,480
Leicestershire £232,480 £1,476,360
Lincolnshire £263,520 £1,545,000
City of London £20,800 £365,340
Merseyside £472,320 £1,982,400
Metropolitan £1,807,520 £6,148,920
Norfolk £192,200 £1,499,100
Northamptonshire £148,880 £2,534,520
Northumbria £1,024,120 £3,112,800
North Yorkshire £475,160 £375,480
Nottinghamshire £185,000 £2,574,960
South Yorkshire £1,562,480 £3,088,920
Staffordshire £902,080 £3,049,380
Suffolk £290,840 £2,066,520
Surrey £213,600 £2,371,200
Sussex £1,004.960 £2,881,620
Thames Valley £2,131,400 £8,238,720
Warwickshire £74,280 £1,818,960
West Mercia £615,680 £2,772,780
West Midlands £375,120 £2,669,820
West Yorkshire £964,120 £2,791,680
Wiltshire ££453,200 £3,087,480
Dyfed Powys £268,320 £63,240
Gwent £210,520 £31,860
North Wales £365,840 £3,569,460
South Wales £889,080 £1,992,480
Total £28,510,120 £106,404,720

I suppose a lot of you have you guessed & it won’t be surprise to those who didn’t that the figures represent the amount of income generated by speed cameras.

Note that some ‘incomes’ have gone up by ten times or more. Only North Yorkshire, Dyfed Powys & Gwent have gone down.

This is all grist to the mill of those who criticise speed cameras. i.e. most motorists. The debate continues on how much use speed cameras are for increasing safety & reducing road deaths.

I remain smug in the knowledge that I’ve not contributed a single penny to the above coffers (in direct fines, I accept that my taxes go to provide & maintain the equipment & adminsitrative staff & processes to run the things).

One thing is sure, whether you think it’s good or bad that so much money is now being raised through speed fines, it’s the police who will get the rough end of the criticism stick. “Haven’t you got anything better to do,?” “picking on the motorist again”, despite the fact that the police officers have little or nothing to do with speed cameras, the people who maintain & administrate them just happen to live in the same building.

If I get some time I’ll try & find out how many people have been saved & not injured because we are fining more motorists. It might make a good project for a winter’s evening some time.

You can leave a comment, or trackback from your own site. RSS 2.0


  1. Civ_In_The_City says:

    You`ll usually hear the excuse “If it saves only one life, it will all have been worth it”. That`s far far too simplistic and lets in all kinds of abuses. I even heard someone say “we have to disguise them otherwise people see them and slow down”.

    They tackle only one element of bad or illegal driving, which happens to be the only one that can be automatically measured by a computer so it`s cheap to police.

    The government likes cheap, no-skills required policing. Treat the public like dummies and police them like dummies too.

    Instead fit ANPR to all speed cameras and concentrate on pulling over untaxed or uninsured drivers, who are usually wanted on warrant for something else anyway.

    An untaxed and uninsured car is likely to be badly maintained and unroadworthy, driven by someone who doesn`t take any notice of any other laws or rules of decent behaviour, might be drunk or on drugs.

    And they might be driving down your cul-de-sac while your kids or grandkids are playing in the street.

    Speed cameras aren`t much use to you then.

    August 13th, 2008 at 19:29

  2. Reactively Proactive says:

    I used to find it amusing that people suddenly slowed for speed cameras but was happy in the thought that it meant they were going slower through areas with traditionally higher accident rates. That was until a couple of months ago when a motorcyclist from a different county saw a camera late and instinctively braked heavily. The driver behind him wasn’t expecting it and ran into him killing him instantly. To me, speed cameras are now as hazardess as having nothing at all but whilst they make so much money, the government won’t find a better way of actually reducing road related accidents (and I use accidents instead of collisions intentionally).

    August 13th, 2008 at 22:25

  3. TunaSunrise says:

    Speed cameras ARE more hazardous – you tell me: when you see a camera, where do your eyes go next? Back to the road, or to your speedometer? And if you’re over the limit, even by just a little bit, do you check your mirrors before you brake? Or do you just stamp on the pedal?

    August 14th, 2008 at 12:37

  4. Altercatino says:

    Alienation of the middle classes. You need the patience of a saint to be a traffic officer and constantly listen to the above gripes.

    If you don’t want to get fined, don’t speed :)

    August 14th, 2008 at 14:44

  5. TunaSunrise says:

    I’ve never been caught by a camera yet, and I don’t intend to be – I won’t pretend I’ve never broken the speed limit, but I tend to drive within a few mph either side of it as a general rule (it’s surprising how you get used to it after a while, although the tailgaters can be annoying). However, I still take my eyes off the road whenever I see a camera.

    It’s not a gripe, just an observation – I don’t think they contribute to road safety as much as some would proclaim.

    August 14th, 2008 at 17:03

  6. Plodnomore says:

    You don’t make it clear whether the increased sums for speeding fines have been taken into account – if they have increased by some such percent in the ten years then the sum raised would have increased by the same amount for the same number of offences. Personally I think that there is a place for speed cameras but it’s these Revenue Raising Devices in vans hidden behind bushes on bridges over motorways, hidden in horseboxes or parked on double yellow lines in order to catch people exceeding the speed limit which really gets up my nose. I was sitting in a courtroom listening to a not guilty plea for speeding, caught by a camera, and the defendant kept referring to the van as mentioned above – Revenue Raising Device – and was threatened with contempt of court unless he refrained. His defence was well researched, his questions to the prosecution were intelligent and informative and he ended up running rings around the four – FOUR! – prosecution witnesses. He got off! I’m not saying how as I took notes and may need to use the same defence, whereas if I mention it here, someone from one of the partnerships may take note and ensure this defence is eradicated. These camera don’t catch uninsured, disqualified or drunken drivers or stolen vehicles and there is no doubt there are more of them on the road than there are ‘dangerous’ speeders.

    August 14th, 2008 at 20:05

Leave a comment