A new species of forest is sprouting throughout Britain, but there's not a branch or a leaf in sight, and they're positively enraging the natives. Claire Bowen reports.
It's the invasion of the speed cameras and motorists are so unhappy that some have decided to take positive action.
They have set them alight, beaten the living daylights out of them and even taken pot-shots at them. But to no avail.
The spread of this metal street furniture started in response to an anti-speeding campaign. It seemed worthy enough but, when cameras were erected at non-accident blackspot sites and on brand-new dual carriageways, the public began to suspect that the cash from fines was going into the coffers of the local police forces.
In their dirty grey livery, they blended with the scenery and the first knowledge a driver had of the hidden eye was a flash of light. Motorists fought against this "big brother" scenario, claiming that, if the Gatsos were meant to be a speed deterrent rather than a police money box, they should be clearly seen. So they were painted bright yellow.
Then another secretive breed developed - the mobile camera. White vans were popping up all over the place housing speed detection machinery. Many of these unmarked vans were badly parked and the required warning signs weren't always as obvious as they should have been.
And there have been cases of mistaken identity too including one recently in the West Country where fake number plates were fixed to a speeding car in another part of the country. The owner of the "speeding car" was contacted by the police but he had proof that he was not behind the wheel. But he was surprised that the police hadn't spotted that the vehicle bearing his number plate was a BMW while his car was a Rover 45.
Speed cameras were the brain child of Dutch rally driver Maurice Gatsonides. They first appeared in Britain over 11 years ago but it has only been in the past three years that their growth has spiralled.
The main reason is the introduction of agencies - known as safety camera partnerships - to operate the collection of speeding fines and free the police for other crime detection. Money raised from fines is ploughed into maintaining and erecting even more cameras at almost £35,000 each, with the remainder going to the Treasury.
Safety camera partnerships, which work with the police, local authorities and courts, started in 2000 as a pilot scheme in eight areas. Now there are 42 agencies nationwide and some 4,500 Gatsos bringing in annual revenue in excess of £100 million from speeding fines. In August 2001 Transport Minister John Spellar said that cameras were not to be used for revenue generation by local authorities, but as a deterrent against excessive speeding: "Cameras are there to change driver behaviour not to catch motorists and raise revenue."
According to a study earlier this year by University College London for the National Safety Camera Liaison, the body which represents the partnerships, they have had the desired effect. The number of people killed and seriously injured on roads where cameras are located has dropped 35 per cent, while speed at all sites fell by 10 per cent. Some parts of the country saw accidents reduced by 67 per cent.
Despite this, many motorists feel angered by the epidemic of cameras - in a recent poll 71 per cent of respondents believed they were there to raise revenue and 56 per cent saying there were too many cameras. Only 21 per cent said they were there for road safety reasons.
Speeding tickets have grown to such a level that it's now almost normal to have points on your licence. In 2001 1.4 million tickets were dished out to drivers caught in the traps with nine out of 10 fines issued automatically by fixed cameras. Now one in six drivers has accumulated points and, thanks to the totting-up procedure, many motorists have been disqualified. The Home Office expects the figure to rise by 30 per cent next year.
What is worrying most people is that those being caught by cameras are responsible drivers who are normally law-abiding citizens and have never had an accident.
"Accident figures show younger male drivers cause more accidents," says Edmund King, executive director of the RAC Foundation which campaigns on behalf of the motorist. "However, it's the middle-aged professionals between 45 and 54 who are being caught by the cameras. People being caught are not the ones causing the accidents."
"There also seems to be a clear correlation between the amount of time someone spends on the road and the likelihood of them having a speeding conviction," he says. "Such is the growth in the number of speed cameras on Britain's roads that the chances of being caught by one are increased for high mileage drivers.
"We had 1.2 million convictions for speeding last year and that's expected to grow substantially again this year - clearly the threat of a fine and penalty points is no longer acting as a deterrent. That's why it's vital that we actually change attitudes towards speed and consequently driver behaviour."
King has some advice for our Minister for Transport, Seamus Brennan. "I think it will be very important for the Irish authorities to take the people with them on the implementation of their anti-speeding project. The situation has got out of control in parts of England and Wales because some of the partnerships appeared more intent on bringing in revenue than enhancing road safety.
"In Strathclyde they put up relatively few but well-targeted cameras, whereas in Essex it was more of a scatter-gun approach with more cameras. In Strathclyde accidents were reduced whereas in Essex they went up."
King wants the authorities to explain in detail why cameras are introduced in specific areas. Cameras should not be a substitute for traffic police, he says.
The leading British motoring magazine, Autocar, and the RAC Foundation have joined forces to set up the Talking Sense on Speed Campaign. They would like to see more driver training for offenders rather than fines.
"Speed cameras are a £150 million failure," says Autocar editor Steve Sutcliffe. "They don't deter drivers from speeding, they are remarkably unsuccessful at saving lives and they may well cause accidents of their own. Their presence has meant the removal of police from our roads, so thousands of serious driving offences now go undetected."
The absence of police on the roads means more drunk drivers, insurance cheats and drugged drivers go undetected making roads more dangerous. It's claimed that the average running costs of one-speed camera would pay the salary of three policemen.
An organisation called Safe Speed also thinks that speed cameras are dangerous. "We agree with speed limits and that inappropriate speed can be extremely dangerous," says Paul Smith from Scotland who founded the organisation. "We call for improved driving standards. Speed cameras are distracting drivers, keeping local authorities from improving roads and distracting the police from their roles."
The story of a woman who was booked twice in six minutes on the same stretch of road triggered his interest in the speed camera campaign. Since then, the former electronics engineer has has done 4,000 hours of research on the subject and has come to the conclusion that speed cameras are wrong.
There is no evidence to show that speed cameras save lives, says Smith. Instead they alter what drivers pay attention to and instead of keeping their eyes on the road, they spend valuable seconds looking for speed cameras, speed limit signs and checking their speed.
He also has a few words of advice for us: "Don't import a failed English system - it's also failed in Australia, Norway and Sweden."
USEFUL LINKS:
www.safespeed.org.uk
www.speed-trap.co.uk
www.nationalsafetycameras.co.uk