5 Speed
85. In 2002 our predecessors on the Transport, Local
Government and the Regions Committee conducted an exhaustive inquiry
into Road Traffic Speed.[73]
We do not wish to conduct that inquiry again; in our view its
conclusions remain valid, and we welcome the fact that many of
its recommendations have been implemented. Accordingly, although
we note that many of our witnesses strongly supported the use
of speed limiters to automatically enforce speed limits,[74]
we have not re-examined this in detail. Nonetheless the treatment
of speeding offences remains important. Most controversy attaches
to the use of cameras to detect speeding motorists, and it is
notable that although fixed cameras first attracted controversy,
there is now a wide spread view that mobile police enforcement
is also somehow "cheating". Certain sections of the
media persist in regarding speeding offences as trivial, and enforcement
of speed limits anywhere other than at high risk sites as a tax
on the otherwise law-abiding public.
86. Speed limits are not arbitrary. As recently as
March 2000 the then Department of Environment, Transport and the
Regions published New Directions in Speed Management: A Review
of Policy. It did not recommend blanket changes in national
speed limits, but recommended revision of guidance on local limits
to achieve appropriate, consistent standards across country. In
other words, speed limits have been recently assessed. It is true
that most readers could suggest places where the speed limit is
inappropriate. However, Dave Sherborne, Road Casualty Reduction
Manager of Leeds City Council, noted that "the vast majority
(over 95%) of the requests for speed limit changes being received
by Highway Authorities are for reductions."[75]
87. It is important to reiterate basic facts and
principles.
- there is a clear relationship
between excessive speed (which may sometimes be within the legal
limit) and the frequency of crashes. The fact that excessive speed
is frequently noted as a contributory factor in crashes, rather
than a precipitating one, does not mean that speeding is unimportant,
or that it has no effect on the severity of the outcome
- there is a direct relationship between the speed
of a vehicle and the severity of injuries. At 40mph, 90% of people
hit by vehicles die, compared to 20% at 30mph (at 20mph it is
just 2.5%).[76]
- the enforcement process allows a significant
margin to ensure that drivers are not convicted because of the
speedometer error or because of inaccuracies in the equipment
used.
Mr Brunstrom told us that the current margin was
10% plus 2 miles an hour; that means that the effective limit
in a 30 miles an hour zone is 35 miles an hour; the effective
limit on a motorway is 79 miles an hour. The Government needs
to publicise more effectively the fact that drivers who receive
automatic penalties for speeding have not committed a minor transgression
but have significantly exceeded the speed limit. For example,
the enforcement threshold means they will have been travelling
at least 35mph in a 30mph zone. This difference is not trivial;
it means the difference between life and death for many of those
involved in collisions. The thresholds for higher speeds are even
more generous.
88. The controversy has risen in part because more
people are being fined for speeding as extra funding has been
provided for enforcement by safety camera partnerships through
the fines levied on offenders themselves. The Government attempted
to reduce this controversy by introducing guidelines to link the
new cameras with safety. Cameras funded by the safety partnership
must be clearly signposted and painted yellow. Although it is
permissible for up to 15 per cent of camera time to be used in
areas where there is local concern, most cameras can only be placed
at the locations where there is a demonstrable safety benefit.
For static sites there must have been at least four collisions
resulting in death or serious injury per kilometre in the last
three calendar years, and eight personal injury collisions (including
the four collisions above) and, outside rush-hour, at least 20%
of drivers must exceed the speed limit.
89. The attempt to make speed cameras more acceptable
through tough guidelines on their use has backfired. It would
have been better to reiterate the simple message that speeding
is dangerous, breaking the speed limit is illegal, and that those
caught speeding would be punished. The difficulty with the
conditions attached to safety partnership cameras is that although
they direct resources to where the safety benefits should be greatest,
in practice the guidelines have reinforced the supposition that
speeding is only really illegal in particular places. Mobile speed
patrols, which, if not funded by the partnerships, need not conform
to guidelines are often now portrayed as an illegitimate means
of law enforcement.
90. Critics considered the guidelines on where cameras
should be sited to be entirely inadequate. Mr Jack Pease gave
the example of his road, in which speeding was common, but the
accident rate was likely to be low because vulnerable road users
had been deterred from using the space.[77]
Others spoke of the difficulties in waiting for a significant
number of deaths and serious injuries to occur before action could
be taken.[78]
91. It is clear that the guidelines have opened up
a debate about whether or not particular cameras are properly
sited. The Government has recently asked each partnership to audit
the siting of its cameras. The overwhelming majority, were found
to conform to the guidelines. The Police Foundation raised a slightly
different issue. It was concerned that information about the locations
of accidents was not sufficiently precise to be sure that cameras
conformed to the guidelines. Their suggestion was for global positioning
satellites to be used to ensure locations were given correctly.
Ensuring that speed cameras are generally located at high risk
sites is a useful way of ensuring that maximum safety benefits
are gained. However, it is more important to devote resources
to road safety than to expensive means of ensuring that each camera
is in a location where exactly the right number of accidents have
taken place on exactly the right length of road in exactly the
right period.
92. The guidelines for use of safety cameras have
had perverse effects. Cameras can only be used if "there
has been a site survey by a road safety engineer and there are
no other obvious, practical measures to improve road safety along
this stretch of road." We cannot think of any other
case where society as a whole is expected to bear the costs of
lawbreaking, and effective law enforcement is only deployed as
a last resort. In addition, camera safety partnerships are prevented
from taking action against speeding traffic by artificial constraints.
These mean that most cameras can only be operated once several
people have been killed or injured. The guidelines must be amended.
93. Some motoring organisations have been particularly
vociferous about the possibility that speed cameras are not being
placed in accordance with the guidelines. The AA Motoring Trust
told us:
Our questions are not accurately answered as to what
the casualty reduction figures actually are for this partnership,
what the revenue has been, why are mobile cameras being used in
the particular way they are being used when we know there is a
revenue shortfall. We do have real concerns. The public is not
completely wrong when it is suspicious about the way these partnerships
are working.[79]
We pressed them to explain what they meant by this.
Eventually we elicited the reply:
We believe that there are cases where the partnerships
are not following the guidelines.[80]
Even so, the Trust was unable to identify any sites
which did not conform to safety camera partnership criteria. Breaking
the speed limit is illegal for good reason, whether or not it
is at a high-risk site. We believe that the criticisms motoring
organisations level at speed enforcement are based on prejudice
and anecdote rather than fact: the organisations create a cycle
of scepticism. Playing back their members' claims that the policies
are not being properly implemented without any check on the facts
gives spurious respectability to unsupported assertions. They
need to produce evidence if they want their case considered seriously
by this Committee.
Signs
94. We do, however have sympathy with those who consider
that speed limits are not always adequately indicated. Our predecessors
recommended that repeater signs should be permitted in 30 mile
an hour zones and that the "derestricted" sign should
be replaced by a sign indicating the speed limit.[81]
The Government rejected this on the grounds that drivers should
be aware of the speed limits, and that different speed limits
were often applied to different types of vehicles, and indicating
a single limit would be misleading.[82]
Nonetheless, although in principle drivers should be aware that
the national speed limits for cars are 70 miles an hour on divided
dual carriageways or motorways, 60 miles an hour on single carriageway
roads and 30 miles an hour where there is street lighting and
there is no other speed signposted, in practice many are not.
This is one case where the Government should recognise the need
to compromise its principles. Speed limits need to be better
signposted. At the very least, speed camera warning signs should
indicate the speed limit in force for cars. The existence of different
speed limits for other vehicles is no excuse not to do this; we
believe professional drivers of buses and HGVs should reasonably
be expected to know when their speed limits are different from
those for cars.
The Government's proposals
95. The road safety proposals Mr Jamieson presented
to us in June contained a number of proposals relating to speed:
- Variable tier fixed penalties
- Driver re-training courses as a court disposal
- Penalty for not identifying driver
- Speed enforcement detection and jamming devices
- Speed exemptions
Variable tier fixed penalties
96. The Government proposed that there should be
a wider range of fixed penalties and that, as a quid pro quo for
enabling higher fixed penalty of six points to be applied in cases
where the speed limit is breached by a wide margin, there should
be circumstances in which the penalty was only two points. We
asked Mr Jamieson to suggest such circumstances. The only example
he could produce was cases where drivers triggered four cameras
in such a short time that they received the penalty notices together,
and had no chance to adjust their behaviour. The Minister admitted
that he was not convinced of the merit of such an example. We
see no clear reason to reduce the penalty for someone who, in
the example given, habitually breaks the speed limits. If there
are special circumstances for doing so, the driver has the option
of appearing in court to explain. Those of our witnesses who commented
on the Government memorandum strongly opposed this proposal.
97. The Government has now published its proposals
for variable penalties. We support the proposal that there
should be a higher fixed penalty for drivers who exceed the speed
limit by 25% plus 6 miles an hour allowing for speedometer error.
98. The consultation document also suggests that
lower penalties should apply "at speeds below the speed limit,
plus 12.5%, plus 6 mph (to allow for the technical limitations
of speedometers)." In practical terms this means enforcement
would be as follows: Table
2: Proposed Government penalties for speeding
| Lower penalty -
2 points and £40 fine
| Standard penalty -
3 points and £60 fine
| Higher Penalty -
6 points and £100 fine
|
| Speed
(mph)
| Speed up to and including
(mph)
| Speed
(mph)
| Speed at or above (mph)
|
| 20 |
No lower penalty for speeding in 20 mph zone
| Up to and including 31 mph
| 32 |
| 30 |
39 | 40 - 44
| 45 |
| 40 |
50 | 51 - 56
| 57 |
| 50 |
61 | 62 - 69
| 70 |
| 60 |
72 | 73 - 81
| 82 |
| 70 |
83 | 84 - 93
| 94 |
99. Although the consultation paper does not indicate why there
is no lower penalty for speeding in a 20 mile an hour zone, we
assume it is because of the strong links between speed and the
severity of injuries in a crash. If so, the same logic must apply
to speeds between 30 and 40 miles an hour, where the severity
of any injury increases dramatically with increases in speed.
Moreover most deaths and injuries to vulnerable road users occur
on built up roads.[83]
We reject outright the Government's suggestion that there should
be lower penalties for speeding in built-up areas or villages.
Exceeding a low speed limit is even more serious than exceeding
a higher speed limit, because it increases so significantly the
risk of death in an accident: 50% of pedestrians hit at 30mph
will live; 90% of pedestrians hit at 40mph will die. We do not
understand how a Government which professes to practice evidence-based
policy-making could even contemplate such a change.
100. In evidence submitted to us long before the
consultation, the Slower Speeds Initiative drew to our attention
the case of "D", a nine-year old boy who was killed
by a speeding driver in a 30 mph residential area. Although the
crash investigation established the driver was travelling at 38
mph when D was hit, there was no prosecution because the enforcement
threshold at that time was in excess of 38 miles per hour. The
Slower Speeds Initiative commented on the apparent lack of understanding
that although the crash might still have occurred if the speed
limit had been observed, there would have been a 50% chance of
D's survival. It also noted that this case suggested "a standard
of behaviour and vigilance [was] expected of the child that was
in effect far higher than that expected of the driver" .[84]
101. Reducing penalties for "minor"
breaches of the speed limit will affect victims in two ways. First
they increase the likelihood that no action will be taken if someone
is killed or injured as a result of such a breach. Secondly, even
if action is taken, the courts will treat the offence less seriously.
The sentencing guidelines already say speed may currently only
be taken into account if it is extremely excessive, despite the
clear links between speed and crash severity. The courts should
consider less dramatic speed infringements as aggravating factors,
and increase penalties and sentences accordingly. This should
be the case even if the Government persists in reducing speeding
penalties.
102. We reject the suggestion that lower penalties
should generally apply to infringements of higher speed limits;
the margins for enforcement are already generous enough. The exception
might be relatively minor speed infringements on motorways where
a lower penalty might be useful in certain clearly limited circumstances.
103. Variable penalties are only meaningful if
speed limits are in fact enforced. The Government's proposals
for lowering some penalties should logically be accompanied by
increased enforcement.
Speed awareness courses
104. Currently, some police forces offer speed awareness
courses to drivers caught speeding, as an alternative to penalty
points. The driver bears the costs of such courses. The Government's
memorandum noted that "the Association of Chief Police Officers
is actively working on a national scheme, designed to ensure consistency
in courses' content and rigour" and indicated that the Government
"shares the view that, appropriately used, speed awareness
training can be an effective way to achieve the objective - people
who learn to stop speeding, and drive or ride safely." [85]
It must be better to ensure that drivers have the opportunity
to change their behaviour before they are disqualified by offering
them suitable training, rather than by simply reducing current
penalties for repeat offenders. We recognise that there could
be administrative difficulties in ensuring that speed awareness
courses were offered to those who would otherwise face disqualification
but this cannot be an insuperable problem. We consider that
more use of speed awareness courses as a police disposal would
be a better means of dealing with speeding than changing the penalty
system to reduce the number of drivers who find themselves facing
disqualification as a result of "totting up" fixed penalties.
Driver re-training courses as a court disposal
105. The more that drivers can be educated to
understand the effects of their speed the better. We therefore
support the Government's proposal "to make provision for
magistrates to offer approved driver re-training courses to the
more serious speed offenders which come to court, in return for
a reduction in disqualification or penalty points", as long
as the courses are more rigorous than those offered as police
disposals.
Penalty for not identifying driver
106. We support the proposal to bring the penalties
for failing to identify who was driving a vehicle in line with
those for speeding. The Government should ensure that the penalty
for failing to identify the driver is never lower than that for
the offence in question.
Speed enforcement detection and jamming devices
107. The Government is proposing to ban the sale
of devices which would jam speed cameras, or identify which cameras
were in use. We asked the Minister why the ban did not extend
to ban mapping devices which showed the locations of speed camera
casings, rather than whether or not particular cameras were active.
We were not entirely convinced by his response:
having a piece of equipment, either on the website
or having a map showing where they are, I think is a good thing
because those are the very places where we want people to be particularly
careful about the speed at which they are travelling.[86]
The location of speed cameras casings is a matter
of public record, although using an electronic device to check
the location of speed cameras while driving could be dangerous
in itself. We strongly support Mr Jamieson's proposal that
devices which detect or jam live speed cameras should be banned.
Maps and devices showing camera locations repeat information which
is already publicly available, but enforcement agencies should
ensure they take action against motorists whose driving is impaired
when they try to use a mapping device.
Speed exemptions
108. The Ambulance Service Association draw attention
to the difficulties caused by the inconsistent application of
the term "ambulance purposes" for traffic law exemptions,
particularly on fixed penalty notices for speeding and for emergency
driver training on public roads.[87]
The Association also told us that
although all NHS Ambulance staff undertake the national
training, drivers with some non-NHS ambulance services do not
have similar training but are permitted, through the 'ambulance
purpose' rules to disregard speed limits and to use blue lights
and audible warnings.[88]
The British School of Motoring also stressed that
those given exemptions from the speed limit should have proper
training.[89]
109. The Government memorandum notes
39. At present, only vehicles used by the emergency
services (fire brigade, police and ambulances) are permitted to
exceed speed limits. It would be desirable to extend this exemption
to a limited number of other vehicles when used in an emergency,
particularly hospital vehicles which are not classed as ambulances,
including those used for blood donor purposes or transporting
organs for transplant. The proposal could also include Army bomb
disposal vehicles not accompanied by a police escort and Customs
officers carrying out police functions.
40. The current proposal relates to speed limits,
but it would seem logical for similar exemptions to apply in respect
of traffic lights and pedestrian crossings. The Department is
giving further consideration to this issue, but would welcome
views.
41. The complexities of the issue would make
it difficult to amend the primary legislation to encompass all
the requirements. We are therefore seeking an enabling power under
which the Secretary of State would make an Order containing provisions
about the types of vehicle which must be used and the conditions
under which they must be used (e.g. driver training, livery and
lighting).
110. Changes in the way in which medical services
are provided, and indeed even in what is medically possible, mean
that the current definition of "ambulance services"
is inadequate. There are other emergency functions, such as bomb
disposal, which are not adequately defined in current legislation.
Since the medical and other emergency services are not adequately
covered by the definitions in the current legislation, we support
the proposal to allow the Secretary of State to grant exemptions
from the law relating to speed on a case by case basis. When such
exemptions are granted, the drivers of the vehicles must be adequately
trained, and the vehicles must be clearly marked and have emergency
lights. The Highway Code must make clear how other drivers should
respond when all emergency vehicles approach.
111. ACPO, the Home Office and the Health service
have agreed a national protocol to ensure that ambulance services
do not have to waste resources challenging such notice. We trust
that this proves effective and is applied to other emergency vehicles
as necessary. The Government might also wish to consider whether
it would be possible to allow some emergency driver training to
be undertaken on public roads.
73 Ninth Report of Session 2001-02, HC 557-I Back
74
see, for example, TLE 08, TLE 10, TLE 12, TLE 17, TLE 20, TLE
47 Back
75
TLE 32 Back
76
Department for Transport, Managing Speed on our Roads Back
77
TLE 01 Back
78
Qq 155, 380, TLE 18, TLE 20 Back
79
Q 221 Back
80
Q 225 Back
81
Road Traffic Speed, para 79 Back
82
The Government's Response to the Transport, Local Government
and the Regions Committee's Report on Road Traffic Speed,
Cm 5621, pp. 14-15 Back
83
Road Casualties in Great Britain 2002: Annual Report, Table 24 Back
84
TLE 20 Back
85
TLE 63 Back
86
Q 577 Back
87
TLE 61 Back
88
TLE 61 Back
89
TLE 61 Back
| 
