It is difficult to think of many things that have 'enjoyed' such a consistently poor reputation amongst Britain's drivers as speed cameras since their introduction.
They appear to be universally maligned by drivers, frustrated at what they see as being devices to raise revenue rather than save lives and reduce the number of casualties on our roads.
There can be little doubt however that speed cameras are capable of playing a significant part in reducing the number of accidents and casualties on Britain's roads.
All of the motoring public would surely support any measure designed to improve road safety? The problem is that there is a gap between the perception of what speed cameras are for (and what they actually do), and the reality of the situation.
The only way that this gap will be bridged is if local authorities publish data that shows how accidents and casualties have been reduced in areas where speed cameras are in operation.
The Government has published proposals that would require local authorities to do exactly that.
From April 2011, local authorities will be required to publish information showing how the number of road accidents and casualties has been affected by the presence of speed cameras for speed enforcement and how many motorists have been prosecuted for alleged offending at individual enforcement sites.
We understand that a working group involving the police, Local Authority Officers, The Department for Transport and Highways Agency will progress the implementation details during the next three months ready for the commencement of the programme in April.
The Motoring Offences team at Blake Lapthorn feels that these new proposals are exactly what are required to solve the problem.
On one level, the legal process, which requires individuals to comply with strict rules when using the roads, must command the respect of those required to act in accordance with those rules.
If the argument for speed cameras as a method of law enforcement is that they save lives then motorists must be told why a speed camera is where it is and how successful it has actually been in achieving its stated purpose if they are to have confidence in the 'system' and if trust is to be maintained.
The cameras are supposed to be 'safety' cameras after all.
It must also be the case, as a matter of simple fairness that the motoring public is entitled to see how its money (taxpayers' money) is being spent by those charged with making our roads safer.
If they have no impact in a particular area then why are they there? If they have been properly located then this will not be an issue that need concern local authorities.
We cannot see that speed cameras will ever be the complete solution.
Improved driver training, better signage and junction improvements all have their part to play.
However, so do speed cameras.
The Government has now given the local authorities of this country a golden opportunity to gain the trust and confidence of the motoring public when it comes to speed cameras and even possibly win the arguments about their role once and for all.
The gap between perception and reality could yet be bridged.
It is to be hoped that local authorities take full advantage.
They appear to be universally maligned by drivers, frustrated at what they see as being devices to raise revenue rather than save lives and reduce the number of casualties on our roads.
There can be little doubt however that speed cameras are capable of playing a significant part in reducing the number of accidents and casualties on Britain's roads.
All of the motoring public would surely support any measure designed to improve road safety? The problem is that there is a gap between the perception of what speed cameras are for (and what they actually do), and the reality of the situation.
The only way that this gap will be bridged is if local authorities publish data that shows how accidents and casualties have been reduced in areas where speed cameras are in operation.
The Government has published proposals that would require local authorities to do exactly that.
From April 2011, local authorities will be required to publish information showing how the number of road accidents and casualties has been affected by the presence of speed cameras for speed enforcement and how many motorists have been prosecuted for alleged offending at individual enforcement sites.
We understand that a working group involving the police, Local Authority Officers, The Department for Transport and Highways Agency will progress the implementation details during the next three months ready for the commencement of the programme in April.
The Motoring Offences team at Blake Lapthorn feels that these new proposals are exactly what are required to solve the problem.
On one level, the legal process, which requires individuals to comply with strict rules when using the roads, must command the respect of those required to act in accordance with those rules.
If the argument for speed cameras as a method of law enforcement is that they save lives then motorists must be told why a speed camera is where it is and how successful it has actually been in achieving its stated purpose if they are to have confidence in the 'system' and if trust is to be maintained.
The cameras are supposed to be 'safety' cameras after all.
It must also be the case, as a matter of simple fairness that the motoring public is entitled to see how its money (taxpayers' money) is being spent by those charged with making our roads safer.
If they have no impact in a particular area then why are they there? If they have been properly located then this will not be an issue that need concern local authorities.
We cannot see that speed cameras will ever be the complete solution.
Improved driver training, better signage and junction improvements all have their part to play.
However, so do speed cameras.
The Government has now given the local authorities of this country a golden opportunity to gain the trust and confidence of the motoring public when it comes to speed cameras and even possibly win the arguments about their role once and for all.
The gap between perception and reality could yet be bridged.
It is to be hoped that local authorities take full advantage.