23,000 tickets for speeding motorists in North Yorkshire (From York Press)
Get in touch: send your photos, videos, news & views by texting YORK to 80360 or send an email»
23,000 tickets for speeding motorists in North Yorkshire
9:13am Tuesday 7th June 2011 in News
MORE than 23,000 speeding tickets have been handed out to motorists in North Yorkshire in the space of three years.
Figures released by North Yorkshire Police under the Freedom of Information Act have revealed the number of drivers penalised for breaking the speed limit in the region.
The tally of tickets fell from 8,933 in 2008/09 to 7,911 the following year, with the total for 2010/11 being 6,355, but the force said the fall was partly because more motorists are now taking speed awareness courses as an alternative to the fine. A spokesman said its “hardline” approach to enforcement was paying dividends in keeping the roads safer.
The fixed penalty for being caught speeding is £60, with 23,199 tickets being issued during the three-year period.
Inspector Dave Brown, North Yorkshire Police’s head of strategic roads policing, said: “We use a dual approach of enforcement and education to ensure that people are driving within the law.
“On the enforcement side of things, we take a hard-line approach to motorists putting their own and other people’s lives at risk, which helps to deter other drivers from speeding and driving recklessly.
“We also take a different approach by trying to educate drivers and help them to understand the devastating consequences that speeding can have.
“We use the Speed Awareness Referral Scheme, a nationally recognised court intervention, as an alternative to points or speeding tickets and this has shown effective reductions in reoffending.”
A spokeswoman on behalf of the road safety charity Brake, welcomed the enforcement, but said: “Speeding is one of the biggest killers on UK roads. Drivers who speed aren’t just risking their own lives – they are risking the lives of passengers and other road users. “Brake is urging drivers to take responsibility behind the wheel and to play their part in making our roads safer.”
We have to be aware of speed
SPEED limits are there for a reason: to save lives. Hundreds of people are killed or seriously injured on North Yorkshire’s roads every year. And speeding is a major contributing factor.
It is good, therefore, to see the police taking speeding seriously. Over the past three years, more than 23,000 speeding tickets were handed out in York and North Yorkshire.
This number has been steadily falling in each of the past two years, however – from almost 9,000 in 2008/9 to just 6,355 last year.
If this fall was down to budgets cuts, or officers being too thinly stretched, or the police no longer regarding speeding as a priority, it would be a real cause for concern.
The police, however, insist that this is not the case – and that the falling figures are because more and more motorists are opting to attend a speeding awareness course rather than be fined.
This is a very positive approach to tackling speeding. Motorists often have entrenched attitudes.
They tend to make excuses: “I was only doing 4mph over the limit”; or “the roads were empty”; or even “I’m a safe driver, however fast I’m going”.
Simply fining them does nothing to address this. But sending them on a course where they are forced to confront the possible consequences of their behaviour just may do.
Comments(32)
Even AndyD
says...
9:32am Tue 7 Jun 11
BioLogic
says...
9:35am Tue 7 Jun 11
A higher proportion may have speed as an exacerbating factor but the prime cause of accident is not speed.
So instead of lauding over the fact that NYP have issued 23,000 tickets with no comparison from other forces to measure how high this number is, we should be perhaps asking NYP to do more enforcement with regard to poor driving standards and actually make us safer on the roads, something a few speeding tickets do not do.
york_chap
says...
9:35am Tue 7 Jun 11
yorkshirelad
says...
9:38am Tue 7 Jun 11
I am definitely not convinced by overt enforcement which seems to send the wring message - I think random, hidden enforcement would have a more widespread and lasting effect and result in more speed control with fewer fines (simply because you could get caught anywhere, anytime).
But too often extreme motoring groups (and BBC programmes!) dominate the agenda here when the big majority of the public supports the Police in the work they do to keep the roads safe. We support speed enforcement and keep up the good work!
pedalling paul
says...
10:19am Tue 7 Jun 11
BL2
says...
10:21am Tue 7 Jun 11
Garrowby Turnoff
says...
10:53am Tue 7 Jun 11
redrrr
says...
11:45am Tue 7 Jun 11
UsernameNotAvailable
says...
11:47am Tue 7 Jun 11
Drivers should be fully immersed in reading the road ahead, aware of every potential hazard and be able to stop in the distance they can see. I encounter so many reckless and dangerous drivers every week, only a small percentage are travelling over the 'speed limit'.
Speeding tickets are a lazy (and money-making) way for police to pretend they are interested in making roads safer.
outofspace
says...
12:15pm Tue 7 Jun 11
Poor observation, inattention, failure to judge the other driver's speed etc are all bigger contributing factors in accidents than speed alone, according to government and police research into this issue.
North Yorkshire, despite being one of the last places in the UK to still not have any fixed speed cameras, has some of the safest roads.
One of the craziest decisions was to let local police, councils and courts form "partnerships" which took a cut from the proceeds of speeding fines, which led to a distorted set of priorities that I would argue probably cost at least as many lives as it saved.
At least that madness has been stopped - but it's still at the expense of having proper traffic patrols because it's far cheaper to rely on PC Gatso, who also helps make the crime stats look better than they would otherwise be. This is the whole problem - cameras are good at spotting one kind of infringement, but useless when it comes to all the other ones which require a real human being in a police uniform.
Fred the Shred
says...
12:21pm Tue 7 Jun 11
iving lairily/driving in illegally modified cars/doing makeup and so on whilst the copper did no action over the past five years too. Which is the more dangerous?
pedalling paul
says...
12:36pm Tue 7 Jun 11
NoMorePlease
says...
12:44pm Tue 7 Jun 11
"One of the craziest decisions was to let local police, councils and courts form "partnerships" which took a cut from the proceeds of speeding fines, which led to a distorted set of priorities that I would argue probably cost at least as many lives as it saved."
How does that work then?
outofspace
says...
12:53pm Tue 7 Jun 11
NoMorePlease
says...
1:40pm Tue 7 Jun 11
outofspace wrote:No it does not. You do not give your argument why you think it probably cost as many lives. Just a sweeping statement, what evidence have you?
It works by having hardly any traffic police on the roads to deal with the other 93% of accidents that aren't caused by excessive speed, NoMorePlease. This was explained clearly enough in the rest of the post that you cherry-picked the quote from.
outofspace
says...
3:09pm Tue 7 Jun 11
outofspace
says...
3:15pm Tue 7 Jun 11
outofspace
says...
4:19pm Tue 7 Jun 11
Garrowby Turnoff wrote:And your evidence that 100% of these road deaths were caused by exceeding the speed limit is...?
Speeding is the biggest killer in England today. More people are murdered by speeding than by drugs. More civillians died on North Yorkshire roads (611) in the same period 2002-2010 than servicemen who died in Iraq and Afghanistan (547). The police can save more lives by slowing down cars than chasing criminals up trees. The police should keep on trapping speeders and leave education to groups like '95 Alive' who do a marvellous job.
Shame on you for exploiting people's deaths to promote an agenda, especially one that isn't even working. We've had 20 years of prioritising speed limit infringements above other road traffic offences. Shouldn't we have been seeing some improvements by now?
Garrowby Turnoff
says...
4:24pm Tue 7 Jun 11
outofspace wrote:
And the fact remains that road fatalities were going down by an average of 7% year-on-year from the mid-1960s to the early 1990s, despite a huge increase in traffic over that period. The reductions were attributed to improved road design, improved tyre and brake technology, the clunk-click campaign etc. During this era, Britain enjoyed a reputation for the safest roads in the world. But from 1993 onwards, when the cameras were introduced, the year-on-year improvements levelled off and have remained on a plateau ever since. If the "speed kills" policy is so effective, why haven't things got any better since the early 90s? Where's YOUR evidence that this policy is working?
95 Alive, the York and North Yorkshire road safety partnership, says 47 people died on the roads of York and North Yorkshire in 2009, compared with 52 in 2008 and 80 in 2004 ... the year before 95 Alive was launched-http://www.Where do you get your information?
northyorks.gov.uk/in
dex.aspx?articleid=1
0225
yorkshirelad
says...
5:28pm Tue 7 Jun 11
Anyway of loads of evidence that speed control is effective...try this strory about Oxforshire doing a hasty U-turn on scrapping their speed cameras:
www.bbc.co.uk/news/u
k-england-oxfordshir
e-12928747
The police have majority support for keeping us all safer by their interventions.
gordonump
says...
5:35pm Tue 7 Jun 11
BioLogic
says...
5:46pm Tue 7 Jun 11
yorkshirelad wrote:I'd wondered how long it would take some idiot to roll out this story. It is complete and utter statistical BS. The stats have no merit whatsoever as the period of comparison is too small, the fluctuations in accident numbers over different six month periods are huge. I don't need to go on, if I need to explain it you need to go back to school and learn about statistics!
Tedious isn't it how the speed propaganda swings into action? Watch out for the word 'revenue'...it's a giveaway!
Anyway of loads of evidence that speed control is effective...try this strory about Oxforshire doing a hasty U-turn on scrapping their speed cameras:
www.bbc.co.uk/news/u
k-england-oxfordshir
e-12928747
The police have majority support for keeping us all safer by their interventions.
Garrowby turnoff has also swallowed the same politically inspired made up numbers too. So many people commenting on here have got it spot on. Speed doesn't kill, poor driving does. Sure that can be speed related, but reference to an arbitrary speed limit had no meaning. What is important is was the speed a vehicle was travelling appropriate for the conditions, vehicle and the drivers level of skill. There are people out on the roads that scare the living daylights out of me behind a wheel at any speed. I would prefer to see them dealt with first.
Until we can have a Frank debate about traffic offence enforcement with some real statistics that stand up to scrutiny rather than seudo-facts from special intrest groups (including the police) then road deaths will increase and speed enforcement will do nothing to stop it.
NoMorePlease
says...
6:30pm Tue 7 Jun 11
outofspace wrote:I did not say only speed matters did I. And "whatever mate" is no coherent reply, just a lost-it cop-out.
Whatever, mate. It is perfectly logical that removing trained traffic police from the roads, and relying instead on speed cameras, gives free rein to idiots who don't watch the road, tailgate and drive in other reckless ways. What evidence do you have that only speed matters?
To many people use this as a diversion. All bad driving is wrong, but do not use other bad driving as a diversion from speeding. It plays a primary role or secondary role in many accidents.
Just like idiots who complain about speed cameras raising money, they also reduce speed.
PKH
says...
8:17pm Tue 7 Jun 11
outofspace wrote:I agree with you that poor driving is the cause of most accidents however speed increases the injuries and deaths that
Contrary to the false propaganda put out by pressure groups like Brake, excessive speed is a very long way down the list of "biggest killers" on the road.
Poor observation, inattention, failure to judge the other driver's speed etc are all bigger contributing factors in accidents than speed alone, according to government and police research into this issue.
North Yorkshire, despite being one of the last places in the UK to still not have any fixed speed cameras, has some of the safest roads.
One of the craziest decisions was to let local police, councils and courts form "partnerships" which took a cut from the proceeds of speeding fines, which led to a distorted set of priorities that I would argue probably cost at least as many lives as it saved.
At least that madness has been stopped - but it's still at the expense of having proper traffic patrols because it's far cheaper to rely on PC Gatso, who also helps make the crime stats look better than they would otherwise be. This is the whole problem - cameras are good at spotting one kind of infringement, but useless when it comes to all the other ones which require a real human being in a police uniform.
result from collisions caused by poor driving and inattentive pedestrians etc. I agree we need moor proper traffic patrols to combat poor driving.
Even AndyD
says...
9:28pm Tue 7 Jun 11
Don't want a speeding fine - don't speed, choice is entirely the drivers. Whole thing is just not open to debate imho.
UsernameNotAvailable
says...
12:33pm Wed 8 Jun 11
Even AndyD wrote:I guess I must be one of many 'complete idiots' then.
Speed kills - only an complete idiot could disagree with that. Drive down a terrace street of parked cars at 20mph or 40mph. Child walks out - in which scenario is death more likely - no brainer. Don't want a speeding fine - don't speed, choice is entirely the drivers. Whole thing is just not open to debate imho.
How many speeding tickets are given for people doing 40mph down terraced streets full of parked cars? Police don't care about driving standards in residential areas, it is much easier for them to rake in the fines on trunk roads.
Typical hysterical 'think of the children' propoganda - and I say that as a parent of young children.
Your claim that the issue of speed limits and speeding fines is not open to debate speaks volumes about your levels of intelligence. I'm surprised you didn't finish your paragraph with 'end of' or 'fact'.
BioLogic
says...
6:44pm Wed 8 Jun 11
Even AndyD wrote:You have missed the point. Speed doesn't kill it exacerbates the situation, increasing the risk of a fatality. In the instance you have described there must be an action by the child running out to create the risk of an accident in the first place.
Speed kills - only an complete idiot could disagree with that. Drive down a terrace street of parked cars at 20mph or 40mph. Child walks out - in which scenario is death more likely - no brainer.
Don't want a speeding fine - don't speed, choice is entirely the drivers. Whole thing is just not open to debate imho.
Username is bang on anyway, speed enforcement does not occur in urban streets and many of the villages around York have unenforceable speed limits due to incorrect signage (Wistow, Kelfield, Stillingfleet, Riccall all have illegally posted speed limits) so this argument doesn't wash.
Speed enforcement in most urban areas is almost impossible anyway (due to legal restrictions on how speed enforcement can be done) however driving standards are easily enforced in these areas.
So no it's not open to debate, speed enforcement is a failure at reducing accident rates as are speed cameras which have had no significant effect in reducing accidents at their sites (in some cases accident rates have been found to increase).
Even AndyD
says...
9:13am Thu 9 Jun 11
UsernameNotAvailable wrote:Not hysterical propaganda at all. I was using and extreme example to prove a point; that speed is inherently dangerous. As for levels of intelligence, what on earth is that all about? I've a degree, do you want me to scan my certificate in before I post next time? Love the irony - you claim intellectual high ground and finish off your post with a personal attack.
Even AndyD wrote:I guess I must be one of many 'complete idiots' then.
Speed kills - only an complete idiot could disagree with that. Drive down a terrace street of parked cars at 20mph or 40mph. Child walks out - in which scenario is death more likely - no brainer. Don't want a speeding fine - don't speed, choice is entirely the drivers. Whole thing is just not open to debate imho.
How many speeding tickets are given for people doing 40mph down terraced streets full of parked cars? Police don't care about driving standards in residential areas, it is much easier for them to rake in the fines on trunk roads.
Typical hysterical 'think of the children' propoganda - and I say that as a parent of young children.
Your claim that the issue of speed limits and speeding fines is not open to debate speaks volumes about your levels of intelligence. I'm surprised you didn't finish your paragraph with 'end of' or 'fact'.
Even AndyD
says...
9:20am Thu 9 Jun 11
s aside, I just personally feel we have a duty to obey the motoring laws, to consider other people and not selfishly fly through urban areas at excessive speed. If I drive around (say) Bootham, or Poppleton or Copmanthorpe, I do so at 30mph or less. Not because I fear a fine, but because its safer and considerate. If that makes me a 'bleeding heart' or a 'Guardian reading this that or the other' then fine - but its genuinely what I believe.
BioLogic
says...
10:04am Thu 9 Jun 11
Even AndyD wrote:That is fine, and makes much sense, and is clearer that it represents your personal standpoint on speed. Good for you. I take a similar standpoint, where I feel a different speed is appropriate and safe, I will do so (on rural roads motorways etc.)
Biologic - I accept your points on the issues of speed enforcement, I think we are arguing form slightly different points and about different things. All I am saying is speed is a critical factor in terms of road deaths and the limits we see in our towns and cities are there for a reason. Setting police activities/legalitie
s aside, I just personally feel we have a duty to obey the motoring laws, to consider other people and not selfishly fly through urban areas at excessive speed. If I drive around (say) Bootham, or Poppleton or Copmanthorpe, I do so at 30mph or less. Not because I fear a fine, but because its safer and considerate. If that makes me a 'bleeding heart' or a 'Guardian reading this that or the other' then fine - but its genuinely what I believe.
The issue at question here is speed enforcement and crucially does it work to reduce road deaths.
The statistics would tend to show that in urban areas keeping speeds below 30mph has a big impact on reducing the severity of injuries when accidents occur, but does little to reduce the overall risk of an incident.
For example if a child runs out 10 feet in front of you, whether you are doing 20mph, 30mph or 40mph you are still going to hit that child, it's simple physics, but the speed of impact will affect the level of injury that child receives.
However, very little speed enforcement is now done in urban areas due to the legal practicalities of doing so and the prevalence of 20mph limits (which must be enforced through traffic calming), most speed enforcement is done on rural roads and trunk road/dual-carriagewa
ys.
On these roads, statistically speed has little to do with the reduction in accident numbers, ultimately accidents are down to driver error or mechanical error (speed may be an exacerbating factor but is only the cause in 5% of accidents)
So on these roads speed enforcement does not reduce accident rates and does little to curb road deaths.
Stats from speed cameras are very distorting. of course they reduce speeds at the speed camera locations, however they are so rarely sited at "accident blackspots" anymore as originally intended but in a nearby location within a specified radius, so have little impact on the blackspot itself, plus they do not address the real reasons why a blackspot exists in the first place.
When you make comparisons on year on year data, accounting for variations due to normal standard deviation at or near speed camera sites, they have no real effect on accident rates.
Organisations like Brake make sweeping causal links between the reduction in accident rates since the introduction of fixed speed cameras and say they must be working. But this is junk maths which takes no account of the other changes in vehicle design, road design and weather conditions. It also takes no account of other factors that affect driving standards like changes to driving tests and immigration patterns (people moving into this country from areas of the world with different / lower driving standards)
This leads people to the conclusion that speed cameras can only serve to generate revenue. I believe that those that operate them genuinely believe their own hype and that they do not view them as a revenue generating tool. But ultimately they serve little other purpose.
The only effective tool for reduction of road deaths is police officers on patrol on our roads. A trained eye can see so much more and the fabled "policemans nose" can see a dodgy car or driver from many factors even if they are inside the speed limit at a certain point.
Even AndyD
says...
12:32pm Thu 9 Jun 11
my_two_peneth says...
9:29am Tue 7 Jun 11