A different angle on road safety

Nigel Burton asks Durham's Chief Constable why he won't be following the Whitehall line.

YOU probably know the feeling. One minute you're driving happily along, the next there's a double flash in the rear view mirror and the realisation sinks in - you've just been caught speeding by a police camera.

On average it happens to 3,750 UK drivers every day. Sadly, after the camera has flashed there's nothing to do but wait for the brown envelope to drop through the letterbox bringing news of a speeding offence, points on your licence and a fine.

Ever since the first one appeared on a busy road in Twickenham 11 years ago, politicians have been in love with speed cameras.

They may cost more than £30,000 each but once it is set up, a camera requires minimal maintenance to go about its job 24 hours-a-day seven days-a-week. The economic argument for speed cameras as opposed to police traffic cars is unassailable. No wonder politicians like them so much.

Although the actual number of cameras stationed on our roads isn't known (it's a statistic the Government doesn't publish) the latest estimate puts the number at somewhere in the region of 5,000. What's more they have been multiplying exponentially; more than 1,000 have been erected in the last year.

The success of a pilot scheme, which allowed police forces to keep money raised from camera fines to fund more speed control measures, has encouraged the Government to press other forces to follow suit. More than 40 have already done so and soon every force in the country will have a so-called "Safety Camera Partnership" - apart from Durham.

For while other Chief Constables have joined the rush to erect more and more static speed cameras, Durham's boss, ex-traffic cop Paul Garvin, says he isn't convinced. He has scrutinised the accident record of every road across Durham's 862 square miles and reckons none would benefit from a static camera.

Instead, he prefers to place his faith in police traffic cars and motorcycles, whose job it is to educate poor drivers rather than rigidly enforce the law. It's the "iron fist in the velvet glove" approach and Mr Garvin, who was born in Gateshead, reckons it works - no matter what the politcians may say.

His stand against the cameras has cast him as an unlikely hero for drivers, motoring organisations and pressure groups urging the Government to think again.

Every morning he enters his office at police headquarters in Durham City to a pile of letters congratulating him on his policy. "You could say it is the biggest topic in my correspondence," he says. "Thankfully, most of the letters and emails are positive. It's good to know people think I'm talking common sense."

But not every one, it seems.

Earlier this year the Department of Transport published statistics which, it said, backed claims that cameras cut road deaths. Civil servants praised North Wales - where Chief Constable Richard Brunstrom (formerly of Cleveland) supports cameras with evangelical zeal - for cutting road deaths by 13 per cent. This was linked to the tripling of speed camera fines to 53,488 in North Wales.

Officials also pointed to Durham's figures, which showed a jump in road deaths from 27 to 42, as proof that an 'educate not legislate' policy didn't work. They neglected to mention that Durham's figures were still lower than those of North Wales - casting doubt on the conclusion that speed cameras have made Welsh roads safer.

Mr Garvin dismisses the report as "a wonderful jumble of misleading statistics". "The reality," he says, "is that the overall accident rate in our force area is 43 per cent lower and remains lower than most comparable forces, including North Wales."

This week, however, the Government went further. For the first time a minister actually suggested that Mr Garvin should change his policy.

Road Safety Minister David Jamieson urged him to look again at his stance, adding: "The Chief Constable will have to explain why deaths are rising in this area."

Faced with such outright hostility, Mr Garvin has come out fighting. Does he feel like Durham's David to the Government Goliath? "Not at all, because, at the end of the day, it's my job to do what I think is right for County Durham. When you sit down and examine the facts I think any one would come round to my way of thinking.

"The Department of Transport is mixing up two significant issues - breaking the speed limit and accidents caused by inappropriate speed. It's a fact that in 27 per cent of all injury accidents where drivers were going too fast their vehicle was, in fact, driving within the speed limit.

"Take the driver who travels round a bend at 60mph on an icy morning and skids off into a pedestrian. The accident happened because he was travelling too fast for the conditions but a speed camera on that bend wouldn't have done a thing about it. I think it is ridiculous to suggest speed cameras are the answer to all our speeding problems.

"We should be looking at ways of engineering safety into our roads. Perhaps the Government would be better off ordering immediate work to make the A66 dual carriageway - and thereby preventing many deaths and injuries per year caused by drivers overtaking on an inappropriate stretch of single carriageway - rather than urging me to change my policy?"

Durham does have speed cameras. It operates a number of mobile cameras and 4,000 drivers are caught speeding every year. The advantage of mobile cameras, says Mr Garvin, is the ability to deploy them wherever the problem may be.

Camera critics say the Government's speed camera initiative has failed. They point to figures that show only a modest decline in road deaths despite a four-fold increase in motorists caught on camera.

Even this slight fall in casualties cannot be directly attributed to cameras. Advances in car safety - particularly air bags, door impact bars and anti-lock brakes - are said to have saved more lives and done more to reduce injuries.

Even worse, the reliance on cameras seems to have led to a reduction in the number of traffic patrols. Some forces have even done away with traffic cops altogether.

Between 1996 and 2001, warnings issued to drivers by traffic police more than halved. There was a similar fall in the number of vehicle defect rectification notices issued to motorists driving cars in a dangerous condition. Critics say this means the worst offenders - drivers in untaxed and uninsured death traps - are getting away with it.

And there are signs that motorists aren't prepared to put up with this situation much longer. Some have already mobilised, pulling down or defacing speed cameras. The RAC is also campaigning to rein in the number of cameras.

When he was a rookie traffic policeman Paul Garvin remembers being called to many accidents. The worst he ever saw was a motorcyclist who had driven into an unlit skip. His bike had been travelling at modest speed well within the law. He still died.

"That had nothing to do with speeding," remembers Mr Garvin. "And everything to do with the black visor he was wearing on a dark night. A speed camera wouldn't have saved him - but education probably would."

Motorists everywhere will be hoping the Government is prepared to listen.