Police double speed camera van fleet to target danger motorists

Fleet of North Yorkshire Police speed camera vans to double

Fleet of North Yorkshire Police speed camera vans to double

First published in News
Last updated

THE number of safety camera vans operating on the roads of England’s biggest county is set to double as police step up an initiative against rogue motorists.

North Yorkshire has more than 9,000kms of roads – one of the biggest networks in the country – and 51 people died on those roads last year, a 60 per cent jump on the previous 12 months.

Now the executive board of the county’s police force has given the green light to a package of measures to address road safety.

It includes doubling the number of safety camera vans from three to six following research showing the county has fewer enforcement resources compared with other similar-sized areas.

They will come into service next spring and will be used to tackle a whole range of anti-social road use, including speeding, dangerous behaviour and use of mobile phones whilst driving.

Their location will be based on police data on accident blackspots, and in response to requests from local communities where speeding is a proven problem.

The package of measures also includes the development of a community speed watch scheme together with enhanced training and education for road users.

Deputy Chief Constable Tim Madgwick said: "Road safety is a challenging and complex issue, and we need to tackle it in a range of ways.

“More enforcement is an effective approach, so it is great news that we will soon have more mobile safety camera vans to deploy in safety hotspots, but this alone won't solve the problem.

“Many road-users don't think of themselves as anti-social so they continue to take risks until they are involved in a collision, and tragically we have seen a number of serious incidents recently where people have lost their lives.”

The move follows a survey by the county’s police and crime commissioner, Julia Mulligan, which shows the vast majority or residents – 80 per cent – felt road safety was a serious concern.

“I hope that the activities we have announced today will make a significant contribution to reducing fatalities, injuries and anti-social behaviour on our roads,” said Mrs Mulligan.

"By approving the proposals we have increased North Yorkshire Police's capacity for enforcement to bring it into line with that of other comparable Forces - but I would also like to call upon the region's drivers, bikers and cyclists to play their part, and help us to keep the roads safe for everyone."

Comments (8)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

4:21pm Tue 29 Jul 14

behonest says...

I'd prefer to see more police resources used to catch thugs like the one from Hartlepool who very seriously assaulted two young men in the town the other night. Rather than yet more revenue-raising police measures, used against motorists.
I'd prefer to see more police resources used to catch thugs like the one from Hartlepool who very seriously assaulted two young men in the town the other night. Rather than yet more revenue-raising police measures, used against motorists. behonest
  • Score: 21

6:49pm Tue 29 Jul 14

stevegg says...

When frontline policing is being cut its a pity North Yorks police doesnt double resources into tackling hardened criminals instead of doubling resources that affect largely law abiding citizens. I know several people who have recieved speeding points on their licences who drive all over the country and guess which county they all got their points in (and the points were in all cases about 10mph above the limit)! One way of alienating more and more public and generating money. Well done N.Yorks police!
When frontline policing is being cut its a pity North Yorks police doesnt double resources into tackling hardened criminals instead of doubling resources that affect largely law abiding citizens. I know several people who have recieved speeding points on their licences who drive all over the country and guess which county they all got their points in (and the points were in all cases about 10mph above the limit)! One way of alienating more and more public and generating money. Well done N.Yorks police! stevegg
  • Score: 9

7:24pm Tue 29 Jul 14

bishop1 says...

90mph down a pretty empty stretch of motorway / dual carriageway is obviously far more dangerous than burglars , robbers etc .
90mph down a pretty empty stretch of motorway / dual carriageway is obviously far more dangerous than burglars , robbers etc . bishop1
  • Score: 4

9:53pm Tue 29 Jul 14

tomtopper says...

It makes me laugh... They say its about safety rather than money, yet allow motorists to continue driving in the manner they deem so unsafe until they receive notification through the post a fortnight later.. And that only makes sense if it's all about revenue..
It makes me laugh... They say its about safety rather than money, yet allow motorists to continue driving in the manner they deem so unsafe until they receive notification through the post a fortnight later.. And that only makes sense if it's all about revenue.. tomtopper
  • Score: 2

10:20pm Tue 29 Jul 14

Keith Peat says...

As an ex cop, prosecutor and 1st class advanced police driver and motorcyclist I can verify that 'speeding'- to exceed an arbitrary and unscientifically set, by non experts and politicians, number on a pole- cannot actually cause anything to happen. I can also verify that most speeding is caused by an inappropriately set limit, or enticing road layout or both. This is likely where we have high offender sites without the accompanying crashes to go with it. If these were accidents, would police just pitch up with cameras and take pictures or find out why and sort it?

So isn't prosecution also important for those involved? If there are high offender sites without crashes then there is something wrong at the site. Don't let's just mercenarily let it go on and take the money, find out why. It is worsened when those entrapped are offered a let off for payment of a course. Any payment not to a court, and often to a limited company for reduction of penalty is pure corruption and no incentive to correct the problem. You want dishonesty? These cameras only measure speed so why spin that into 'Safety Cameras' they cannot measure safety. It's the language of the snake oil salesmen. That it is police using it is appalling. www.driversunion.co
As an ex cop, prosecutor and 1st class advanced police driver and motorcyclist I can verify that 'speeding'- to exceed an arbitrary and unscientifically set, by non experts and politicians, number on a pole- cannot actually cause anything to happen. I can also verify that most speeding is caused by an inappropriately set limit, or enticing road layout or both. This is likely where we have high offender sites without the accompanying crashes to go with it. If these were accidents, would police just pitch up with cameras and take pictures or find out why and sort it? So isn't prosecution also important for those involved? If there are high offender sites without crashes then there is something wrong at the site. Don't let's just mercenarily let it go on and take the money, find out why. It is worsened when those entrapped are offered a let off for payment of a course. Any payment not to a court, and often to a limited company for reduction of penalty is pure corruption and no incentive to correct the problem. You want dishonesty? These cameras only measure speed so why spin that into 'Safety Cameras' they cannot measure safety. It's the language of the snake oil salesmen. That it is police using it is appalling. www.driversunion.co Keith Peat
  • Score: 3

1:37pm Thu 31 Jul 14

Nige460 says...

Whilst I agree with speed limits for certain locations and sites, I drive all over North Yorkshire daily in the course of my job, and I regularly see these "safety camera" vans in the locations they choose weekly. (and publish beforehand - but not with dates and times which thus seems a bit pointless but there you go, only to be expected).

In my opinion they are primarily there to raise funds and cause hassle in peoples daily lives who are going about their business, a lot of people whose various taxes actually pay for the roads and police in the first place!

I have never seen a van in what would appear to be a genuinely dangerous location. A prime example, there is often a van early/mid evening on the A170 between Thirsk and Helmsley on a good stretch of road with a 60 mph limit. At that time of night there is very little traffic around and thus very little potential for an accident, in fact I don't think there will ever have been a serious incident there, and if someone is exceeding the limit by a few mph on the road on their own I honestly cannot see the harm.

I must commend Keith Peats' comments re the use of "safety" and the possibility of payments to a limited company, I hadn't thought of those additional points before on this issue, they are a spot on analysis!
Whilst I agree with speed limits for certain locations and sites, I drive all over North Yorkshire daily in the course of my job, and I regularly see these "safety camera" vans in the locations they choose weekly. (and publish beforehand - but not with dates and times which thus seems a bit pointless but there you go, only to be expected). In my opinion they are primarily there to raise funds and cause hassle in peoples daily lives who are going about their business, a lot of people whose various taxes actually pay for the roads and police in the first place! I have never seen a van in what would appear to be a genuinely dangerous location. A prime example, there is often a van early/mid evening on the A170 between Thirsk and Helmsley on a good stretch of road with a 60 mph limit. At that time of night there is very little traffic around and thus very little potential for an accident, in fact I don't think there will ever have been a serious incident there, and if someone is exceeding the limit by a few mph on the road on their own I honestly cannot see the harm. I must commend Keith Peats' comments re the use of "safety" and the possibility of payments to a limited company, I hadn't thought of those additional points before on this issue, they are a spot on analysis! Nige460
  • Score: 2

1:38pm Thu 31 Jul 14

Nige460 says...

tomtopper wrote:
It makes me laugh... They say its about safety rather than money, yet allow motorists to continue driving in the manner they deem so unsafe until they receive notification through the post a fortnight later.. And that only makes sense if it's all about revenue..
Great point!
[quote][p][bold]tomtopper[/bold] wrote: It makes me laugh... They say its about safety rather than money, yet allow motorists to continue driving in the manner they deem so unsafe until they receive notification through the post a fortnight later.. And that only makes sense if it's all about revenue..[/p][/quote]Great point! Nige460
  • Score: 0

11:54pm Fri 1 Aug 14

besafeoutthere says...

Nige460 wrote:
Whilst I agree with speed limits for certain locations and sites, I drive all over North Yorkshire daily in the course of my job, and I regularly see these "safety camera" vans in the locations they choose weekly. (and publish beforehand - but not with dates and times which thus seems a bit pointless but there you go, only to be expected).

In my opinion they are primarily there to raise funds and cause hassle in peoples daily lives who are going about their business, a lot of people whose various taxes actually pay for the roads and police in the first place!

I have never seen a van in what would appear to be a genuinely dangerous location. A prime example, there is often a van early/mid evening on the A170 between Thirsk and Helmsley on a good stretch of road with a 60 mph limit. At that time of night there is very little traffic around and thus very little potential for an accident, in fact I don't think there will ever have been a serious incident there, and if someone is exceeding the limit by a few mph on the road on their own I honestly cannot see the harm.

I must commend Keith Peats' comments re the use of "safety" and the possibility of payments to a limited company, I hadn't thought of those additional points before on this issue, they are a spot on analysis!
and there is no speed limit signs or camera warning signs what so ever on a170. money money money.
[quote][p][bold]Nige460[/bold] wrote: Whilst I agree with speed limits for certain locations and sites, I drive all over North Yorkshire daily in the course of my job, and I regularly see these "safety camera" vans in the locations they choose weekly. (and publish beforehand - but not with dates and times which thus seems a bit pointless but there you go, only to be expected). In my opinion they are primarily there to raise funds and cause hassle in peoples daily lives who are going about their business, a lot of people whose various taxes actually pay for the roads and police in the first place! I have never seen a van in what would appear to be a genuinely dangerous location. A prime example, there is often a van early/mid evening on the A170 between Thirsk and Helmsley on a good stretch of road with a 60 mph limit. At that time of night there is very little traffic around and thus very little potential for an accident, in fact I don't think there will ever have been a serious incident there, and if someone is exceeding the limit by a few mph on the road on their own I honestly cannot see the harm. I must commend Keith Peats' comments re the use of "safety" and the possibility of payments to a limited company, I hadn't thought of those additional points before on this issue, they are a spot on analysis![/p][/quote]and there is no speed limit signs or camera warning signs what so ever on a170. money money money. besafeoutthere
  • Score: 0

Comments are closed on this article.

Send us your news, pictures and videos

Most read stories

Local Info

Enter your postcode, town or place name

About cookies

We want you to enjoy your visit to our website. That's why we use cookies to enhance your experience. By staying on our website you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more about the cookies we use.

I agree