Help Sitemap Home Skip Navigation Contact Us Disability Statement

 
 
Tuesday, 14th October 2008

Premium Article !

Your account has been frozen. For your available options click the below button.

Options

Premium Article !

To read this article in full you must have registered and have a Premium Content Subscription with the n/a site.

Subscribe

Registered Article !

To read this article in full you must be registered with the site.

Drivers pay out £1.7m for speed courses



Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image

Published Date: 27 May 2008
Drivers paid out £1.7m in one year after being caught speeding in Lancashire.
The money, paid in fees for speed awareness courses is in addition to the fines levied by speed cameras – which last year exceeded £3.4m.

Now drivers' groups are angry over what they see as police profiting from the scheme.

The latest available figures were unveiled under the Freedom of Information Act, and show that 19,453 speed awareness courses were taken in 2005/6.

The total income from the courses was £1,764,745. It cost £1,607,862 to run the courses, leaving a surplus of £157,063.

The course, which runs over one day, is a direct alternative to prosecution for marginally exceeding speed limits and drivers are referred to the scheme by Lancashire Police.

The courses, which cost each driver around £90 and are run by Lancashire Road Safety Group, are offered in place of the usual £60 fine and three points.

A spokesman for Lancashire police denied the force was profiting from the schemes.

He said: "This money is purely admin costs. If someone gets caught speeding and chooses to take a speed awareness course there is an administration cost for us to process that.

"Lancashire Constabulary does not make any money out of it – nobody does. The scheme runs to break even."

However, a spokesman for the Association of British Drivers said: "It is an excuse for topping up the coffers. We would like to see a body to monitor these activities.

"We are not against the courses but these things chase the wrong people. A lot of accidents that involve speeding also involve drink and drugs.

"Speed has been a factor but they have lost control of the vehicle due to other factors."

Captain Gatso, campaign director of motorist action group Motorists Against Detection, said: "The ill-fated speed camera programme is nothing but a money maker for the government, police and the local authorities.

"The only people who benefit apart from the above are the technology companies that sell and maintain them.

"Get the cops back out on the road!"

The full article contains 360 words and appears in n/a newspaper.
Page 1 of 1

  • Last Updated: 27 May 2008 9:19 AM
  • Source: n/a
  • Location: Preston
 
Prev
1
2
1

yimitier,

27/05/2008 16:52:55
Finally accurate figures at last! Obviously £157,063 is a little bit more than "break even!" figure. I wouldn't mind it as a yearly salary! The £35,000 paid back for false prosecutions doesn't event dent this!!!
The accompanying figures to those printed show that over 24,000 cases were reported to the courts for failing to name or non payment of FPNs. The published court figures, also available under the freedom of information, show just over 2,000 cases! Where are the others? Nearly £3,000,000 in fines and 72,000 penalty points gone missing!!! Didn't the IPCC spot these? Or weren't they allowed to look?
The police spokesman claims administration costs! He doesn't say that they get paid TWICE (£127,000 each time) for the same job! Once through the partnership by classing them as FPNs on their accounts and again from Lancashire County Council as a speed awareness supplier!!!
It might not be classed as a profit but Speed camera revenue also pays for "Operation Gemini" investigations, relating to cloned vehicles. You are asked to supply 4 photographs to prove the identity of your vehicle because the stolen vehicle squad hasn't enough money to send somebody round to check your vehicle!!!! The partnership used to charge the public a tenner a photograph as"administration" charges, so you could identify a driver. I make that a charge from "the public" to the stolen vehicle squad of £40.00 for doing their work!!! Send in your bills to Blackburn CTO plus your administration charges postage etc.
All these administration charges have helped the partnership to inflate their claim from the Government under the netting off process for years!!!
No money in it for the police? I don't think so! Milking the cash cow for all it's worth! Ever been had???
2

Jacquie R,

Broughton 27/05/2008 18:37:20
If you look at the figures given the administration costs work out at about £8.10 per case. When I went on my course I felt the extra £30 was less than the money I would have had to pay, for my increased insurance premiums, over the following 5 years had the points gone on my license
3

yimitier,

27/05/2008 19:01:45
Jaquie R, You have missed the point! The extra charges paid to the police are not allowed under the netting off process! The profit made should not have been made and the course cost should have been even cheaper!
Private speed awareness providers, despite charging VAT, are cheaper! Lancashire County Council is non VAT registered,(Claiming to be educational!) yet still more expensive.Without double payments The profit made by Lancashire County Council would have have been £300,00!! Making it even cheaper to the public. Without VAT the Council make even more profit!
A.T.B.
4

yimitier,

27/05/2008 19:57:11
Just an after thought! The police charges are fixed at £2.26 per offer! The figures DO NOT ADD UP! The police charge for EACH OFFER made, not each course taken! If only one offer was taken up, the police would still receive over £250,000 and Lancashire County Council would only receive £90.00 for the one course! The rest of the money would have to be paid from your Council Tax! Still seems like a good deal?
5

Beau,

Lancaster 28/05/2008 10:18:31
It's courses on getting us out of our cars that we need!
6

,

28/05/2008 21:44:05
Comment Reported Unsuitable By User
7

Dexter R,

Preston 29/05/2008 18:51:46
Whats the matter Yimitier, did I hit a nerve or was I a little close to the truth with my comments
8

yimitier,

30/05/2008 21:11:45
Dexter, What comments?
YOU'RE NOT DEXTER OFF THE TV SERIES ARE YOU?
9

Dexter R,

Preston 31/05/2008 13:59:51
The comments you asked to be removed as someone finally challenged your rantings.
10

yimitier,

31/05/2008 15:20:16
Sorry Dexter,
I haven't even seen your comments! Not me who requested their removal! I believe in freedom of speech! I am always ready to answer criticism with facts! Put in a complaint about their removal, I will support!
Prev
1
2

 

Comment on this Story

 

In order to post comments you must Register or Sign In

 
 
 
  

 
 


Sister Newspapers:
Press Complaints Commission

This website and its associated newspaper adheres to the Press Complaints Commission’s Code of Practice. If you have a complaint about editorial content which relates to inaccuracy or intrusion, then contact the Editor by clicking here.

If you remain dissatisfied with the response provided then you can contact the PCC by clicking here.