Cameras net £130,000 in town over three years

FEWER motorists are being caught by speed cameras in Bolton, but they still brought in more than £130,000 in three years, new figures reveal.

And the town’s hotspot camera locations have been identified, after a Freedom of Information request by The Bolton News.

A total of 2,220 drivers were hit with a £60 fine and three penalty points on their licence between 2009 and 2011, but the numbers caught are falling.

In 2009, 863 motorists received a fixed penalty and the total revenue was £51,780.

The following year, 773 motorists were caught and the revenue was £46,380.

In 2011, 584 drivers were fined and the revenue amounted to £35,040.

The biggest revenue-maker was the camera in Bury Road, near Torridon Road, Breightmet, which made £16,500 in 2009.

Other hotspots include Manchester Road, near Teak Drive, Kearsley, which made £10,200 in 2011, and Chorley New Road at the junction of Lindsay Street, Horwich, which made £9,240.

The lowest revenue makers have also been revealed.

The camera at Newbrook Road, Over Hulton, caught just two motorists in 2010, making just £120.

And the one at Chorley Road, near Wimberry Hill Road, Westhoughton, caught three in 2009, making £180.

Inspector Philip Bromley, of the Road Policing Unit, said: “It is good news to see that the number of motorists exceeding the speed limits at these locations has reduced. “I know many people see these devices as revenue raisers, but it is about changing driver behaviour and making motorists realise that speeding is dangerous.

“Drivers need to remember that they are not the only road users, and there are many unexpected things that can happen in front of you when you are travelling along a road.

“Driving within the speed limit, and also at an appropriate speed for the road conditions, will give more time and distance to react to hazards and reduce the chance of a fatality or serious injury if a collision does occur."

Hugh German, of Bolton Advanced Motorists, said: “Most people seem to think it is a form of revenue.

“I don’t think that is the main purpose of them. People often drive too quickly in restricted areas.

“But I think since the price of fuel has gone up, it has affected people’s speed. People are doing less journeys and driving more economically.

“If people take one of our advanced courses, they will learn how to drive more economically.

“It is encouraging that the figures have got lower, but it is still too many and people need to be more observant of the speed limit.”

He added: “You will notice on St Peter’s Way, drivers will slow down for the camera, then speed up, and slow down for the next camera. That is not a good thing to do from any point of view.”

Comments (5)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

9:46am Mon 7 Jan 13

oftbewildered2 says...

nice to see that numbers are falling - but this is not about revenue. This is about people being fined for breaking motoring law by speeding. Nobody writes about Courts making revenue from the fines they impose, so what is the difference? I suppose the cameras and the process of imposing the fines take up some of the monies anyway.
nice to see that numbers are falling - but this is not about revenue. This is about people being fined for breaking motoring law by speeding. Nobody writes about Courts making revenue from the fines they impose, so what is the difference? I suppose the cameras and the process of imposing the fines take up some of the monies anyway. oftbewildered2

12:30pm Mon 7 Jan 13

brian jones says...

The difference is that if you go to court, you are allowed to defend yourself. If you get a N I P from a speed camera, you either pay up, or have to go to the bother and stress of going to court to defend yourself. Are you assuming that the camera never lies? You would be wrong in that assumption. I have had a N I P from a speed camera when I knew I wasn't speeding. It's not a simple as asking them to drop it, you know. I had to await a summons and then plead not guilty before I was even allowed to see the evidence. It was only at that stage that they admitted they'd targetted a telegraph pole (which was allegedly doing 39 in a 30)and not my car. How many people would just pay up without question? And how many people would be brave enough to risk a day in court?
The difference is that if you go to court, you are allowed to defend yourself. If you get a N I P from a speed camera, you either pay up, or have to go to the bother and stress of going to court to defend yourself. Are you assuming that the camera never lies? You would be wrong in that assumption. I have had a N I P from a speed camera when I knew I wasn't speeding. It's not a simple as asking them to drop it, you know. I had to await a summons and then plead not guilty before I was even allowed to see the evidence. It was only at that stage that they admitted they'd targetted a telegraph pole (which was allegedly doing 39 in a 30)and not my car. How many people would just pay up without question? And how many people would be brave enough to risk a day in court? brian jones

1:20pm Mon 7 Jan 13

oftbewildered2 says...

brian jones wrote:
The difference is that if you go to court, you are allowed to defend yourself. If you get a N I P from a speed camera, you either pay up, or have to go to the bother and stress of going to court to defend yourself. Are you assuming that the camera never lies? You would be wrong in that assumption. I have had a N I P from a speed camera when I knew I wasn't speeding. It's not a simple as asking them to drop it, you know. I had to await a summons and then plead not guilty before I was even allowed to see the evidence. It was only at that stage that they admitted they'd targetted a telegraph pole (which was allegedly doing 39 in a 30)and not my car. How many people would just pay up without question? And how many people would be brave enough to risk a day in court?
don't disagree with what you have said here - I was just trying to say that this is not 'income' (ie a money making racket pure and simple). Evidence is not always what it seems, be it camera or eye witnesses etc. - this I agree too.
[quote][p][bold]brian jones[/bold] wrote: The difference is that if you go to court, you are allowed to defend yourself. If you get a N I P from a speed camera, you either pay up, or have to go to the bother and stress of going to court to defend yourself. Are you assuming that the camera never lies? You would be wrong in that assumption. I have had a N I P from a speed camera when I knew I wasn't speeding. It's not a simple as asking them to drop it, you know. I had to await a summons and then plead not guilty before I was even allowed to see the evidence. It was only at that stage that they admitted they'd targetted a telegraph pole (which was allegedly doing 39 in a 30)and not my car. How many people would just pay up without question? And how many people would be brave enough to risk a day in court?[/p][/quote]don't disagree with what you have said here - I was just trying to say that this is not 'income' (ie a money making racket pure and simple). Evidence is not always what it seems, be it camera or eye witnesses etc. - this I agree too. oftbewildered2

6:54pm Mon 7 Jan 13

Beyond News Forum says...

You mean cars are actually speeding over the pothole infested roads of Bolton?

You guys are funny!
You mean cars are actually speeding over the pothole infested roads of Bolton? You guys are funny! Beyond News Forum

9:55pm Mon 7 Jan 13

boltonnut says...

I'd be embarresed to admit a telephone pole was faster than my car,just joking.Glad you got off.
I'd be embarresed to admit a telephone pole was faster than my car,just joking.Glad you got off. boltonnut

Comments are closed on this article.

click2find

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