Cameras net £130,000 in town over three years
8:47am Monday 7th January 2013 in News
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)
brian jones
says...
12:30pm Mon 7 Jan 13
oftbewildered2
says...
1:20pm Mon 7 Jan 13
brian jones wrote: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.
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?
Beyond News Forum
says...
6:54pm Mon 7 Jan 13
You guys are funny!
boltonnut
says...
9:55pm Mon 7 Jan 13

oftbewildered2 says...
9:46am Mon 7 Jan 13