A traffic lawyer has criticised “greedy councils and lazy police forces” for corrupting the original reason for introducing speed cameras to reduce road accidents.
On the 25th anniversary of the introduction of the Gatso speed camera, solicitor Nick Freeman said their primary purpose was now purely as revenue generating machines.
He said: “A quarter of a century ago, speed cameras were introduced as a noble cause to reduce accidents at notorious black spots.
“However, they were soon hijacked by greedy councils who quickly appreciated their true worth, namely the ability to raise huge sums of money from the unsuspecting motorist.
“Over the past 25 years we have witnessed them being unravelled the length and breadth of the county.
“While it is commendable to make our roads safer and reduce accidents, this should never be at the expense or alternative to trained police officers, in marked cars, patrolling our roads.
“This reliance on robotical policing by static cameras has resulted in a litany of other driving offences, such as drink and drug driving and the illegal use of mobile phones, going largely undetected by absent police officers.
“The truth is police forces and local authorities have sold their soul for money.”
Alan stringfellow - 09/02/2017 08:45
I'm surprised that Nick Freemen is being used as a reference for something he knows little or nothing about. While he has made a living from them by charging 10 or 20 times the going rate to 'unsuspecting celebrity drivers' he has no access to information on the deployment and implementation of speed cameras operated by local councils and the police. Why does he think that driver's should be entitled to have police officers on every corner to threaten drivers into compliance with a well-known traffic law and who does he think would pay for that when drivers should police themselves and do what is right and safe. You don't see much of Freeman in court these days because even half-witted celebrities realise that he costs too much and the alternative is more sensible and a cheaper option. You don't see him much in the news with great court victories because the CPS have his methods sussed. What a shame a responsible and respected industry publication has turned to a celebrity for inane commentary.