Cameras could
be used to catch those ignoring phone and seat belt law
Drivers talking on mobile phones or failing to wear seatbelts
could find themselves tracked down through a widened use
of road surveillance cameras, under proposals due to be floated
in parliament tomorrow. The plans would form part of a major
expansion of camera surveillance which critics say is already
transforming Britain into the most watched country in the
world.
The case for cameras to be focused on people
using mobiles as they drive is made by the independent adviser
to the transport
select committee, Robert Gifford, of the Parliamentary
Advisory
Council for Transport Safety (Pact).
He argues that automatic
number plate recognition (ANPR) technology should be applied
in new
ways to help defray costs
of cameras and to catch offenders. "One of the good
things about ANPR is that people are often multiple offenders
so it would provide useful intelligence," he said. "Those
responsible for 7/7 got to Luton station by car."
Mr
Gifford said expanding the use of technology for tracking
the movements of cars could lead police to people who had
committed other offences in the same way that Al Capone
was eventually caught through his income tax evasion. He
claimed
that for greater safety and "the greater good of society",
most people would be prepared to accept "a slight
reduction of our liberty".
Existing road cameras divide
into two groups: speed cameras, of which there are around
6,000 nationally; and up to 8,000
ANPR cameras which trigger a reaction when wanted, stolen
or cloned number plates or uninsured cars are spotted.
Under the proposal, police would also look out for mobile phone
users and seatbelt offenders. Those arguing in favour of
expanding the cameras cite the continuing death toll on
roads
and the threat of terrorism. In 2004, 3,221 people died
in accidents and 31,130 were seriously injured.
It is also argued
that the cameras bring in essential revenue.
Department of
Transport figures released under the Freedom of Information
Act indicated that total
fine receipts for
speeding and traffic light offences detected by camera
in 2003-04 were £113.5m, of which nearly £92m was "reinvested
in road safety as payments back to ... the police, local
highway authorities and magistrates courts". The Treasury
retained the balance of nearly £22m.
Tomorrow's transport
committee session and a further meeting next week will
examine how far this technology can be expanded
and what use can be made of the data. Evidence will be
presented by bodies representing the police and organisations
that
campaign on road safety.
Any attempt to widen the application
of camera surveillance is likely to be strongly resisted.
Paul
Smith, founder of the Safe Speed campaign which opposes cameras,
said: "Ministers and
senior civil servants are largely being persuaded that
technological interventions
are a good idea by those with a vested interest in the technology.
The sums involved are huge."
Mainstream motoring organisations
also have reservations. Andrew Howard, head of road safety
at the AA Motoring Trust,
believed that current technology was not good enough to implement
the idea properly: "It would be difficult to prove whether
you were holding your mobile phone or scratching your ear."
A
spokeswoman for Liberty said increasing the use of cameras
to catch drivers breaking the law would not be a curb on
their civil liberties. Source: The Guardian
|
