Camera sites “picked to make most money”

Camera sites “picked to make most money”

A city councillor, Sean Chaytor, has claimed that his local Safety Camera Partnership only install speed cameras where they will make the most money.

Mr Chaytor claimed that Safer Roads Humber refused to move a speed camera to an accident blackspot because of the amount of money it made where it was.

He said: “I wonder about the responsibility of this organisation when a former chief superintendent of police in Hull asked about relocating a camera from outside the police station in Clough Road, to an accident blackspot where there had been three serious accidents”.

“The response he got from the safety partnership was, ‘Well it makes enough money where it is, why should we move it?’ They weren’t interested in the casualties, they were interested in the money. This is disgraceful.”

He went on to say that the cameras facing away from the city of Hull only exist only to generate money.

“Daltry Street flyover in Hull is the highest income generating site in the entire fleet area. If it were taking vehicles and slowing them down coming in to the city I could understand it, but it is catching vehicles out of the city.”

Isn’t it refreshing to hear a politician stand up for what’s so obviously right to most people?

Perhaps if there were more like Mr Chaytor in positions of local influence who made a point of speaking up, the menace of speed cameras with the only objective of extracting money from our wallets would be wiped out?



  1. Philip Worlock

    Well what a surprise an organisation putting profit before saving lives!!!

    I was always on the understanding that speed SAFETY cameras were to be installed at a dangerous or accident back spots.

    If a camera is insalled for all the right reasons then so be it, but a least it has been placed at a location to save lives not a anouther form of a stealth tax.

  2. John G Lamb

    I agree,when a former chief super asks, there is something clearly wrong. The reply is disgraceful and it should receive more publicity.
    My father used to say, when cars did not have front brakes, the speed limit was 30 mph.
    I’ve heard all the arguments about more traffic etc.

  3. Philip

    How many other sites are there where a camera is situated to fool the motorist – where the built up aea has ended but the speed is still low? These are favourite sites for mobile camera units! This confirms what speed cameras have always been for – cash cows and not for safety!

  4. robin lee

    Well, think we all know by know speed camera are in most cases money makers for the councils. If you think its bad in this country, I’m just back from a long driving holiday in South Africa and the cameras are far more frequent and underhanded there. Its a no tolerance speed limit with hidden camera’s behind bushes & street signs with the police leaving their car bonnet open to fake a brake down with the camera sitting on a tripod next to the car. Ive spotted them crotched down behind flower stands in the middle road islands. They have also been spotted sitting on some roof gardens. Only difference is the points system hasnt been introduced yet, only fines. So if you go there keep your eyes open, worst one I spotted was coming down a very steep hill to an area called the Wilderness , 60 kph limit which means you have to brake hard to keep under that.

  5. Gerry Foran

    The labour council in derby are fitting traffic control cctv near the intu shopping centre area on london rd derby if you are caught on camera stopping to pick up or drop someone off you get a £50 fine through the post

  6. Peter Bullock

    they bring out laws not just for speed cameras which is disgraceful middle lane hogger’s there’s still loads doing it smoking in cars with children in ??????

  7. Bert Scruggs

    Since this is preaching to the converted being circulated amongst Drive Protect members, perhaps Mr Chaytor won’t mind if this story is run by The Mail, The Telegraph and placed on a Facebook page to go viral ?
    It’s what the vast majority of dozy drivers need – EDUCATION about the true purpose of Safety Camera Partnerships.

  8. Peter Maddock

    Excellent spotting of this callous and unacceptable attitude. It is almost unbelievable that money-making takes precedence over the increased protection of known accident black-spots. This matter should be brought to the attention of the local MP with a demand for action by the Government Minister responsible for Transport, Road Safety, etc.

  9. Rod norman

    No suprise there! I complained to Kent County Council about the name “Road Safety Partnership”. My complaint being they exist not for any matter of “safety” only as a money generating outfit, thus their name was misleading under the trade description act! I didn’t get a reply! I think the wider answer can be gained from USA. Speed cameras are rare, but they make jolly good targets for gun touting drivers!

  10. Dave

    Surely this is not news to anyone who has half a brain!! However for someone to admit is really news. I trust that with this evidence the whole road safety camera partnership system will now be disbanded or perhaps rem=named more accurately as the sneaky stealth tax partnership!!!

  11. Steve

    This camera is obviously not a safety camera it is one of the fast growing Money-making cameras.

    The councils refusal to move it to an accident Black spot is disgraceful, surely this behavior is illegal

    I thought there were certain conditions that had to me met before a camera can be located.

  12. Martyn

    Speed Cameras just to make money? really? Surely not.

    I think only the blinkered and the terminally stupid ever thought anything else.


  13. Dave

    It is about time the camera partnerships and the courts recognise that the fine is nothing to do with safety, it is income only. So how about cameras issue FINES ONLY! and only courts being able to issue points. If the offence is minor enough to be dealt with by a conditional offer it is too minor to attract points. if it is serious enough to attract points then there should be a court case.

  14. Malcolm

    It is no wonder that people are fed up with politicians when attitudes like this are demonstrated. Total lack of awareness by this particular individual but this is not an isolated instance

  15. Terry

    Dave, you’re absolutely spot on about fines only. The reason it’ll never happen is that if they removed the points it would be a de facto admission that their artificially low speed limits had nothing to do with safety.

  16. Keith Dodd

    Taking up on Rod Normans point – if the money making “Road Safety Partnership” were a true Partnership – we should all be entitled to a share of the profit.

  17. tony odowd

    Its a pity we cant get an online petition going saying unless we get these removed we will all withhold council tax payments. it needs to be en mass so the amounts they will lose is frightening to them , hundreds of millions in lost revenue.

  18. Dorothy Brockie

    I work for a Council in London. Recently the Highways department had a meeting to celebrate the amount of money a yellow box junction made. They are now identifying a new site for a box junction, the only consideration being where it’s most likely to catch the greatest number of motorists and generate the most money.

    Councils keep ALL the money from yellow box junctions.

  19. Clive

    The only thing that surprises me is that you are surprised by this revelation. It has been as clear as the nose on my face that this is the truth since the camera idea was first muted.

  20. Steve Haynes

    Is it possible to present this story in a way the reader can add their own comments and then forward them to their own local MP. Perhaps with a list of members of the current transport committee?

  21. Keith

    I was told by an ex police inspector 6 years ago that the camera partner ship wouldn’t put a camera outside a school because where they did place it on a straight stretch of road it would generate far more money for them that is why I have respect for this mafia type extortion operation. Keith

  22. peter

    I am equally incensed by this blatant misuse of ‘safety’ cameras. So many of us complain to each other, but what can really be done to change this fraudulent behaviour?
    A petition to Government sounds a good idea, publicised through Twitter, Facebook etc. Could Adam Blair organise this?? I wonder if the 38 Degrees petition group could be of any help.

  23. Charles

    The person authorising the present location not based on safety but income needs a reward – His/her P45, since this is clearly not a public interest/safety based decision.

  24. kevin

    YOu make very good point about coming into hull that no speed camera. people leaving hull to have a speed camera on a duel carriage where you are about 50 yards befoe the speed limit goes to 60mph it showes thats all there after is making money

  25. robert cook

    total rip off as an earlier comment made earlier if the majority witheld there council tax as a protest something would have to give

  26. Bill Stuart

    Whatever happened to that gentleman with the angle grinder who used to saw down these robbing machines?

    Please come back!

  27. John B

    Hopefully the comment from Keith at 3.58pm had missed the word ‘no’ from between have and respect!

    As stated previously this scandalous money making through the use of speed cameras must be publicised and those making decisions to only place them where they achieve maximum income should be held to public account!

  28. peter owen

    Well Spotted yet again Adam, and renewed confirmation of what we all suspected.

    One further point though is that speed cameras are not capable of reducing accidents by very much even if they were all placed at accident black-spots. According to the DfT’s own data, around 13% of all accidents are caused by speed. Well over 33% are caused by drivers not paying proper attention to other road users or just generally. So the best way of reducing accidents might be to raise awareness of this fact and get people to B—– well PAY ATTENTION!!!

  29. Eric Sharp

    In Lincolnshire we have several money making camera’s. For me the notorious one is on the A17 at the level crossing and junction with the A1121.Driving towards Sleaford on a 60mph stretch of the A17, the 40mph restriction starts just before the level crossing. The camera is sited 20yards or so beyond. If you are not aware it is there or do not see it way before getting there,there is no chance to brake to 40mph before the camera… Over the years this camera must have generated thousands of pounds…

  30. Keith

    Should have put no respect for this mafia type extortion operation can you please edit this for me please. Keith

  31. Ian

    Its time that Councils were forced to publish the full details of every RTI, including official cause the timescale between incidents and average vehicle count used to justify a camera site mobile or fixed. A drunk driver or suicide should not be a valid case for a camera as they do at the moment. But then good road engineering will stop more crashes than any camera ever will. My Council have just installed a camera on a bend which has made the road massively more dangerous.

  32. Mark Holder

    I can’t understand why the British taxpayers tolerate this disgusting behaviour.

    You pay your council tax and that’s what it fund’s.

    Just another act of rip off Britain.

    Needs a JCB to give it a clout!!!!!

  33. Mick

    So Mr. Chaytor confirms the long held popular concensus. So no surprise then. The only surprise is that people continue to speed, continue to get caught out and continue to voluntarily hand over their hard-earned. Regardless of what purpose they claim to they use the cameras for, you are choosing to break the law, and these cameras are catching law breakers. Guess what? You can choose to drive a little slower to avoid a fine.

  34. Derek Mills

    It is the same here in Dorset not one camera is in an accident blackspot they are all in money making locations.

  35. Andy Martin

    Robbing B——–s!
    A refusal to pay council tax is a great idea but who is going to be the first?

  36. Mohammed Nisar

    It’s refreshing to hear a City Councillor owning up to what we all already knew, that safety cameras are actually speed cameras and a cash cow for the Councils. But I was under the impression that speed cameras were ONLY allowed with the permission of the Safety Camera Partnership at accident blackspots where atleast a certain number of people had been killed/injured.

  37. Roy Wilkinson

    The comments made are disgusting but true. Human life means less than money in Hull a sad reflection of the way politicians think today. I am glad I do not live in Hull or have any need to visit

  38. Paul NEMO

    “no one seems to know what can be done about it”
    that is correct and that’s why people nick name me NEMO.
    1. join or form a group in your area who raise issues with the local council IN WRITING.
    2 Ask the question IN WRITING how many accidents have occurred in the vicinity of the speed camera in the past twelve months ?
    3. If the council dont respond within 28 days, ask the council IN WRITING “why are they so reluctant to answer a simple question ?”

    Experience has shown in cities like Birmingham… rather then answer any questions they shut the camera down, and start up again 12 months later.

  39. Paul NEMO

    PETITIONS ??? Check the dictionary dear hearts…. it means begging !!!

    Have you ever heard of shareholders begging a board of directors to do anything ???

    NO SIR ! They sack the delinquent board and appoint a new board who had better tow the line !

    Thats why everything is a mess because the populace are like a bunch of minors who dont realise they own the company and the administration take advantage of their ignorance. Just check what Iceland did to it’s delinquent directors… THEY PUT THEM IN PRISON FOR BREACH OF TRUST. and now no one can stand for local elections if they represent any political party… you can only stand as an independent. Smart cookies those Icelanders. No chance of that happening in the UK though. Too much apathy and “let someone else do it” attitude. hence the saying “if you dont govern yourself, someone else will do it”
    Respect to the Icelanders.

  40. george

    What happens if all drive within speed limit
    Do they fine us for driving too slow. ie (without due care and attention) and hiding MINIMUM speed signs behind hedges or other distracting signs like some MAX signs, in order to maintain their revenue ?

  41. Paul Bargate

    UK turning into a disgrace taking the poss out of law abiding citizens. Seems anyone who drives is a criminal. Unbelievable

  42. Andrew

    We all know they are all money making devices,the problem is the local authorities who use it for a easy stream of funding the councils costs

  43. Toni B

    Not surprising really as I think most motorists still believe the primary use for fixed or mobile speed cameras is as a money making exercie and as other contributors have said nothing new there then. Real-time speak from a Local Politician for once now maybe thats a first?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.