Communities Secretary Eric Pickles effectively declared war today on councils that use CCTV to catch parking offenses.
Click here to view Figure 1.
In an attempt to breathe new life into the UK’s ailing high streets, Pickles has identified councils’ use of cameras for on-street parking enforcement as one of the reasons that town centre shopping continues to decrease. The use of so-called “camera cars” — mobile parking enforcement vehicles with surveillance cameras attached — has been on the increase since legislation changes in 2004 introduced under the Labour Government.
In a statement issued this morning, Pickles said:
Excessive parking charges and unfair parking fines push up the cost of living, and undermine local high streets and shopping parades. We want to rein in over-zealous parking enforcement, so it focuses on supporting high streets and motorists, not raising money. Parking spy cars are just one example of this and a step too far. Public confidence is strengthened in CCTV if it is used to tackle crime, not to raise money for council coffers.
Parking fine increases
This stance is likely to play well for Pickles, positioning him and the Conservatives as defending liberty and motorists’ rights to park illegally. Since 1997, the Department for Communities and Local Government reports that revenue from local authority parking has risen from GB pound 608 million (to GB pound 1.3bn — a massive increase, although significantly reduced when you take inflation into account at more than 54 per cent).
Pickles told the BBC this morning that the law could be changed “before Easter” to ban the use of fixed cameras and “camera cars” for parking offenses. These cameras have been used to issue 10 million fines, worth GB pound 301m, in the past five years according to Conservative Party figures.
Civil liberties group Big Brother Watch has unsurprisingly backed the Communities Secretary’s position, saying that they “wholeheartedly support” the Government plan and that the biggest issue is that “the public are never, ever told that this is part of the deal when they accept greater CCTV surveillance.” The group continues to ask if the public would be as willing to accept more surveillance cameras if they had the full facts about what they are being used for.
This is a position in line with the Government’s CCTV Code of Practice which was published and enforced earlier this year; a document which attempts to enshrine the principle of “surveillance by consent.”
The Government’s suggestion is that only visible traffic wardens will be allowed to film vehicles.
Concerns
Writing as an observer of the security industry and of issues around video surveillance, this seems to be a huge step backwards. At a time when council budgets are under immense pressure — thanks in no small part to cuts from Central Government — local authorities have been under intense pressure to find additional revenue streams.
The law does not allow traffic fines to be used to raise revenue, but only to ensure that traffic is kept flowing efficiently. Tony Ball, of the Local Government Association, was clear when he said that he does not believe that these cameras are being used simply to raise revenue. He told the BBC:
Camera cars have been instrumental in keeping children from being hurt or killed on the way to school, and CCTV plays an important role elsewhere in monitoring traffic flow and keeping cars moving.
But at a time when video surveillance is being used more and more by businesses to improve shopping experiences, for instance, and hence further justifying its cost, should councils actually be allowed to use cameras for revenue raising? As much as it irritates a motorist to receive a parking fine, could it be argued that the revenue raised from these activities also helps fund the use and maintenance of surveillance cameras that are intended solely for keeping the public safe?
Related post:
Free Download: The Video Surveillance Report 2023
Discover the latest developments in the rapidly-evolving video surveillance sector by downloading the 2023 Video Surveillance Report. Over 500 responses to our survey, which come from integrators to consultants and heads of security, inform our analysis of the latest trends including AI, the state of the video surveillance market, uptake of the cloud, and the wider economic and geopolitical events impacting the sector!
Download for FREE to discover top industry insight around the latest innovations in video surveillance systems.
I understand the argument here but I think the flipside of it needs to be examined, as in before these cars took to the streets what were the accident rates for car on car accidents, car on pedestrian, etc. and compared with now. If there is drop in accidents because drivers are now aware and alerted to the fact that there are these camera cars out there then they are serving a purpose beyond generating revenue. I would like to know more if this is a city wide effort or targeted enforcement of just a few key locations because then… Read more »
Tough one isn’t it? I think I agree with you that there is clearly more to it that simply parking enforcement, but focusing on that alone plays well for the Government’s appeal – there’s an election looming after all.
@ Rob
Aha! The looming election! That’s always something to get the government on the side of the people, at least for awhile!
@ JohnathonL
I agree with you. I can see both sides of it as well. If there is a drop in the rate of accidents then it is a good thing. You would think people would just be more careful to follow the laws to avoid getting ticketed, rather than stop going to places because they might get a ticket. Pay attention to the laws and continue to shop where you like!
The safety thing doesn’t wash I’m afraid. There’s a big difference between parking on a yellow line and obstructing a zebra crossing, or parking on a junction or ignoring school zig-zag zones. Most of the time, parking enforcement is all about preventing mobility issues such as blocking bus lanes or reducing road width. There’s also the matter of maintaining resident parking slots and disabled bays.
These are all justifiable reasons for enforcement of course but please don’t demote real road safety issues by giving fund-raising councils excuses for over-zealous enforcement based on phantom perceptions of safety.
Parking is always such a contentious issue. People will always try it on and despite knowing they are at fault, will be very unhappy when they get caught out. But it does smack of just giving the people what they want pre-election!
@ JonathanL, It is difficult actually to decide which side to support. But your argument makes sense to me. If there is sufficient evidence of increased traffic efficiency and decreased accidents ratio, then there is no problem in raising extra bit of funds for maintenance of the very equipment responsible for these improvements.
Camera surveillance is bad if it is driving people away from high streets and shopping parades as is mentioned in the article. I don’t find any reliable information or figures supporting this argument in the article. If it is really based upon some reliable study, it is something to take notice of.
@ JohnathonN
Very good point. They should certainly be enforcing the real safety issues that you have mentioned.
It’s rare that there’s a safety issue involved in the parking. Although there are some examples (eg. bus lane blocked means cyclists have to move into the path of other traffic), overwhelmingly the reasons are as you suggested.
Speed cameras are of course another matter entirely. Though there are still arguments about how much they help for safety as well.