Authorities issue 33,000 penalty notices every day
Up to twelve million driving licence holders receive a penalty notice each year – the equivalent of one every 2.5 seconds.
This means as many as a third (30%) of Britain’s 40 million drivers now receive a penalty notice annually.
The penalty notices are usually one of two types:
- Fixed Penalty Notice (FPN) - a criminal penalty issued for contravention of motoring law
- Penalty Charge Notice (PCN) – a civil penalty often issued by councils for contravention of things like parking regulations
The 12 million total is broken down broadly as follows:
- 8 million local authority parking penalties
- 2.5 million local authority bus lane and box junction penalties, etc.
- 500,000 late licensing and insurance penalties, etc.
- 1 million speeding and red-light penalties, etc.
The total of 12 million does not include the annual figure of 1.2 million drivers now undertaking a speed awareness course instead of receiving a penalty and points on their licences.
A further 200,000 drivers a year attend other types of courses having committed other types of offences.
Nor do the figures include the five million parking penalties issued to drivers on private land each year.
Cameras are routinely used not only to catch speeding motorists but also those who enter bus lanes or make illegal turns at junctions.
In 2015, 90% of all speeding offences were captured by camera.
The trends are highlighted in a report - Automated Road Traffic Enforcement: Regulation, Governance and Use - for the RAC Foundation by Dr Adam Snow, a lecturer in criminology at Liverpool Hope University.
In the report Dr Snow says that “perhaps the main driver for the increase in the importance of automation has been the real-terms reductions in police budgets.”
Between 2010 and 2014 the number of dedicated police traffic officers fell by 24%.
This reduction has coincided with a period which has seen a dramatic fall in the cost of automatic enforcement technology. In 2000, it cost £1.5 million for a set of average speed cameras to cover a mile of road. Today it is around £100,000 per mile.
Dr Snow notes that while cameras are immune to matters of “colour, religion, race, gender and so on” they cannot provide either discretion or common sense.
He says that, in general, road traffic enforcement has two aims: preserving public safety and the effective management of the road network.
He argues that when activities that vary in the risk or the harm they cause are punished in the same way then it offends the public’s sense of proportionality, and hence fairness, and can lead to mistrust.
Dr Snow also reports that:
- Automated enforcement can be traced back to 1906 when watches first started to be used to time drivers over a fixed stretch of road to ascertain their speed
- FPNs were introduced in 1960, initially to deal with two offences: having inadequate lighting at night and non-payment of parking
- By 1991, 37 offences were covered by FPNs
- In 1991, the process of de-criminalising parking offences began, with enforcement powers transferring from the police to councils
Steve Gooding, director of the RAC Foundation, said:
“To maintain its legitimacy, automatic enforcement must be viewed by the public as proportionate.
“While wrongdoing should be punished and not excused, a decline in frontline policing risks an imbalanced approach to enforcement. Millions of motorists are being caught by camera, often for arguably minor misdemeanours, whilst more serious and harmful behaviour goes undetected.
“When it comes to civil enforcement of bus lane and parking infringements authorities should constantly be asking themselves whether the number of notices issued suggest a different method is needed: some bus lanes and box junctions have become renowned as money spinners. If thousands of drivers a day are getting tickets this is a clear indication of a system that is failing.”
Dr Adam Snow, author of the report, said:
“Automated enforcement promises much in terms of speed and cost efficiency for financially-squeezed police forces and councils. However, the driving public are entitled to ask for more weighty principles such as fairness and justice to be taken into consideration when confronted with potential wrong doing.
“Quite how those who ensure the safety of our roads through enforcement can provide both cost effectiveness and justice is a challenge that requires debate and engaged minds.
“I hope this report provides the start of that debate about the acceptability and appropriate place for automation in road traffic enforcement.”
Philip Gomm – Head of External Communications – RAC Foundation
020 7747 3445 | 07711 776448 | firstname.lastname@example.org | 020 7389 0601 (ISDN)
Notes to editors:
The RAC Foundation is a transport policy and research organisation that explores the economic, mobility, safety and environmental issues relating to roads and their users. The Foundation publishes independent and authoritative research with which it promotes informed debate and advocates policy in the interest of the responsible motorist.
The RAC Foundation is a registered charity, number 1002705.
Dr Adam Snow is a lecturer in criminology at Liverpool Hope University. His research expertise lies in the field of road traffic, road safety and parking enforcement. He has produced research reports for a variety of organisations that are involved in parking enforcement and road traffic regulation. His most recent work involved examining (with colleagues from the University of Birmingham) public perceptions of the Traffic Penalty Tribunal's online case management system. His research examines public expectations and experiences of regulation and punishment, and the perceived legitimacy of such enforcement systems.
Dr Snow’s report is available to download here:
All the Foundation’s work is available on its website: