Skip to main content

Proceeding contribution from Lord Harris of Haringey (Labour) in the House of Lords on Wednesday, 26 October 2005. It occurred during Committee of the Whole House (HL) and Debate on bill on Road Safety Bill [HL].


Road Safety Bill [HL]

I am grateful to my noble friend and do not wish to prolong the discussion much further. My understanding is that most of the operational cases put forward by safety camera partnerships were based on the criteria set by the Department for Transport. Given that, is he saying that the reason for the rejection is solely because the department perceives that there is, if you like, market resistance among drivers to there being more safety cameras? If that is the case, I would be interested to know what evidence is being used for that in terms of the individual cases put for new safety cameras. I would be grateful for more information about how the decision to reject every one of the operational cases around the country was made within the Department for Transport.


Secondary information

Type
Proceeding contribution
Reference
674 c1220 
Session
2005-06
Chamber / Committee
House of Lords chamber
Subjects
Crime prevention Advertising Bus lanes Buses Cameras Cycling Fraud Fees and charges Immobilisation of vehicles Fixed penalties Level crossings Exhaust emissions Large goods vehicles Driving instruction Helmets Medical examinations Motor vehicles Pollution control Motorcycles Motorway service areas Registration Young people Working hours Safety Roads Road traffic control Testing Road signs and markings Speed limits Road traffic offences Vehicle number plates Driving licences
Legislation
Road Safety Bill (HL) 2005-06
Link
View this Proceeding contribution on www.publications.parliament.uk