Skip to main content

IAMRoadSmart: Over a third of police use mobile safety camera vans

More than a third of UK police forces used mobile safety camera vans to prosecute over 8,000 drivers for not wearing seatbelts and around 1,000 with a mobile phone in their hand in, according to IAM RoadSmart’s freedom of Information request in 2016. It was submitted to 44 police forces which revealed that 16 of them used pictures from the cameras in their vans to pursue these offences as a matter of routine while a further four did so occasionally.
February 2, 2018 Read time: 2 mins
More than a third of UK police forces used mobile safety camera vans to prosecute over 8,000 drivers for not wearing seatbelts and around 1,000 with a mobile phone in their hand in, according to IAM RoadSmart’s freedom of Information request in 2016. It was submitted to 44 police forces which revealed that 16 of them used pictures from the cameras in their vans to pursue these offences as a matter of routine while a further four did so occasionally.


IAM RoadSmart’s surveys also showed that drivers place enforcing mobile phone laws in second place behind drink and drug driving as a road traffic policing priority with seatbelt use in sixth place.

While some police forces had reservations about using safety cameras or camera vans to record non-speeding offences, IAM Roadsmart highlighted that questio still need to be resolved around Home Office Type and image quality for successful prosecution.

Sarah Sillars, IAM RoadSmart Chief Executive Officer, said: “Drivers should be reassured that the police are using all the tools in their road safety toolkit to address their top worries. For too many drivers it is only the fear of being caught that will stop them putting themselves and others at risk from smartphone distraction. Not wearing a seatbelt also puts an unfair burden on our emergency services who have to deal with the aftermath of such selfish behaviour. If drivers don’t know about this added enforcement technique then its impact will be reduced so the police should have no hesitation in publicising its use.”

“Our research shows that the use of mobile safety camera vans to pursue phone users and seatbelt offenders varies from one force to another. What we need are clear and consistent guidelines on what the cameras are being used for, what training staff are being given and how the images are being used as evidence. The last thing we want to see are resources being wasted or the road safety message being diluted by careless drivers being acquitted”, Sillars added.

Related Content

  • August 6, 2012
    Malaysia to deploy over 1,000 cameras in AES
    The Malaysian the government will use over 1,000 cameras to monitor roads nationwide under its Automated Enforcement System (AES) scheme. The programme will see 250 mobile cameras, 566 fixed speed cameras and 265 traffic light cameras being used to monitor the roads. It is claimed that each camera will be able to capture around 600 road offenders daily.
  • October 26, 2017
    FSB responds to RAC Foundation figures on 8 million local authority parking penalties issued in UK
    The Federation of Small Businesses (FSB) has responded to a report from the RAC Foundation which showed that 8 million local authority parking penalties are issued annually across England and Wales. This figure is included in the Automated Road Traffic Enforcement: Regulation, Governance and Use - for the RAC Foundation report by Dr Adam Snow, a lecturer in criminology at Liverpool Hope University.
  • November 1, 2021
    Don’t understand network infrastructure? Don’t worry
    Rapid changes in technology mean ITS managers now need to understand network infrastructure as well as electrical engineering, says EtherWan’s Jim Toepper. But don’t worry, help is at hand…
  • December 4, 2012
    Assessing the potential of in-vehicle enforcement systems
    Jason Barnes considers the social and ethical ramifications of using in-vehicle safety technologies to fulfil enforcement functions. Although policy documents often imply close correlation between enforcement, compliance and safety – in part, as a counter to accusations that enforcement is rather more concerned with revenue generation – there is a noticeable reluctance among policy makers and auto manufacturers to exploit in-vehicle safety systems for enforcement applications. From a technical perspective t