Van den Berg explains the problem: “If municipalities are going to regulate this themselves, they must also enforce it themselves.” And that takes time. Citizens who have been fined have the right to legal certainty, so they can submit an objection. “And if municipalities and the province start to arrange this themselves, there may be a stream of objections from citizens, which will ultimately end up with the judiciary.”
And that is what Van den Berg is concerned about. “There is already so much pressure on the judiciary. Then they can only spend their capacity on those traffic violations, while there are so many other important matters at play.” According to her, a central policy is better than if the province were to take it upon itself.
In addition, the Public Prosecution Service must make choices about where speed cameras are placed. “It has to have an effect. If a pole does not fit the traffic situation, then it is of little use.” The purpose of the speed cameras is to make it safer on the road.
And making that safer is not always done by installing cameras. “We actually see the speed camera as a last resort.” First we look at where many accidents happen and then what the reason for the accident is. “It may also be that the reason for the accident was not due to speed,” Van den Berg explains. So, for example, information is also used, in other cases traffic signs with ‘Be careful, you’re driving too fastor speed bumps.
“We want to change the driver’s behavior by installing a speed camera,” says Van den Berg. The goal is not to raise money. “We are not aware of the amounts that come in. They go to the state treasury. The fewer fines that come in, the safer it is. That is where our profit lies.”
Tags: provinces speed cameras Public Prosecution Service finds worrying
