Because of precisely the reasons people have mentioned, this week is scrap speed cameras week, promoting the idea that every camera is reaplaced by a policeman who can pull over a dangerous driver within seconds of seeing their offence, giving them an instant lesson, and acting as an expert witness in court for dangerous driving offences. Chances are that with a stern warning from a human a driver will not reoffend for a while. There would also be far more chances of catching really bad drivers such as those who go round a roundabout at 70mph but know exactly where every camera is to slow down for, And drink drivers and tail gaters would certainly be pulled over far more.
DaFT had the following to say about this:
Speeding kills. It is a contributory factor in 26% of all fatal accidents in Great Britain.
Well accidents don't happen at 0mph, so that should be all accidents. Their own official statistics say that excessive speed is a factor in 7% of accidents, but we were always told 1/3.
The facts are stark. If a child pedestrian is hit at 30mph they stand an 80% chance of surviving.
Hopefully they won't be hit at all, but that comes from observation and prediction, not cruising speed.
But if they are hit at 40mph they stand an 80% chance of dying. That is why the Government is committed to achieving appropriate vehicle speeds on the roads as part of its integrated road safety strategy.
In some places it is appropriate to go 40mph, the police drivers know this. In others places, I have to slow down on my bike on which I can't reach 30mph. I know all the blackspots where I go, and so do local police.
We are succeeding in changing attitudes, and in making drivers realise that one of their responsibilities is to comply with speed limits. The proportion of car drivers who comply with the 30mph limit has greatly increased over the last few years.
Well we do have an aging population.
'Safety' cameras provide a valuable and cost-effective method of preventing, detecting and enforcing speed and traffic light offences.
It's always cost-effective when fines are involved. The truth is that a driver could go 150mph from Cornwall to Scotland setting everything off en-route and they'd take days to be caught, not seconds.
Their use is based on solid evidence. All reliable research from around the world clearly demonstrates that cameras reduce speeds and save lives.
Independent research (new window), published in December 2005, shows that safety cameras had saved around 1,745 people from being killed or seriously injured, and had prevented around 4,230 personal injury collisions on Britain's roads each year.
Independent research linked says: There was a 22% reduction in personal injury collisions (PICs) at sites after cameras were introduced. Overall 42% fewer people were killed or seriously injured
But hang on they told us that "Speeding is a contributory factor in 26% of all fatal accidents in Great Britain.". Now they must reckon their cameras are stopping drink driving, failure to observe properly, and blatant reckless driving? Clearly one of both of their figures is flawed.
And while they are saving lives, safety cameras will remain a key part of our road safety strategy.
Nothing to say about more police on the roads then?
.
ad: