Following announcements that there will be a switching off of speed cameras due to reducing funding, the anti-motoring brigade has been out in force reiterating their myths and outright lies; that speed cameras reduce deaths and injuries on the road and that they are not merely a revenue raising exercise – oh, and Speed kills. No it doesn’t; piss-poor driving kills. People kill. Speed does not. That said, if they raised revenue so well, why would reducing the funding be a problem? Surely they would be self funding?
All that aside, the BBC asks, do they really cut accidents?
Thames Valley Safer Roads Partnership, the organisation that operates the speed cameras in Oxfordshire on behalf of the council, has already said it fears a big increase in accidents.
“There’s a serious danger we will see an increase in casualties,” says its communication manager Dan Campsall. “We may be counting the cost of this in terms of bodies.”
Um, well, Hardly an unbiased source. And not too much hyperbole, eh?
Figures from the partnership appear to back up this claim.
Yeah, figures from the partnership… Again, hardly an unbiased source. Also, bear in mind that other factors will have come into play, such as increased technological solutions in cars. What about another source, though?
Statistics from Swindon Borough Council also appear to contradict those from Thames Valley.
Swindon switched off all its fixed speed cameras a year ago, saying they weren’t an effective tool in cutting road traffic accidents as only 6% were caused by people speeding, and that accident levels were actually rising across the borough.
Although it is early days, the Swindon experiment tells us that the scaremongering is misplaced. Switching off cameras does not bring about a sudden increase in road casualties and body bags.
Also, let’s bear in mind here just what it is that cameras do. Despite the fluffy sounding names involving “safety”, these cameras are designed to enforce the law. Obeying an arbitrary speed limit is not the same thing as safe driving. A safe speed is one in which the driver can stop in the distance that is seen to be clear. It is a speed at which hazards may be successfully avoided. This speed will vary according to road and traffic conditions, the mental and physical state of the driver, the type of vehicle and so on. It may or may not at any time correspond with the posted limit. Also, if a safe limit on a motorway is 70mph, how come the French and other European countries allow their drivers to drive legally at speeds in excess of this?
Does this mean that I would like to see an end to arbitrary limits? Well, in an ideal world where drivers were universally competent, that would be nice; as everyone would be travelling as a speed suitable for the conditions. The reality is different, however, so I accept that some limits may be appropriate. The 30mph in built up areas is about right and reflects the plethora of hazards. I do not, however, accept the 50mph or even 40mph limits I see on open country roads where it bears no relation to the risks and is everything to do with politics. You will observe these limits being treated with the contempt they deserve – and that brings the law into well deserved disrepute.
We are subjected to the mantra that speed kills as if this is all there is to driving. Recently, I was travelling around Birmingham on the M42. The variable limit was 50mph. This was reasonable given the traffic density and like the other drivers, I was travelling at this speed. There was a truck behind me. I knew he was there because I could see the grill in my rear view mirror. If I had needed to brake for a hazard, he would have driven into me. Yet he was obeying the limit, like the rest of us.
Later after the end of the variable limit, he passed me and I forgot about it until I saw him on the hard shoulder exchanging details with the driver he had just rear-ended. This was not about speed per se, it was about driving competently; about allowing sufficient distance for hazards, about reading the road ahead, about travelling at a speed appropriate for the conditions. Speed is a part of the overall package, it is not something that we should deal with in isolation, but holistically. And managing speed is rather easier if we can spend our energies watching the road and not obsessing about the speedometer, just in case there is someone out there waiting to catch us out.
Speed cameras are a menace. The fixed ones merely create a Mexican wave effect, whereby drivers will brake suddenly on seeing the yellow box and increase their speed once past, and the mobile ones, while observable, have the effect mentioned above where we spend more time looking at the speedo rather than the hazards infront of us. They may, in certain circumstance, make a difference, but the evidence is not sufficiently convincing to make a sound case in their favour. They are about catching people out, not improving the quality of driving.
Indeed, so obsessed has the safety lobby become that we are now seeing flashing signs telling us to slow down when approaching junctions.
Turning his attention to alternatives to speed cameras, Mr Glaister is cautious about the long-term effectiveness of electronic signs that flash up how fast people are driving – so-called speed indicator devices.
I saw one such when travelling south from Bristol on the A38 the other week. Look, you cretins, I know there’s a junction coming up. I can see the damned thing and I know exactly how to regulate my speed in order to deal with it. What I do not need is the local council nannying me. What we need here, is less, not more. Get rid of the bulk of distracting road furniture and force drivers and other road users alike to rely more on their observation skills and personal responsibility. The evidence tells us this is the way to go.
One final word, from Brake, one of those fake charities that sucks at the teat of the taxpayer.
For Julie Townsend, deputy chief executive of road safety charity Brake, getting rid of speed cameras is “madness”.
Well, you would say that, wouldn’t you, Julie?
The motorway police here give more tickets, MANY more, for “not driving at a safe distance” than they do for speeding.
And it works. It is “tail ending” that causes more motorway mayhem than speed (velocity*, NOT the white or pink powder!) ever did.
*Yes I KNOW speed does not equal velocity, but it is a blog comment, not a physics lecture.
I would add last minute lane changing to that list.
The reason they bang on about speed is because it’s easy to measure.
They’re certainly a menace – well said.
I’m from Swindon – they’ve replaced the (few) fixed cameras with a lot of the little signs that flash up if you’re doing more than the limit (usually 30). I have to say they do have an effect on me – if one lights up as I approach it, I do slow down. Its the equivalent of a polite ‘Please slow down’ rather than the cameras ‘F*cking do what I tell you or I’ll have you’ attitude.
“The reason they bang on about speed is because it’s easy to measure.”
And it’s not subjective. You either are, or you aren’t.
I live next to a major arterial, three lane road that leads into central London. There are two speed cameras sited 400m apart on the eastbound side. Similar on the westbound side.
In the mornings the eastbound traffic is almost stationary. In the evenings the westbound traffic is usually gridlocked. During the rest of the day, it can be like watching the TT at the end of the Sulby Straight at Sulby Bridge, with riders (and drivers of performance cars) banging it down through the gears when they get near the cameras.
I have never seen an accident on this road. It’s a 40 mph limit but you’d be hard pressed to do 40 outside of rush hour. So why the cameras? Is a mile straight a clue? Easy money.
I was driving in Surrey yesterday, national speed limit country road, good surface little traffic…
We encountered one of these warning signs which helpfully told us that we were approaching a bend and should slow down. The driver I was following immediately slammed on the anchors and reduced his speed to 30mph to navigate the ‘hazard’…
Useless fucking mong!
Unfortunately, that’s the effect of dumbing down caused by this stuff. It doesn’t matter what the actual limit is, or what the hazard is, people panic and hit the brakes anyway.
Completely agree with the sentiments of the post. In fact I would go further.
So they are a “good idea” outside schools are they?
Bollocks!
They give the hard of thinking, who are an increasing proportion of the driving population, the utterly bonkers idea that it is OK to do 30 past a school at start/finish time and that if they hit an errant kiddie then they are immune from prosecution because they weren’t speeeeeding.
Sady I must disagree with the premise that theft cameras are on the way out simply because I drove down the M1 and M25 the other day.
Half the way thro’ Derbyshire & Notts all the way from those STUPID never ending roadworks at Hamel Hamstead and half the way rounf the M25 are monsterous great overhead gantries with specs theft cameras slung over all 3 lanes, sometimes spaced as little as 100m apart!
I work in steel fabrication and can tell you that these things cost a fucking packet. Each.
Sadly, I am afraid that you cannot convince me that they will be just switched off and left to rot. That is a lot of infrastructure and it will not be allowed to lie idle as they have been operational since June this year.
As I mentioned in a previous post, the government budget has been stopped and one or two counties have seen good sense and refused further funding, but the government has made it quite clear that they will not prevent further theft cameras being installed.
We have a conservative led government and they tend to like to privatise things. They will see this as an opportunity and so will someone who wants badly enough to make it pay.
You heard it here first (and second).
I’d really REALLY love to be proved totally wrong on this.