Wednesday, August 10, 2011

Feeling an "I told you so" moment coming on

I've occasionally had a go at speed cameras and their supporters who often referred to them as safety cameras despite the lack of any evidence they made roads safer.
According to the latest statistics released by the Department for Transport fatalities dropped by 10 per cent, falling to 1,870 for the 12 months ending in March.
Over the same period the number of people killed and seriously injured fell to 24,770, a decline of five per cent.
This coincided with an even more dramatic 35 per cent reduction in people killed in drink-drive accidents, with 250 deaths last year compared with 380 in 2009.
The apparent improvement in road safety will hearten ministers, who had been under attack for withdrawing funding from speed cameras and also slashing the amount spent on anti-drink drive campaigns.
Spending cuts over the past year have seen cameras switched off across the country as safety police and councils have seen their budgets squeezed.
Now amidst the disclaimers by various group like "Brake" who cannot understand why their precious cameras have to go despite the road safety figures the fact remains that it is a combination of things that prevent accidents of which often enough speed plays little part. Nor have any speed cameras caught drivers tailgating, driving recklessly, driving whilst drunk or any other manner of issues which have been known to cause accidents. No, despite the claims that the cameras were there for our safety they were really there to raise revenue and the minute they failed to do that by government grant they went.
It's nice to be proven right after all these years, just a shame about all the bloody money wasted on the damn things.

3 annotations:

Anonymous said...

I agree. I detest surveillance cameras.

Anonymous said...

They were a crucial part of Nu Liebore's war against "selfish" private cars. Prescott, the starving socialist, was responsible for creating the "safety camera partnership" terror during Anthony Bliar's first term.

English Pensioner said...

Speed cameras distract drivers from their driving, pure and simple. If I know there are speed cameras about, I am continually glancing at my speedometer which should be unnecessary as I am driving at what I believe from experience to be a safe speed. This may be more or may be less than the speed limit and will vary according to the time of day and weather. The "one size fits all" speed limit leaves many drivers frustrated and can end up causing more accidents than no limit at all. I believe that once drivers have had, say, ten years experience, they should be exempt from formal speed limits on the basis that their judgement as to a safe speed is probably better than that of some paper pusher in an office.
In my experience, most drivers want to drive safely; those that don't are unlikely to be deterred by speed limit signs or cameras. One issue organisations will never accept that there could be another viewpoint that might differ from their own, let alone the possibility that such a viewpoint might be correct.