A reader has sent me this link to an article on WalletPopUK. It claims that speed cameras have been “revealed as dangerous money-spinners”.
Personally, I don’t have an issue with speed cameras, nor does the mere presence of one make me want to drive into the back (or front) of another car, mow down several dozen pedestrians, or otherwise behave in a dangerous and illogical manner.
The way I look at it is that if you don’t break the speed limit in the first place, you don’t need to keep a lookout for speed cameras, and therefore the chances of a two-page spread about you in The Sun is unlikely.
WalletPopUK sees it differently. Figures released by the DfT (Department for Transport) allegedly prove that every other motorist on the road becomes a homicidal maniac – through no fault of their own, of course – whenever they come within a 50 mile radius of a speed camera.
The [DfT] called on councils to publish full data of revenue and accidents for cameras in their area. A huge number refused. We cannot of course read anything into this…
they say – obviously reading plenty into it, as they follow up with:
…or it may be too embarrassing – who knows?
It cites the installation of a camera in Oxfordshire where there had not been a single accident in five years, but after its installation there were five. It argues that this is not “coincidence”.
It cites another in Cambridgeshire, where there had been five minor accidents in five years prior to installation, but seven (two serious) last year – and 1,027 people caught speeding.
So, just two examples. We will just have to assume that the road layouts hadn’t changed, or speed limits reduced, or that increasing road use, deteriorating driving standards, and the mere passage of time were not involved. Because WalletPopUK doesn’t consider those things as relevant. And naturally, being interested in the actual nature of the collisions and the speeds involved is just being silly.
The problem, motorists have always argued, is that it’s safer for drivers to consistently slightly exceed the speed limit, than for them to exceed the speed limit most of the time and then brake heavily for the cameras.
Right. So being hit by someone doing 35mph in a 30mph zone is going to do you less damage than someone braking for the camera? I mean, come on! What planet are people on?
WalletPopUK appears to be a MoneyExpert wannabe. It puts saving money above all else, and of course those nasty speed cameras cost people a lot of money… if they break the speed limit in front of one.
Channel 4 News is somewhat more sensible about the story. And unlike WalletPopUK, which appears to want to convey it’s own spin rather than allow people to judge properly for themselves, Channel 4 also links to the DfT data . The Channel 4 story also notes:
Activists cautioned against using the figures that have been published so far to draw firm conclusions about how well speed cameras work.
The numbers show that casualty rates at some accident black spots have got worse since speed cameras were installed there, although the low numbers of incidents and short time scales involved may make it difficult to draw robust statistical conclusions.
Some camera partnerships have reported overall reductions in accidents and injuries after cameras were installed.
So WalletPopUK just took the bad bits out and reported on those. Prematurely, as well.
Anyone who thinks forcing people to drive slower doesn’t reduce KSIs (Killed or Seriously Injured incidents) is nuts. If cameras – and it is only some of them – really do increase the accident rate, then the problem is surely not with the camera but with the prat driving the car which skids out of control as it slams on the brakes so as not to get caught?
My opinion, of course.