Speed cameras are not the answer
Discussion
I've never been convinced by the arguments put forward by various groups for the greater use of speed cameras to increase road safety. My interest in this topic has been increased just recently by the prospect of receiving my first motoring conviction for speeding after 25 years of driving. The charge - doing 59mph on a dual carriageway in a 50mph limit on a summers evening, quiet roads, excellent driving conditions.
After hearing Brunstrom on Radio 4 this morning, I've spent most of the day trawling through various web sites in an attempt to find out the truth. What really scares me is the way that these self-professed (or is that professor) 'experts' are given so much credence. Their claims and statements of 'facts' are more the product of spin than analysis.
You know when their arguments are weak. They either resort to the definitive, undisputable statements to stifle further debate, but provide no evidence to support their claims such as:
Begg: "Those motoring groups and elements of the media that have been critical of speed cameras have been proved totally and conclusively wrong. "
Brunstrom: In answer to the question, what is the strength of evidence that convinces you that speed cameras save lives? - "absolutely overwhelming"; "no doubt at all, no doubt AT all"
How effective has Brunstrom been in reducing fatal accidents in his own patch at North Wales Police?
or they resort to the arrogant dismissal of those who oppose their views:
Brunstrom attributes the anti-speed camera opposition to "..the Jeremy Clarkson effect, the Petrolheads lobby.... this is a very vocal but a very small group.. over 75% of people support the use of speed cameras"
I think he'll find that the opposition is much wider than that and extends to the many non 'Petrolheads' who are prepared to spend a little time examining the facts instead of just accepting the spin. Question: Speed cameras can be used to reduce accidents? My answer: Yes. Presumably I am in the 75% then, but I am strongly opposed to the way that speed cameras are used and the messages that they send to drivers (I am in total support of Safespeeds views on this)
or they play the emotional argument:
Begg: "On the roads, we have a dangerous minority prepared to physically destroy speed cameras introduced with the sole intention of saving lives"
I do not put myself forward as an expert driver, and I can only speak from my own driving experience, but I do actually care about driving and the lives that are lost on the roads. It's this experience that has led me to believe that this blinkered focus on absolute speed LIMITS is fundamentally flawed. Here's three examples:
1. 17 years ago I was involved in a fatal crash on a dual carriageway. Another driver attempted to overtake on a bend in damp conditions. He was travelling below the speed limit, but was travelling too fast for the conditions, lost control, collided with my vehicle and went off the road, killing a pedestrian.
2. Earlier this year I was travelling into Cambridge along the A14, well populated with speed cameras and with a speed limit of 70mph. Conditions were atrocious with patchy fog, and an appropriate speed was about 30mph. At least one in five cars didn't even have their fog lights on! The inevitable happened, the cars in front stopped. I stopped as I had allowed sufficient distance to the car in front, only to watch other cars came flying past me, unable to stop in time and how there was not a collision I will never know. As I reached Cambridge I heard that the A14 had been closed on the section that I had just travelled due to a serious 'accident'.
3. A few weeks ago, again on the A14, two parents were tragically killed when their car ran into the back of a lorry parked in a layby. Probable cause - falling asleep at the wheel.
Think about the serious accidents that you have witnessed or have occurred near where you live and apply a bit of common sense. In how many of those has speed above the speed limit even been a factor, let alone been the primary cause?
And this is the fundamental issue for me. The message that is being given to motorists is that provided you keep below the speed limit you are OK. Common sense and actual experience is telling anyone with a couple of brain cells that this is a complete nonsense.
Unfortunately, many of the speed camera supporters stand to lose their incomes, jobs or power if they are proved to be wrong so don't think that opposing these groups will be easy.
(From the North Wales Police website - Question to Brunstrom: What do you like most about your role? Answer: "... and the power, of course."; "Safety Camera Scheme. ....I played a big part in making it happen.")
Apologies if all this has been covered before, but I had to get it off my chest
After hearing Brunstrom on Radio 4 this morning, I've spent most of the day trawling through various web sites in an attempt to find out the truth. What really scares me is the way that these self-professed (or is that professor) 'experts' are given so much credence. Their claims and statements of 'facts' are more the product of spin than analysis.
You know when their arguments are weak. They either resort to the definitive, undisputable statements to stifle further debate, but provide no evidence to support their claims such as:
Begg: "Those motoring groups and elements of the media that have been critical of speed cameras have been proved totally and conclusively wrong. "
Brunstrom: In answer to the question, what is the strength of evidence that convinces you that speed cameras save lives? - "absolutely overwhelming"; "no doubt at all, no doubt AT all"
How effective has Brunstrom been in reducing fatal accidents in his own patch at North Wales Police?
or they resort to the arrogant dismissal of those who oppose their views:
Brunstrom attributes the anti-speed camera opposition to "..the Jeremy Clarkson effect, the Petrolheads lobby.... this is a very vocal but a very small group.. over 75% of people support the use of speed cameras"
I think he'll find that the opposition is much wider than that and extends to the many non 'Petrolheads' who are prepared to spend a little time examining the facts instead of just accepting the spin. Question: Speed cameras can be used to reduce accidents? My answer: Yes. Presumably I am in the 75% then, but I am strongly opposed to the way that speed cameras are used and the messages that they send to drivers (I am in total support of Safespeeds views on this)
or they play the emotional argument:
Begg: "On the roads, we have a dangerous minority prepared to physically destroy speed cameras introduced with the sole intention of saving lives"
I do not put myself forward as an expert driver, and I can only speak from my own driving experience, but I do actually care about driving and the lives that are lost on the roads. It's this experience that has led me to believe that this blinkered focus on absolute speed LIMITS is fundamentally flawed. Here's three examples:
1. 17 years ago I was involved in a fatal crash on a dual carriageway. Another driver attempted to overtake on a bend in damp conditions. He was travelling below the speed limit, but was travelling too fast for the conditions, lost control, collided with my vehicle and went off the road, killing a pedestrian.
2. Earlier this year I was travelling into Cambridge along the A14, well populated with speed cameras and with a speed limit of 70mph. Conditions were atrocious with patchy fog, and an appropriate speed was about 30mph. At least one in five cars didn't even have their fog lights on! The inevitable happened, the cars in front stopped. I stopped as I had allowed sufficient distance to the car in front, only to watch other cars came flying past me, unable to stop in time and how there was not a collision I will never know. As I reached Cambridge I heard that the A14 had been closed on the section that I had just travelled due to a serious 'accident'.
3. A few weeks ago, again on the A14, two parents were tragically killed when their car ran into the back of a lorry parked in a layby. Probable cause - falling asleep at the wheel.
Think about the serious accidents that you have witnessed or have occurred near where you live and apply a bit of common sense. In how many of those has speed above the speed limit even been a factor, let alone been the primary cause?
And this is the fundamental issue for me. The message that is being given to motorists is that provided you keep below the speed limit you are OK. Common sense and actual experience is telling anyone with a couple of brain cells that this is a complete nonsense.
Unfortunately, many of the speed camera supporters stand to lose their incomes, jobs or power if they are proved to be wrong so don't think that opposing these groups will be easy.
(From the North Wales Police website - Question to Brunstrom: What do you like most about your role? Answer: "... and the power, of course."; "Safety Camera Scheme. ....I played a big part in making it happen.")
Apologies if all this has been covered before, but I had to get it off my chest
A superb and well thought out first post 
The A14 between Huntingdon and Cambridge has speed cameras nearly every mile, yet is the most dangerous stretch of road in the area. Why? Bloody speed cameras, that's why. It was always a bad stretch, but traffic flowed. Since the scameras arrived, traffic buches terribly and crashes are now commonplace. I would LOVE to see the stats for that mess picked apart in detail.
The A14 between Huntingdon and Cambridge has speed cameras nearly every mile, yet is the most dangerous stretch of road in the area. Why? Bloody speed cameras, that's why. It was always a bad stretch, but traffic flowed. Since the scameras arrived, traffic buches terribly and crashes are now commonplace. I would LOVE to see the stats for that mess picked apart in detail.
Welcome aboard. Your interest "has increased" as a result of a speeding prosecution you feel to be unjust. Good.
Let's hope there's lots more like you out there who will eventually form a critical mass to overturn the current thinking. It's dangerous, it causes rather than prevents accidents, and it should end. Now.
But while Brunstrom and the like continue their Hitlerian rantings and the general populace just let them, there's still a way to go. More power to Safespeed, ABD, etc.
Let's hope there's lots more like you out there who will eventually form a critical mass to overturn the current thinking. It's dangerous, it causes rather than prevents accidents, and it should end. Now.
But while Brunstrom and the like continue their Hitlerian rantings and the general populace just let them, there's still a way to go. More power to Safespeed, ABD, etc.
It's only the prospect of a prosecution at this stage by the way. I have to return the NIP in the next week.
What is the most effective way to oppose the Speed Camera lie:
i) Fight the prosecution, with a good chance that I will spend a lot of time, get stressed, pay a larger fine and still get 3 points on my licence (whether I am guilty or not).
or
ii) Put the same effort and resources into supporting the likes of Safespeed or the ABD and campaigning against the Speed Cameras.
What is the most effective way to oppose the Speed Camera lie:
i) Fight the prosecution, with a good chance that I will spend a lot of time, get stressed, pay a larger fine and still get 3 points on my licence (whether I am guilty or not).
or
ii) Put the same effort and resources into supporting the likes of Safespeed or the ABD and campaigning against the Speed Cameras.
I've spent a lot of time on Pepipoo already, and I think that it will be a tough battle to oppose a prosecution. Not impossible, but potentially costly in time and money.
Can the critical mass that is there now be used to build on Paul Smith's and others excellent work by exposing the lies to a much wider audience? Perhaps that is already happening - let me know if it is and I'll be happy to help.
One possibility might be to use the network of 'speed offenders' to distribute material giving the facts to those who are not yet aware of it. For example, I wouldn't mind printing out a couple of hundred leaflets and sticking them through peoples doors.
Can the critical mass that is there now be used to build on Paul Smith's and others excellent work by exposing the lies to a much wider audience? Perhaps that is already happening - let me know if it is and I'll be happy to help.
One possibility might be to use the network of 'speed offenders' to distribute material giving the facts to those who are not yet aware of it. For example, I wouldn't mind printing out a couple of hundred leaflets and sticking them through peoples doors.
Artisan said:
It's only the prospect of a prosecution at this stage by the way. I have to return the NIP in the next week.
What is the most effective way to oppose the Speed Camera lie:
i) Fight the prosecution, with a good chance that I will spend a lot of time, get stressed, pay a larger fine and still get 3 points on my licence (whether I am guilty or not).
or
ii) Put the same effort and resources into supporting the likes of Safespeed or the ABD and campaigning against the Speed Cameras.
I see it this way (and this is why I run Safe Speed): The PePiPoo approach could get the systems stopped in the short to medium term, but then all the government has to do is pass legislation and all PePiPoo's work is put back to square one. (Possibly an improved right to silence - or something - would remain.)
However, given sufficient resources I can move towards scientific proof that cameras are bad for road safety. This position is much harder to overturn.
For yourself in the short term, I still recommend the PePiPoo approach. One reason is that your licence, or a percentage of it, is at stake. Another reason is the "Trevor Reason" see:
www.safespeed.org.uk/unite.html
Best Regards,
Paul Smith
Safe Speed
www.safespeed.org.uk
deltaf said:
Nothing to add as its all been said before.
Good post and welcome.
Seconded!
Know A14 well - Cambs prats also over-exaggerate their KSIs on their official website.
in bid to justify their scams and mobile traps. They never seem able to acknowledge that accidents happen for lots of different reasons, and each accident is down to unique set of circumstances - and driving a tadge over a posted limit is not necessarily the only cause!
Welcome Artisan! Enjoyed reading your post!
My view of these damned infernal contraptions is they are but a Political expediant measure designed to reduce Government road Policing costs, so mere facts don't enter into the equation, ever! But, there again "I" may be just cynical!
Given that we have all these dangerous roads that result in the need for speed camera's to slow us down. Isn't it strange that the authorities don't feel the need to warn motorists of dangers ahead by the use of "Black Spot" signs etc. instead of hiding camera's in bushes? Ater all, many will be driving that stretch of road for the first time!
But it's all about SAFETY isn't it, not MONEY, Yeah right!
If you have been reading the site Artisan, you will know that the people on here are good responsible drivers who think that the focus is wrong. Not the irresponsible drivers that others like to portray them for their own purposes. i.e. Brunstrom $ Co.
They have a bit of fun from time to time, and some good arguements too! So Welcome again, Please stay!
One more of US One less of THEM!
>> Edited by 8Pack on Sunday 27th June 01:54
>> Edited by 8Pack on Sunday 27th June 01:57
My view of these damned infernal contraptions is they are but a Political expediant measure designed to reduce Government road Policing costs, so mere facts don't enter into the equation, ever! But, there again "I" may be just cynical!
Given that we have all these dangerous roads that result in the need for speed camera's to slow us down. Isn't it strange that the authorities don't feel the need to warn motorists of dangers ahead by the use of "Black Spot" signs etc. instead of hiding camera's in bushes? Ater all, many will be driving that stretch of road for the first time!
But it's all about SAFETY isn't it, not MONEY, Yeah right!
If you have been reading the site Artisan, you will know that the people on here are good responsible drivers who think that the focus is wrong. Not the irresponsible drivers that others like to portray them for their own purposes. i.e. Brunstrom $ Co.
They have a bit of fun from time to time, and some good arguements too! So Welcome again, Please stay!
One more of US One less of THEM!
>> Edited by 8Pack on Sunday 27th June 01:54
>> Edited by 8Pack on Sunday 27th June 01:57
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff