Transport Professionals' Survey
Discussion
I am a member of a professional institution for transport professionals. As a senior member I am asked to take part in a monthly survey of issues.
This month's question, which I received today, says:
Technology cannot replace police officers detecting traffic offences, the Transport Committee has warned. Is too much reliance placed on speed cameras?
My reply, which I sent earlier, says:
Yes
There appears to be a general belief that "safety" is directly proportional to "speed" and that reducing one, automatically improves the other.
Official statistics claimed for some time that one third of accidents are caused by speed. It has been shown that this figure of one third, now well known and widely quoted, included causes such as "driver failed to correctly judge speed of approaching car" or "driver going too fast on icy road" etc - ie a number of issues perhaps related to speed, but not caused by speeding. Only recently has it become apparent that the real proportion of accidents which are caused by exceeding the speed limit, is far, far lower.
There is a massive difference between breaking a speed limit, and driving too fast for the prevailing conditions.
The former is, however, easily detected by a camera as a "binary" offence - you are breaking a speed limit or you are not, and prevailing conditions are not taken into account.
The latter is a matter of judgement against what a reasonable driver would do - a judgement that cannot be made by a camera, but only by a properly experienced traffic patrol officer.
It is perfectly legal, for example, to drive past a primary school at going-home time, at 30 miles per hour. It is also wholly irresponsible to do so. It is illegal to drive at 80 miles per hour at 5am on an otherwise deserted motorway - yet comparatively, much safer to do so. The replacement of experienced traffic police operators by cameras means that the first driver will get away with driving dangerously, and the second risks his licence while driving safely.
It is little wonder that the majority of perfectly safe drivers, suddenly criminalised by the automatic flash of a camera, see the reliance on speed enforcement as more of a cash generator than a real road safety advance.
Unfortunately these arguments fall upon deaf ears, to the considerable number of non-qualified non-technical inexperienced "road safety" groups which spring up, locally and nationally, to campaign on the single issue of binary legal / illegal speeding. The government has believed its own statistics for too long, and has pandered to these minority groups for too long, and it is time that proper road safety experience was brought to bear on the real causes of accidents: drivers who are inattentive, or inexperienced, or under the influence of drink or drugs, or driving unroadworthy vehicles with no licence, insurance, etc, or who are simply too stupid to realise that their driving falls in the 50% who must, by definition, be "below average" in any statistical sample.
This month's question, which I received today, says:
Technology cannot replace police officers detecting traffic offences, the Transport Committee has warned. Is too much reliance placed on speed cameras?
My reply, which I sent earlier, says:
Yes
There appears to be a general belief that "safety" is directly proportional to "speed" and that reducing one, automatically improves the other.
Official statistics claimed for some time that one third of accidents are caused by speed. It has been shown that this figure of one third, now well known and widely quoted, included causes such as "driver failed to correctly judge speed of approaching car" or "driver going too fast on icy road" etc - ie a number of issues perhaps related to speed, but not caused by speeding. Only recently has it become apparent that the real proportion of accidents which are caused by exceeding the speed limit, is far, far lower.
There is a massive difference between breaking a speed limit, and driving too fast for the prevailing conditions.
The former is, however, easily detected by a camera as a "binary" offence - you are breaking a speed limit or you are not, and prevailing conditions are not taken into account.
The latter is a matter of judgement against what a reasonable driver would do - a judgement that cannot be made by a camera, but only by a properly experienced traffic patrol officer.
It is perfectly legal, for example, to drive past a primary school at going-home time, at 30 miles per hour. It is also wholly irresponsible to do so. It is illegal to drive at 80 miles per hour at 5am on an otherwise deserted motorway - yet comparatively, much safer to do so. The replacement of experienced traffic police operators by cameras means that the first driver will get away with driving dangerously, and the second risks his licence while driving safely.
It is little wonder that the majority of perfectly safe drivers, suddenly criminalised by the automatic flash of a camera, see the reliance on speed enforcement as more of a cash generator than a real road safety advance.
Unfortunately these arguments fall upon deaf ears, to the considerable number of non-qualified non-technical inexperienced "road safety" groups which spring up, locally and nationally, to campaign on the single issue of binary legal / illegal speeding. The government has believed its own statistics for too long, and has pandered to these minority groups for too long, and it is time that proper road safety experience was brought to bear on the real causes of accidents: drivers who are inattentive, or inexperienced, or under the influence of drink or drugs, or driving unroadworthy vehicles with no licence, insurance, etc, or who are simply too stupid to realise that their driving falls in the 50% who must, by definition, be "below average" in any statistical sample.
Edited by tvrgit on Wednesday 8th November 13:35
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff