Monday 8 March 2010

Speed Cameras

I have, in the past on occasion drifted ever so slightly over the speed limit, never out of control or recklessly, but I have done it, so it may seem odd that I’m coming out in support of speed cameras, both normal and average.

There is always criticism of these things, “They’re a stealth tax” “they cause more accidents than they prevent” “speeding doesn’t cause as many accidents as bad driving” are just some of the arguments people use as to why an automatic system that fines lawbreakers is a bad idea. Let’s take a look at these arguments.

Bad Driving

Its true, careless driving does cause more accidents than speeding. However speed is a factor that can make the difference between a bump and a disaster, for every 10mph in speed there is an exponential rise in the severity of any accident. This is why I am more careful in particular to stick to the limit at the lower speeds, the 30 and 40 limits, because if the speed has been reduced it has been done for a reason. Yes, plodding through a 30 is dull, but as the ads say, its 30 for a reason, bad sighting, residential areas are just a few of the reasons why the speed can be reduced. When you look at survivability statistics and how they increase as speed reduces it is sobering reading.

Cause more accidents than they prevent.

This is a really tenuous one, for the fixed cameras, normally used outside schools, black spots etc the argument is that the sharp deceleration on approach causes accidents. Really? But there aren’t always at the start of a 30, usually a fair way in, if you’d been obeying the speed limit you’d have no need to sharply decelerate for a camera, and if you weren’t sitting so close to the car in front that you can see my speedometer you may have a chance of not rear ending it when it slows down. For average this argument was pitched by the ever so reasonable Jeremy Clarkson, that he would be so focused on his speedometer that he’s more likely to hit something because he won’t be watching the road. If that is your argument you are unsafe to drive. Yes, you should check your speedo, but not at the expense of watching the road, you might as well argue that you hit something because you were really worried about your fuel and were watching the gauge like a hawk.

Stealth Tax

Many people better than me have taken this on, for starters, I’ve never seen anything stealthy painted yellow, or have warning signs alerting you to its presence. And as a tax, how good is that, a tax which you can avoid by driving at the posted speed limit, in short a tax that only affects those breaking the law. If only we could automatically penalise other minor offences. Also that there were taxes to easy to avoid. Hey, I can avoid this “Stealth Tax” by driving at the posted speed limit, how easy is that.

There is a strange correlation I’ve noticed in those who complain about speed cameras also often are the ones who complain that sentencing is too lenient and that only with the threat of harsh punishments will people obey the law. This strangely doesn’t stretch to speeding however, where they seem to think that they should be able to choose the speed at which it is safe to drive, indeed you often see statements like “I know how fast I can safely drive, I’m not driving dangerously” which may be true (Although studies show people often overestimate their own abilities) but I’m sure that’s the same litany of many a person caught driving dangerously, and regardless of your own opinion of your driving, the law states that you obey the posted speed limit. I may as well try and claim that I know my car is safe to drive and have no need of an MOT, (Obviously a stealth tax and secret conspiracy by an all powerful cartel of motor mechanics, or a way to make sure every road vehicle complies with a basic state or road worthiness) In short you may not like the law, and I fully support anyone who campaigns for change based on evidence, but you don’t get to ignore it in the meantime.

I enjoy driving fast (Although I find more pleasure skilfully taking corners on a windy road at 30-40 than I do going for straight line velocity) and I’d love a shot at the Autobahn, indeed I’d love the autobahn to be evidence that we should have unlimited speed some of our motorways. However Germany is currently adding speed limits rather than removing them so the evidence doesn’t seem to support this as a safe course of action.

2 comments:

  1. Pie Man: the thing is that any automatic system that penalises lawbreakers is a bad thing. If it automatic it doesn't take account of individual circumstances. Instinctively people tend to feel that's unjust.

    Speed cameras as stealth tax. Not sure. But people believe rightly or wrongly that cameras are placed where the authorities know that people will break the speed limit; on fast by-passes for example. What they don't do is alter people behaviour - there's little evidence that speed cameras on motorways reduce the average speed. People know this and reason that the cameras aren't there to slow people down but to generate income.

    I also think we tie together speeding offences with those of parking. They're both traffic offences. People hate parking restrictions and see them as revenue generators; that flows over into how we see speeding tickets.

    What's important is that where pedestrians and cyclists are in close proximity with motor vehicles the effect of any impact should be minimised. The most effective way is by reducing one's speed. Do speed camera effect people's behaviour? I suspect not. More effective are passive restraints: chicanes; speed humps; doing away with the distinction between road and pavement.

    However, these approaches are expensive. Speed cameras are less so and I believe people know that they are a flawed compromise which are really only effective at one thing - collecting revenue.

    ReplyDelete
  2. I see your points, and inded agree on traffic calming measures being a more effective way of reducing accidnets and slowing speed, however, part of the point I was trying to make was that I don't mind that they're a source of revenue, if only we coudl collect more revenue from misdemeanours, dog fouling or grafiti, you might not stop it but at least you may as well get soem money from it.

    ReplyDelete