Safe Speed Forums

In defence of speed cameras
Friday, 10th July 2009
The Evening Standard's green columnist speaks up for the gadgets that motorists love to hate:


Opponents of cameras — and many on the internet are obsessive — are fond of quoting studies that supposedly show speed as the causal factor in only a fraction of crashes. In fact, an oft-quoted Transport Research Laboratory paper relied on alleged causes written down on forms at the scene by police officers; it's pretty obvious that accidents put down to being “in a hurry” instead of speed were mostly a question of driving too fast...

But cameras aren't the only answer — because breaking the speed limit isn't the only problem...The problem is the steady increase in dangerous driving. Some of it is by the estimated 400,000 uninsured drivers in the capital...The net effect is roads so lawless that on visits to Paris and Istanbul, for example, I've been surprised at how well behaved the traffic seems.We're more on a par with Beirut, I'd say. The only way to change that behaviour is by zero tolerance.

estimated 400,000 uninsured drivers

Then that. per Abercrombie, is 400,000 very safe drivers. To be serious: are there any statistics which demonstrate that uninsured drivers are either more or less likely to be involved in accidents.?

We estimate that uninsured and untraced drivers kill 160 people and injure 23,000 every year.

The main problem with insurance is that it is too expensive. When you start out your looking at 3.5 k just for an average car. I'd expect tank insurance for that money.

Also - as with all government taxes (as this would be yet another tax ) - no guarantees that adequate funding from the collected extra tax would go into any insurance fund.