Short life link:
http://www.dcthomson.co.uk/mags/post/news5.htm
Controversial claim after worrying rise in road deaths -
We must scrap speed cameras right now
By Iain Harrison
LATEST figures reveal the number of people being killed on Scotland?s roads is on the up.
They rose from 304 in 2002 to 331 in 2003 and the trend has been upwards in the past five years.
Transport Minister Nicol Stephen says the statistics - published on Tuesday - are a major worry and that urgent measures need to be taken.
Concern
Now concern is mounting that the Executive?s reaction will be to increase the use of speed cameras at accident blackspots.
Since they were introduced in the mid-1990s the unpopular devices have become an increasingly common sight.
The Executive insist the 180 fixed and 316 mobile cameras sites on Scotland's roads have helped reduce accident casualties. However, extensive research, collated by the Safe Speed road safety campaign and backed by the Association of British Drivers (ABD) suggests otherwise.
Paul Smith (inset) claims speed cameras have failed to reduce the death toll on Scotland's roads.
Both organisations claim the true purpose of speed cameras is to raise revenue for the Government.
Associated
But Tain-based Paul Smith, founder of Safe Speed, goes even further, insisting that fatal road accidents are closely associated with an over-reliance on cameras.
"How many more people will have to die on Scotland?s roads while the Executive doggedly pursues the wrong road safety policy? When will they realise that an over-reliance on cameras is killing us?" he asks.
Mr Smith, an engineer and advanced motorist who set up Safe Speed in 2001, has carried out over 7000 hours of research into the effects of speed camera policy on UK road safety.
His conclusions are that cameras make Britain?s road more dangerous. And he says he has identified a number of major flaws and false assumptions in the claims made for the devices.
"Many people think it's obvious that speed cameras will make roads safer," he adds. "But for every complex problem there's a solution that's neat, simple, obvious and completely wrong."
"Wrong solution"
"Speed cameras are the wrong solution. Everyone is distracted from the real causes of crashes. Drivers are becoming obsessed with their speedometers and the location of the next camera, but they need to be looking at the road ahead.
We must scrap speed cameras now. They have failed. Road deaths are going up despite huge ongoing improvements in vehicle safety and paramedic care. These improvements swamp the growth in traffic and deaths should be going down."
The 7000-stong ABD unequivocally supports Mr Smith's assertions. Their chief, Tony Vickers, says speed cameras actually encourage reckless, incompetent and drunk driving.
"They may have been a noble idea but they?ve become subverted and are now misused," he fumes. "Effectively the idea of speed cameras was based on the assumption that trivial speeding offences cause 33 per cent of deaths and serious injuries.
These figures are dramatically flawed and based on a misunderstanding of the way accidents occur. Research we have uncovered shows that the figure for deaths caused by speeding are closer to two or three per cent.
The reason people have accidents is due to attitude. Factors such as aggression, arrogance and incompetence are more likely to cause accidents. Speed cameras can't deal with these."
Substitute
"Cameras are being used as substitute traffic cops so the reckless, incompetent and drunk drivers know they've little chance of being caught. They are a completely unreasonable way of dealing with road safety."
Motoring organisations, including the RAC, the AA and the Institute of Advanced Motorists (IAM), aren?t wholly opposed to speed cameras but all believe the Executive rely on them too much.
"There's nothing wrong with cameras in the right location," says the RAC Foundation's Sue Nicholson. "If they?re placed in an area where there is a history of accidents they will reduce fatalities.
The problem is they do not change overall driver behaviour. We would like to see more education courses introduced rather than penalising people all the time.
The Executive has become so fixated with speeding it?s been to the detriment of other reckless forms of driving such as drink and drugs. We'd prefer more traffic police rather than more speed cameras."
Neil Greig, head of AA policy in Scotland, echoes those views. He says properly-sited speed cameras can help reduce road accidents in built-up areas.
But, unfortunately, he no longer believes that's where the problem lies.
"It was hoped speed cameras would influence people to drive more slowly but all they do is stop people speeding in the areas they're sited. As such, most road deaths now take place in the countryside.
Education
"In Scotland, around 75 per cent of road fatalities occur outside towns and cities. Speed cameras are never going to work for those types of accidents because you'd need thousands of them and that's not going to happen.
The only thing that will work is improving the roads, educating people better and ensuring that cameras are never used as a replacement for traffic police."
The IAM's Vince Yearly says if speed cameras really were a cure-all universal remedy then they would have led to a significant decline in road death figures over the past decade.
"That's not happened," he counters. "The stats are fairly consistent year on year. Speed cameras have their place but the Executive must place more emphasis on compliance and education."
A spokeswoman for the Scottish Executive says research has consistently shown that speed cameras do have a major impact in reducing road casualties.
She adds, "We have no plans to scrap the use of safety cameras. We are currently consulting with key stakeholders to review site selection criteria and help us further reduce road casualties.
In relation to road deaths in general any increase is a serious concern and action needs to be taken. Transport Minister Nicol Stephen commissioned a study in June to look at what, if any, common causes there might be in fatal accidents and identify any measures which could improve the situation.
The results of this work will be available soon. Until we have these results, it would be unwise to predict the cause of this increase."
Login
Register
FAQ
Search
Members
The way I see it is that we are still sending out badly worded messages that can and will contribute to further accidents. What do you think of these motoring groups comments?
