Safe Speed Forums

Speed kills. It also hits motorists hard in the pocket when they ignore the limit in town and the countryside, or on the motorway. According to figures released by the Scottish Executive yesterday, speeding motorists caught on camera or during police blitzes paid some £10m in fines in 2003. These drivers account for nearly 20% of crimes handled by the police. For those who believe that speed cameras are at the core of a policy of fleecing drivers to swell Treasury and police force coffers, the new figures will come as no surprise, if a source of continuing anger.
Articulating the views of that camp, Neil Greg, head of policy for the AA in Scotland, said speeding fines were of no benefit to motorists. They wanted to see road rage and careless driving tackled, not more speed cameras. There are two points to make in response. First, fines are not intended to make life easier for offenders. They are intended as a punishment to stop them transgressing in future. Secondly, it stands to reason that speeding will be a factor in both road rage and careless driving. Cracking down on speeding should reduce the incidence of careless driving. It is estimated that 1100 people die and 12,000 are seriously injured in accidents where speed is a major factor. Speed limits are imposed and policed to save lives. The most recent figures for the number of people killed in road accidents in Scotland – 331 in 2003 – show a 9% increase on the previous year. The rising fatality list occurred despite a big jump in the number of motorists caught speeding. Does this mean, then, that the policy is not working and that it is no more than a smokescreen for raising revenue, as critics maintain?
The short answer is no. The statistics show quite clearly that, in the areas where speed cameras are in place, they have a positive impact – on fatalities and serious injuries (40% fewer than elsewhere); injuries caused by collisions (33% down); and pedestrians killed or seriously injured (35% down). If anything, there is a clear case for extending the use of speed cameras. The figures suggest that most road deaths occur where there are no speed cameras, puncturing the argument of those who believe they do not save lives. There is a significant lobby which opposes speed cameras. If the use of cameras is to be extended it should be accompanied by a public-awareness campaign explaining their benefit to sceptical drivers. Then they might be won over – and drive show quite clearly that, in the areas where speed cameras are in place, they have a positive impact – on fatalities and serious injuries (40% fewer than elsewhere); injuries caused by collisions (33% down); and pedestrians killed or seriously injured (35% down). If anything, there is a clear case for extending the use of speed cameras. The figures suggest that most road deaths occur where there are no speed cameras, puncturing the argument of those who believe they do not save lives. There is a significant lobby which opposes speed cameras. If the use of cameras is to be extended it should be accompanied by a public-awareness campaign explaining their benefit to sceptical drivers. Then they might be won over – and drive safely.
Speed kills. It also hits motorists hard in the pocket when they ignore the limit in town and the countryside, or on the motorway. According to figures released by the Scottish Executive yesterday, speeding motorists caught on camera or during police blitzes paid some £10m in fines in 2003. These drivers account for nearly 20% of crimes handled by the police. For those who believe that speed cameras are at the core of a policy of fleecing drivers to swell Treasury and police force coffers, the new figures will come as no surprise, if a source of continuing anger.
Articulating the views of that camp, Neil Greg, head of policy for the AA in Scotland, said speeding fines were of no benefit to motorists. They wanted to see road rage and careless driving tackled, not more speed cameras. There are two points to make in response. First, fines are not intended to make life easier for offenders. They are intended as a punishment to stop them transgressing in future. Secondly, it stands to reason that speeding will be a factor in both road rage and careless driving. Cracking down on speeding should reduce the incidence of careless driving. It is estimated that 1100 people die and 12,000 are seriously injured in accidents where speed is a major factor. Speed limits are imposed and policed to save lives. The most recent figures for the number of people killed in road accidents in Scotland – 331 in 2003 – show a 9% increase on the previous year. The rising fatality list occurred despite a big jump in the number of motorists caught speeding. Does this mean, then, that the policy is not working and that it is no more than a smokescreen for raising revenue, as critics maintain?
The short answer is no. The statistics show quite clearly that, in the areas where speed cameras are in place, they have a positive impact – on fatalities and serious injuries (40% fewer than elsewhere); injuries caused by collisions (33% down); and pedestrians killed or seriously injured (35% down). If anything, there is a clear case for extending the use of speed cameras. The figures suggest that most road deaths occur where there are no speed cameras, puncturing the argument of those who believe they do not save lives. There is a significant lobby which opposes speed cameras. If the use of cameras is to be extended it should be accompanied by a public-awareness campaign explaining their benefit to sceptical drivers. Then they might be won over – and drive safely.

First, fines are not intended to make life easier for offenders. They are intended as a punishment to stop them transgressing in future.

Secondly, it stands to reason that speeding will be a factor in both road rage and careless driving.

If the use of cameras is to be extended it should be accompanied by a public-awareness campaign explaining their benefit to sceptical drivers.

If the use of cameras is to be extended it should be accompanied by a public-awareness campaign explaining their benefit to sceptical drivers. Then they might be won over – and drive safely.