Quote:
The Government’s claims for the effectiveness of speed cameras at reducing deaths on our roads have been widely exaggerated according to an official report.
It would appear that the government has finally caved in over this issue.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0, ... 85,00.htmlQuote:
THE safety benefits of speed cameras have been exaggerated, the Government admitted yesterday as it called a halt to their proliferation. Cameras do save lives, but far fewer than have been claimed.
And Paul gets a mention too:
Quote:
Safe Speed, the anti-camera campaign, has argued for years that the policy of siting cameras where there have been recent clusters of crashes makes it impossible to attribute any fall in collisions to the presence of a camera. Collisions would be expected to fall anyway as they reverted from the temporary peak to the normal rate.
...
Paul Smith, founder of Safe Speed, said: “The truth is finally emerging about how hopelessly ineffective speed cameras are. Realising the gross error, the department is now seeking to move quietly away from speed cameras.”
About time sanity prevailed. The 30 speed limit was set when cars were far less safe than they are today. Whilst in some areas 30 is a reasonable maximum speed - or even an excessive speed - in most 30 areas it is significantly below the appropriate speed for competent and aware drivers. If I drove at exactly 30 on most local roads I would have a long queue behind me, as this is clearly too low a speed for the conditions.
Quote:
But once the regression to the mean was taken into account, fixed cameras were found to reduce deaths and serious injuries by only 873, or 24 per cent for fixed and 17 per cent for mobile cameras.
If it stops the likes of North Wales proletariat from booking people for doing 35 on a deserted road with no hazards at all (except of course the carefully concealed camera
) it will be a good thing.
Login
Register
FAQ
Search
Members
