The case for speed cameras destroyed in a flash


By David Millward, Transport Correspondent


(Filed: 29/09/2006)








A review of the Government's speed cameras policy was demanded yesterday after official statistics showed that only five per cent of crashes are caused by drivers breaking the speed limit.

Drivers who let their attention wander cause more than six times as many accidents.

Speed cameras: under attackCampaigners seized on the figures and demanded: "In that case, why are there so many cameras?"

Paul Smith, of Safe Speed, which has led the campaign, said the Government's case for continuing to install cameras had been destroyed.

"Even those statistics are flawed, because they could include a joy-rider who is going at 100mph and no camera will ever stop him," he said. "They are spinning like tops to justify the camera programme."

Motoring groups called for a broader approach to road safety and a revaluation of the £95 million camera project.

Edmund King, the chief executive of the RAC Foundation, said: "The figures suggest that all drivers need to concentrate more on the road rather than on their phones, passengers, music, food, drinks, navigation systems and the clutter of signs."

Chris Grayling, the Tories' transport spokesman, called for greater use of police patrol cars, rather than cameras, to deal with the menace of "rogue drivers".

There are more than 5,400 camera sites in England and Wales, which raised £113 million in fines in 2004-5.

The Department of Transport insisted that, while driver error accounted for 66 per cent of accidents, motorists going too fast for the conditions, irrespective of the speed limit, accounted for 29 per cent of crashes.

The analysis rekindled the speed camera argument and raised questions over whether the Government would meet the road safety targets it had set itself. The figures showed that the number of people killed on the roads last year fell to 3,201, one per cent fewer than in the previous year. The 28,954 people seriously injured represented a seven per cent fall on 2004. The Government has said it wants the number of people killed or seriously injured on the roads to be reduced to 40 per cent of the 1994-8 average by 2010.

Its figures, based on information sent to the Government by police forces, show that the tally has dropped by 33 per cent.

But analysis of hospital data sent to the Department of Health painted a very different picture, suggesting that the drop in the number of deaths had been minimal.

A study of the figures in the British Medical Journal said the gap between police and hospital data indicated that the Government was unlikely to meet its casualty reduction targets.

"It is hard to ascertain why there should be such a wide divergence in these figures," said one of the authors of the article, Mike Gill, professor of public health at Surrey University.

"There are two main contenders for the discrepancy in my view. First, there is an unintended effect of drink-drive legislation.

"While one cannot avoid police intervention when there is a fatality, when somebody is hurt it may be tempting to shuffle people off to casualty and keep schtum.

"Also, dedicated traffic patrols have been reduced and therefore there is less likely to be police intervention in all cases."

However, Prof Gill was reluctant to suggest that the study undercut the case for speed cameras.

"We don't know what the figures would have been otherwise," he said.

Andrew Howard, of the AA Motoring Trust, supported the Government's analysis and the speed camera programme. "Human beings make mistakes," he said. "So the only thing that can be done is to mitigate their impact and that means slowing the car down."





Information appearing on telegraph.co.uk is the copyright of Telegraph Group Limited and must not be reproduced in any medium without licence. For the full copyright statement see Copyright

 

Now, if only everyone in spore dare to speak up n demand a review on spore
speed camera policies...Does the govt actually realise how many accidents they
can cost when pple notices their officers hiding in a corner or on the overhead
bridge trying to do a full makeover portfolio for their cars on the road n jam their
brakes? A lot of pple could have gotten into trouble becoz of the police trying
to make sure we recirculate our funds into the economy...My qns is...r they really
there to help us n maintain orders on the roads? Or r they really there to prove
to the world they r the supreme beings on local roads n to make sure all
motorist r terrorised into donating for the safety of our roads?

But i must say one thing...I very safety driver one...never speed b4...very
law abidding citizen...any speed above 90km/h is way too fast...
heehee...

 

In Singapore, it would certainly help for drivers to be concentrating on the road rather than the white man on the overhead bridge.

 

.....i'm wondering whose white 8 was there at west coast highway last friday night.....zooming at excess of 150km/h????

 

wheew....lucky not refering to TPE.

 

Bro, that was u lah...not me...I think i only travel 50km/h that nite...
hahaha...

 

But i must say one thing...I very safety driver one...never speed b4...very
law abidding citizen...any speed above 90km/h is way too fast...
heehee... [/QUOTE]


Rei, I think you got your SI unit mixed up a little. Im sure you meant 90 Miles/hr

 

Well, since the COE price drop and the increase in cars on the road, I've noticed significantly more police out on the roads too. So the "hunt" for cameras isn't the major concern anymore, it's the TP on bikes that jump out of nowhere. I've seen more pullovers in the last few months than I've seen over the last few years. Makes me look down at my speedo more than I usually would....and I'm not referring to my swimming suit

 

The TP actually outsource some duties to cisco. And parking wardens seems way more efficient recently.

I have noticed alot of cams on overhead bridges recently. One wonders whether they are trying to rule the roads with a iron fist or lack of funds because of recent events this year?

Check out recent articles in the forum section of the straits times regarding this.

As per article. Excess speed do not kill its lack of attention. And with attention focusing on overhead bridges; i wonder if there is a increase in rear-ending?

Having said that, i do not advocate idiotic speeds on public roads, but who the heck drives 50 km/h nowaday on small roads or 90 km/h on expressways? These speed limits belong in the past century (when they were created in the first place). Technology has progress much further than non-ABS drum brakes.

 

eh.....there's another white that night.....dolly?

no....it's a OPC white! teh one with knight S. kit!

 

Not me lah.. If it was me I wouldn't keep getting lost...

 

Rei, I think you got your SI unit mixed up a little. Im sure you meant 90 Miles/hr[/QUOTE]

Hahaha...no lah..90km/h confirm...higher speed than that n i'll get scare...

 

Hmm...the one wif the ings kit huh...i think she quite fast...

Bro, confirm not me lah...my car very stock one...
heehee...

 

???
me??

 

Could it be ....