There is a huge amount of disinformation from the government about the acccident statistics and the way these are presented to show that speed cameras actually work.
In some areas there was a drop in accidents as cameras were installed, this was taken up as a great success, however the fact that in the same area a year later those figures have risen above the previous levels is not so widely publicised.
Speed cameras do nothing aat all to catch drivers of vehicles that are travelling withing the speed limit for light vehicles but above that for heavy vehicles.
On many raods HGV are limited to 40mph whereas light vehicles can do 50mph, speed camers set up for this will not trap speeding lorries, and unless a copper happens to stop the driver on the spot, there is no way that this can be recognised on a tachograph since this only shows speed and not where the speed took place.
Every police force in the UK has reduced its traffic specialist teams, whist camers can catch speeders, they cannot catch those who overtake on douvble white lines, those who pull out, those whose vehicles are in a poor state of repair, or any number of bad driving ahabits, such as using a mibile phone whilst driving.
In this sense speed cameras are just a poor substitue for police and are used to save money.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/3293611.stm
If speed cameras were truly about safey, why are they not situated on road where serious accidents occur ?
Not far from where I work the A1 goes north from Wetherby, and this stretch of road is absolutely notorious, there has to be one major hold up per month, but there is no speed camera.
On the A63 Leeds-Selby road there is a stretch known locally as the ‘mad mile’ where motorists hurtle along and have plenty of bad crashes, and its in a residential area - no speed cameras there.
Fact is that 98% of road traffic fatalities are not related to high speed but in fact caused by bad driving.The vast majority of crashes occur well within the posted speed limit.
Ask any motocyclist and you will find that it is things such as simple failure to observe properly that are the amin causes of accidents.
Our driving test does not include night driving, nor motorways, and traing nearly always stoops the moment this test has been passed, and yet in the highway code book that every learner buys it states that passing a test only sets the driver up to the minimum standard of ability, but how many dirvers actually take firther training to enhance their skills - vanishingly small, bike riders often take advanced driving lessons, car drivers rarely do so.
Over time, driver pick up bad habits and also become complacent, they know the roads in their area and take chances.
There is no system of reassessment unless the dirver has been convincted of a serious driving offence, and by then it is too late for their victims.
Bike riders have restrictions placed upon them, their test is harder - more poeple fail it as a percentage than car drivers.
Bike riders must first take a compulsory basic training course before even getting out on the road, they are then restricted to 125cc machines until they pass a test.
If the person is under 21 they can only apply to do a test that will allow them a bike with restricted power 33bhp.When you pass your restricted bike test you are stuck with 33bhp for 2 years.
Over 21 and you can try for your test for a full power machine, but your chances of actually succeeding are small, less than 20% pass first time.
Car drivers can pass their test and drive any vehicle they can afford to buy and insure.
The greatest accident risk is those who passed their test in the previous 2 years, why is it that bike riders are restricted in power but car drivers are not ?
If the government wants to improve road safety, training would be far more cost effective in terms of reducing accidents, one simple way would be to allow the police to carry out random breathalyser tests, a power they currently don’t have.
The EU is trying to enforce such legislation all through Europe but this current government is resisting it.
This would not cost anything, and it would mean, for example, that the police could wait outside a pub car park and test everyone leaving it.
All inapropriate speed cameras do, is to cause resentment, they do nothing whatsoever to reduce accidents, and there are much better ways of reducing accidents that have lower capital outlay, but of course these do not bring in as much revenue to the coffers.
There are good places to site speed cameras, but the majority of them are not actually in such places, instead they are routinely found on motorways, which are the UKs safest roads, or on long clear stretches where the view is unimpeded and conditions are good.