Here’s a question for you: if you could choose between a road accident in which you end up “seriously injured” (but able to recover) and a road accident in which you end up dead, which would you choose?

I’m guessing everyone would choose the first option. It’s a stupid question. How can you compare a recoverable injury, no matter how serious, with death? The two are poles apart. The government however lumps these two accident outcomes into one - a statistic they call “KSI” (Killed or Seriously Injured). They know that when they say the words “Killed or Seriously Injured”, Joe Public hears only “Killed”. Now they can re-define what constitutes a “serious injury” at will to present statistics that appear to support their road safety policies. Very convenient. I’m sure this comes as no surprise to anyone. Politicians lie? What a shock. But, how does this nonsense affect the British motorist?

Speed never killed anyone…
The road safety policy in Britain is based almost entirely around the phrase “speed kills”. I put it to you that speed does not kill - it’s coming to a sudden halt that kills.

What is the safest form of transport in the world? The aeroplane. Do aeroplanes travel at 30mph? No. In fact speed has nothing to do with air travel safety. Instead, pilots are well trained, with a whole host of technical wizardry aiding them. Planes are watched carefully from the ground and wherever airspace becomes a little crowded, someone is controlling exactly where each aircraft should be. All these systems contribute to the safety record of air transport. Speed is not even relevant.

Speed is a measurement of distance travelled within a given time frame. How can a measurement kill? It can’t. The policy needs re-wording: “inappropriate speed for the conditions can be dangerous”. Inappropriate speed can even occur within set speed limits. For example, most country lanes in Britain have a 60mph limit, even when the road clearly cannot support such a speed. The experienced driver doesn’t need any signs to tell him that, he already knows what would be an appropriate speed and adjusts his driving habits accordingly.

Building on a flawed policy
Enter the speed camera, erroneously dubbed “safety cameras” by the charlatans in charge of operating these taxation devices.

Camera partnerships (comprised of local council and police force) are supposed to follow guidelines when installing these cameras, only placing them in accident black spots. Of course, using their handy KSI statistic, this means they can put them pretty much anywhere they please. And these same guidelines don’t say anything about changing speed limits on the road, so they simply set a speed limit that is artificially low. By that I mean a speed limit that is totally inappropriate for the road. I see this all over the country. Roads that were previously national speed limit, suddenly have 30 signs everywhere (and of course cameras to cash in). When a speed limit is artificially low, it takes a conscious effort on the part of the driver to maintain that speed. At a sub-conscious level, he knows the speed is wrong, and if he doesn’t maintain that concentration, he will naturally begin to drive the car at the speed his experience tells him is both correct and safe. In so doing, he runs the risk of a £60 fine and 3 points.

Catching real villains
The vast majority of people that get caught by cameras are law abiding citizens. Think about it. If someone wants to drive around at breakneck speed, he will make use of GPS and radar detectors in order to avoid the speed traps. These are not the people that get caught.

What about some complete idiot who is drunk behind the wheel? Will he get caught? Only if he breaks the speed limit.

How about a moron who likes to drive 12 inches from your rear bumper? What about someone who is driving at way below the speed limit (something which poses a very real danger)? What about someone in a stolen car? The list goes on.

Speed cameras don’t catch criminals. They catch you or I out for a momentary lapse in concentration.

Sneaky tactics
The camera partnerships will tell you that they are all about road safety, and that they make hardly any money from speeding fines. Why then do mobile camera vans exist?

Usually illegally parked, these vehicles which in many counties are not marked as police vehicles at all, sit and snap unsuspecting drivers all day. The ACPO guidelines specifically state that camera and radar equipment should only be used to back up a police officer’s expert assessment that you are exceeding the speed limit. In other words, they should not just sit there and point a camera or radar at a road catching out as many people as they can.

Saving lives
Do speed cameras save lives? The government says they do, but their statistics are consistently proved to be both inaccurate and without any solid scientific method. Many independent surveys have clearly proven that speed cameras make no difference. And anyone who has been a witness to sharp speed camera braking would be justified in arguing that in fact they present a danger to road users.

Each Gatso camera costs £30,000. That’s a police officer’s salary. Let’s have more real police on the road.

Human rights violation
What would you do if a letter came through the post from the police. In it they say that they have a photo of the back of someone committing a robbery. They can’t make an ID from the photograph, but they think it was you. What they would like is for you to just confess to the crime on the enclosed form and in return they’ll give you a reduced sentence. Oh, and if you don’t, they’ll prosecute you anyway for obstruction.

What nonsense! And yet, would you believe it? That is exactly what happens with speeding offences.

No evidence will be shown to you. You will not receive the caution that you are entitled to by law - the caution that clearly tells you that you do not have to say anything, because you have the right to not give out information that incriminates yourself later in court. However, if you do confess, and accept a fine and some points, then they won’t prosecute. So… sort of like a bribe then?

And if you don’t fill in the form? You will be prosecuted for failing to provide information, which will likely involve a sentence of a £1,000 fine and 6 points - a sentence far worse than the bribe they are offering you.

Is that justice?

Conclusion
The speed camera is a complete failure in everything except government fund raising - ergo it is a tax on the motorist. And for all of you sanctimonious muppets sat reading this with a smug smile on your face thinking: ‘well… if you just obeyed the speed limit, you wouldn’t have this problem’ - then I say to you:

You are not perfect. You will one day get caught out unfairly. That one day when instead of driving along with your eyes glued to your speedometer, you decided to actually look where you were going. Will you still think they were so great? And what if a drunk driver, travelling at 39 in a 40, ran over and killed members of your family right in front of a speed camera and then drove off, would you still think they were a good idea? Or would you perhaps wish that your excessive taxes were being spent on real police officers who can actually make a difference?

I’m not condoning dangerous driving here. I’m simply saying that speed cameras do not make roads safer, which is their sole job in life. Therefore, they must be removed.

If you still don’t agree, take off your rose-tinted authority worshipping glasses, and open your mind to the real scientific, legal, historical and factual data, as presented on these websites:

www.abd.org.uk - The Association of British Drivers
www.safespeed.org.uk - Campaigns for real road safety
www.pepipoo.com - Helping the motorist to get justice

In part 3 I’m going to talk about my some sensible solutions to road safety issues.

See also:
Part 1: Oppressive Taxation
Part 3: Sensible Solutions