A police officer from another force was interviewed and declared that speed cameras do save lives and he can cite places where they have saved lives, definitely. Naturally, the BBC wouldn't be so crass as to ask him to carry on and do so, not least because even if he did name a location you would know that he couldn't prove the cameras involvement. You see, they deploy a bit of a stunt to make their claims. If, over a couple of decades a stretch of road, on average, sees one death per year and then one day a 'big one' occurs, up goes a camera. This accident of course may not have had speed as a causative factor, but means that deaths for that year leaped to 4. This accident everyone will recognise, is rare and unusual and so no-one is surprised that next year there is just one death (regression to the mean as it is known). However, as a camera was put up at the site of the accident (here's the cynicism) the authorities claim they have reduced accidents at that location. Yep, they are as low as that.
Drivers tend to have an artificially heightened awareness of their speed on seeing a camera and may brake or constantly watch their speedometer, rather than the natural practice of watching the road, looking for hazards and driving to the conditions. Due to this tendency, cameras are more likely to cause accidents and there is some evidence that this is actually the case. Government investigation has also turned up 'unhelpful' evidence but the report, when published suffered a useful accident itself. The identity of the report (TRL327 or whatever) was 'mistyped' when it was put on the website and so very difficult to find. Average speed cameras are even greater proof that the intention is to find a way to 'catch' you as opposed to anything else. No clearer evidence exists than where these are used for roadworks 'to protect the workforce' and are left running when no work is taking place. The other tactic is the one where speed limits are deliberately altered so that the chance of you 'speeding' is greatly increased. In this situation the essence of safe driving is interfered with quite significantly. We used to have simple rules, 30 in a built up area, 60 on main routes and 70 on motorways. It meant that you intuitively knew what the limit was, even though it had been somewhat arbitrarily arrived at. Now you don't. It is like the current vogue for assigning some roundabouts a priority turning left lane. Here you can make a left turn at the roundabout without stopping and straight over is no longer permitted from the left hand lane. Drivers coming round, but exiting there need to keep to the right. If you don't know the locale you may be a bit taken aback by the sudden changed from established 'rules of the road' which we should now perhaps refer to as 'rules of the road that may not always apply'.
Motorways always have their own driving quirks and we all know that a small braking action becomes exaggerated down the line and eventually the traffic comes to a halt. This is artificially created with variable limits in places like the M25 near Heathrow and causes exactly that problem, not least due to the pressure of traffic, the exact problem they claim to be addressing.
The police are fond of putting up facetious 'it's 30 for a reason' signs. Next time to see a policeman by one, or have this gobby remark thrown at you by some pleased as punch twit who 'caught' you doing 52 in a 50 ask him what the reason is. He wont know. The nearest he can get is that it is necessary to have some kind of limit and 30, 60 and 70 were chosen. It was a blanket decision. In many situations 30 may not be particularly safe, but because you have this 'we know best' rammed down your throat, people who now believe that you don't have to think for yourself any more (or perhaps that you are not allowed to) will be doing 30. And above reproach they will be too, because the authorities approved it. If Mr. Plod accepts this point though, he creates a problem for his authoritarian approach. If he says, yes it was an overall approach, he then has to agree that individual circumstances and individual situations must be taken into consideration. and so maybe doing 86mph on an empty motorway in the middle of a clear fine night just isn't likely to be a problem. But the limit is 70, so out comes the book and the fines jar gets a little fuller. No good to society has been evoked but at least you have been reminded who is in charge and that is what sped cameras are all about. Happy motoring.
No comments:
Post a Comment