Littlejohn and the Speed Camera Argument

Everyone knows that in some sections of the driving community; speed cameras are the luminous yellow traffic anti-Christ. These machines are used to bully the commuting community to a cowering, angst ridden road discipline. They were designed to fleece the motorist to penury, the usual spiel. With the news that the local council are going to decide whether the fixed speed cameras in Oxfordshire should be removed to shore up money for that council. All speed camera fines go into the "Road Safety Grant" set aside for that particular project. By cutting the budget for this grant, the fines will provide 40 million of surplus dosh in the pot, that would normally have been out of reach, in a closed system for road safety projects. Likewise Oxfordshire council can save money by not having to keep the cameras. It is ironic that a move to cut the very same "fleece the drivers" speed cameras, will actually for the first time ever - make some money from speeders. (Indeed the costs of putting the bloody things up in the first place, outweighed the cash put back in the coffers by fines for speeding drivers!) Thus the myth of speed cameras being used to fleece motorists is blown away. And that is the point of this post. I have a little experience with road related issues, so I want to sort of see if some of the rights arguments against them are true. It also helps that Littlejohn has touched on this issue, and as he never does any research on anything, and trots out right wing memes, and paints counter arguments as "extremist" like I don't know what. It was, in a nutshell, a good place to start from. So here we go.

" Both are likely to be disappointed. There has never been any conclusive evidence that cameras have saved thousands of lives, as their more hysterical disciples maintain."

AKA: THE ARGUMENT THAT SPEED CAMERAS DON'T EVEN PREVENT FATALITIES ANYWAY. In one sense it is difficult to gauge if speed cameras specifically prevented or stopped a fatality, as the fatality it prevented never happened, so was never reported. Just an angry blast on a horn of a driver who slowed down in time, at a driver who pulled out without looking, or a kid who ran into the road. But comparisons of fatality levels have been observed to have dropped (up to 40 percent) at blackspots, after cameras are installed. And there is also evidence here that fatalities have dropped steadily since 1994 (two years after they were introduced to the UK.) Speed is a big factor (though not always the cause as we'll see.) in fatalities, and is widespread, as we read here.


" The faster the speed of a vehicle, the greater the risk of an accident. The forces experienced by the human body in a collision increase exponentially as the speed increases. Smart Motorist recommends that drivers observe our 3 second rule in everyday traffic, no matter what your speed. Most people agree that going 100 mph is foolhardy and will lead to disaster. The problem is that exceeding the speed limit by only 5 mph in the wrong place can be just as dangerous. Traffic engineers and local governments have determined the maximum speeds allowable for safe travel on the nation's roadways. Speeding is a deliberate and calculated behavior where the driver knows the risk but ignores the danger. Fully 90% of all licensed drivers speed at some point in their driving career; 75% admit to committing this offense regularly.

Consider this example: a pedestrian walks out in front of a car. If the car is traveling at just 30 mph, and the driver brakes when the pedestrian is 45 feet away, there will be enough space in which to stop without hitting the pedestrian. Increase the vehicle speed by just 5 mph and the situation changes dramatically. At 35 mph, with the pedestrian 45 feet away and the driver braking at the same point, the car will be traveling at 18 mph when it hits the pedestrian. An impact at 18 mph can seriously injure or even kill the pedestrian."


The exponential increase in physical impact even a few mph over the limit, really needs highlighting to those who say that 5 mph over it isn't a big deal.


Littlejohn however goes on.


"Independent research attributes just 7 per cent of accidents to excessive speed."


AKA: SPEEDING DOESN'T EVEN CAUSE MOST ACCIDENTS! WHY SINGLE THAT OUT? THEY'RE JUST BEING LIKE 1984 OR SOMETHING. He doesn't cite where he got this figure from. But surprisingly it is probably about right, roughly in the one in twenty range. Most accidents happen in slower traffic, such as rear ending, not stopping in time at a queue, not looking where you are going etc. So there are few fatalities here, whiplash and stuff. But for fatal accidents the number rises to about 12 percent. (Speeding was defined as the CAUSE of the accident. Not a contributing factor, and not accounting for inappropriate speed for the conditions.) It is still a lowish number, and some may ask, why focus on this so much, and not drink drivers, people pulling out without looking and other stuff that is statistically accounted for the cause of more accidents than speeding alone? The real truth is that traffic enforcement really works best when road users enforce it. External enforcements can be difficult. For all their cynicism of people like police chiefs and politicians. These pundits often fail to understand that these individuals often have less influence to act on stuff like this, than they would like to have. The simple fact is that speed cameras are one of the only real deterrents (and they are more sticking plaster than the deterrent they should be.) to bad driving, and one of the few options the transport police have to prevent (or damage limit) accidents to any large degree. (the Highways Agency redesigning dangerous junctions is another.) Spotting drunk / drugged / ear glued to a mobile / drivers in a squad car owes so much to being in the right place at the right time, that it is really difficult to curb it as much as they would like. As for drivers not paying attention, it's an even worse story, the cops can't drive the cars for them. A static camera can at least secure a higher "hit" rate. Speeding may not be the biggest cause of fatalities, but it is the easiest (and it isn't easy) to attempt to tackle. The increase in police patrols Littlejohn suggests has problems too. Firstly officers are diverted from trying to catch the other types of offender. Secondly when booking one person, they can miss others doing the same. Thirdly they'll just be accused of not "catching real criminals" and time wasting in "persecuting" motorists. So it's swings and roundabouts really.

I'll have to finish on my own feelings as to why speed cameras are so opposed by so many, and my own personal opinion of them (I hope backed up with evidence!). The simple fact about why they are so disliked is neither a surprise, nor a new phenomena. Practically every method introduced to cut down fatalities on our roads was condemned as A) "Won't work." and B) "Infringement of rights." Everything from introducing a 70mph speed limit on the then new M1, to seatbelts, even crash barriers in the central reservation, were vigorously condemned as "a war on drivers". Breathalysers were singled out in particular, and were predicted to close down just about every pub everywhere. A bit of this mentality survived even today, with a small upwelling of hostility, to the proposal to make the permitted blood alcohol level much more rigorous, as - yes "a war on drivers". Cars bring out a swelling of libertarian mentality, being cocooned in your own metal space and all. It is unsurprising when some take umbrage at methods designed to curtail personal freedoms in that space. (and cameras seem a particularly intrusive as well.)

So my own feelings on whether arguments A) and B) have merit. B) is the easiest for me to tackle. On one level they are an infringement of someones right to speed (you get fined obviously.), but peoples right to do stuff is relative to other rights. And the right to drive very fast, wherever you feel like it, doesn't count for much with the right not to be maimed in an accident. So on that score personal safety wins. As for A). Well there is evidence they do prevent accidents, especially at blackspots. But they don't stop speeding, and have limited success in doing so. Traffic will only tend to slow down near them, and then continue. So they only take some of the sting out of the speed problem, and for this reason, I support their use, and think that there are people still here because of those unpopular yellow boxes. But although they will never exclusively stop speeding completely; alone, there is room for optimism. In 1966 there were 8000 fatalities on the road, in 2007 there were 2940, and there were far fewer cars on the road back then. (the original fatality projections for 2000, from the 60's was half a million per year.) So unpopular moves to prevent deaths do work (as well as more robust cars), and perhaps do subconsciously start to be enforced from the drivers themselves (especially in regards to drink driving), not from pressures to enforce them (exclusively enforced by police and cameras.). Education on the issue of speeding can also play its part. It's a long haul, for something as endemic as speeding, but the drops in fatalities is a good sign.

As for taking the static cameras out of Oxfordshire. Well Oxfordshire has lots of long and fast trunk roads to service Oxford, form its rather remote location to the M4, M40 and M5 motorways, so there are some roads that are tempting for speed breakers. But on the plus side the city centre itself is a pain to drive in, so pedestrians are safer than other towns. And cutting speed where pedestrians are most vulnerable is really where the cameras work best. I have no doubt it will be popular with many residents in the area, and the people who want to pass the ban on static cameras know this.

Time will tell.

There is tons of info on speed cameras, and the causes of accidents at the URLs below.

http://www.trafficaccidentadvice.co.uk/speed-camera-questions-answers.html


http://www.smartmotorist.com/traffic-and-safety-guideline/what-causes-car-accidents.html