Are speed cameras really about safety or not?

An insurance company has recently come up with the idea of charging premiums based on where, when and the distance that you actually drive. Their policy suggests that motorways are very safe in off peak hours, so if this is true why are speed cameras used all the time on motorways even in off peak hours?

This suggests further evidence that this is all about making money!!!

Yes you may have guessed but I am a tad upset about being caught speeding on a Saturday morning on the M4 which was not very busy and just keeping up with the rest of traffic but overtaking at that time!

So one final question does 94 MPH mean 3 or 6 points, and £60 fine or more?

Statistically, motorways are the safest roads in terms of per mile driven, at any time of day or night. The insurance companies have a vested interest in seeking ways of increasing revenue and/or reducing the costs of claims, and risk will rise or fall proportionate to the annual mileage driven. If you have a minor incident or a near miss every 5,000 miles, then it figures that you are going to have 20 if you drive 100,000 per annum as some professional drivers and business people do.

The issue of speed-cameras is a thorny one.

There is no doubt but they are effective in reducing vehicle speeds, but that possibly isn’t the most important point, because the PURPOSE of a particular speed-reduction exercise is what really matters.

Thus, when cameras were first installed in the UK, they were placed almost anywhere; often hidden from view. The purpose of this was to create a climate of fear, and thus induce motorists to obey speed-limits absolutely, without question.

In this, they were supported by many police-forces, the Driving Standards Agency, pressure groups such as B.R.A.K.E., various road-safety experts, national and local politicians wanting to be seen to do something and, perhaps most siginificantly, by those who operated the “safety partnerships” amounting to a gravy-train of revenue for those companies who install cameras and maintain them. Naturally, the initiative was backed by the goverment, due to the fact that “safety cameras” are a ready source of tax revenue (which they insisted would be “self-funding”).

Thus, the perception was that a reduction in vehicle speed would result in a dramatic drop in death and serious injury.

The police and “safety lobbies” are every keen to suggest that “speed causes accidents.” However, this is a simply ridiculous idea, because excessive-speed is just another example of bad judgement, like all accident-related data.

The only possible true statement, is that higher speeds result in an increased likelehood of more serious injury, IN THE EVENT THAT AN ACCIDENT SHOULD HAPPEN.

What I personally find interesting, is the fact that the death and serious injury toll in my home area has not changed at all between 2001 and the present day, in spite of the enormous proliferation of “safety-cameras”.

One really does have to question the efficacy of those who first proposed the idea of “safety-cameras” and who set themselves up as “safety-experts”, when clearly, their aim has failed miserably, with cameras ill-sighted. (How many cameras are situated near schools, for example, or in housing estates where children play?)

In fact, there are far BETTER ways of slowing traffic down is that is the aim, and one of them is to vastly reduce the number of roadsigns/ traffic signals etc.

However, the “experts” seem to have an answer, (and a roadsign) for every eventuality, to the point that all drivers now suffer “information overload” and increased levels of stress; actually reducing the ability of drivers to drive safely.

A further point is the fact that as local-councils now oversee speed-limits, the limits now being set by people who know absolutely nothing about safety. Speed-limits have now lost all credibility and are widely disregarded by a majority of motorists.

Were the “experts” to concentrate on drug-driving, drink-driving and the very high incidence of people driving with defective eyesight, they may regain the initiative, but of course, that would require considerable expenditure in effective policing, whereas setting up “safety-cameras” is a PR exercise to assure people that something is being done, when in fact, nothing effective IS being done.

As for “safety-cameras” being “self funding,” I find myself wondering how long it will be before they actually affect the economy of the country, but that is perhaps an argument too far!

Keychain ‘Spy’ camera test on the way to work!

Garmin City Navigator North America for Detailed Maps of the United State, Canada and Mexico (DVD) $70.51 Garmin DVD maps are easier to plot routes compared to preprogrammed MicroSD cards. DVD maps require a PC or Mac computerDVD maps are easier to plot routes compared to pre-programmed MicroSD cardsRequires separate purchase of blank MicroSD/SD card for most devices (not sold thru QBP)…

Samson Quick Flip Mounting Plate, Extended QFMP-EX $27.75 Samson Quick Flip Mounting Plate, Extended QFMP-EX…

Leapers Model 4 Re-enforced Shorty Handguard Set, Double Heat Shield Liners, Black RB-M4HGSB-A $24.95 Leapers Model 4 Re-enforced Shorty Handguard Set, Double Heat Shield Liners, Black M4HGSB-A…

Samson Quick Flip Mounting Plate, M4 Alignment QFMP-L $20.90 Samson Quick Flip Mounting Plate, M4 Alignment QFMP-L…