I've only been caught by a speed camera once. It was a quiet Sunday morning on a wide stretch of dual carriage way on the West coast of Scotland and I was doing 47mph - unfortunately there was a temporary 40mph speed limit in place which I ignored. So yes, the ticket was annoying and infuriating but it was also entirely justified since I had broken the law.
I'm always puzzled by the attitude some sections of the press and certain campaign groups have towards speed cameras. The Daily Telegraph, a paper whose monochrome interpretation of the law is legendary, today
leads with reports about 'anger' at rising levels of fines coupled, it says, with only marginal improvements in the number of road deaths. It quotes Conservative Transport spokesman Theresa Villiers:
"These figures will lead many to wonder whether the Government is using fixed penalty notices just to raise revenue rather than making our roads safer. Enforcing the law should be the overriding motivation behind speed cameras and penalties. They should not be used just as a cash cow." (my stress)
One wonders then how many of the 1.9m fines issued in 2005 were issued for entirely legal driving. I'd wager none so what on earth is Ms Villiers talking about? What's more, elsewhere the article points out that most of the revenue raised via speed cameras (£115m in 2005) is ploughed straight back into operating the camera system so the cash cow argument is a red herring (the words 'cow' and 'herring' in the same sentence - some sort of prize surely?) People caught speeding on camera are breaking the law - of all the supposition you can direct at the incident (risking lives or not etc.) that's the only thing that's beyond dispute. It's the primary fact and beyond dispute so there should be no moans or complaints about people being fined for breaking the law. By all means make sure that the law remains relevant - there may be something to the charge that some of our speed limits (particularly 70mph) are in need of revision following improvements in road / vehicle design but the idea that the law should be calibrated against the number of deaths it's enforcement prevents is muddled thinking.
Labels: Politics
I've only been caught by a speed camera once. It was a quiet Sunday morning on a wide stretch of dual carriage way on the West coast of Scotland and I was doing 47mph - unfortunately there was a temporary 40mph speed limit in place which I ignored. So yes, the ticket was annoying and infuriating but it was also entirely justified since I had broken the law.
3 Comments:
Ploughed back into speed cameras - so the people are perpetuating the surveillance society and their own ultimate demise. Very clever move.
While it is a mismatch of arguments it is no red herring. If most of the money generated is going back into the camera's themselves don't we have to ask ourself if a) the system is sustainable given the ultimate mission of the system and b) if the price we're paying is really the most efficient way to cut deaths on the road.
At the end of the day a) logically cannot be true. If the system works then people will stop "speeding" and the system will become unmanageable on a financial level.
All in all people are irked by such systems because they don't promote safe driving just legal driving. On motorways without variable speed limits in heavy rain, high winds and thick fog it is still legal from the sight of a speed camera to drive at 70mph, but illegal and unsafe to a traffic officer. The trouble is we have barely any traffic patrols left on our roads to actually police the roads based on the safety of the drivers.
The whole ethos has to change, the point of speed camera's should be to encourage safe driving not speed limited driving, and though the two are not mutually exclusive it does seem as though those in charge at the minute don't mind treating them as such.
Thanks Lee but I still think it's far simpler than you suggest.
You've suggested that the system isn't working because people keep speeding? If true then laws against theft, murder, assault etc. are all equally inneffective?
The 'ultimate mission of the system' (as you call it) is very simple - punish those who break the law. And on the basis of the figures quoted here it's been incredibly successful in that mission as well.
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home