Transport -
Speeding
Speed
limits are, in principal, a good idea. There is
an argument that some speed limits are
unnecessarily low given particular stretches of
road, where there is no obvious increase in risk
that an increase in speed would have, however, we
will accept, for arguments sake, that all speed
limits are there for a purpose and are set
correctly. To enforce these speed limits; laws
are passed making speeding an offence and signs
are erected to indicate the maximum permissible
speeds. This doesn't work because some drivers
believe the speed limits are set too low for the
particular road in question.
The police can't be everywhere to enforce the
speed limits and so enforcement cameras are
erected which do generally work; no one, who's
got an ounce of common sense, will deliberately
drive through a speed camera in order to be fined
and penalised. So nearly everyone slows down for
a speed camera. We finally have a solution to the
speeding problem. Now, if we are to assume that
speed cameras are the only way to make drivers
slow down, and they work effectively, then we
would expect there to be a great number of these
everywhere and that they would be highly visible
and identifiable to make drivers slow down, but
no, that is not the case.
Speed cameras are invariably hidden behind trees,
road signs, are a dull grey colour and, often,
the first indication that one is passing through
a speed camera point is the ruler marks painted
on the carraigeway or the flash of the camera
when it goes off. So why, if these cameras are
there to make drivers slow down, are they so
invisible when it is known that their presence
works? The way speed cameras are currently used
is not to make the drivers slow down, obey the
speed limit and make the road safe but to catch
and penalise transgressors who may otherwise have
slowed down if they had seen the camera in
advance.
So speed cameras do not help maintain or enforce
road safety standards, only penalise
transgressors. The attitude of the police and
local authorities to the deployment of speed
cameras is also a little strange. They argue that
speed cameras are only used in places where there
is a serious risk caused by speeding motorists.
This makes it appear that they are saying that
they accept that some speed limits are set lower
than they should be, which drivers can and do
exceed, but there are some which they'd really
like us to keep to.
The police also have a strong, negative attitude
to groups that publish details of where speed
cameras are situated. If these groups make known
where these speed cameras are and, as a
consequence, drivers travel along these roads
without speeding, then surely the goal of putting
those cameras in place will have been achieved?
The argument for hiding cameras usually goes
along the lines that the speed limit is clearly
stated, warnings that speed cameras are in place
are also widespread and the driver should have
obeyed these and the speed camera is purely for
catching those who have refused to obey the
instructions.
Yes, but we know speed limit signs don't work (or
we wouldn't need these speed cameras anyway) and
warnings of speed cameras are about as effective
as the original speed limit signs. The public is
also well aware that on rural roads the most
likely place to find a speed camera is halfway
down a perfectly straight dual carraigeway which
has no junctions nearby and straight line
visibility of over a mile where, it can often be
reasonably argued, the actual speed limit is set
lower than that which would actually be safe.
Where speed cameras are used on motorways they
are used to keep the traffic at a speed that
keeps the flow moving smoothly rather than as a
condemnation of speeding itself.
There is also an acceptance, judging from
fly-on-the wall documentaries covering motorway
patrol officers, that some speeding is acceptable
and that the real problem is with excessive speed
for the circumstances. This can cover travelling
at speeds far lower than the speed limit under
some conditions. This is the crux of the issue;
it is not speed that is dangerous, it is using
speed in the wrong circumstances. Enforcement
cameras at traffic lights are generally a
justifiable thing; they do catch transgressors
who endanger the lives of other road users and
pedestrians. Yes, they do generate revenue, but
that can be clearly related to the act of
transgression that is, as is obvious, a danger to
others.
Speed cameras, as currently deployed, are not so
justifiable. If these cameras were highly visible
then no one would travel by them exceeding the
speed limit and they would do their job. Used as
they are, hidden away, they penalise only and
contribute little to road safety directly - only
generating revenue to pay for their installation
and maintenance.
Next >>>
Back to Top
These articles
have been collected from various sources. If you
are the copyright owner of any of them, contact us for
either a credit and link to your site or removal
of the article.
--------------