Road safety cameras have played a significant part in a 45% reduction in road fatalities in Britain in the last decade, says Mick Giannasi.
The government says their abolition is an attempt to end 'the war on the motorist.' But the savings are relatively trivial and the real reason is obviously cheap populism.
Cheap, that is, unless you happen to be on the receiving end of a speeding car.
A suggestion: for every death additional to the number that occurred in the last year in which cameras operated, a greeting card expressing congratulations should be sent to Jeremy Clarkson. This could start in Oxfordshire, the first county to switch off its cameras and the county where Clarkson lives. Oxfordshire had 30 fatalities in 2009.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
they are revenue engines pure and simple.
if perhaps those cameras where put in dangerous locations which warranted an enforced cautionary reduction in speed it might actually make sense, they rarely are, the are usually put where the road is open and increased speed is not quite as dangerous as elsewhere. most drivers are given no credit for anything above room temperature intelligence...
in short, cameras dont catch dickheads speeding in dangerous places, they target those who drive above the posted limits in locations where its often quite an acceptable and tiny risk to go a little faster than decreed.
Thanks for the comment. If the cameras are all about revenue generation then why abolish them at a time when the country is in its deepest financial hole since world war two?
If they generate revenue then switch them back on! There would be a chance, even if you're right and all the road safety officers are wrong, that they might even save a few lives as well as generating desperately needed revenue.
Post a Comment