I see that the Pedant General has picked up on this story and said pretty much what I was going to say.
Drivers’ failure to pay attention, rather than speed, is now the main cause of road accidents, according to government figures published yesterday.
Motoring groups campaigning against speed cameras urged the government to shift the emphasis of safety campaigns from speed to drivers’ concentration and avoidance of distractions such as phones, music and satellite navigation systems.
For the first time the accident statistics include contributory factors, and failure to look properly was the one most frequently reported, in 32% of cases last year, the Department for Transport (DfT) reported.
Yes, well, as a statement of the obvious, it scores pretty well. It is something that those involved with driver training have been aware of since the “safety camera” argument started to rage.
Let’s be clear here. There is no such thing as a “safety” camera; merely “enforcement” cameras. That, after all, is what they do. They enforce the legal speed limit on penalty of a fine. They do not enforce a safe speed. This is highlighted by a remark the PG makes:
It is not speed that kills, it is inappropriate speed.
I recall saying something similar some while back:
Contrary to the slogans, speed does not kill. This little fact was proved conclusively with the opening of the Stockton and Darlington Railway and people were not killed by all the air being sucked out of the carriages at speed.
What kills is bad driving. Unfortunately the issues involved here are far too complex for government and its law enforcement agencies. Nice little (misleading) slogans such as “speed kills” are easier to apply.
A point developed by Dearieme on the PG’s comments section:
There is one piece of illogic in all this that worries me. We all see idiots driving too close to the car in front: but it’s only too close GIVEN the speed involved. It would be perfectly safe at 5 mph. That means that you can classify a resulting collision as being cause by speed if you want, or by lack of clearance if you want.
Therein lies the problem with speed cameras. They will tell if you have broken the speed limit but they will not notice if your speed is inappropriate for the conditions. Travelling at 30mph is legal. Doing so while tailgating is dangerous. Driving at 70mph on a motorway is legal but maintaining that speed in dense fog is suicidal. A camera is incapable of making the distinction. Also, local councils will bend to public opinion and reduce the speed limit on a road based upon the bad driving (and subsequent accidents) of a few incompetent drivers. Consequently, the arbitrary speed restriction bears no relationship to what is a safe speed in any given circumstance.
There is a stretch of country lane near to me that was, until recently, a national speed limit road. It is now restricted to 40mph. It is still perfectly safe in good conditions to traverse it at 60mph – it is, though, illegal. Equally, in bad conditions it tends to flood, making 40mph dangerously fast. A safe speed, therefore is dependent on the prevailing traffic and road conditions; not to mention the state of alertness and wellbeing of the driver.
I have always considered this distinction a simple matter. However, for the government (both national and local) and the “safety camera partnerships” the disingenuous slogan; “speed kills”, remains stuck fast in their superficial mindset. One is almost inclined toward the notion that they are so lacking in critical thinking that they even believe it. Unfortunately, the public are all too willing to believe them and campaign for cameras in their roads in order to make them “safe”. So firmly entrenched has the idea become in the national psyche, despite the contrary evidence.
If cameras were to be replaced with traffic cops, we would see people being policed by people. Police officers, being human, will use reason and judgement when assessing a person’s driving. They will decide whether the driving is safe or not – and speed will be a factor in that overall assessment. Consequently, they may decide to prosecute someone who is driving within the speed limit, yet is driving too fast for the conditions (70mph in fog, for example). Equally, they may decide that competent driving that exceeds the speed limit is deserving of a caution rather than prosecution. They, being human, can make judgements about the most appropriate course of action in any given circumstance. Cameras, not being human, simply record an infraction of the rules. The frequent exhortation by their apologists that they improve safety, is therefore, so much empty propaganda. A lie, if you like.
Of course, police officers are expensive and cameras are cheap. And, if you want to raise revenue quickly and easily, then sticking up a camera is one means of doing so. All you have to do is sell the “safety” argument to a gullible public and wait for the cheques to start rolling in.
Cynic? Moi?