|23 Oct 2008.
For immediate release.
“The ABD are not entirely opposed to the use of speed cameras where the speed limit has been set by scientific principles and there is a genuine accident blackspot that cannot be engineered out where the accidents can be shown to be caused by sober, licensed drivers exceeding the speed limit. Unfortunately there is hardly a camera in the country that conforms to these criteria. Instead, cameras have been used as a first resort where there have been a few more accidents than usual over a few years, often not caused by excesses of the speed limit. Then, accidents being a random affair, great claims have been made for success when the accident level naturally reverts to normal.”Swindon council say that funds will instead be invested in other safety measures. Humphries continues:
“We welcome the investment in other road safety measures, education in particular. For all too long there has been a concentration on adherence to numerical speeds as the be all and end all of road safety. Yes, speed at inappropriate levels can and does kill but the relatively few accidents that occur caused by speed are invariably where the driver has failed to observe road conditions and adjusted his or her speed to suit. This can only be solved by education. The phrase 'Always drive at a speed where you can safely stop in the distance you can guarantee to be clear' is vital yet rarely heard. Many speed related accidents involve stolen cars, unlicenced drivers and drunk or drugged drivers travelling way above the limit (the government won't say how many but one only needs to look at the reports). Here of course education will not work but speed cameras don`t affect these drivers either!”Walsall council are also reported to be reconsidering their speed camera policy. The ABD hops that the decision in Swindon will be the first of many.