Speed Cameras Do Not Save Lives
The RAC Foundation recently published a report on the “Effectiveness of Speed Cameras”, and widely promoted it under the headline “Cameras Save Lives”. The Association of British Drivers (ABD) has reviewed the evidence in that report, and has come to exactly the opposite conclusion. Our analysis of the RAC report (which was authored by Professor Richard Allsop), shows that much of the information presented is misleading, that there is no certainty at all about the impact of speed cameras, and that much of the contrary evidence has simply been ignored. Our full analysis is present here: Speed Cameras Do Not Save Lives
Regrettably Prof Allsop also totally ignores the fact that there is clear evidence that if the same amount of money as is now spent on speed cameras was used instead on speed display devices (otherwise known as Vehicle Activated Signs — VAS), then many more lives and injuries would be saved. They are probably 50 times more cost effective.
In our view the RAC report is a polemic and not a proper scientific study of the evidence. The excessive reliance on speed cameras in the UK over the last two decades has affected road safety adversely. A massive diversion of resources towards speed enforcement and away from more cost-effective alternatives has regrettably resulted. This process has primarily been driven — and supported — by the financial interests of the equipment manufacturers and of the safety camera partnerships, rather than by concerns for improvement in UK road safety. This is why we say speed cameras cost lives rather than save them.
But we urge readers to judge for themselves the merits of the arguments by reading both the RAC Foundation report and our commentary on it.
The RAC Foundation report
The rebuttal by the ABD
For more information contact ABD Chairman, Brian Gregory, or London Regional Co-ordinator, Roger Lawson via our contacts
page (click 'Chairman' or 'London').
Notes for Editors about the ABD