He's a bigger liar than you.
And that's saying something!
Philip Johnston "Motorists cry foul at speed cameras" (Daily Telegraph, 28 November) repeats the anti camera myth that the purpose of cameras is to raise revenue. This is nonsense. Cameras have one purpose and one purpose only, to reduce road casualties.
So why are they missing on the most dangerous roads.
And proliferate on the safest?
Why do the sCam operators sit there (hidden) and record people going backwards and forwards.
Sometimes several times in an hour.
Or even up to seven times in the case of the Welsh Rally incident.
And then send them an invoice a fortnight later!
How does that reduce road casualties?
If speed kills:
Why don't they immediately stop anyone speeding:
The first time they spot them?!
Every day about 10 people will die and a further 70 will be seriously injured on our roads.
Blah, blah, blah......
More people die from hospital acquired infections, despite only a fraction of the exposure.
More people die from hospital accidents, despite only a fraction of the exposure.
Comparable numbers per pasenger mile are killed on the railroads.
And comparable numbers of pedestrians are killed by cyclists per passenger mile as are killed in accidents involving motor vehicles.
But 85% of pedestrians killed in accidents involving motor vehicles were to blame for the accident.
Excessive or inappropriate speed will be a factor in a significant number of these accidents.
For the last three years they were published the West Midlands Police statistics put it at around 2% - 4% caused by speed in excess of the limit.
Asleep at the wheel research put it at under 4%.
Motorcycle accidents study: under 4%.
So that's the definition of "significant number"?!
Cameras are subject to strict rules that demand them to be clearly visible, located at accident black spots or where there is a road safety need to strictly enforce the speed limit.
No, they are subject to guidelines only (as confirmed by ACPO head of traffic policing).
And they can even have 15% of sites not conforming to the guidelines and still keep all the ca$h!
It is a myth that the money raised by cameras goes to the police. Only the cost of maintaining and administering the cameras is retained.
Errrrrrrrrrrrmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm
As the link in your other post showed:
"Only" £91,848,844 went to the police.
The surplus goes straight to the Exchequer.
And that would be "only" £21,700,396
So that's alright then!
Independent research shows that where cameras have been introduced casualties have fallen by 35% and the number of vehicles speeding has fallen by 67%.
But the cameras are introduced after a spate of accidents.
You would expect accidents to fall after a spate of accidents regardless.
But the expected fall without cameras would be double what they are "achieving" with cameras!
That said, the best and most effective camera would be the one that didn't issue a single ticket. We don't want your money we want to keep you alive.
So why don't they replace them all with the automatic warning sign jobbies?
Which don't issue a single ticket.
Which cost a fraction of the cost of sCams.
Cost nearly nothing to run.
And have a massively better success rate at keeping you alive?!
Errrrrrrrmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm
It could only be because they DO want your money!