Okay, I've 'got five minutes'!

In your first comment [4/04/2008 at 16:05] you raise the point that there is a relationship between impact speed and the severity of injuries sustained in a collision; indeed this relationship is well-established - not to mention obvious common sense. As the advertisements so frequently tell us: "If you hit me at 30 there's around an 80% chance I'll live. If you hit me at 40 there's around an 80% chance I'll die."

However, when you go on to assert the relationship between speed and the probability of collision I have to say that this is a lot less clear-cut; it is disingenuous - even deceitful - to artificially contrive to isolate speed as the primary factor precipitating any collision when in fact there are manifold other contributing factors which all operate in concurrent integration and which are of equal or greater importance to speed [in isolation] in the probability of collision equation.

For example, a tired or drunken driver doing 40 on the East Lancs Road [limit 60] is probably potentially more dangerous than an alert driver (let's say an off-duty police officer to boot!) 'breaking the law' by doing 70.

In your third comment [8/04/2008 at 13:04] you asked which cameras can be justified? In answer to that let us first note the following statement made in your second comment [7/04/2008 at 14:09]: "Fixed speed cameras can only be placed where there has been 3 killed or seriously injured in latest 36 months (or one killed or seriously injured for a red light camera) and there has been a history of excess speed."

Now, this level - one fatality a year - is far too low as a standard by which to decide to impose a fixed camera. I do not wish to appear callous and I recognise that any road death is sad and deeply regrettable however it has to be said that statistically one death per year on a road which has perhaps millions of safe journeys means that - statistically - that death is irrelevant and it is absurd to legislate on such a basis.

Furthermore the issue of blame cannot be overlooked as it is in this criterion. There might've been three deaths in three years and they might all have been the fault of the pedestrians and not the drivers but you'll still say that justifies a camera despite cameras doing nothing to moderate pedestrian or cyclist stupidity.

I believe cameras can only be justified at genuine accident blackspots where dangerous driving (exacerbated by excess speed) is proven to be the predominant cause of collisions and I would suggest that the frequency-of-accident quotient test should be greater than one-per-year... I'd suggest at least six-per-year to give the test a more credible validity.

In practice this would mean most extant cameras would be unjustifiable and we would be left only with cameras in genuine accident blackspots where there is a consistent high rate of accidents which are attributable beyond question to drivers as exacerbated by their excess speed... in plain English that would mean only a handful of cameras found mainly on narrow/winding/steep 'country' roads.

Also in your third comment you asked if I am against red light cameras? Answer: Yes! British drivers are overwhelmingly safe in their traffic light habits; they stop for red and don't go till green. All your traffic signal cameras are doing is flashing drivers who quite safely go through lights on amber at the moment of the change to red or upto a couple of insignificant seconds later (well before crossing traffic gets the green light and goes).

Next point... In your third comment you state: "If our motives are about 'unjustly extorting money' why then did we paint them all bright yellow, place warning signs both far in advance of a camera and also within the same view as the camera...[?]"

Not all cameras are yellow - many are completely grey. Many (whatever the colour) are sneakily positioned such as just over the brow of a hill or behind a large sign or hedge or obscured by a tree etc. For example the red light camera at the Worsley Road/East Lancs Road junction is hidden behind a large directions sign; the speed camera on Lancaster Road is obscured until the last moment by a small tree. And there are many other types of sneaky tactical placements too.

Warning signs "...far in advance of a camera..." are completely arbitrary and since they are unrelated to the specific locations of speed cameras they provide no specific warning! Such signs are about creating a climate of fear amongst drivers and cannot constitute the authorities giving drivers a fair warning unless there is introduced a standard placement policy whereby signs are only placed a reasonably close distance to specific cameras immediately further up the same stretch of road.

If the authorities were really interested in safety and not stealth taxation then rather than speed cameras they would physically engineer the roads to make it impossible to travel in excess of the speed limit. This is within the power of authorities to do and would guarantee that nobody would speed because nobody could - however despite the fact that forcing traffic to stick to the speed limit by this approach would achieve the authorities' ostensible purpose of maximising road safety (and - logically - render speed cameras redundant) the authorities would never do this because roadhumps can't raise millions of pounds but speed cameras can.

I commend "...Speed Awareness Courses for those drivers caught travelling at the lower end of the enforcement threshold..." [from your third comment] instead of fining them.

Lastly [hurrah!]... I approve Automatic Number Plate Recognition cameras for occasional purges by manned mobile units but not ANPR cameras at permanent fixed sites. If you'll take my advice the wise Government strikes a pragmatic balance between enforcing the law enough (to maintain order and avoid anarchy)... but not so much as to enter into totalitarianism in which both practical freedoms and the spirit of freedom are crushed. Remember fundamentally the only absolute moral issue of first-degree importance at stake here is road safety (the morality of taxation being highly debatable and therefore equally as contentious is the sub-issue of the 'seriousness' of the 'criminality' of non-payment)... we are not talking about preventing or detecting murders, rapes or burglaries here! [I might also add that a vehicle can fail an MOT say by marginally missing an emission test and therefore be classed as 'illegal' although it is completely roadworthy in the safety regard. Also car insurance is a legalised extortion racket which operates all manner of prejudices against people in setting premiums and therefore the uninsured might have strong moral mitigations if not a legal leg to stand on. There are plenty of drivers who are uninsured for no other reason than they can't afford the extortionate and unjust premiums demanded but who still need to drive]

I hope this answers your questions R S Eccles and as I predicted it required a post which is really too long for a comment on this website! Never let it be said that Richard Carvath is a soundbite-only politician!

   This response will be - I expect - unsatisfactory to you because I am not going to answer every direct question which you raise; whilst this leaves me open to you saying I'm avoiding your arguments that really isn't the case at all... it's simply that I have to prioritise my time and energy and I cannot justify going to the length and depth which would be necessary to provide robust and heavyweight explanations of my position.

As I have already said there's plenty of statistics and evidence on the website of the Association of British Drivers. Believe me I'm not 'ducking you' and I do not view this as a trivial issue - in fact I'd love to hold a proper face-to-face public debate with you (something I'm sure a lot of people would be interested in!) - but not here and now. I'm flat out the next couple of months with - amongst other things - fighting the Government's unbelievably evil Human Fertilisation and Embryology Bill which wants to legalise the creation of frankenstein animal/human hybrids and a whole truckload of other wickednesses and perversions. [I may pick up this thread again in the depth you'd like as time permits]

A couple of quick points though: (1) Your point about warning signs and high-visibility cameras meaning you're not trying to sneakily catch people out... we all know that's obviously a load of bllas [it would take me several paragraphs - indeed I could write an essay - to expand this point though and give loads of evidence and anecdotes and explanation but - as I said - sorry too busy]

(2) For me, as for most drivers, the speed limits fall under that time-honoured and quintessentially English piece of wisdom that "[manmade] Rules are for the obedience of fools and the guidance of wise men." The vast majority of drivers drive safely and without accident despite 'breaking the law' by exceeding speed limits... the reason for this is we are responsible adults and safe and experienced drivers exercising our judgement as to how best to drive. Therefore, the typical driver might drive ten mph under the 30 limit when going past a school as the children are leaving, and [quite safely] ten mph over the 30 limit making the same journey on a completely empty road at 2am. Such drivers are sensible and safe despite 'breaking the law'. And of course the ultimate irony is that police officers and especially ambulance drivers endeavour to SAVE lives by speeding but lives are lost because of road humps and other anti-speed and anti-flow 'traffic calming measures'.

I'd like to invite you to rejoin the rest of the country and accept that what we say makes sense and that you are wrong. If and when you do, of course your conscience will presumably forbid you from 'living a lie' any longer whereupon you'll quit your public sector non-job (or possibly start doing a real public service job such as real policing). Take heart!... every public sector non-job cog-in-the-machine minion can be retrained to become a human being!

And Finally... there are millions of car journeys made every day in this country in comparison to which the number of accidents is tiny. That's the big picture. That's the reality. What it means is that - actually - our roads are fairly safe. After 15 years of public sector propaganda that "Speed Kills!" the great British public still hasn't bought the lie... perhaps it's time to admit that the great British public knows better than the public sector 'road safety' propagandists on this one!

   Hi Richard,

Just a couple of points. If most of the cameras cannot be justified, which are the ones that can be justified in your eyes? What is your selection criterion? Which are the ones not doing the ‘raping of bucket loads of cash’? I’m not sure if your argument is also against the legal speed limits or just getting caught when exceeding it? I assume that you are also against red light cameras for the same reason of ‘extorting money’?

The ABD and other motoring lobbyists have always tried to make a strong case against cameras and if I didn’t work in the industry I may be tempted to believe them however, I cannot escape the facts and the truth which I deal with on a regular basis. (I refer back to my brain surgeon analogy). Believe-you-me if a camera site actually worsened the collision rate I would not hesitate in ripping it out. But of course you won’t believe me- even if I typed it in capital letters! I guess you also don’t trust my statement regarding the number of fatal or serious collisions which is required in site selections as you have not mentioned it in your latest response.

If our motives are about ‘unjustly extorting money’ why then did we paint them all bright yellow, place warning signs both far in advance of a camera and also within the same view as the camera and why did we establish the Speed Awareness Courses for those drivers caught travelling at the lower end of the enforcement threshold? Surely if we wanted more cash we would fine all those motorists who get flashed and not give any advance warning of these ‘revenue raisers’.

Are you aware that some cameras are used to catch uninsured drivers, those on false plates, stolen vehicles etc. These Automatic Number Plate Recognision ANPR cameras are helping make thousands of convictions and taking dangerous drivers off the road and making the roads safer. Please tell me you are not against these ‘ubiquitous and sinister statements of the presence and power of a dominating authoritarian state’.

I don’t doubt that you are a good bloke and you certainly have strong convictions but my worry is that your posts are becoming rants on a par with those displayed recently by another conspiracy theorist- Mr Al Fayed.

   My view on speed cameras is essentially the same as the position of the Association of British Drivers (which can be studied in detail on the Association's website). I trust that this answers questions about statistics and evidence.

I am indeed a Christian and I find my faith stance entirely compatible with condemning the whole speed camera industry and furthermore condoning and applauding true English patriots and heros of the people [not 'vandals' or 'criminals'] who go about destroying speed cameras and other dangerous anti-motorist measures in the public interest.

Speed cameras do not save lives and they are nothing to do with safety. They are all about two things:

(1) Raping bucketloads of cash from ordinary safe motorists, and

(2) Providing a ubiquitous and sinister statement of the presence and power of a dominating authoritarian state.

The Christian thing to do, the right moral position to adopt, is to oppose speed cameras because their whole raison d'etre ('safety') is fundamentally A LIE (in fact they actually make our roads MORE DANGEROUS) and because they are being used UNJUSTLY to [legally (but not morally)] EXTORT MONEY out of people (the majority of such victims being safe rsponsible drivers) and because they have damaged the integrity of the Police (making thousands of ordinary decent working class and middle class people hate and mistrust them) and because they do nothing to stop the worst dangerous driving offenders (joyriders and criminals in stolen cars or using false plates, or drunk drivers etc) and because... I'm afraid I'll have to stop there as I've got to get back to work!

I am committed to ripping out every last speed camera in the country [which cannot be extremely well justified (which is most of them)] if in future I attain the political opportunity to do so... and I know there's at least 40 million other British citizens who will say "Amen!" to that!

   Richard, I will try not to take your comments (“arrogance, contempt”) as a personal slight against me however, I do note that like any would-be politician you have successfully avoided my questions.

I am amazed at what you regard as an interesting admission. If a pedestrian gets hit at 50 rather than 60 it is still going to hurt however you seem to have missed my (what I thought was an obvious) point being that a lower speed limit gives motorists a chance in taking avoiding action, stopping in time, reaction times etc. I also don’t think we should hold the front page and declare that many pedestrians don’t like subways (dark and smelly)and would prefer not to trek over a footbridge (its a long way), its not rocket science Richard, pedestrians in general (there will be exceptions) prefer to cross at road level.

As for you’re A-Team suggestion, you would have to be as mad as Howlin’ Mad Murdoch to suggest ‘taking out’ the cameras and I am surprised by you Richard that you would condone such action (as you state that you are a conservative Christian in your other posts)You're a naughty boy really!

I had this conversation before about cameras and I recognise that many people will continue to hold their beliefs about them being for profit and not safety, I have stopped banging my head against a brick wall. But all I can say is –(hand on heart here). Fixed speed cameras can only be placed where there has been 3 killed or seriously injured in latest 36 months (or one killed or seriously injured for a red light camera) and there has been a history of excess speed. In reality there are very few places that qualify for a permanent speed camera. I’m not sure what you do for a living Richard but lets say you are a brain surgeon and everybody keeps telling you that the human brain is made of cheese. That’s how I feel when people keep insisting that cameras are just for money and not safety. I know the reality because the evidence is on my operating table (sorry desk)!

Yours truly ‘Agent of the State’

   The comment of Road Safety based in Eccles demonstrates the arrogance of the authorities, the contempt in which they hold the public they ostensibly serve and is an exemplification of the nanny state which believes it knows better than the people what is best for them.

It is an interesting admission from Road Safety that:

(1) A ten mph reduction from 60 to 50 is insignificant in reducing the severity of injuries in the event of a pedestrian being hit by a vehicle, and

(2) Pedestrians ignore crossings when provided - such as bridges and subways - and continue to cross the road regardless in the most convenient (and potentially dangerous) place that suits them.

When this latest silly scheme comes into force, we do not need mobile speed traps to enforce the new reduced speed limit as suggested by Road Safety Eccles... but because that's what we're going to get, what we really do need is a mobile death squad of snipers to drive-by mobile speed traps and take out the officers manning them [with paintballs of course].

Furthermore we need to somehow get hold of 'Colonel Hannibal Smith' and the rest of 'the A-Team' to destroy or disable every Gatso camera in existence [my best wishes to this fictional team of true English patriots and faithful servants of the people].

Don't believe the propaganda coming from the police and the public sector - the lies about speed cameras saving lives or being about 'safety' - because that's what it is... PROPAGANDA! Plain and simple propaganda.

Motorists are a soft target to make the police look like they actually do something, since they prevent and detect precious little real crime (like burglary) these days. It's so easy to pick on drivers, it's so hard to do any real policing work.

Everybody knows that this whole 'speed camera industry' which has grown up in the last fifteen years is simply a form of stealth taxation... it's easy pickings to engage in highway robbery. The police and the councils and the local magistrates and associated quangos rub their hands in glee as the money from fines pours in - knowing full well that the cameras don't make the roads any safer but that they're a terrific revenue raiser.

The fact is, most speed cameras are located in places which are not 'accident blackspots', which proves that the chief concern in their deployment is not safety but finding the best position to catch out as many people as possible.

Most drivers drive at a safe speed for the road (and conditions) - which on many roads is faster than the official speed limit - so cameras are deliberately placed where people habitually drive over the limit - BECAUSE IT IS SAFE TO DO SO! - because it is at these SAFE-SPOTS [that's right - not blackspots but safespots] where the cameras will make the most money!

The overwhelming majority of the British driving public believes speed cameras are little to do with safety but everything to do with ripping them off (with no better justificatory false premise than in 'the name of safety').

We are right to believe we are being taken for a ride - we are being systematically extorted and deliberately ripped off by agents of the state! The ultimate irony is that we pay for this infrastructure we loathe through our taxes - we pay for our own persecution!

   Mr Carvath,

I would like to know where you have found your research which supports your claim that a reduction in the speed limit will not reduce accidents when in fact all the research points to quite the opposite. Research has proven the correlation between speed and accident frequency and severity, and accident reductions. Much of this evidence has been demonstrated by and around mean vehicle speeds including, for example, how each 1mph reduction in average speed reduces accident frequency by 5%. Some drivers may well exercise their own judgement when selecting their speed and new 50mph speed signs alone will do little to drive their speeds down, however many drivers will use common sense and realise that the speed reduction is a means to achieving accident reductions. For any speed limit reduction scheme to work there needs to be enforcement therefore mobile speed camera units will be deployed along this short length. You are quite correct in your statement that drivers are not always the cause of accidents. However blame should not come into the argument. The potential consequences to the ‘stupidity’ of pedestrians or cyclists would be lessened or even avoided by slower vehicles. It is recognised that a reduction from 60 to 50mph may do little to reduce the severity of any injuries to vulnerable road users but it will reduce stopping distances and improve reaction times and will give the ‘stupid’ a chance. In addition to this it is only by reducing the speed limit will it be possible to provide a controlled crossing. Light controlled crossings are not suitable for roads with a speed limit of 60mph. Bridges and subways have proven unpopular for many reasons and it is clear that pedestrians want crossings at road level. Your final statement regarding speed cameras is amusing in that you seem to quote the words of Paul Smith of SafeSpeed or the ABD and other conspiracy theorists who’s claims have continued to be de-bunked by true experts. The claims of ‘stealth tax’, income generators’, ‘cash cows’ etc are common phrases used in desperation by such people. And as for them actually causing accidents- this is another desperate claim in the face of the evidence which has proven otherwise. I understand your concerns and your theories will seem a good argument for those drivers who believe that just by being a driver qualifies them as experts in road safety.

   Whilst I have every sympathy for the families of pedestrians who have died as a result of road traffic accidents on the East Lancs Road, I am not in favour of reducing the speed limit from 60 to 50 (although it looks as though this proposal is going to be implemented).

By all means build pedestrian bridges or subways but reducing the speed limit [if implemented in isolation - as an ostensible safety measure] will not reduce the number of accidents. That's because:

(1) Most drivers will continue to exercise their own judgement and drive at the speed they consider to be appropriate for the East Lancs Road and the driving conditions at any one time (thus ignoring any new lower limit), and

(2) Drivers are not always the cause of accidents... in fact a lot of accidents involving pedestrians on the East Lancs Road are the fault of carelessness and stupidity on the part of cyclists and pedestrians and are not attributable to dangerous driving. [For example, when I was at Moorside High School (87-92), accidents on the East Lancs Road outside the school were usually down either to schoolchildren deliberately 'playing chicken' or simply choosing to impatiently eschew the bridge or subways because these might take half a minute more than crossing the road directly).]

As ever, in 'the name of safety', driving down yet another major British road is soon to become even more arduous and frustrating. And it's all so pointless... a speed reduction by itself will make no impact on road deaths whatsoever.

A last word on speed cameras: these instruments of motorist persecution and stealth taxation ACTUALLY CAUSE ACCIDENTS by unnerving drivers' concentration and causing them to break suddenly and without warning. Furthermore drivers constantly - paranoiacally - checking their speedos aren't giving their best attention to looking at the road [and so may - ironically - keep within the speed limit through a speedtrap and then knock down a pedestrian they didn't see who'd just idiotically stepped out into the road without looking]!