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!