Do speed cameras save lives?

Question

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/wiltshire/7506689.stm

Swindon is thinking about getting rid of speed cameras. Is this a good or bad idea?

Answer 1

They might if the cash they steal from us was given to Hospitals!

Answer 2

I would like to think so but I have my douibts. It is difficult enought to prove a positive ie How much revenue has been collected than it is to prove how many people havn't been killed. statistics collected by the governmentor more correctly misused by one should be ignored. The name of the game is revenue no more no less

Answer 3

I don't really think so, all they do is make money for the government and make every driver slow down to 49MPH for about 1 minute then they speed up again until the next speed camera.

Answer 4

Hi Captain,

No - Doctors save lives, speed camers are supposed to reduce accidents - but they don't.

The best deterrent are those signs that light up when you are going too fast - they give you chance to realise that you are going too fast and an opportunity to slow down.

Answer 5

The statistics, including the ones mentioned in your news item, suggest that they do.

The problem is that cameras will not deter criminals, 'boy racers' and clever people who alter stolen vehicle identification. They don't care.

If Swindon comes up with a better idea, O.K. but it is typical of a Conservative Council that they wish to be amongst the top councils who can claim low Council Tax. It's how they have been voted in - to appeal to those who can afford prices better than people in some less privileged areas.

That said, councils now pay the fines to the Treasury and it is to be hoped that the Government will re-distribute the monies fairly. That's the theory anyway!

You may have seen experiments in a few EU countries where some local authorities have done away with all restrictions. No traffic lights; no white, yellow or red lines; no speed cameras; no speed bumps; not even kerbs. (Not extended to parking restrictions, of course.)

This actually seems to force drivers to be much more careful and to drive very slowly in cities and towns. Couldn't be worse than in London! Of course, all designers of schemes will point to the success of their plans. The above idea does not raise revenue but the councils do not have to pay a fortune for all sorts of ever-changing traffic management schemes either.

Uhmm.

Answer 6

No, IT IS NOT SPEED CAMERAS that SAVE LIVES, IT IS RESPONSIBLE CAREFUL DRIVERS that SAVE LIVES. I'll tell you why that is, Its because Drivers who care enough not to speed are penalised by a TAX IMPOSED BY SUCCESSIVE GOVERNMENTS WHO ARE INTENT ON FILLING THE TREASURY COFFERS SO THEY WILL NOT HAVE TO BORROW AS MUCH. YOU ALSO ONLY HAVE TO LOOK AT THE PRICE OF FUEL COMPERED TO OTHER COUNTRIES TO SEE WHAT EXCESS THE GOVERNMENT CREAMS OFF. SO YET AGAIN THE INNOCENT SUFFER BECAUSE OF THOSE WHO SPEED AND CONSTANTLY BREAK THE SPEED LIMIT. I say good luck to the Swindon Councillor who is willing to make a stand for the public as long as it has something else in mind to help deter speeding motorists. I do support road safety and am most appologetic to those families who have lost loved ones because of drivers who are inconsiderate and reckless. ANYONE WHO CAUSES A LOSS OF LIFE BY SPEEDING, POOR DRIVING, USING A MOBILE PHONE WHILE DRIVING, OUGHT TO BE LOCKED UP AND THE KEY THROWN AWAY, BUT WHY CAST US ALL IN THE SAME MOULD BY PENALISING EVERYONE.

Answer 7

It is only a good idea if you can think of a better way to get motorists to slow down all the time, rather than just so they don't get snapped by the speed camera. I can honestly say i have NEVER broken the speed limit ANYWHERE because the speed limits are there for your own safety as well as other peoples!! I don't know why people have to knowingly break the speed limits, like i say they are in  place for a reason. sad.

Answer 8

Just another tax

Answer 9

Just another way of taxing the over burdened

motorist out of there hard earned money.

Get rid of most of the cash cows,not all

just the obvious money makers.

It cost your council £30,000 for each one

to be installed,then every penny from fines

goes to the treasury.

Answer 10

i hate speed cameras, because they are in most cases just another way to collect more money from the motorist. However, when they are placed by schools and accident black spots they will have saved lives and should remain.

Answer 11

they certainly modify the way you drive,but whether they save lives as opposed to make money is debatable.

Answer 12

NO, but they do raise a lot of money.

Answer 13

Yes!

Answer 14

when i'm coming up to a speed camera, i find i'm not concentrating on the road i'm concentrating on my speed dile,so i would argue they make it more likely for me to have an accident.

Answer 15

The Government says so - but then they would since all of the revenue (huge) goes to the treasury. They will be crapping themselves with Swindon rocking the boat. Watch for the reaction from this hapless bunch.

Answer 16

I wasn't aware the motor vehicle had actually arrived in Swindon yet..........

Answer 17

No, speed cams have not saved a single life.  The death toll on our roads in UK, about 3,000 pa is about the same as it was back in the 1980s.  All speed cams do is collect revenue for the UK.gov - none of it goes to the local authority.  I entirely agree with Swindon Council on the issue of getting rid of speed cams.

All I gotta say on the matter is, that if someone soon does not get rid of these stupid cams, people will soon start tearing them down.  Some groups out there are already destroying them.

Answer 18

Saving lives is the reason given for the cameras, but as others have pointed out, you can't prove a negative.  The question becomes at what point does constant surveillance impede our rights as human beings?  Do you want a society that follows laws because citizens believe them to be a reflection of morals and ethics or do you want a society that behaves well because they're being watched?  Researchers know that the the act of "observing" behavior causes behavior to be changed - is it moral/ethical for a government to change the behavior of humans for the "higher good"?  At what point does the higher good become lost?  There's a quote along the lines of "the true character of a man is what he does when no one is watching".

Answer 19

I don't have the exact figures, but speed cameras are rarely situated in accident blackspots. I wouldn't have thought so, I would have said the opposite as people are concentrating on their speedos when they should be concentrating on the road.

Answer 20

govt cash cow  -  

look what swindon council are thinking....

of doing away with them !!

Answer 21

they definitely save lives. I personally slow down a lot/ lighten my lead foot if i'm going through a small town, but more because I'm scared of cameras that because im responsible.  ...and im probably one of the better ones out there

Answer 22

Speed cameras do save lives , where they are placed at accident black spots . However it does seem that many cameras are placed simply as a means to make money .

The bottom line what ever people say - if you stick to the speed limits you wont get caught ....

Answer 23

Wouldn't be a good idea getting rid of them.

I know when I drive I stick to the speed limit not because I am a law-abiding citizen but because I am not prepared to get a fine for speeding. Says something about attitudes towards roads.

Besides what that does it weed out the idiotic people from the smart. The smart people save themselves money by being an extra 30 seconds late to their destination, while the idiotic people get to their destination 30 seconds before everyone else and get a speeding fine later that week in the mail. The government gets money from it to put to good use (council workers lounging around at building sites?) and it is far better than raising taxes.