Not seen this on here - speed cameras don't work

ricky brunstrom, ACPO chief pocket-shuffler and head of north walesceistershire constabulary has, after 5 years of pushing for cameras on every road, in lamp-posts and cats-eyes (I kid you not) - has decided that cameras don’t work well enough, and there should be no more.

apparently they only reduce fatalities by about 10% and in some sites there’s no change or its worse.
They’ve discovered that speed-triggered signs that flash the limit up at you, or hazard signs, or even your speed (and on prototypes your reg number and speed) reduce accidents and fatalities by up to a third.

and they cost about a fifth to install.

so the cost in deaths is lower, the cost to install is lower, but no revenue.

I wonder how many supposed safety partnerships follow this new path for safety’s sake, and live up to their titles - or instead how many live up to reputation instead and continue as a self-perpetuating revenue generator.

Hopefully…someone will soon tell us that limiting speed to 56mph doesnt save fuel either…and increase that to the normal motorway speed of 60mph
which is legal anyway…but i doubt it.

Picked this off a newsgroup, a bit harsh, and probably a bit controversial, but very true.

“Speed and Red Light Cameras are doing to Road Safety what Thalidomide did for morning sickness - The side effects are just as tragic and just as deadly”

The problem are not speed cameras, they are a tool for a job and can be very effective. It’s the fact that they are being used to as a cheap road safety solution at the expense of better education and a general improvement in road safety. A government minister interveiwed a few month ago said they had saved 100 lives a year, considering that 3500 die each year on the roads it’s hardly a great success.