Effectiveness of speed cameras in preventing road traffic collisions and related casualties: systematic review

I am quite prepared to believe Paul Pilkington's assertion that he has no commercial interest in speed cameras. Although I was a "civilian" in this particular battle, I watched it with interest for some years, as it was becoming obvious that my driving licence and livelihood were becoming increasingly at risk from speed cameras. This despite the fact that I was a highly trained professional driver, who always drove in what I felt (and had been trained to believe) was an entirely safe manner. I studied the figures, the arguments and the statistics from both sides, and was more convinced by those of the ABD and Safe Speed than by those of the Camera Partnerships. As a result of this, I joined the ABD. The proponents of speed cameras face two problems which they cannot overcome. The first is a simple lack of credibility of their case as they state it. No matter what statistics are quoted, it is manifestly obvious to most drivers that many speed limits are incorrectly set. It is equally obvious to them that the actual distraction involved in attempting to stick exactly to a speed limit is far more dangerous than the possibility that one might be travelling slightly below or slightly above that limit. It is also obvious to any driver that speed limits cannot possibly reflect road conditions, which can change within yards, due to the presence of a fixed, or temporary, or mobile hazard, weather, or anything else. Most drivers are far from stupid - they know all these things, and they very sensibly drive at a speed which they consider to be safe for the circumstances and conditions at the time. The second problem faced by the camera lobby is the lack of complete honesty with which the campaign which has been waged by the Speed Camera "Partnerships" (normally made up of the local council, police, and magistrates, plus camera partnership staff). For years they have stuck to their assertion that most of the vast sum of money raked in by the cameras is sent to the treasury, and that they, and the police, receive no "profit" from the cameras. This may well be true in an absolutely strict sense, but it is of course duplicitous to say the least. Prior to the cameras, the police made a loss on speed enforcement - it cost them resources to carry it out, and they did not receive the fines. This meant that they really pursued only the cases that they felt really warranted it, and did not bother with minor infringements. Now, they have their costs of enforcement returned to them, and they also have much of that enforcement carried out by civilian staff, who they do not have to pay for. This means that they have greater resources left over than they had before. In other words, they have "profited" from the current regime.The fact that those resources appear to be being wasted is a separate argument, but is nonetheless, most annoying to those who have seen through the spin. Prior to the cameras the speed camera partnership staff's jobs did not exist at all. This truism needs to be stated, as it is one of the prime wreckers of their argument. It is quite obvious to anyone that the very people who make the claims about profits not being made, have jobs only because they are paid for out of camera revenue. A quick glance at the advertisements for the jobs show some very attractive salaries and packages including company cars and other benefits, particularly on the PR side. These growing empires of bureaucrats and PR mouthpieces ALL depend for their very livelihoods, on camera income. The fact that this particular cash is labelled as "operational expenses" rather than "profit" is a pretty poor fig-leaf for some very handsome nest-feathering. Again, most drivers are not stupid. They are quite capable of working all this out for themselves, and they have done so. The partnership PR's can excitedly quote statistics showing almost universal approval for the cameras as much as they like. It has as much credibility as the Emperor's new clothes, and the spin is just as transparent. One problem with the camera debate is its sterility, as both sides can and do draw from endless statistics to prove each other wrong, in a truly dull game of tit for tat. The thing about this, and a very good thing really, is that faced with it, the public will make up their own minds. It ids clear that they have largely done so, and the days of the camera partnerships are almost certainly numbered. Following the camera farrago, many members of the public will never again believe that they are travelling at a dangerous speed until they are told so by a wise old copper by the roadside, who has just pulled them over, explains why, shows them the hazard that they might have overlooked, and whose job clearly does not depend on that particular conviction. Roll on the day.

Competing interests: Member of the Association of British Drivers