Camera, Scamera

This sign does not mean "Photogenic location ahead"

There have been two arguments put forward by those who have opposed speed cameras.  The first is that they don’t make any difference, any reduction in accidents or whatever is purely explained by regression to the mean, and that secondly they are just revenue generators.

Some particularly hyperbolic critics call them a stealth tax.  Well it’s the easiest tax in the world to avoid paying in that case.  I’ve been driving “a few” years and while I’ve paid for many a tax disc, copious amounts of fuel duty and let’s not forget the VAT on almost every commodity connected with motoring; I have never yet got caught speeding. This is either because I don’t ever speed or because I am observant enough to spot bright yellow boxes at the side of the road with a box brownie style sign informing you of the presence of the thing.  You decide.  The fluorescent markings and blue light rigs on police cars tend to make them stand out as well...

Caught speeding?  Should have gone to SpecSavers... 

But I digress...

I note with interest that in Oxfordshire they have stopped using speed cameras because they can no longer afford to subsidise them.  This kinda blows the argument that they make money...  You don’t subsidise something which is innately profitable.  Also Oxfordshire’s cameras have yet to be taken down and melted for scrap yet so they are still recording although there is now no prosecution taking place.  Speeding is up by 88% on some camera sites. This eats into the presumption that they make no difference to road user’s driving habits.

It will be interesting to look at the actual accident figures in Oxfordshire a year or two to see if there has been any increase in injury and fatality.  As the opponents of cameras point out, it’s not speed on its own that causes accidents but (what they don’t include in that statement) that many British road users are not competent driving at the speeds they do and end up hitting other road users or inanimate objects.

Anyway, usual political football game is going on with the issue, as you can get a taste of here.

Now don’t get me wrong, I’m all for enjoying the drive.  I’m all for respecting the law and I’m all for safety and so on.  I’m also all in favour of the authorities raising the revenue they need to run the public services I use, especially when they raise that money off some other sucker.  Hense me never getting into the whole “scamera” froth and boil that so many others have.   Yeah, this is an area of some interest to me, especially when you consider the alternatives which usually results in speed humps (aka “sleeping policemen” aka “oh arse, that’s another exhaust that got ripped off”).  Now anyone who drives a lowered car, or one with rock-hard-race-car-wannabe suspension, or is stripped out with marginally padded bucket seats or maybe all of the above has to know humps are NOT the answer to anything except profit margin for Ashley, Peco, Powerflow and the like.   So I oppose anything which may see an increase in those evil melon farmers.

Now word is that in some other areas where speed cameras have been got rid of the accident toll has not risen.  So what does this tell us?  If cameras really do raise revenue then really, we need to find another way to “tax” people who can’t see bright yellow roadside boxes with warning signs.  Suggestions should be sent to HM Treasury.  

** in moderately unrelated news a Swedish driver has apparently got a £650,000 speeding fine.  Which has set records for both the fastest speed and largest fine eVaH.  Story here on Yahoo!