AND so the speed camera debate goes on. Are they about road safety or revenue? My comments are not as a result of falling foul of one of these devices; indeed, I still hold a clean driving licence after over 40 years.
I am contributing to this debate as a retired police superintendent and former head of the Lancashire Police Driving School.
Firstly, it is a fact that inappropriate use of speed kills. Statistics show that speed is a factor in approximately one third of fatal accidents. However, whether it is the major factor is debatable and not easily proved.
Secondly, speeding is an offence and anyone caught can only expect to be dealt with as they would for any other offence.
Thirdly, the number of fatalities on our roads is unacceptably high.
On these points I stand four square with the Road Safety Partnership. However, I am not convinced that indiscriminately pursuing a policy with such an emphasis upon speeding will have any significant effect in reducing fatalities.
Thirty years ago, with 15 million cars on the roads, almost twice as many deaths occurred each year as compared with the past five years. This welcome reduction has coincided with some significant events, i.e. the introduction of the breathalyser in 1967, compulsory wearing of crash helmets in 1973, compulsory wearing of seat belts in 1983 and 1991.
We have also seen an enormous improvement in vehicle technology and road designs. Over the same period I am unaware of any major research which has shown that enforcing speed limits has had any significant and lasting effect on road casualties. I am on the roads every day and see countless examples of bad, if not sometimes reckless, driving that go unpunished.
I fully agree with the use of cameras, but if we are going to be really serious about using them to improve road safety, let us use them in different ways. I would like to see cameras used in unmarked police cars to catch blatant law-breakers who have little regard for regulations or other road users.
I would like to see the cameras on Buncer Lane, Blackburn, for example, moved a few hundred yards down the road to the traffic lights at Witton and catch the countless number of drivers who pass through the junction against a red light, and I am sure the same would apply at many other junctions.
I would like to see the police attend non-injury road accidents where there is clearly a suspicion of careless or reckless driving. I feel that these measures would have a much greater impact than prosecuting thousands of motorists for driving a few miles per hour over the speed limit.
Speeding only becomes a danger when it is too fast for the conditions. 30mph on a slippery road or when children are going to and from school may be far too fast, albeit legal, whereas 35mph on a quiet Sunday morning may be quite safe although against the law.
Police officers have always been able to use discretion when deciding whether to prosecute, and it is the total indiscrimination of cameras which seems to upset most motorists. I know that the Road Safety Partnership is involved in many other road safety initiatives and it is to be congratulated for what it has achieved, but on this issue I think it has got it wrong. So, road safety or revenue? There is no argument, is there?
JAMES KENNEDY, Blackburn (address received).
Comments: Our rules
We want our comments to be a lively and valuable part of our community - a place where readers can debate and engage with the most important local issues. The ability to comment on our stories is a privilege, not a right, however, and that privilege may be withdrawn if it is abused or misused.
Please report any comments that break our rules.
Read the rules hereComments are closed on this article