So in actual fact, the government's claim that speed cameras are good is bollocks, as they've chosen statistics (# KSIs) which are improving anyway due to design improvements, and driving is actually getting worse and more accidents are (apparantly) happening. OTOH, I doubt you'd survive a 100mph impact into a brick wall (perhaps if you only gave it a glancing blow, but 100mph head-on into a wall is probably going to kill you).
I can accept that most cameras will not trigger below 36mph, OTOH, I refuse to believe that no one has been done for doing 33mph.
Is this an attempt to say "speed cameras are good because they only work 14% of the time"? If this is somehow good, surely a mbuttive improvement can be achieved by simply removing them all. Then there'll be no film used to catch drivers.
Perhaps. But this is another point against speed cameras -- they don't improve driving.
So? How many were caused by excess speed? Or being rammed by people trying to escape?
I certainly haven't. In fact I've never been asked what I fear most. I object to being a statistic.
Okay. But you often can see the big van sitting at the side of the road, unless they're hiding.
Really? If so, they obviously must have changed since the highway code was published (buttuming breaking has in fact improved). What were the old stopping distances? When were they changed?
Do you just agree with whatever you're told to think?
-- David Taylor
