Do speed cameras save lives?

Question

Swindon became the first local council in England to switch off fixed-point speed cameras on Friday. Was this a good or bad idea?

http://uk.news.yahoo.com/22/20090731/tuk-uk-britain-cameras-fa6b408.html

Answer 1

In all honesty, i can't see how speed cameras save lives. The majority of the public simply slow down when they see a speed camera, and speed up as soon as they've past it.



Same with the speed camera signs or those that flash up telling you to slow down - completely pointless because people know that they're just a warning sign and they still won't slow down.



Speed cameras are just a waste of money, so i think Swindon council probably have the best idea. They're better off putting more traffic officers on the roads trying to catch people speeding instead of putting up blatantly obvious speed cameras that people will always slow down for.



Even speed bumps are a better idea than cameras, because at least then that does encourage people to slow down - even if it is simply just to avoid ruining their car.



Unless they put a speed camera every half a mile down every road, they're just a waste of money.

Answer 2

The fact is that we have no way at all of proving that speed cameras either do or do not save lives.



The safety lobby argue that the rate of road deaths has fallen since cameras have been introduced but they cannot prove that the rate of deaths has fallen because of the cameras, especially since the rate of road deaths was falling anyway, well before cameras were even thought of.



The anti-camera people point out that the introduction of cameras has coincided with a slowing down (even a flattening off) in the rate of decline but, again, they cannot prove that this is because of cameras.



The reality is that the number of road deaths has fallen because of a wide range of factors, e.g. safety features on cars, seatbelts, better road layout and signage, less drink-driving, and so on. As many of these factors have happened at the same time, it is impossible to isolate the precise effect of a signle factor.

Answer 3

is funny that they have turned off the cameras now all the money has to go to the government instead of the council. Think they do not save lives at all, they're just a money maker scheme. Sure that more and more councils will be turning them off now they not getting the revenue from them directly. Says it all really!

Answer 4

Thats a never ending argument. The question is, do hidden police mounted cameras/radars save lives?



NO WAY



The govt is all about revenue. The average speed camera generates about 11 - 14 million big bucks per year.

Answer 5

No they are just another way of generating money. The fines go directly to the government so the Council gains nothing, but the Council Tax Payers still have to maintain them.

Answer 6

Good idea. Everybody in Swindon probably knows where they are by now and slows down anyways. The local police will still be using mobile cameras which will be more effective.

Answer 7

If you kept to the speed limit you would not have to slow down.



If you have to slow down for whatever reason and the guy behind runs into you then that is his bad driving NOT the fault of the camera or other cause of your slowing down.



People who persistently speed to any significant extent are arrogant and aggressive (and conceited) drivers who should not be allowed on the road anyway



Increasing speed does not increase road capacity - a 2 second gap is a 2 second gap and means a max of 1800 vehicles / lane/hour regardless of speed.

Answer 8

It's a great idea to get rid of them.



You could always argue that the reason lives are being lost is simply because people drive cars in the first place, and prohibit vehicles to ensure society's safety. Or, more moderately, that since people are drinking alcohol and then driving drunk, alcohol should be banned.



People are going to speed regardless of whether or not there are cameras. It's ineffective and a waste of taxpayer money.

Answer 9

No, in fact there have been many reports of them causing accidents and hence death and injuries.



The vast majority of "safety" cameras are not sited properly where they could in fact save lives, they are mostly sited where they will get the maximum number of offenders and hence the most cash.

Answer 10

the purpose is not save lives, the real purpose is make money.

if they want so save lives they can start to ban some tyre brands,

you find tyres in the market worse than butter.

Answer 11

No, they ruin people's lives by making people loose their licences, making the people not bing able to continue their job which requires them to drive which then means that people can't feed their children.

Answer 12

No, but they generate loads of revenue that goes straight to the one eyed idiot.

Answer 13

They generate revenue.

Answer 14

well they do slow cars down, so yh, they would save lives

Answer 15

No, having to slow down for them does. SCRREEEEEETCCCHH..... BANG.