A final word concerning speeding, and why it requires control and policing :

The car lobby has campaigned against the very existence of speed limits from its inception (in the UK in 1895 as the Self-Propelled Traffic Association).  In 1930, they succeeded in gaining abolition of the universal 30mph limit.  The casualty rate rose by a quarter over the following two years.  Such a low limit might seem absurd to drivers now used to whipping through residential areas, like my home village, at 45 with almost complete impunity; but, if one truly understands the horror in the potential consequence, and is prepared to question such a constraint rationally, it would surely seem wholly reasonable.

A fool might point out that two thirds of road casualties fall victim within a 30mph limit, and contend that such a limit is therefore worthless.  In fact, such an observation is nothing less than a self-contained argument for a lower limit.

One must first understand that a reduction in speed will always render 1) an accident much less likely, and 2) its consequences much less severe, for three reasons.  First, more time is available to react; but this effect is only linear — the time available is inversely proportional to speed.  The kinetic energy of the vehicle varies non-linearly, as the square of speed — it will more than halve when speed is reduced from 30 to 20mph.  Braking time varies with vehicle kinetic energy, not speed directly; hence, it halves when speed is reduced from 30 to 20mph.

It is the energy imparted by the vehicle that will smash a child’s head.  (If you think this language emotive, you might want to visit any hospital for brain-damaged children.  You will find most have been put there by a car.)  When that little head meets the bonnet of a SUV (at head height), it must absorb all the energy imparted, directly.

After the mindless claim that speed has nothing to do with risk of collision, or its consequences, the second most common claim made by the road lobby is that statistics should demonstrate a clear correlation between speed limitation and casualty rate.  This too is utter nonsense, mainly for all the usual reasons why real scientists avoid reliance upon statistics as far as they possibly can.

First and foremost, they contain information only concerning the domain from which they are derived.  For example, speed cameras were applied to a very small proportion of Britain’s roadway.  Even so, the information gathered at those locations clearly indicated a fall in both accident and casualty rates once they were installed.  However, the claim that one should perceive a rise in those rates nationally, or even across the county, after their removal is nonsense.

Second, statistics are influenced by factors which remain unquantified or which remain entirely unknown; the wider the domain, the more factors there are, and the less specific any prior information concerning them.  One thing we most decidedly do not know, regarding speeding, is just how many people, especially children, are deterred from walking and cycling because of it.  Hence, the claim that we don’t need speed limits because both accident and casualty rate are falling ‘naturally’ is utterly without foundation.  It may simply be that we are removing the people from the risk, not the risk from the people.  There is plenty of evidence that people, especially children, are walking and cycling much less.

Then there is congestion, which is increasingly reducing speed on many routes, and doubtless as a result reducing the accident and casualty rates thereon.  But this doesn’t help stop the youngster being smashed off his bike, or run down while walking to school, by an adult in a car, in a hurry.

One last contention is that there is no evidence that speed limits save lives.  Again, this is utter nonsense.  One study, for the Australian Federal Office of Road Safety, concluded that the risk of becoming a casualty in a road accident doubles with every 5kph above a 60kph limit, where such a limit currently applies.

To avoid rational argument, and hold to a model that justifies personal advantage, while demonstrating intolerance of opposition, is a dictionary definition of bigotry, and is not an acceptable basis for policy in a civilized society.

Intolerance must meet greater intolerance.

After speed cameras were “turned off”, earlier this month, their operators left them recording speed limit violation for a 5-day test period.   The number of drivers breaking the law rose by 18% in that single week, demonstrating clearly that cameras were indeed an effective deterrent.  This is consistent with a Department for Transport 2005 report concluding that they brought about a 70% reduction in speeding nationally.

The same report, after monitoring events before and after camera installation over a significant period, concluded that fatal accidents reduced by 42% and serious injury by 22%.

The road lobby, now represented by the Conservative/Liberal Democrat coalition government and the (Conservative run) Oxford County Council, argue that they were just there to “tax motorists”.  In fact, speeding fines add up to £20m less than the government spends annually on road safety.  Even the AA membership disagrees with the accusation, it seems.  Its own survey concluded that 70% of its members accept that the cameras play an important part in improving road safety.

Speaking for the people who witness the aftermath of speeding, the Association of Chief Police Officers stated that “speed cameras are the cornerstone of reducing speeding and deaths on the road”.  The spokesperson went on to say that he had “no doubt’ that speed cameras had helped to reduce the number of deaths caused by road accidents.  He then expressed his concern that that number might now rise.

The fact is that speeding on the highway will from now on be policed very much less.  No replacement system has been proposed by either local or national authority.  The budget for “road safety”, already derisory, given the huge amounts spent on both cars and roads, is being cut by almost a third.

This cut is clearly ideological, since it liberates an utterly insignificant proportion of the savings the Treasury must make, and is unsupported by any credible evidence.  Moreover, it flies in the face of professional advice.  This is “saloon bar” politics, not responsible government.

One can only conclude that this new government, and its friends in local government, believe either that no law enforcement is necessary on the road, or that ‘motorists’ are above the law.

The UK Minister for Road Safety has announced a 40% cut in local authority funding for road safety, with the stated intention of ending their ability to fund speed cameras.  He added that this was delivery on the new Government’s pledge to “end the war on the motorist”.

You would think, given the number of cyclists and pedestrians who have been killed or seriously injured, that it was the motorist who was at war with them.

No rational argument was advanced as to how the speed limit would now be enforced.  No alternative has been proposed, not that it would remain affordable in the light of such a dramatic reduction in funding.

Speed is an important factor in most road traffic accidents which result in injury or death, as one might expect from simple physics.  Cameras are an effective deterrent.  The cost of their loss will be measured in blood and grief.

It would be one thing if the Conservatives had received an electoral mandate for this lunacy.  But they gained no such thing. They were helped into power by the LibDems who have always professed support for speed cameras.

What we are left with is a licence to violate the law, endangering life and limb, and a triumph of bigotry over reason.

You may also enjoy : Tory Boy Racers by George Monbiot