The speed camera debate: refusal to acknowledge costs

The Telegraph - 24 August 2011
submit to reddit
In the continued attack on speed cameras, The Telegraph have reported that speed cameras don't cut accidents, and have in some cases led to an increase in casualties. An impression is given, as in many other articles, that speed cameras exist simply to generate money for the state, which is not the case.

What the article does not point out is that speed cameras cost money for the state. A figure of 100m /year is given for fine generation for 6,000 cameras (approx. 17,000/year each - less than the cost of installation). Rather than serving "only to raise millions from motorists", they cost the state money in order to save lives. We know that Oxfordshire council cut speed cameras in 2010 to meet reduced budget requirements.
Excerpt:
Speed cameras have failed to cut accidents on many roads and have actually led to a rise in casualties on some routes, official figures show today.

Ministers fear that thousands of cameras have served only to raise millions from motorists, rather than improve safety.


View all 'Eye on the News' entries

Post a Comment


HTML will be removed; internet addresses will automatically be hyperlinked.


Answer the following sum to prove that you are human:


Comments (0)

Keep up to Date

Subscribe to our mailing list to receive updates:






Categories


Countries:
News Providers: Other:

Archive


2013
2012
2011