Exploding the myth of the speed camera

12 April 2012

'Don't it always seem to go, you don't know what you've got 'til it's gone?" as Joni Mitchell warbled all those years ago. It seems a bit of a jump to think that this sentiment (most obviously applied to lovers, patches of landscape or underappreciated limbs) might also apply to automatic speed cameras. But it might: it really might.

God knows, we don't appreciate them much now. Every time I whizz past one a bit too fast for comfort, it propels my girlfriend and me into a boring and bad-tempered 10-minute exchange: "Slow down!" "Stop back-seat driving!" "It was a camera!" "I know!" "Then slow down!" "Shut up!" etc etc. None of us is exactly overjoyed, either, when the postman brings us news that our girlfriend was right.

The intangibles, the absences, the unprovable negatives — that is, the number of accidents that don't happen because of speed cameras — are never so vivid to us as that £60 fine on the
doormat. Why would they be? Our brains aren't wired to hear the dog that doesn't bark.

But there's something intriguing about reports that Oxfordshire council is likely to switch off its 79 fixed cameras next weekend, and that other counties are expected to follow. A lot of face-saving guff has been spouted about "delivering on the promise to end the war on the motorist" — as if enforcing the law is some sort of obnoxious military intervention. But actually it's about cash: the stated reason for the cameras being switched off is that they can't afford to operate them, because central government funding has dried up.

Seems strange, doesn't it? After all, the bleat of every Clarksonian dinner-party bore, since speed cameras first appeared, was that they were nothing to do with road safety: they were just a cheap and cynical way of raising revenue. If that were true, you'd think the effect of a funding shortage would not be to remove speed cameras but to add a whole lot more.

So that piece of widely cherished common wisdom turns out to have been baloney after all! Who knew? Next, you'll be telling us that another, far less testable commonplace of the indignant petrolhead — that speed cameras haven't saved a single life, and may even make the roads less safe — might be wishful thinking too

Some no doubt imagine that "the road safety lobby", as it gets scornfully called, consists of bean-eating professional busybodies. But do we really imagine grown-ups slave at tedious campaigns just for the pleasure of spoiling motorists' fun? The self-interest of the driving-too-fast-in-my-big-stupid-car lobby is, objectively, rather easier to make out.

So I'm minded to give the former more credence. And when you're run over by a Big Yellow Taxi doing 70 in a 50 zone, don't say they didn't warn you.

A body that's in the mind

Equalities Minister Lynne Featherstone says — as I guess she's obliged to — that girls are under pressure to conform to "unachievable body stereotypes". She's on safe ground there but then she commends Christina Hendricks — Joanie from Mad Men — as a "fabulous curvy role-model". Miss Hendricks's figure is, truly, one of the wonders of the modern world. But I'll stick my neck out and say that it's every bit as "unachievable" for most women as Jodie Kidd's. Perhaps the key is to stop recommending "body stereotypes" altogether.

* I was in a B & B at the weekend and conversation with the owner turned to Sawday's guides, that Baedeker of the modern middle-class holidaymaker. My host used to be Sawday's until the fees got too high. Fees? I said. Call me naïve but I was surprised to learn that, though Sawday's team chooses which places merit inclusion, only those prepared to pay several hundred quid appear. It's like "recommendations" in chain bookshops that turn out to be paid for by publishers. I think "advertorial" is the word for it. Nice if it were clearly labelled as such.

No way out for Venables

The Jon Venables story leaves filth on everything it touches. But one detail sticks horribly in the mind. A condition of his release was that he reveal his true identity to anyone with whom he had a romantic relationship.This is a double-bind: his most profound human need booby-trapped. We must deplore what he's done but is it any wonder — when the cruel condition of his freedom was that anyone he dared to love or be loved by, he would perforce repulse and disgust — he went off the rails?

Create a FREE account to continue reading

eros

Registration is a free and easy way to support our journalism.

Join our community where you can: comment on stories; sign up to newsletters; enter competitions and access content on our app.

Your email address

Must be at least 6 characters, include an upper and lower case character and a number

You must be at least 18 years old to create an account

* Required fields

Already have an account? SIGN IN

By clicking Create Account you confirm that your data has been entered correctly and you have read and agree to our Terms of use , Cookie policy and Privacy policy .

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.

Thank you for registering

Please refresh the page or navigate to another page on the site to be automatically logged in