SNAPPING SPEED: THE TOLERATION OF DANGER ON THE ROADS
Mendivil et al's (1) excellent paper demonstrates the cost-benefits to be derived from investment in speed cameras. It invokes that remarkable Achilles-heel accompanying mass motoring: the toleration of levels of preventable danger that are unacceptable in other transport modes (2).
Attitudes to speed-cameras may reflect the misplaced suspicion that motorists have long directed to the accuracy of their speedometers (3). In the UK, the initial attitude of a considerable section of the motoring public towards speed-cameras was hostile: Cameras were deliberately smashed in the context of a campaign which asserted that speed-cameras were no more than indirect taxation: a cash-cow for government. It was further asserted that overt placement of speed-cameras would lead to erratic speeds which would increase the number and severity of crashes. This problem could of course be alleviated by covert placing of speed- cameras, but this solution was no emollient; it would likely bring about greatly increased detection-rates (4)!
The attitude of the current UK government has unfortunately regressed during the economic downturn: a shift to local decision-making could lead to the reduction or elimination of speed-cameras in some areas. Mendivel et al make it clear that this is not an economically sensible path to follow.
The story of speed-cameras may come to follow the older story of breathalysers: the latter have steadily achieved acceptance by most motorists - but a substantial minority continue stubbornly to misbehave (5). In the meantime, a side-effect of such toleration of danger may be that measures to promote less intrusive and healthier modes of travel - cycling and walking both for full journeys and in conjunction with public transort - remain less effective than they might be in many jurisdictions.
1. Mendivil J, Gancia-Altes A, Perez K, et al. Speed cameras in an urban setting: a cost-benefit analysis. Inj Prev 2011:10.1136/ip.2010.030882.
2. Reinhardt-Rutland A H. Attitudes to SUVs and "slam-door" rolling stock represent a paradox. BMJ 2005; 331:967.
3. Denton G G. The use made of the speedometer as an aid to driving. Ergonomics 1969;12:447-454.
4. Reinhardt-Rutland A H. Roadside speed-cameras: arguments for covert siting. Police J 2001;74:312-315.
5. Gunay R A, Haran I. Face-to-face interviews with motorists who admit to drink driving in rural Northern Ireland. Traffic Eng Control 2005;46:376-379.
Conflict of Interest:
Register for free content
This recent issue is free to all users to allow everyone the opportunity to see the full scope and typical content of Injury Prevention.
View free sample issue >>