Slower Derbyshire

The enforcement of the speed limit in low speed areas (30/40 mph) in this country would be laughable were it not so lethal! The statistics speak for themselves:

1. 1/3 of all road deaths and serious injuries are due to speeding. This equates to 1100 deaths and 12700 serious injuries per year [source ROSPA]
2. 2/3 of all the 72,000 speed related road traffic accidents occur in low speed areas [source ROSPA]
3. 70% of drivers exceed 30mph - 27% doing over 40mph in 30mph areas! [source Derbyshire Police]

Everybody is affected by these statistics. The most affected are those who are directly involved or are related to those killed, seriously injured or even just injured. Practically all victims of road traffic accidents consume NHS resources that could be used for other purposes if they weren't being used for preventable accidents - especially speed related accidents.

The speed limits exist for the benefit of all road users but especially those that are the most vulnerable: pedestrians, hikers, cyclists, horse riders.

I am annoyed that as a law abiding citizen I am daily harrassed and intimidated by drivers determined to speed - they tailgate at very close distances. I am frequently overtaken in 30mph areas by drivers who feel themselves unconstrained by the law. When cycling to work on 30mph roads I have drivers overtaking me at 40-50mph and leaving me literally inches of room! When cycling on country roads I am frequently overtaken on blind bends by speeding drivers determined to get where ever they are going as fast as possible - demonstrating an astonishing lack of concern for my safety. I can name three stretches of road in Derby that have a 30mph limit and where most cars are doing 40-50mph.

I think that the government's response to the endemic speeding has been little short of pathetic! I believe its feeble attitude is motivated by fear of offending the electorate. The government has essentially legalized speeding! Giving police forces the "netted off" scheme and then saying that in netted off areas speed cameras may not be used as "revenue earners" is equivalent to saying that they may not be used to "routinely catch speeding criminals"! So much for being tough on crime! If the minister has another definition of what a "revenue earning speed camera" is I would be extremely grateful to hear it!

Note that disallowing "revenue earning speed cameras" is illegal in itself! It is in direct contravention to the primary article of the Human Rights Act: "Article 2: You have the absolute right to have your life protected by law".

I believe that the government is abjectly failing to enforce the very law (or at the very least the spirit of the law) that they themselves introduced to this country as far as speeding is concerned.

I imagine that the intention was that drivers not be "mercilessly prosecuted". I.e. prosecuting all drivers doing 31mph in a 30mph area. I understand that doing so would be counter productive (because it would alienate most drivers). However, I have a set of suggestions that I believe are a sensible compromise between being overly harsh and being overly lenient.

• in "netted off" areas the police be allowed to conceal speed cameras that are triggered by speeds in excess of 30% over the speed limit. For a 30 mph limit this would be speeds in excess of 39 mph.
• once most police forces have signed up to the "netted off" scheme the speed in excess of the speed limit that causes the concealed cameras to be triggered be reduced by 1% each year for a period of 10 years.
• after 10 years a congestion system based on monitoring car location and movement could be used to enforce speed limits absolutely. Such a system would have numerous other benefits detailed here.

Government research demonstrates that signs on the side of the road warning of the dangers of speeding¹ does not slow down determined speeders: high income earners, company car drivers, business drivers (delivery drivers, taxis, post men/women) and young drivers [source DfT/ROSPA]. I believe that using hidden cameras for excessive speeding would have the beneficial effect of slowing all drivers down - which should actually be the government's intention. As government research concludes "camera deployment can reduce drivers' speeds markedly and with lasting effect" [source DfT]. I would like to volunteer the county of Derbyshire as a trial county for the use of hidden cameras to catch excessive speeders.

A question I'd like answered is how much money does the government spend combatting income tax evasion as opposed to enforcing the legal speed limit? This is a valid question as one crime results in very few (if any) deaths whereas the other is associated with many child deaths on the roads. If the Treasury is unable to answer such a question how am I supposed to make an informed choice as to whether my taxes are being spent wisely or not? It is reported that the government intends to spend £150 million on speeding up traffic but how much is it spending on slowing cars down?

Response