Dog FORD’s trying to con us all about SPEED CAMERAS. A cash grab? Yeah, sure Doggie…I believe you like I believe you wear medium-sized briefs. There’s a TV streaming service dedicated for Dog Ford…TUBBI or is that TUBI?
The Case for Speed Cameras: Proven, Evidence-Based Road Safety
Speed cameras are often controversial, yet decades of scientific evidence show they are one of the most effective and cost-efficient tools for preventing crashes and saving lives.
Why Speed Matters
Physics and physiology make the case clear:
- A pedestrian hit at 30 mph has a 90% chance of survival.
- At 40 mph, survival drops to 10%.
- Kinetic energy increases with the square of speed (E = ½mv²):
- A car at 40 mph carries 78% more energy than one at 30 mph.
Bottom line: even small reductions in speed dramatically cut the risk of death or serious injury.
The Evidence: What Research Shows
Global studies consistently confirm effectiveness:
- Cochrane Review (35 studies):
- Overall crash reductions: 8%–49%
- Fatal/serious crash reductions: 11%–44%
- UK (BMJ study):
- Fatal/serious crashes fell 42%
- Personal injury crashes fell 22% after installation
- Australia:
- Victoria: 24% drop near fixed cameras, 19% from mobile units
- Queensland: 30% fewer hospitalizations, 35% fewer fatalities
Conclusion: these are not marginal gains—they represent thousands of lives saved each year.
How Cameras Change Behavior
Critics call them “cash grabs,” but their real power lies in changing driver behavior:
- Average speeds drop 10–15% in camera zones.
- Compliance with speed limits rises dramatically.
- The deterrent effect persists even when cameras are inactive.
Why it works:
- Cameras increase the perceived certainty of detection.
- Unlike police radar patrols, they operate 24/7 and without bias.
Addressing Common Criticisms
“They’re just for revenue.”
- If cameras reduce speeding, fine revenue should decline over time—and in mature programs, it does.
“They cause rear-end crashes.”
- Studies show only small, short-term rises in minor rear-end collisions, far outweighed by major crash reductions.
- For every minor rear-end crash, six serious injury crashes are prevented.
“Use speed bumps instead.”
- Engineering solutions work but are costly and inflexible.
- Cameras are a low-cost, scalable complement to physical traffic calming.
The Economics: Saving Lives and Money
- Each U.S. road fatality costs society about $12 million (medical, legal, productivity losses).
- Benefit-cost ratio: typically 3:1 to 25:1, depending on the program.
- The savings come from crashes prevented, not fines collected.
Implementation: Doing It Right
Effective programs share key traits:
- Site selection based on crash data, not revenue potential
- Clear signage and public transparency
- Regular calibration and public reporting
- Integration with broader road safety strategies
Visible, well-publicized cameras work best—they encourage compliance rather than punishment.
Conclusion: The Evidence Is Overwhelming
Across continents and decades, the research is unequivocal:
- Speed cameras reduce speeds.
- Reduced speeds save lives.
- The economic and social benefits are profound.
Opposition often stems from ideology or frustration, not facts. The real question is simple:
Do we value driving slightly faster more than we value saving lives?
Speed cameras aren’t perfect—but they are proven, fair, and lifesaving.
______________
For the more comprehensive and detailed version,
click -> LONGVERSION
Protected by WP Anti-Hacker