Skip to main content

Why stop at speed cameras?

I greatly enjoyed the comments of Julie Spence - the outgoing Chief Constable of the Cambridgeshire police force - who claimed that 'speeding is middle class anti-social behaviour'. Too bloody right.

Her intervention was prompted by the current trend towards turning off speed cameras on our roads, which is driven by the desire to save money and a crazy ideological objection to the idea of 'snooping'. One of my favourite journalists, David Aaronovitch of The Times, pulled this nonsense apart the other day in his column. If these cameras are so expensive, how come their opponents have always criticised them for being a money-making venture? The 'cost' is a complete and utter red herring. What the pro-speed lobby actually wants is the ability to break the law with impunity. Supporters believe, in their arrogance, that once they are behind the wheel of their car, they should be free to drive at whatever speed they wish, regardless of the consequence to wider society.

We can spend all day arguing about how many lives are saved by speed cameras or how much more deadly a car is at, say, 40 mph than it is at 30. There is, however, a much more fundamental point, which is that society has the right to regulate the behaviour of its citizens and the state should be able to take reasonable steps to enforce the law. Not draconian and extreme steps. Reasonable steps, such as the gathering of photographic evidence that can aid a prosecution.

If we accept the argument that councils have no right to check whether people are speeding, we have to ask ourselves whether we believe in regulating speeding at all. (Historically, on German Autobahns, for instance, people have been able to drive as fast as they like. Perhaps this is what we secretly crave?)

And if we don't want to regulate speeding, why bother with other rules about Zebra and pedestrian crossings? Aren't they a terrible infringement of the motorist's right to drive? In fact, why have a driving test in the first place? Isn't it disgraceful that the state imposes its own particular view about how people should reverse around a corner or approach a roundabout?

I'm reminded of the barmy chainsmoking Thatcherite, Nicholas Ridley, who while Secretary of State for Transport in the early 1980s was reported to believe that traffic lights impeded the flow of vehicles.

I cannot abide the sanctimonious hypocrisy and bleating of the motoring lobby and the Top Gear junkies who love to regale us with stories of doing 120 down the M1. And, to be fair, I have equal contempt for the cyclists who believe that they are somehow exempt from stopping at junctions or obeying any rules of the road. Both show a complete disregard for others and I personally don't mind if the government sticks a few cameras up to stop them. In fact, I have some good suggestions about where to stick the cameras.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

A Fawlty Towers script? Si, senor!

Ok, so I gave ChatGPT the following scenario: "Imagine a theatrical script for a situation comedy set in a hotel in Torquay, England. The proprietor is called Basil, an eccentric man who believes the calibre of guests to be low. His wife, Sybil, is often frustrated by Basil's incompetence. They employ a Spanish waiter called Manuel, who struggles to understand English. Basil suspects that two guests, who claim to be married, may be lying." Here's what our favourite AI came up with: Scene: The hotel lobby in Torquay, England. Basil is standing behind the reception desk, looking at a piece of paper. Sybil is standing next to him, looking annoyed. Manuel is hovering nearby, trying to look busy. Basil: (to Sybil) I don't know why we get such low-calibre guests at this hotel. Look at these two - Mr. and Mrs. Smith. They claim to be married, but I suspect they might be lying. Sybil: (sighing) Basil, it's not our job to judge the marital status of our guests. Just m

It's been a tough year. Let's give ourselves a clap.

If something didn’t smell right about the UK handling of the pandemic, the British public was never going to notice. But they knew that if they couldn’t smell something, they really ought to get a Covid test sent to them in the post. There has been something incredibly British about the DIY swabs and their delivery via the gig-economy workers of Amazon, hasn’t there? Touch of corona? I’ll pop something in the post to you. Should be with you tomorrow. I suppose it was inevitable that we’d need some new kind of system. After all, the coronavirus outbreak was the first thing in the history of the NHS that couldn’t be cured by paracetamol, rest and plenty of fluids. This understandably left GPs flummoxed and anxious. The UK decided pretty early on that if you were ill with a novel pathogen – which proved deadly in maybe 1% of cases – you really shouldn’t go to the doctor. You should STAY AT HOME and spread it quickly to your flatmates or family members. And because they were now at

The race for bogus Olympic stats

Of all the dubious statistics thrown around in relation to the London Olympics, the claim that there are '47 tube journeys in central London that can easily be walked' is surely one of the most misleading. I suspect it is based on the relative proximity of one station to an adjacent one. Embankment is walking distance from Temple. Charing Cross is a stone's throw from Leicester Square. But what exactly is a 'tube journey'? As I've understood it - and I'm only going on three decades' experience of using the network - it is a journey that takes you from any one place with a tube station to another. My journey from Leicester Square might take me to Charing Cross, but it might also lead me up the line to Camden Town or down south to Morden. In fact, from any one tube station - thanks to the wonders of interconnections - there are dozens, maybe hundreds, of options available to me. Now, I don't claim to have a PhD in mathematics, but the number of p