Research show that on average 97% of speeding offences (not including Speedwatch observations) are detected by speed cameras. The vast majority of these are fixed at the roadside in areas known to both local residents and regular commuters, hence – and in spite of the so-called ‘Halo-effect’, they have little effect in areas not covered by camera technology.
Equally relevant – and especially to rural areas where fatalities are four times more likely to happen than in urban areas, the discussion about road safety has a tendency to focus on number of collision casualties alone. In most areas where Speedwatch operates and where speeding evidently is a concern to the communities, the quality-of-life issue as well as feeling safe when using the roads recreationally, are equally important to the affected areas’ residents. This is not an attempt at diminishing the dismay of the high number of fatal and seriously injured victims but a reminder that the problem of speeding goes well beyond quantifying its consequences with casualty statistics alone.
Inconsistently applied enforcement methodology is not likely to change socially perceived acceptable behaviour if the majority of those caught speeding either are not – or consider themselves habitual speeders. Increased compliance with the law can be achieved with other means than enforcement. In the case of Speedwatch, personalised education is a methodology that is just as efficient to help bring the problem under control.
Organising concerned, proactive community volunteers on a grand scale is vital to succeed with this goal.
