For He shall come to judge the quick and the dead.

Andrew Milner, Karuizawa, Japan

It's predictable that the anti speed control mob should see this report as supporting their views, however their 'logic' is flawed in a number of important ways. Firstly, under 2% of the total road network is covered by a safety camera scheme. As such one can hardly say that speed limit enforcement is an ineffective means of reducing casualties when no more than a token attempt has been made to actually enforce those limits! Secondly, the use of 'targeted' high-visibility cameras gives drivers the green light to put their foot down anywhere there isn't a bright yellow box by the side of the road. Hence, in order to reduce the number of casualties, there needs to move toward the use of covert speed enforcement across the whole road network. Thirdly, even the limited amount of enforcement which does exist tends to slow most drivers down to some degree. Without any enforcement the public road would become a race track and casualties would soar to much higher levels than exist already.

Howard, Haute Savoie, France

Whats the point of this rubbish?
200 x 3,172 = 634,400
x100 = 63 million,
somewhere near our population.
So the chance is 200x100=
20,000 to one, in any one year.

30 x more likely than winning the Lottery... so that means which each have a 6,000 to one chance of winning the big prize... ie everyone wins once in 58 years if they do it twice a week. We're all rich.

Do me a favour.

Bill David, Winchester,

So all the speed cameras do not make for safer driving.
Perhaps drivers could give more attention to driving safely if they were not constantly looking out for the next camera?

GJB, Slough, Berkshire

I am sorry but the Times has fallen for a shoddy trick typical of the DfT. To arrive at this 200 to 1 figure the lifetime has to be between 75 and 100 years and such a long life defeats the statement. On a more realistic hourly basis the odds rise to 17.5m to 1 so this is patent nonsense. And we need go no further forward than the headline to this story where the lifetime element has been lost and so even the AA are accepting the unqualified 200 to 1 odds. So the chances of being killed on our roads hourly is 17.5m to 1

Keith Peat, Sutton on Sea, Lincolnshire

The best, and probably only, way to reduce deaths on the road is to design roads to be safer. Speed cameras do not, as the stats have shown, reduce deaths. If there is an accident black spot it is not because drivers suddenly become innatentive or stupid at that location, it's because of something about the road or footway at that spot.

Rather than speed cameras, put in a traffic island, straighten a bend, improve visibility, put in a pedestrian crossing, a set of lights or any of a number of simple, proven modifications which save lives. Some investment in roads would help, rather than taking money away.

The vast majority of drivers are skilled, sensible and law abiding. They deserve intelligent design not dogma, headlines and persecution.

Derek Smith, Brighton, UK

The number of road deaths in 2006 was 3,172. Yet each year there are over 20,000 preventable deaths in NHS hospitals from deep vein thrombosis, In German hospitals and rehab centres all patients receive injections against DVT every day and if overweight or obese two injections or more according to size. That's how serious the German medical profession consider DVT. Is Britain so backward and incompetent as to not follow the same procedures as the Germans?

John, London,

Bad drivers kill people. Only a massive increase in traffic cops who are tasked to prosecute bad drivers will cut road deaths.

Bad drivers with their brains in neutral, using mobile phones, not able to indicate, dawdling in 60mph zones then speeding in 30mph zones, middle lane huggers etc

Shows that speed camera's are just a tax raising exercise and have contributed zilch to road safety.

Jeff, Surrey,