Me two penneth
Those same statistics apply to the pro/anti-speed lobbies and prove nothing in terms of speed to accident ratio's.
The true problem with our roads is so damned complicated that the arguments run on for years and in the meantime the governments carry on with legislation that screws us all over, whilst we are arguing. i.e. Tax increases!
Firstly, the speed limits are all wrong. Many haven't been reviewed in years. Many take accidents instead of common sense to be altered (how many places have a 2 mile or less stretch of 30 limit road sandwiched between 60 limits?). When are sensible limits going to be applied to the conditions, rather than 'national speed limits'?
Actually the latter is one of the funniest points (and I don't mean ha, ha) of this whole argument. How many people actually know what the national limits are? How many actually know what the white circle & black stripe sign actually means? I've driven along national speed limit dual carriageways before now with rafts of people driving at 50, who give me dirty looks as I pass them at 70. I once did a straw poll in our office and I think 5 out of 20 people thought the NSL was 50 mph!
When I refer to sensible limits, I don't mean increasing them all. I mean applying sensible limits according to the roads location, conditions etc. not simply it's type. All housing estates should be 25mph MAX regardless of location, and be policed to stop the Evo/Impreza/Saxo brigade storming around them (and getting rid of their illegal exhausts too). Likewise mororways should be maxed according to their location, length/width, density of junctions etc. There are stretches of the M1, M6, M5 that could safely take a 90 or possibly even 100mph limit, and there are stretches of the M25 or M42 that should never have a limit higher than 60. What about day/night variable limits?
I used to use the M42 every day and to be frank, once they'd put the new variable limits in, it flowed much better at a constant 50 than it ever did without them.
Secondly, the cameras (as stated by others) don't improve safety and prevent accidents in and of themselves, because the quality of driving is irrelevant. They only improve the number of fatalities because the accidents still happen but at lower speeds. They are a cash cow first and foremost. There are cameras near me in a 30 zone that rarely gets an accident, but is a main route into and out of town. Yet on a 40 stretch nearby, where there have been multiple accidents, there are no cameras.
I have no problem with cameras in roadworks as they do work (providing the reduced speed limit is reasonable - why are some motorway roadworks under virtually identical conditions given different speed limits?). But static camera's should be replaced with proper policing. Camera's are reactive and capture an offence already committed. Police often prevent bad behaviours simply with their presence. And cameras never catch dangerous driving that doesn't include speed, such as tailgating, changing lanes without warning, drivers not allowing traffic to merge/bombing up the outside lane and cutting in late at roadworks etc.
Last thing I'll add is a couple of questions? Why aren't all modern cars fitted with indicators? And why are some people incapable of realising it's not always foggy?