Speed cameras have caused 28,000 accidents in a decade

The meat of the article says:

"Research by ICM revealed that speed cameras are a contributory factor in one per cent of all road traffic accidents.
DFT figures since 2001 estimates the number of crashes at 2.7 million – meaning the cameras have been involved in 27,900 accidents since 2001.
John O'Roarke, spokesman for LV, said: 'Speed cameras have been a feature on UK roads for almost 20 years, yet the feedback from drivers is that while they may reduce speed they also appear to impair driving ability or at the least concentration on the road.

'As this report shows some drivers behave erratically and at worst dangerously around speed cameras.
'When driving it's important to maintain a constant speed within the legal limits on the road.
'Excessive speed contributes to 12 per cent of all injury collisions, and we'd encourage drivers to stick to all speed limits and not wait for a camera to reduce their speed suddenly.'
More than 90 per cent of drivers admit to speeding – with 15 per cent breaking the limit on a regular basis, especially on the motorway.
And, although safety campaigners speed cameras save lives, nearly half of those questioned said they believed they are a money-making device for the Government.

Note the statement about the cameras saving lives.

Is this actually news or is it a planted story provided by a public relations firm? The article reads more like PR.

It’s odd that an insurance company spokesman is quoted saying that speed cameras are contributory to auto accidents even though the actual number of accidents is relatively low in comparison to other causes. Here’s another article with information provided by an insurance company: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/motoring/news/7917861/Male-road-a.... What are we to make of it?

Distracted driving seems to be the thrust of both articles. So, do insurance companies want more regulation of driving behavior?

Perhaps the reason lies in the rationale outlined by Sheriff Mack (http://sheriffmack.com/index.php/seat-belts). He says that regulatory laws benefit the insurance companies by saving them money. Sure, it also saves consumers money. But again, the broader issue is whether we want more regulation and laws to govern our thought and behavior. The cost of more safety is more regulation.

And, I’m not convinced that what results from having the omnipresent camera is actually safety but more an illusion of safety, something akin to what's called security theater (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Security_theater).

So we know
-how many extra crashes there have been because of them
-they save lives (unspecified number)
And we don't know
-how many injuries they have caused or avoided
-how much property loss they have caused or avoided
-how effective the cost (including fines) have been in improving the public welfare, as opposed to spending it in other ways for the same goal.

Not conclusive either way, imo. But I'd never guess one article alone would be, or even address all of the considerations in one place.

When I respond, my purpose is to present everything that is available so that a reasoned conclusion can be made. Often, the original purpose of a post seemed to be to mislead.

And you did that well enough for me to come to a reasoned conclusion, so I did.

In either case, perhaps the OP's whole point was to ponder that one simple fact, on it's own merits.

In which case we both helped dilute the message.