Wêrom snelheidslimieten it minst effektive middel foar ferkearsfeilichheid binne
July 22, 2026 · Frisian News
Swedish research shows speed cameras correlate poorly with accident reduction in urban areas, while road design and enforcement focus matter far more. Most speed enforcement revenue comes from marginal violations, not dangerous driving.
FryskIn Sweedsk ûndersyk út 2024 analysearre tsien jier ferkearsgegevens fan Stockholm, Göteborg en Malmö. Krúspunten mei strange snelheidshânhaving hiene faak hegere oantallen ferwûnden as fergelykbere strjitten sûnder kamera's. Dochs pleatse stêden yn hiel Jeropa hieltyd mear snelheidskamera's. It offisjele ferhaal is simpel: legere snelheidslimieten rêde libbens. It ûndersyk suggerearret eat oars.
Wat ûngelokken feroarsaket is net de snelheidslimiet op in boerd, mar it ûntwerp fan de wei sels. Brede rystroken, min sicht, ûnfoldwaande ferljochting en ûndúdlike weioanwizingen feroarsakje ûngelokken. Automobilisten dy't de wetlike snelheid ride op in min ûntworpen strjitte komme noch altyd yn ûngelokken. Underwilens wurkje goed ûntworpen strjitten sels as bestjoerders te hurd ride. In ûndersyk fan it Nederlânske wegenynstitút fûn dat 40 prosint fan de ûngelokken op plattelânswegen barde op wegen mei dúdlike snelheidslimieten mar ferâldere geometrij dy't sûnt de jierren tachtich net mear oanpast wie. De snelheidslimiet kriget de skuld. De besunigingen fan de gemeentlike weiyngenieur bliuwe ûnsichtber.
Snelheidskamera-netwurken leverje winst op. Stêden kontraktearje mei private hânhavinsbedriuwen dy't 20 oant 30 prosint fan de boeten as winst hâlde. Dizze bedriuwen lobbyen foar strengere limieten, mear kamera's en legere drompels foardat boeten útdield wurde. Net omdat it libbens rêdt. Omdat it ynkommen generearret. Frankryk helle yn 2023 800 miljoen euro op út snelheidshânhaving. It measte dêrfan kaam fan bestjoerders dy't ien oant fiif kilometer yn 'e oere te hurd rieden. Dit binne net de roekeloaze automobilisten dy't earnste ûngelokken feroarsakje.
Echte feilichheid fereasket oar wurk. It betsjut it werûntwerpen fan gefaarlike krúspunten, it kapjen fan sicht-blokkearjend grien, it ynstallearjen fan goed sichtbere ferljochting en it trainen fan bestjoerders yn it werkennen fan gefaarlike situaasjes. It fereasket hânhaving rjochte op bestjoerders dy't wier ûngelokken feroarsakje: de dronkene, de ôflate, de roekeloaze. Mar dizze oanpakken kostje jild en fereaskje echte ynspanning. Snelheidskamera's binne ienfâldich. Se wurkje snachts. Se fereaskje gjin oardiel. Se generearje ynkommen. It systeem keas foar it ark dat himsels betellet.
Snelheidslimieten binne wichtich oan de uterstens. In bestjoerder dy't 100 kilometer yn 'e oere troch in wenbuert riidt is gefaarlik. Mar it idee dat snelheid it haadgefaar is op goed ûntworpen wegen mei alert ridende automobilisten kloppet net. It publyk akseptearre dit ferhaal sûnder fragen sa lang dat it no radikaal klinkt. Dat is it net. It is wat de gegevens toane.
A Swedish study from 2024 examined ten years of accident data from Stockholm, Gothenburg, and Malmö. Intersections with strict speed enforcement often had higher injury rates than similar streets without cameras. Yet cities across Europe keep installing more speed cameras. The official story is simple: lower speed limits save lives. The research suggests otherwise.
What predicts collisions is not the speed limit posted on a sign but the actual design of the road. Wide lanes, poor sight lines, inadequate lighting, and unclear signage create accidents. Drivers traveling at the legal limit down a badly designed street still crash. Meanwhile, streets built for safety work even when drivers exceed posted limits. A Dutch road institute study found that 40 percent of accidents in rural areas happened on roads with proper speed signs but outdated geometry that nobody had fixed since the 1980s. The speed limit takes the blame. The city engineer's budget cuts remain invisible.
Speed camera networks are profitable. Cities contract with private enforcement companies that take 20 to 30 percent of fines as profit. These companies lobby for stricter limits, more cameras, and lower thresholds before fines trigger. Not because it saves lives. Because it generates revenue. France collected 800 million euros from speed enforcement in 2023. Most of that came from drivers going one to five kilometers over the limit. These are not the reckless drivers causing serious accidents.
Real safety requires different work. It means redesigning dangerous intersections, cutting sight-blocking trees, installing proper lighting, and training drivers on hazard perception. It requires enforcement focused on the drivers who actually cause accidents: the intoxicated, the distracted, the reckless. But these approaches cost money and demand real effort. Speed cameras are simple. They work at night. They need no judgment call. They generate revenue. The system chose the tool that pays for itself.
Speed limits matter at the extremes. A driver traveling 100 kilometers per hour through a residential neighborhood is dangerous. But the idea that speed is the main danger on well-designed roads with alert drivers is false. The public accepted this story without question for so long that saying so sounds radical. It is not. It is what the data shows.
Published July 22, 2026 · Frisian News · Ljouwert, Fryslân