In a rather bizarre twist of fate, Nanny has decided to ban one of her own "Nannyist" safety measures.
She has decided to halt the installation of 500 new speed cameras, as she awaits a review of their effectiveness.
The review will be carried out by University College London.
Road safety group Safe Speed has been banging on, for quite sometime, about the fact that fewer cameras meant fewer deaths.
Safe Speed said Department for Transport figures showed the growth in fixed and mobile speed camera sites grew by under 1% for 2003 to 2004, compared to 33% between 2002 and 2003.
Founder Paul Smith said that was the "true reason" road deaths fell last year. He went on to lambast Nanny's obsession with speed cameras, pointing out:
"Speed cameras are a dangerous distraction to drivers, police and local authorities alike. In almost every case there's something else that's more important to road safety than strict speed limit compliance."
Nanny's colleagues have privately admitted that the fall in road deaths may be simply the normal recovery that would be expected after a peak in crashes known as "regression to the mean".
Cameras can be installed only where there have been a spate of serious crashes. Under the law of averages, it is unlikely that the number of crashes would continue at the same rate.
Mervyn Stone, Emeritus Professor of statistics at University College London, said:
"I am deeply sceptical of the data that has been concocted to support the increase in cameras."
In other words, Nanny has lied to us about the effectiveness of these cameras.
Speed cameras provide Nanny with an exceptionally easy source of revenue.
Let's go back to the days of having a man walking in front of the vehicle with a red flag.