Speed cameras

While I'm in my safe motoring, and 'the motorist is not a victim' rant mode, I'll post a copy of the summary of an Independent article today. The black type below is reprinted from the article. My comments appear in blue.


So are speed cameras the answer?

Yes...
* Studies have shown that a reduction in the speed limit to 20mph in built-up areas causes a 60 per cent fall in accidents
* Evidence from Swindon showed a 30 per cent reduction in the numbers of people killed or injured since cameras were installed
* At 10 of the sites in Swindon where cameras were introduced, no road accident deaths have been recorded

All three look like factual evidence to me. The most relevant is the second one.

No...
* Critics say it's not speed that kills but tiredness and careless driving. It's this that should be targeted with safer driving campaigns - yes, I can see that working. Not. Do I hear cries of 'Nanny State'? Don't individuals always know best? Especially when travelling in a metal box.
* Speed cameras are being used as an easy way for the authorities to bump up their revenues, antagonising the public - as several people have said, you pay the voluntary tax if you decide to speed. Commit a crime, pay the fine. Your choice.
* Cameras are counter-productive in creating a tendency for drivers to break the speed limit when they are not around - surely only those who believe they have a divine right to speed.