Graeme wrote:

In message
Chris Tolley (ukonline really) wrote:

Graeme wrote:

In message
Chris Tolley (ukonline really) wrote:

Quite. But in my logical way of looking at things, all a speed camera
can do is penalise those who don't stick to the speed limits.

A somewhat simplistic arguement that begs a lot of questions.

It's not a simplistic argument. It's unarguable really. It's a simple
statement of fact. Cameras record people in the act of exceeding the
limit. It's all they do. In any other circumstances, they are merely
road furniture. They may induce people to check their speedos and slow
down, but then so may any other roadside sign that mentions a speed
limit.

There are many other factors in accidents. Speed may be a factor in the
cause of some accidents, simply because it cuts down the time people have
to respond to a contingency, but I would have said that the real difference
that speed makes is in the severity of the consequences.

That normally applies far more to urban areas where the difference between 30
and 40 can be literally life or death. How many speed cameras do you see in
30mph limit areas? Very few because they won't raise enough revenue. It is
that level of cynicism that has brought them into disrepute.

I reckon that I encounter more speed cameras in 30 limits than any other
limits. Cheshire police often set up a mobile camera a couple of miles
from where I live, to protect a 30 limit on the A54. The nearest fixed
cameras to where I live protect 40 limits. T'other day I went to
Stalybridge and the cameras I encountered (as far as I can recall them)
were protecting limits of 60, 50, 30, 30, 30, 30, 50, 50, 60
respectively. Cheshire's not so bad for them, but there seem to be a
superfluity in Staffs.

--
http://gallery120232.fotopic.net/p9683756.html
(142 093 at Cardiff Central, 30 Jun 1999)