This clipping from a local paper shows the attitude of the Govt regarding speed cameras. Despite there being no more locations locally that meet their own criteria for speed camera placement they're still going to go ahead and buy / use more speed cameras. Now if that doesn't show that they're more interested in the revenue it raises than the safety aspects then nothing does. And once again the article refers to statistics that suggest speed cameras aren't improving safety on our roads anyway.
Did you read the article in last weeks MCN. Written in their typical 'everybody's out to get us' style but some interesting facts about cameras ineffectiveness there.
So far as I'm concerned, if there are passing vehicles, a location is valid.
Sorry, but I have zero tolerance of speeding. I'm not even particularly bothered whether the money from fines is used productively (well, less bothered): it's solely about punishing those who break the speed limit (that's 'limit', not 'guideline') and hopefully deterring others.
This isn't the sole, universal solution to road safety, but that's no reason to tolerate speeding.
The problem is NRT, that whilst catching speeders(something like the 7th biggest direct cause of accidents) is generating millions of pounds of revenue, the 6 bigger causes of accidents are being ignored. A camera cannot detect someone who is drunk, asleep, uninsured, un-MOT'ed, untaxed, driving on the wrong side of the road, on the phone, sending a text, tailgating or just generally being crap behind the wheel.
Speed cameras are NOT about road safety. You, NRT are more likely to be killed or seriously hurt in an accident now than you have in the last ten years.
It's fair to say if nobody sped then cameras would probably disappear as their funding will have dried up. This WILL NOT cut the number of accidents on our roads though. The only things that will are more police, better driver training and better roads. Unfortunately, these all cost money, they don't generate it.