I think it was RA, and not CG, who "missed the point" recently. CG was valid in saying that he "concentrates more on speed cameras than what is around him". I know that you can reasonably expect to suffer the stated penalty if you go against the law, but that does not mean that the law is sensible and I think two points should be borne in mind. First, speed is not the only factor in road safety - it just happens to be more measurable than most others. CG was correct that placing too much attention on speed will result in a deterioration of other parameters. Increasing speeding penalties will increase drivers' resolve not to speed. However, this requires greater attention on the speedometer. At some point, this becomes deleterious to road safety. Second, speed limits are (necessarily) to a large degree arbitrary. The law pretends it is never safe to travel at 31 mph in any part of a 30 mph zone. This is clearly nonsense. At times and at certain places, 35 or even 40 mph would not unreasonably unsafe, whilst at others, 20 mph would be too fast. For society to function well takes cooperation; in this case, between those who prefer safety at the expense of journey time and those who prefer speed. Imposing (without discretion) relatively harsh penalties for minor infringements, pretending that these speeds are objectively unsafe and have a positive effect on safety or giving the impression that the real motive is to raise easy money are all unlikely to engender the willing cooperation of motorists.