All I'm saying is that as long as speed limits are appropriate to the road/surroundings and the conditions, then I'd accept the consequences if the penalty was proportionate to the offence, whether a fine/pts or, in rare cases, a custodial or suspended sentence.
What I don't like are cameras set up where they don't reduce accidents (sometimes the opposite) by any meaningful amount and are there just to provide revenue. A fine won't be revenue if all it covers are costs in a case.
The problem is that is some areas, I've seen 60mph speed limits reduced to 40 (with cameras), supposedly to catch those going well over the old limit, but these people don't care and still will speed and drive dangerously. Many people slam on the anchors for the camera then floor it until the next one, making it far more dangerous a road than before.
One local case (near my parents' home) was like this and only enacted because a joyrider and some of their passengers were killed doing about 80mph (they lost control on a bend) at night on a 60mph single carriageway road. Exactly how reducing it to 40 would've stopped them doing so, given they were already 20 over the previous limit.
On many roads with reduced limits people actually now ignore them, except for the cameras, and I've seen several near misses as a result. Some people I've see driving now regularly keep their eye on the speedo rather than on the road and surroundings - FAR more dangerous than going a few mph over a limit but being aware of the road.
Less and less common sense these days.
|