If the law is broken by so many people, then the law is wrong!

Terry Hudson, Herne Bay, Kent

"You need to remember, about your 40mph, that at 40mph 90% of struck pedestrians die. At 20mph, 90% live."
-- G. Johnson, London, England

Possibly true - but certainly deliberately misleadiing!
A car travelling at 40mph will only strike a pedestrian at 40mph if the latter deliberately walks out at the last minute!
This canard has been used as part of anti-motoring propaganda for years and is now boring - could you please think of a new one?

Mike Bibby, St ALbans, England -not EU

I recall many years ago being told by a man wiser than I, that instead of air bags,cars should have great sharp spikes pointing from the steering wheel to the driver, thus ensuring a great commitment to avoiding and sort of collision.
Perhaps a touch severe, hiwever . . . .

len findlay, edgewater, Western Australia

The speed "camera" is always the debate, in my view the "speed limits" set also need to be debated. This is where the true evidence lies. Interesting that we have 30,40,50,60 mph limits but no 35,45,55,65 mph. If there was a genuine desire to set a safe and realistic speed surely we need these variants. All motorists experience the clear, straight road, with no pedestrians where your (and others) natural safe speed falls to 45 or 55, of course the limit set will be 40 mph and the mobile speed man hides around the next bend. To gain the respect and support of the population laws have to be fair and sensible. Speed cameras, under current rules, will never gain support and be effective because they are currently considered a mechanism to catch out and fine rather than genuinely help create safer roads. Review the speed limits, ensure they are meaningful.

Graham Ovens, Bristol,

Incomprehensible really. What exactly is the problem with just keeping to the speed limit?

One of two things, you don't feel like it? Well, maybe I don't feel like paying my council tax, or not littering. Tough. Just get used to it and do it. Its not hard after all.

Or maybe you are not able to do it? In this case, you are not fit to drive, and the sooner you get off the road the better.

None of the rest of it is of any significance. If your arguments were accepted, we would not have mandatory speed limits but advisory ones. We don't. We have mandatory ones. If we have mandatory limits, people must keep to them, and the law must be enforced.

What we need in fact is more cameras and lower limits. We need people to stop driving like maniacs through other peoples neighbourhoods, killing their children and ruining their quality of life.

You need to remember, about your 40mph, that at 40mph 90% of struck pedestrians die. At 20mph, 90% live. Slow down or stop driving!

G. Johnson, London, England

Use the Wendy Alexander excuse " I did not inentionally break the law"

Ronald Alastair Seago, Paphos, Cyprus

Speed cameras are a cash cow for the authorities. Road safety is only used as an excuse to milk the ordinary public of millions of pounds. There has to be a way for the courts to intervene on behalf of the citizen.

Hamad Lone, London, England

Its not that difficult generally to drive at or below the speed limit. You keep to about 30 in built up areas, you only let rip when you see red circled numbers on round signs like 50 or 70, or white circles with a black diagonal bar through them.

There is a big problem with people tailgating and trying to force you to speed up, but we are the British, and we take queuing very seriously. Don't be intimidated.

The cameras would be no more than billboards if people didn't have a cavalier attitude to speeding. Rather than criticise the cameras, can we direct our attention to the idiots for example who clearly see a sign indicating a lane is about to close in say 200 meters and yet who think its OK to merge at the last minute, thus snarling up the traffic for those people who did see it?

Then theres the box junction jammers, the clueless about roundabout drivers, the lane hoggers, the list is endless. But the easy one, the one we all have personal power over, is our speed.

David B, LARKHALL, UK

£1bn to save 100 lives..... I can think of where that £1bn might have saved 14 people straight off of the bat, by fitting fire suppression equipment to our aging (50 yr old) Nimrod fleet.

Mike

Mike, MK,

If you have to look at your speedo to know how fast you're going, you're not as good a driver as you think you are.

Matthew, Ringwood, UK

How refreshing to read your article, I have for a long time been incensed at the increase in the use of speed cameras, particularly the ones that "hide" behind overpasses on the motorway, and or on inclines when you are naturally gathering speed. Some are downright dangerous being placed at spots where you need to pay full attention to the road and other cars and not constantly checking to see if you are a couple of miles over the speed limit. I refuse to believe that the majority are for any other purpose than to raise revenue !

dee, chingford, london UK

Come on everybody, it is an industry, from the massively expensive cameras to the massively expensive servicing therof. The armies of clerks and form fillers, uncle Tom Cobley and all. The vested interests are now so deeply entrenched you can't stop these freaks.
The flashing signs do a better job at an n'th of the cost. Why don't they use them ask yourselves? See answer above.
Oh! by the way, new and even more expensive cameras are currently on trial so that you will electronically auto-receive the summons, those law-abiding citizens that have real number plates that is.

Ripsnorter (ex-pat), Malaga, Spain

What we should be asking ourselves is why the millions invested in secondary car safety, such as the new front end of cars, has not resulted in the saving of one single life. And what about the money we waste on road engineers who try to eliminate dangerous locations. Why have these apparently saved no lives at all.

The figures quoted for the effect of speed cameras are, of course, absolute tosh.

Derek Smith, Brighton, UK

It is widely accepted that the speedometer on a vehicle can be +/- 10% out. Calibration of a speedometer is not required by law and is not part of the annual Mot test after a vehicle is 3 years old.
Speed camera have frequent calibration checks to ensure accuracy.
Can Magnus Linklater appeal as 60 + 10% mph is 66mph if his speedometer is found to be over?

mt, Lanarkshire,

I think that some cameras may actually add to the accident rate. For example, if you plotted the scenes of accidents between Cambridge and Huntingdon on the A14 on a map and then compared them to the location of the speed cameras my bet is that you would see clusters of accidents around the camera locations. This is because the cameras are on a 70mph dal carriageway and drivers who see them think they have missed a sign reducing the speed limit to a slower speed and break down suddenly to 50 or 40mph, causing mayhem in the process. These cameras are not in any way contributing to road safety!

Bob Reeve, Brighton,

It can't be done by everyone of course - but I was fined a year ago doing 37mph entering Leeds. I used to go every Wednesday to a concert, and generally spent on tickets, parking, meals and fuel, about £60. I have not been to Leeds since - so their £60 speeding fine has reduced the towns annual income by about £3000. For concerts I now go to York, who have not fined me yet, but will suffer the same fate if they do. Leeds City Council will not care, but I feel better.

eric campbell, harrogate, uk

If you wish to change the law relating to speed limits, form your own political party and get elected. Don't simply assume that you're above the law. And don't bluster in a pathetic attempt to gain sympathy.

The problem is not the 7 mph, but your attitudeto your breach of the law. I recently got an equally indignant email from a Russian who objected to the fact that I was warning people that he was posting fake links on a social networking site leading people to other sites that would install a virus on their computers. Are you better than him? Is he better than you? Such fine moral judgements are a waste of time – if you can't do the time, don't do the crime. And never whinge.

Ian Kemmish, Biggleswade, UK

"Most accidents have nothing at all to do with speed" says one correspondent. The cause of the accident may not be speed (a child crossing the road, for example) but the outcome of the accident (damage, injury, death) will always be determined by the relative speed of the objects involved - when the mother hears the squeal of brakes and rushes out of the house, her concern is the outcome of the accident. And speed determines outcome; always.

Paul Randall, Chichester,

To be caught speeding on three separate occassions whether by a camera or not is inexcusable and demonstrates scant regard for others. Responsible members of society should not need the threat of being 'caught ' to make them behave in a responsible manner. We hear alot about anti-social behaviour among our youth, is speeding etc among those who should know better acceptable. The view that road use resulting in only '3000' deaths per year is somehow acceptable seems to me to be beyond reason. Perhaps if someone close to Mr. Linklater was to be amongst the 3000 he would no be so arrogant. Mr Linklater deserves the loss his licence and I hope the magistrate is not taken in by his excuses.

David Chambers, New Ferry, Wirral.,

Very well said! I myself, female age 57 and my husband have both fallen victims of wayside 'Arrive alive' vans. But we (7 miles over the speed limit) were not the ones likely to cause anyone to not arrive alive! We leave that to the boy racers who traumatise the streets at night or who know just where the cameras are and at one times (In local papers).
Now I spend too much time thinking ahead to possible traps or cameras rather than my actual driving! 36 years driving and brought to this, my only crime was to be drifting down hill and gaining enough speed to be 7 miles over the limit whilst taking a 85 year old lady shopping! The only thing I can say is well done for such a wonderful catch!

Mrs Avril McGowan Holywell North Wales

Avril marie McGowan, Holywell, Flintshire

If the cameras are paying for themselves then the 100 deaths are saved for free! One death is one too many when you're involved with it, we all know this yet most drivers remain arrogant and selfish.

The best reason for slowing down is saving petrol and reducing your carbon footprint. All those in favour of saving the planet raise your right foot. The Times and the BBC could also do us all a favour by putting Jezza Clarkson out to graze.

Deep Tope, Ilford, uk

What we don't know, of course, is what the level of raod deaths would have been if speed cameras had not been introduced. The long-term trend suggests that it might have been substantially reduced anyway.

There is a two-mile-long road near my home, most of which is built up, with houses, shops, entrances, side-roads, people on foot, children going to school etc. There is one stretch, however, with no houses, entrances, or pedestrians, a clear piece of road. Guess where they put the speed camera!

Frank Upton, Solihull,

Of course Magnus you could always say in mitigation that you never "intentionally" broke the law.

Mercutio, Falkirk,

Dave, Oxford:

Prove it.

The government and all its departments have been lying to you since the dawn of time. We've seen in the last three weeks some of the biggest lies and frauds exposed via national press large and small. Or have you been asleep?

Yet you believe a number as statistically invalid as a nice, round 100 is honestly reported by said lying government as due to revenue cameras?

Speed does not kill. Speed differential kills. I can say it in nice, big, capitalised letters for you if you still have trouble understanding that. Cameras don't gauge anything but point speed.

Falanx, Birmingham,

Speed in itself is not a killer. The uninsured, non mot'd 15 year old metro or fiesta loaded up with 5 thrill seeking youngsters doing 30 mph through crowded streets is far more potentially dangerous than me driving my modern ABS equipped car on an empty road at 5 in the morning at 60mph in a 50mph zone. The problem is that I am the one most likely to be penalised due to the lack of police patrol vehicles on the streets and the plethora of unforgiving speed cameras. If speed cameras save lives it can only be a good thing, but I would suggest that it is as a result of a speed camera being installed at a dangerous junction or proven strectch of dangerous road, and not the general installing across the board. The majority of speed cameras create an income stream, a minority save lives. The rules applying to where they can be installed should be re-evaluated and they should only be installed at proven black spots.

Peter Arundale, Barnham, UK

When cancer is being tackled by statutory regulation, while the health service stumbles down the league of capable treatment, people have their independence assailed in order to make the figures more amenable. This is rewarding failure. When our roads are chopped-up by a system of conflicting speed limits interlaced with speed cameras it is the momentary lapse that is being prosecuted and not malign speeding. But, ultimately, it is the engineering of the roads that forces us into criminality. The plethora of signage is an accident waiting to happen. Rather than invest in good roads with unambiguous systems the Government is putting its weight into proscription, shifting the blame for chaos from their culpability and inattentiveness to the criminalisation of the confused. Our towns are notorious traps for through traffic. Just add an aberrant system of cameras and signage and you have danger. The system of trunk will be severely under utilised if this camera madness persists.

Malcolm Turner, Alsager, England

"That 67mph cross-country dash, when the limit stood at 60, will hardly make the record books..."

I am not so sure. It is my understanding that roadside cameras are set to detect vehicles exceeding the limit by 10% +2MPH, in which case you should not have been booked for travelling at 67MPH in a 60MPH limit. http://www.speedlimit.org.uk/faq.html

Chris W, Liverpool,

I fail to see how driving while constantly looking at a dial through my steering wheel instead of looking at the road can make me safer.

The diabolical standard of driving on the roads seems to prove this point.

Speed is rarely the sole cause of road accidents. Inattention, a lack of skill and a lack of awareness cause far more.

Making the driving test harder does nothing. Passing the test is only the very beginning of learning how to drive.

When we have cameras that will charge people with changing lane without looking, without indicating, driving with fog lights on constantly, tailgating etc etc THEN I'll support them.

Why are there no speed cameras outside schools?

Olaf, Prolesville,

Privatise the roads, and let different road companies try out different strategies for stopping and fining (and defining) bad drivers.

_Felix, Nottingham,

It would seem worthwhile to divert some of the 120 million a year raised by speed camera fines to finding a solution to cleaning our hospitals. The last figures available for 2005 show deaths from MSRA and C difficile to be 5436 and rising fast, while those killed on the roads was 3201.

Simon Marshland, Bath, Somerset

Why dont you people who find it difficult to observe a speed limit lobby the car manufacturers to make it easier to be aware of the speed in which you are going. Why are cars sold in this country with speedometers going up to 130 mph? why is 30 mph marked by a faint line between 20 and 40? Why is`nt the speedometer given more prominence on the dashboard? Why not head up displays? Why not a manually set audible warning when a pre-selected speed is reached? Do`nt tell me that it would be too expensive in this day and age of electric windows,air conditioning,four speaker stereo systems,etc.,Aa usual its just a matter of priorities .

jerym eedy, caerphilly, uk

To those who say that speeding drivers are automaticaly at fault just look at the speed limit signs on your next trip out. At least one in four is obscured until the driver is so close that it is only in his or her fringe vision. This is mainly because one department is responsible for ensuring they are visible with a mandate to cut costs, and another rakes in the money from drivers who are unfairly punished for local authority negligence. Hedge cutting machines move out to avoid the poles the speed limit signs are mounted on, so the area around signs need hand cutting.
A weekly check of visibility of speed limit signs should be mandatory for the safety partnership themselves to verify and all fines cancelled if the signs are not kept clear.

D Cage, Highworth, Wilts

i would freqently break speed laws if i tought that i would not be caught.......as most would do- then serious accidents/deaths would increase creating more widows and orphans etc etc ..
having said that- Cameras are an income stream for Govt and L.A.'s- as evidenced by the speed of their erection!
If as much effort/expendditure was put into other crime prevention then perhaps the over 30's of this country might feel like popping out more ..after say 8p.m. instead of hiding behind closed doors-
observe how people hurry home off the bus/tube/train-heads down - hear/see no evil etc simply because we are scared- ..sad eh?

mike, oxford, england

The reason that speed cameras will never do much to reduce traffic fatalities is that only about 5-7 per cent of fatal accidents are caused by misuse of speed. Most are caused by drink, drugged driving and reckless/careless driving, none of which can the cameras detect. Only traffic police on the road can do that.

It is no coincidence that the UK road fatality rates declined steadily from 1945 until 1993, when speed cameras started to appear and police forces started to reduce their traffic patrols.

Cameras are nice revenue-earners, they keep a lot of so-called "safety" partnership staff employed, but as safety devices, forget it!

Steve Hoffman, Whitchurch, Hampshire

Good article Neil.
Some people are easily distracted away from the point, and seem to think you are actually promoting speeding.
As an advanced driver myself, never having had a fine or endorsement in thirty-five years, I always drive within the speed limits.
BUT, I'm only human, and can't help being distracted by the sight of a speed camera. I also know how easily I could be egged on by impatient following drivers wanting me to speed.
So when we are travelling at the speed limit why are we advised to give way to overtakers? Surely this is aiding and abetting an offence, It's like leaving your vehicle unlocked so as not to obstruct the thief.

Tony Collins, Redruth, Cornwall

Drivers do know the speed limits, afterall there are speed signs all over the place, and if you do exceed without good reason then you should be fined. As a pedestrian who doesn't drive, I risk my life everyday by motorists who ignore the highway code by speeding, not indicating where they are going and by jumping lights. Speed cameras are GREAT and if you exceed the limits then you should be fined. In my opinion, cameras should be hidden totally and fines should be increased to discourage motorists from breaking the laws. Drivers need to learn to drive more responsibily and not to complain so much!

David, Wolverhampton, West Midlands

To Gareth Powell of Sutton Coldfield who says he is going to be banned because of three speeding offences, and driving through a red light without even realising.

Perhaps instead of being done for speeding and running a red light, you should be prosecuted for driving without due care and attention? Seriously. You were caught by yellow speed cameras which you should easily have spotted, and went through a red light which you should easily have spotted. Don't you think that that shows very careless driving?

Matthew Cousins, Sutton, Surrey, UK

1966-96 deaths fell 3.3% pa, traffic up 3.3%pa, - 7% k/mile

96-06 deaths fell 1% pa traffic up 1% pa - 2% fewer k/mile, 3 times worse.

DfT say Serious injuries falling - hospital records show rising for 10 years.

DfT say KSI on track for 40% fall by 2010 - untrue.

Cameras cover 3% of road, 10% accidents. Speeding in only 12% of fatal accidents, so max benefit of cameras in terms of fatal is 3% of 12% = 0.36%. But as they only cut speeding by 50%,that's 0.18%. But as the other factors almost always present will remain, accidents will still happen so 0.1%.

Claim of 100 lives pa is WRONG - does not allow for regression to mean, real figure<25. That's 1 life saved every 200 years by each £50k pa camera, total £10m per camera.
When the NHS kills 90,000 pa and thousands die at home because they "cannot afford" drugs.

DfT knew since Jan 03 that £1k pa flashing signs are 50 times more effective than £50k pa cameras, but have ignored them. That's 70 times benefit for same moneyt. Mad

Idris Francis, Petersfield,

Time to rethink speed cameras. We have now a huge investment, how can we use it positively? Fight global warming!

I suggest using them to reward people who drive slowly and save CO2 emissions from their cars. Respecting the speed limit should not be something for nothing, you should get a reward for it, perhaps a lower road tax? On the other hand exceeding the limit should cost you lots more.

Antony Watts, Palma, Spain

Mark Mason, So how many speed cameras are outside those schools? I'll tell you - none. The powers that be know there are actually very few speeders outside schools, and so there are not going to get any revenue - they don't give a rat's arse about safety. Also, the drunk driver, or the terminally stupid person driving on the pavement, or the Mum with ten kids on board and dealing with their behaviour rather than looking at the road... none of these will be caught by the camera. An almost universal request of all and camera campaigners is 'give us more policemen and less cameras'.

Paulo, Milton Keynes,

I half escaped from Gordon and Tony's Orwellian dystopia by taking my car off the road entirely and placing it on my driveway. This happened 3 months ago as £1.00 per litre was approaching rapidly at the beginning of October and that was a line I had decided I would not cross. I now cycle to work, in all weather conditions, about 100 miles a week and love it, love the money I save and MOST OF ALL, love knowing 'The Thief' Brown wont get his mitts on a penny of that money. This delight was tempered slightly when i had to move my car onto the road outside my house to allow for builders to demolish and remove via my driveway 2 outbuildings. Inevitiably, my car was spotted on the road during that one day and I have been fined £60 for breaching my SORN declaration. My attempt to claim mitigating circumstances was ignored and I duly had to cough up the dosh. You really cannot beat the system in this grubby little country. They'll thieve and steal your money by any means

Matt M, Redhill, UK

Speed cameras have affected how people drive and appears to have encouraged unsafe driving practice. Some yob drivers drive well below the speed limit, knowing that trailing drivers get frustrated and overtake. When they do, they are right in the firing line of a speed camera. They then slow right down only to be overtaken very briskly by the hooting yob driver they have just past who go on driving at speed. Another game I've seen are trucks tailgating cars on a motorway roadworks with the SPECS average speed camera bullying them to go faster. The car gets done speeding but the tailgating truck has its reg'n plate obscured by the car. As for the RTA figures - the actual count of RTA casulties not KSI, has gone up, these stats are from the NHS, it means the scameras have made matters worse. Dr Linda Mountain found errors in DfT's sums which claims that scameras reduce accidents at sites, its purely a regression to the mean statistical phenomenon.

Martin Gilmore, London,

Replacing robot cameras with police speed patrols does not improve road safety. Driving in the USA, it is very noticeable that speed (on motorways, where there are no cyclists or pedestrians) is higher in heavy traffic than on a clear road. Why? Because speed is limited by the threat of speeding tickets, not by any real world constraint, and if the traffic is dense enough the police car can't get you. Any law that routinely encourages such perverse behaviour in the population at large is a bad law.

Henry White, Philadelphia, USA/PA

It may not have made the road safer but it has caught a lot of criminals. Many commentators are actually complaining about speeder being caught - they rarely have the bottle to suggest it should be ok to tank along at 45 miles an hour outside a school. The ciminal law is not a game and there is no need for the prosecuting authorities to be sporting.

If the law itself is wrong, petition and lobby to change it. if the law is right, we should not be encouraged to show too kuch sympathy for those who are caught breaking it.

Mark Mason, London, GB

1. People need to begin to think about others more - speeding is a selfish activity, those who support it are saying that "I and my desires are more important than is the safety of those the limit is there to protect".

2. the 'limit' is a 'limit', not a' target'. I get annoyed at being tailgated and abused because I dare to travel at 26 or 27 in a 30 mile an hour LIMIT zone.

3. Cameras will not make things safer - to do that will take a change of heart (metanoia) on the part of vast numbers of drivers and an intention to stay within speed limits for the benefit of others.

Bishop Dominic Stockford, Teddington, Middlesex

David, Domascus,

Regarding the environmental impact of speed. Speed reduction methods, ie, humps etc vastly increase emissions. Removing them would do much more for the environment (and suspension repair bills) than reducing speed by 10mph

Phil C, London, UK

And how many of those caught speeding were actually involved in an accident in the process?Probably none yet do it twice and you're likely to loose your livelihood.
And given that on the government's own admission,95% of all accidents involve vehicles travelling BELOW the speed limit keeping within a limit clearly does not guarantee your safety,in fact it would seem you are 20 times more likely to be involved in an accident driving below the speed limit than above it.So surely even the dimmest amongst us ought to be able to work out why speed limits have been so drastically lowered and the roads flooded with cameras.

Andrew Pittman, Bristol, UK

Perhaps some time in the science fiction future there'll be roadside cameras that can pick up high levels in pious hypocrisy in drivers. At least then people like Neil from Wiltshire could be taken off the road even though they pass the cameras at 30. You're quite right Neil, as long as humans like you are driving vehicles there will always be crashes.

Melvyn Newton, Manchester,

Dear Jon,
You should look at the difference between Momentum and Kinetic Energy as they apply to impacts. There is a reason why weapon projectiles are largely designed around velocity not mass. The "v" squared part is quite crucial.

Dear Magnus,

The whole article misses the point that this debate should have moved on from narrow personnal preferences to the environment. Figures quoted by DfT show that travelling at 10mph over the 70 mph national limit increases CO2 emissions by 14% compared to abiding by the law. Enforcing speed limits would go much of the way to the UK meeting its Kyoto targets.

As a final point - A definition of madness "doing the same thing over and over and yet expecting a different result". Enjoy the bus!

David, Damascus,

The claims that cameras reduce road deaths are patently unverifiable and based on bad statistical logic.

Cameras have tended to be placed at spots where fatal accidents have been relatively high in a preceding period of time, and claims for their effectiveness based on a subsequent fall in fatalities at that site. However, claiming that a fall from a high point in fatalities is due to the installation of the camera is like buying shares at the peak of a stock market boom, watching it fall and claiming that your purchase was responsible. By the nature of these things, a peak is followed by a fall, no matter what...

Matt, London,

Spot on.

If these cameras saved lives they'd have them in hospitals to find out who's not washing their hands.

Phil, Preston,

bushwhacker - not true, a colleague of mine got issued a ticket for doing 34mph in a 30mph zone.
As a result of that, I've found myself looking more at the speedometer whenever I approach the two 30mph cameras on the same stretch of road, and less at the traffic lights in between them. Perhaps the next logical step would be to install a traffic light camera in between, and then a lowering of the speed limit to 10mph on that road, since drivers on smaller roads dash out (but not too fast of course) and increase the risk of traffic collisions.
Forget about road etiquette, I say, and leave it all to traffic lights and speed cameras.

george, Preston,

Once upon a time it was easy to keep within speed limits, built up areas were 30mph and all others were de-restricted. It is now very easy to miss a transition from 40 to 30 in heavy traffic, particularly when the signs are in a hedge. All changes of limit should be painted on the road, it is not easy to miss those.
A section of A road near my home is limited 30, 60, 50, 60,40 in about 3 miles. The 50 limit is a junction where there have been many accidents, and the 40 limit is a a less dangerous junction. Presumable someone with influence lives there.
So far I have been able to escape the dreaded speed camera, but is only a matter of time before we are all caught.

K Wellls, Bognor Regis, England

Cameras are just one ingredient in the inexorable clutter of signage, instructions and markings that supposedly make our roads safer, but if anything have the exact opposite effect. As an occasional driver in London, I'm conscious that instead of paying attention to the road conditions and other traffic, I'm looking for the next set of instructions daubed on the road surface, or the next chicane, or the next one-way street where cyclists only are allowed to travel in the opposite direction, but on your right. All the time, there's a sense that it's designed to catch you out.

paul rickard, kingston,

7 Years No claims bonus: Only accident in the past 10 years was a small dent when i failed to see a car whilst reversing. (£350 Claim).
Middle age racer? No I drive an automatic and drive it very steadily.
Going to be banned for a 37 in a 30, 38 in a 30, 41 in a 30, and driving through a traffic signal on red at 11.15 at night with no other traffic on the road. Not a deliberate act, I dont even remember the lights!
All the points in the article ring true, however one very vital point is ommited. During a "quiet" month speed cameras & guns can be used to boost the "Solved Crime" figures! Speeding offences etc are down on the statistics as a solved crime. Inflating these obviously moves our attention from the serious unsolved crimes and make us all feel safe in our beds at night.
I will take my ban because I have done the crime, I wont argue that point. But feel bitter and dissapointed now towards statistic drive police policy and Inflexible money orientated British Law system

Gareth Powell, Sutton Coldfield, England

I think all speed cameras should be pointed directly at oncoming vehicles and have warning signs to tell you how much you have contributed to the Treasury. All fines should be automatic, by direct debit and based on a percentage of the value of the vehicle. All other cameras (i.e ones that flash as you go passed) should be scrapped.

BTW, I ride a motocycle. :-)

Tony P, St Albans, UK

Nasty laws, they hurts us precious.

andrew, leeds,

I can, do and will keep speeding until:

1. Speed cameras are stopped from being an income stream
2. The roads get less busy, giving us all more time to actually enjoy driving instead of getting more and more frustrated at being stuck in jams all the time.
3. The Govmnt stops kidding us that speed cameras make roads safer.

As none of the above are likely to happen, I'll speed. Not around schools though, I'm not that silly.

Dr Beat, Bristol,

Dave from Oxford - Nobody is denying that if speed cameras could be shown to reduce deaths/injuries on the road then they would be a good thing. The figures seem to demonstrably show that this is not the case and, given the fact that the Government is constantly bleating on about how speed cameras are there for that purpose and that purpose alone, it brings into question what the reason for having them is.

My own opinion is that, mainly with regard to motorways and major dual carriageways, the speed limit is too low. I see no reason why, given technological advances in vehicles, the speed limits remain untouched from a bygone era.

Richard, Bristol, UK

"Speed kills" is over-simplifying things. Yes, it can make a crash worse, but a crash is usually caused in the first place by mechanical failures, driver's inability to judge risk, lack of common sense, driver attitude. You can't use speed alone as a policy for making roads safer. So you reduce limits by 10mph, and crashes continue. What do you do - reduce them again? And again? And at what point do we bring the country to a complete standstill? After all, speed=zero means no crashes, casualties and fatalities right?

To borrow a quote, if you want to reduce road deaths, put a big spike in the middle of the steering wheel. People might pay attention to the road and their surroundings then.
The safer our cars become and the more we are bubble-wrapped and hand-fed the solution to all decisions, the worse driving standards will become and the harder it will be have any impact on reducing the accident rates.

cj_eds, England,

"Speed kills" is over-simplifying things. Yes, it can make a crash worse, but a crash is usually caused in the first place by mechanical failures, driver's inability to judge risk, lack of common sense, driver attitude. You can't use speed alone as a policy for making roads safer. So you reduce limits by 10mph, and crashes continue. What do you do - reduce them again? And again? And at what point do we bring the country to a complete standstill? After all, speed=zero means no crashes, casualties and fatalities right?

To borrow a quote, if you want to reduce road deaths, put a big spike in the middle of the steering wheel. People might pay attention to the road and their surroundings then.
The safer our cars become and the more we are bubble-wrapped and hand-fed the solution to all decisions, the worse driving standards will become and the harder it will be have any impact on reducing the accident rates.

CJ Eds, England,

James B, London, Lucky you aren't in government. Thinking like that would put yur job on the line! The idea is all very well if cameras are for saving pedestrians but they are for collecting revenue from odd stretches of road where motorists can be caught unawares and as such your commendable policy is rubbish!

David Thijm, Stourbridge, UK

cameras for cash,carbon footprint rubbish,green taxes.
call me cynical but all this seems to have kicked off about the same time tobacco became taboo.seems to be just another way to filtch money from the tax payer [safely of course!!] to replace loss of revenue.
if they want to save lives build better road systems/hostpitals/public transport etc. it seems to me if money cannot be generated from schemes to improve matters then they are ignored.

dave, shropshire, uk

I agree with this very much so and attribute the whole article. HOW can we ever resolve these issues though since I dont exactly understand why or if its just me hoping that I am not totally insane for either talking to stragers or B falling for a computer or C are these speed cameras some sort of in sane devious stalker who knows way to much of what my brain picks up on. Or is Steve McLaren watching my internet activity.

K.Y., surrey, canada

The first issue is whether speed limits are appropriate? Good drivers tend to instinctively adopt the appropriate speed for the occassion. Some limits are too high - there are many urban and village situations where 20 would be more appropriate than 30 and 30 more appropriate than 40. There are some situations - wide suburb roads with good sight lines and wide verges where 40 might be suitable instead of 30. Most motorways could carry an 80 limit, which most drivers tend feel comfortable with, but could include, as in France, an automatic reduction to say 60 when it rains.

If you have appropriate limits then what is the harm in enforcing them with cameras? You should not need to be looking out for speed cameras if you are driving safely - but there are too many selfish drivers who think limits apply to everyone but them. The more cameras we have to catch them the better!

Kevin Miller, Tonbridge,

I disagree with Magnus Linklater's views on so many areas of life but on this subject he has my full sympathy. I am sure for Mr Linklater a driving ban will be a serious inconvenience, for others less fortunate it can lead to a loss of employment and livelyhood. I can only hope that from his relatively infuential position as a Times columist he will now begin to campaign for less government interferance in other areas of our personal lives that are not immediately damaging to the rest of society.

Norman Robb, Edinburgh, UK

You suggest that these rules do not make the roads safer. However, in the previous breath you stated that you will probably lose your license.

The two statements are contrary to each other.

If you get taken off the roads then I think they will become a safer place to be for everyone. Enjoy the buses!

Jamie, Truro, Cornwall

Well said Marcus! More police patrols and less speed cameras are what is needed. Police officers would spot erratic drivers who can't stay in lane etc whereas cameras do not protect people from those drivers who struggle to control their car. I was nearly hit the other day by a car that was driving in my lane, and coming at me head on, but below the speed limit so presumably acceptable and not dangerous. The driver was oblivious to the oncoming traffic. Cameras don't catch people who drive drunkenly, or dangerously, but they justify cost cutting and generate easy money allowing the Government to take police patrols off the roads.

Claire, Henley, UK

Glen from Melbourne, having lived in Melbourne myself I know that there is much resentment by Victorians over speeding fines, police are seen as tax collectors not as law enforcers.

I suggest that the habit of observing the speed limit in Melbourne has far more to do with the road grid system punctuated every few hundred metres by traffic lights rather than cameras. I found it fairly pointless to speed as the lights always held me up!

Phil, Epsom, Surrey

“A car traveling over 30mph emits a force that is fatal to a human”. If true then there is no chance of survival if a person is hit directly by a car in anything other than a 30mph zone.
Assuming (idealistically) that the single goal of speed control measures is to reduce fatal & serious road accidents, & that no one is suggesting a blanket 30mph speed limit, then it has to be concluded that a speed camera set up to enforce a 40 or 60 mph limit is going to do very little to meet this goal.
Can a 7.5% reduction in deaths over the last 10 years really be attributed in any way to the effect that speed cameras have had on reducing speeds on faster roads? More likely this is to do with the zero tolerance approach to speeding in built up areas where the risk of hitting a person is greatest.
Why not assign resources based on the stated goals? More cameras in & built up areas, less on faster roads where the severity of a collision is not directly proportionate to the speed travelled.

James B, London,

Didn't John Prescot promise to have less people in their cars in ten years time - in 1997? Since then, the number has gone up, the public transport hasn't improved, journeys have become slower and all the government can do is whine and put up cameras.
Perhaps if Prezza had kept his promise instead of doing - what was it again? - we would all be able to take a timely journey partly by bus or train. At the very least, I should be able to use a motorway/main road to get from town to town and then use a park and ride to keep the urban areas free of traffic. I'm willing, but the infrastructure isn't there despite ten years of tax increases.
Pass a law to have a park and ride introduced on every town over a certain size and the difference (in congestion and safety) will be staggering. Any politicians got the brains and the bottle to get on with it? Or is tax/fines revenue all you care about?

KR, Stockport,

Charles comment raises a vital question. It is possible to drive along one stretch of road and, within a fairly short distance, go through a 30mph zone, to a 40, back to a 30, then back up to 40 and then up to 60mph.

At what speed would Charles set his cruise control? Keep fiddling with it every time he went from one speed limit to another? Or keep it to 30, much to the irritation of other road users?

Matt, Birmingham,

If the government believes that speed cameras save lives then perhaps they should submit all relevant statistical details to the “National Institute for Clinical Excellence” (NICE). A health-related cost/benefit analysis (including an estimate of the risk of side-effects) would, I suspect, be very revealing.

Prof. Anthony Hollander, Bristol,

WARNING Driving whilst taxed, insured and with an MOT can lead to prosecution. Jumping a red traffic light in a stolen car is OK though.

Dave Pilkington, Winchester, Hants

Speed limits, but their very nature, cater to the lwoest common denominator. Clearly the ability to avoid an accident has much to do with the relative skill of a driver and the vehicle in which they are driving. Lewis Hamilton in a Toyota Prius is probably a lot safer than a pensioner in a Ferrari.

Unfortunately our laws have no flewxibility around such facts.

The beauty of the speed camera is that the better drivers in better cars will undoubtedly spot them and slow down in time to avoid a fine. In the same way they would be able to spot a pedestrian or other potential hazard and act accordingly. The folks who don't manage to spot both a bright yellow box and a series of lines on the road get what they deserve.

Keep up the good work!

ssmith, London, UK

I don't have any problem with a speed camera which is sited for the purpose of saving lives only and with no other motivation involved like revenue-gathering or hitting targets. Regrettably, we know our present government to be as crooked as a bunch of gangsters and have learned to mistrust their motives. This has resulted in laws originally designed for our safety being brought into disrepute because we have good reason to believe they are being used as a dishonest form of tax collection and to remove drivers from our congested roads.

S Foster, Doncaster,

Jason, Paris - the consequences of an accident are derived from momentum not speed. Mass x Velocity.

If you want proof that speed alone isn't the prime factor - roll up a sheet of A4 into a ball, get someone to throw it as hard as they can at you. It will be traveling at about 80mph, but it won't hurt you.

This highlights the flaw in the whole "speed kills" philosophy:
An 8-tonne lorry driving at 10mph carries the same momentum as a 1-tonne car doing 80 mph, yet we allow such lorries to drive at 60 mph on motorways - said lorry is legally allowed to carry more than 6 times the momentum of a car.

And given that lorries have different speed limits to cars, not only is the basis of the law flawed, but its imposed in a discriminative manner - speed cameras don't distinguish vehicle type. Lorry drivers are therefore allowed to get away with a greater breach of speeding restriction than other motorists, yet they provide by far the greater danger.

Ecgbert, Shefffield,

I use cruise control, so I do not need to look at my speedometer or keep an eye out for cameras. Not had a speeding fine in 117,000 miles in this car. Result!

Charles, Sandhurst, Berks

All activities carry a risk of accident, illness or even death from DIY, sport, flying, smoking, drinking and of course driving. If a government wanted to halt all deaths or accidents from one particular activity they would ban it but that of course would see them kicked out of office. However reducing the risks can only be carried out so far before the law of diminishing returns kicks in. Speed cameras reached that point several years ago and are now purely a revenue stream rather than about saving extra lives. There is also a financial limit on making planes, boats and trains even more safer and cars & roads are no different. Contrary to the holier than thou anti-speed brigade commenting here, improvements in road safety will only come from a police presence on the roads. Motorway high speed lane hoppers, mobile phone users, boy racers, teenage estate racers to name a few dangerous practices WILL NOT be caught by speed cameras, only police on the streets will save more lives here.

Mike, Alicante, Spain

There isn't any speed cameras here in Texas, but we do have red light cameras which I applaud. The red light cameras tickets aren't treated like a cops ticket, they are treated more like parking tickets since they can't be put on your driving record.

Plus the CCTV that we have is cameras at lighted intersections that is paid for and mostly used by the Insurance companies for proof for who is at fault for any accidents(plus it simplifies traffic engineers jobs on the timing of the lights at a given time of the day).

Martin, Plano, Texas

A previous contribution mentioned Victoria, Australia. There is a zero tolerance policy, they can, and will, summons you for doing 61 in a 60 zone. The speed cameras are usually on straight quiet downhill stretches where it is safe and easy to let your speed drift over the limit.
It is very effective in getting law abiding motorists into the habit of observing the limits, few people speed. It doesn't deter 'hoons' who deliberately want to drive fast because they can easily avoid the cameras.
I find it hard to believe that speeding where it is clearly safe to do so is dangerous, but the experts who have thought about it longer and studied it harder clearly do; and I have to accept they are probably right.

Glen, Melbourne, Australia

As an engineer who has worked on vehicle safety and measured injury criteria, I can say with some confidence that speed DOES kill - not only does a car travelling faster take longer to stop, but the energy involved in a collision (e.g. between a car and a human being) increases with the square of the velocity that the car is travelling at. That energy needs to be dissipated somewhere and as cars aren't designed to crumple when hitting an object such as a human, it tends to be the human body who has to take the force of that collision. When a car is travelling over 30mph that force tends to be fatal to the human body.

So I'm all for speed cameras if they can prevent such occurrences. For those who think they have a God-given right to travel over the speed limit because they are 5 minutes late for a meeting I'd ask them to consider soberly the paragraph above. We all need to use roads and cars responsibly.

AM Quinn, bristol, uk

Speed is a positive good. This seems to have been removed from the equation somewhere along the line. Whether it is by train, plane, car or bus, the sooner one can arrive at one's destination the better.

And given there is no direct correlation between speed and danger (eg motorways are safer than B roads), the whole debate should be reframed.

I want to be able to travel increasingly quickly (and I look to the government to help realise this aspiration), yet I want increased levels of safety when travelling; which means less uninsured vehicles, less cars with defective lights, less distractions on the roads, etc.

The widespread deployment of speed cameras is an unimaginative and flawed response to the needs of the travelling public.

Matthew Lloyd, Alderley Edge, Cheshire

I am astonished at the number of people in this country who think that speeding down country lanes is a perfectly legitimate exercise. It is not, for two reasons. The first is that hundreds of thousands of wild mammals die on our road network every year, including threatened species like wildcats and otters. At least some of these accidents could be avoided if people drove more slowly and carefully in rural areas, especially after dark.

The second reason is that plenty of people like me live on a road that looks superficially rural. My road has a 30 mph limit is it is adjacant to two schools and has bad visibility. Too many drivers arrogantly assume that the limit is too low without knowing all the facts (and yes people have been killed and seriously injured here).

Adele Brand, North Downs,

In surveys, the majority of the population are in favour of speed cameras. The money the govenment makes on cameras is a pittance compared to something like fuel tax, only fuel tax is compulsory. If you don't want to contribute to the 'speed tax' then keep your speed down. You'll save some cash on fuel too!
Idiots like Smith claim that drivers can determine how fast they can travel by their own skills... well any 'skilled' driver should have the observation and reactions to spot cameras and slow down well before reaching them. If you can't spot a giant flourescent camera on a road full of camerra warning signs, then you probably wouldn't spot another hazard (like a child) on the road.
Bad driving causes most accidents, but excessive speed can make the consequences far worse. With Average Speed cameras, most roads show a 50 to 80 percent reduction in deaths or serious injuries, even if speed is only considered to be a factor in 17% of the accidents before installation. Go figure!

Jamie, Ealing, UK

It is an enormous shame that people are not prepared to challenge falsehoods.
The placement of cameras does not provide greater safety.
Because the government says so, we are ordered to believe it.
However, I cannot condone your speeding.
It was bad to say the least, but we all do it. Awareness skills should really be central to a driving test but far more weight is put on whether you have a good memory for facts rather than your skill to determine risk.
The simple fact is that if a sense of ones own duty to be safe was brought back rather than letting a machine tell you that you are safe purely based on speed is missing the point of safety by a wide margin.
I do not dispute that a crash at 40 is more significant than a crash at 30. But if that is the case then we all need to remain stationary for amximum safety to be achieved.
Life is risky by its very nature, all we can do as individuals is to be mindful of others and respect rules without passing the buck to machines.

Robert McGregor, Reading, UK

speed does not kill, it's suddenly coming to a standstill that does

Raymond, Johannesburg, South Africa

How about, you know, slowing down? Instead of whinging about too many safety cameras?

As a lifelong pedestrian and cyclist, I'd like that. Because we're not protected by 'better safety standards in car manufacturing', and I'm kind of tired of drivers rushing round blind bends on country roads, assuming everything can get out of their way. 60 mph is pretty fast for some of the roads on which it is the limit, and the death toll isn't the only factor - it's fairly likely that better emergency services and medical care have cut the death rate, but that doesn't mean we want to be knocked down, thanks.

I'm sure it's true that bad driving kills, not speed per se. However, a great many people seem to think they are above-average drivers, and so speed limits should apply to other people. How about proving you're a good enough driver to stick to the speed limit?

Until then, it seems reasonable for speed cameras to extort a tax on your impatience.

Pav, London,

I'm sorry, but you are a serial speed offender. You do it again and again. The speed limits are 'maximum' speeds for the road. If you had the same attitude as a train driver or pilot you would lose you job. In the same way I would take your licence away never to be returned ( helping with congestion at the same time - Result ! ).

Actually, speeding through a speed camera should also go with a charge of 'driving without due care and attention', since they are pratically lit up with neon.

Tyrone, edinburgh, scotland

It may or may not be true that 'most accidents have nothing to do with speed' but the consequences of the accident are dependent on speed. At 30 mph loss of control due to 'poor driving skills' may cause an accident while at 80 mph the same 'loss of control' will likely result in a fatality.
The difference between a minor and major accident is the speed at which it happens and I think everyone will agree that we want fewer major accidents.

Jason White, Paris,

Dave of Oxford your arguments are ridiculous and pedantic.
Far more people are killed on the roads every day than are killed by terrorists - so where does that get us?

Rhapsody Blue, Almeria, Spain

Once I used to drive with due care and attention. Today I drive with one eye on the speedometer and the other on the speed camera. I no longer have time to assess or concentrate on road safety issues as my concentration is fixed on avoiding a fixed penalty. if it says forty then forty it is, and if I should knock someone over whilst engaged in reading road litter or keeping my speedo below forty then so be it. I was within the speed limit mlud therefore it was their own fault. Should anyone want to know what its like to drive on roads with as many speed cameras as cars on them then take a trip to Leeds which must be on a par with Las Vegs for its flashing lights.

Cromwell, Leeds, England

There are two speed cameras now on my route home; the road is now clearly much safer, - a vast improvement, please can we have more.

BrummyDoug , Birmingham, England

To Mr Linklater, why didn't you challenge the prosecution for the 67mph in a 60 limit.

As I understand it a vehicle's speedometer need only be +/-10% accurate by law. So you could legitimately have been adhering to the 60 limit in your car, whilst actually doing 66mph. Plus many police forces operate this 10% policy plus 2mph for the 'speeding threshold'. Speed measuring devices especially radar based are demonstrablty unable to repeatedly measure accurately to fractions on an mph.

Second, you are incorrect about driver road safety devices like road angel etc.. The Govt. is currently passing an Act to outlaw devices that can detect the presence of speed measuring devices, for eg. Gatso radar fields and infra-red light emitted from laser speed guns. All that will be permitted is GPS based fixed-site speed camera alerts. Consequently road angel etc. now sell their devices with the facility to remove/disable the non-compliant functions, leaving them as GPS only. Hope this helps.

bushwhacker, england,

What a load of self-pitying rubbish. Avoiding speeding tickets is incredibly simple and doesn't require the use of fancy computer warning devices.

Whilst it's true that the total number of deaths per annum has stabilised it's against a backdrop of a massive increase in traffic so although the absolute numbers have only fallen slightly deaths per million journeys or billion km or whichever unit you choose have dropped by a more significant amount.

Dave, Manchester,

What a spot on article. Speed cameras are a complete waste of time on most roads (have some value outside schools, etc by actually slowing the traffic). Driving now is great, can basically go as fast as you want as you can be pretty sure there are no traffic police about. Trouble is I spend most of my time looking for cameras & not at the road! Fortunately they're all bright yellow now so you can spot one slow down, then speed up again. For the motorist cameras are an occupational hazard (an acceptable risk).

As someone on here has already mentioned I believe we've hit a number of deaths on the roads now, compared to the number of journeys, that simply cannot be lowered. As long as humans are involved in driving vehicles there will always be crashes. Maybe if there were less cameras & more traffic police we might lower the deaths as drunk/drugged/dangerous (and I include motorway middle lane hoggers, don't even get me started!) drivers would be picked up. The nanny state rules!

Neil, Wiltshire, UK

Damn right Magnus! Plus we also have idiot constabularies such as Monmouthshire and Oxfordshire who decide to display advisory 50MPH limits on the motorway signs when there's a bit of rain. This makes it more not less dangerous as it means that anyone who decides to trust their own judgement based on actually being there now has to watch out for the poor drivers who blindly trust the machinery and stick to 50 (or less to be on the safe side) meaning the relative speed gap is much larger.
CCTV cameras only work if there is someone paying attention to the transmission AND there is a police response unit nearby and ready and waiting to jump into action. I'd defy anyone to try and recognise the yob with face obscured by baseball cap/hood from the grainy pictures produced...

Rick, Surrey,

Frankly, the callous view of the comments on this page disgust me. 100 lives per year were saved. What is wrong with you people? Do you really believe they deserved to die? And the cost to the tax payer was minimal, due of course to the fines - so guess what... those 100 people per year were saved by, wait fot it, speeding motorists caught by cameras!!!

Think you have a right to drive as fast as you want? Mr Owen thinks that 3000 dead people per year is irrelevant and we should not even attempt to reduce this. Of course accidents are caused by many different conditions, factors and events but that does not mean we should say those 100 people per year that can be saved, should not.

Dave, Oxford, UK

Calls the reduce the speed that vehicles travel at, in order to reduce deaths on the road, seem to be met by a reverence that stifles rational debate.

Others have already noted that the UK has one of the lowest road traffic death rates in the civilised world. Further, I suspect that if everyone stuck to current speed limits, the country would come to a grinding halt.

Unless we are to abolish all road traffic, there are going to be deaths on the road - the only question is how many are acceptable to society. To the extent speed is a factor in determining the number of deaths, the question is at what point do the negative consequences of reducing speed (impact on the ecomomy, cost of preventative measures, impact on the public's respect for authority etc.) outweigh the benefits of reducing road deaths.

Let's all be honest and recognise that deaths on the road are an inevitable part of living in an western industrialised country.

Kevin Mahon, London, UK

Am I to understand that we've invested almost £1 billion of tax payers money in order to save 100 lives per year? If so, how does this compare to the rather paultry amounts spent on saving people from MRSA in our hospitals? Does Government have some form of cost per head it is prepared to invest and if so, what are these levels?

I really fail to understand how Government champions 100 lives for £1 billion, yet spends little when it comes to the reported 90,000 or deaths per year caused in our hospitals through stupidity and negligence! The more I come to think of it, the more I become angered! Government seems to have its priorities all wrong!

Immigration has seen an explosion in our costs for resourcing healtcare that was not planned. To spend and extra £10 billion per year would probably be not enough to meet present levels of demand. Yet money is constantly found to be spent on a system of policing that is so very flawed!

I really find the situation quite remarkable!

David Downes, Chester, UK

I would add that since speed camera fines represent, for many of us, our only regular contact with the law, we lose respect for the police. I often hear your regular citizen (rightfully) complaining about the "stupid laws" obliging him to drive at 40 mph on an empty road. When i see a police car, my first thought is not "protection"; rather, it's "merde".

Samuel Young, Paris, France

Most accidents have nothing at all to do with speed. Sometimes it can be due to recklessness, poor driving skills, carelessness or sometimes just down to the fact that the person behind the wheel is a human being and we all make mistakes. Very rarely is speed the main or even a contributary factor. Speed cameras are a blunt instrument.

And the fact is that our roads are actually a remarkably safe place to be. You are much more likely to be killed or injured at home.

Look at the simple facts. There are more than 20 million cars registered in this country. If, by a conservative estimate, each of those cars makes one journey a day then that is 7 .2 billion journeys a year driven by fallible, sometimes silly, sometimes reckless but always human drivers, of which
only 3000 lead to fatalities. It's no wonder speed cameras are having no effect. Until we all get driven around by computers our roads are as safe as they can be. Spend the money on better roads instead.

Paul Owen, Birmingham, UK

Governments don't care how many people are killed on the roads, but they do care how much money they can take off motorists for speeding. Come to Australia and you will find out.

Paul Francis, Brisbane, Australia

Actually it is only a matter of time before motorists start destroying (automatically) the cameras with scanning 100mW car-mounted lasers. Come to think of it the same hardware can also automatically detect and destroy all CCD monitors.

b, Monterrey, Mexico

Dont come to Australia, Victoria in particular, our governments are aboslutely obsessed with speed cameras. I am pretty sure we have by far the highest number of camera's per driver than any country in the world. The revenue raised by the way is about half the revenue in England, compare populations !. The Victorian state government has been using speed cameras to balance the budget for years now and they also present the same set of dubious figures to prove they are safety devices. In fact that is what they are called here by the police and the government they are not speed cameras they are traffic safety devices. Any serious critisism even that supported by good statistical analysis is pooh pooh'd by the police and the minister and critics are roundly criticised as anti safety and anti law. ps. an FOI release this year by the state governement showed that the biggest majority of cancelled summonses were for off duty policemen; snouts very firmly in the trough.

Peter Coates, Melbourne, Australia

There speaks the voice of reason, which means that it will, most likely, fall upon deaf ears as far as the powers that be are concerned. In terms of road deaths, as tragic as each one is, there must come a point where it is almost impossible to make any further significant difference in the number that occur annually and I feel sure that point has been reached - I am sure some statistician somewhere will find that a challenge to test! If you take the individual statistics often quoted regarding the different categories of road deaths, ie baby boomer motor cyclists, males under 21 and so forth, the number left for the 'average' person killed on the road must be very small indeed and yet this is the broad band of motorist being hit the hardest by camera related fines. It is becoming patently clear that cameras have become nothing more than a revenue generating gimmick based upon a seriously flawed policy. More attention needs to be focused on dangerous and aggressive driving not speed.

Colin Tilley, San Francisco, California

It is illegal (but not necessarily dangerous) to break the speed limit but dangerous to drive too fast for the prevailing road conditions. The speed camera message implies that 30 is OK on a 30 limit road. But it may not be in driving rain or when approaching a pedestrian crossing near a school. And I know I now spend too much time gazing at my speedometer to ensure I haven't drifted slightly above the limit in a camera area to the detriment of time spent observing the road.

John Guttridge, London,

The truth is that we did not ask the government for this and as ever they have acted without our blessing. Add to this the phrase of anti social behaviour and you really wonder who sits over a dinner table saying ' I saw such a anti social blighter today ...he was speeding.' As ever the minority decides for the majority and we take it like lambs. We lose respect for the Police who stand with speed cameras as we know they could be targeting hardend criminals rather than the 'soft' middle classes who cough up and suffer in silence. We only have ourselves to blame we never stand up to the government.

Stephen G, Ruislip, UK

Speed does not kill , but bad driving does kill

Bernard Parke, GUILDFORD,