The single most boring stretch of road in Britain runs between Junction 1 of the M1 and Junction 10 of the M6. I've been going up and down it, about once a fortnight, for the past decade, and over that time have seen nothing resembling a worthwhile view, gradient or landmark.

If this section of motorway were a conversation, it would be Irene from accounts telling you what she dreamt about last night. And, incredibly, the drive has recently been made even more tedious by the installation of average-speed cameras on part of the M1 to enforce a 50mph limit during roadworks.

But before I start on the subject of these new-generation road-safety devices - which work by timing how long drivers take to travel between fixed points along the road, and which the Transport Secretary, Geoff Hoon, indicated last week could replace many “spot” cameras, which measure speed at a fixed point - I must make a confession: when I initially wrote this piece it made the opposite point. In the original, after disputing Hoon's claim to be “an enthusiastic motorist” on the ground that he drives a Ford Galaxy (which is a bit like claiming to be an art collector because you own a Jack Vettriano print), I listed every conceivable objection to average-speed cameras.

I repeated the claim made by the Association of British Drivers that they could lead to motorists driving on “autopilot”, hence paying less attention and causing more accidents. I echoed the AA's complaint that the cameras could lead to “bunching” on busy roads as cars slow down en masse. And, having read an online article by one Geoffrey Alderman, I mentioned that a range of factors, from the angle at which a camera snaps a number plate to curvature in the road and visibility, could result in such cameras measuring speeds inaccurately.

But on rereading, it became evident that: a) I didn't really understand Professor Alderman's technical objections; and b) I wasn't being honest. You see, my actual problem with average-speed cameras is that they work. Whereas you can spot most fixed cameras, and slow down in time to avoid them, you have to stick to the speed limit for the entire length of road that is covered by average-speed cameras.

And this is the thing about the so-called speed camera debate: no one is being frank. The motoring lobby, for example, churns out arguments of varying sophistication, arguing that, nationally, only 6 per cent of accidents are caused by people breaking speed limits and yet most of the Government's road-safety money is invested in speed cameras, and that if you use a method of analysis called empirical Bayes, which allows for an element of randomness - known as “regression-to-the-mean” - then the official estimate that 100 lives are saved by speed cameras every year should be cut by half, and so on. But what all this bluster actually comes down to is: “I've worked hard for my C-class Mercedes and I want to drive it as fast as I like.”

The road-safety lobby's position is no less disingenuous. It claims that it doesn't want to victimise motorists, yet blindly supports the mass imposition of speed cameras, regardless of the need or the results. What its position actually comes down to is: “I know someone who was killed on the road, and I don't want anyone else to go through it, even if it means everyone in the country driving around in Volvos at 20mph.”

The Government's position, of course, is the most absurd. It pays lip service to the road- safety lobby, installing cameras and cheerfully taking the subsequent revenues generated but, in an effort to keep motorists on side, it will generally make it obvious to them where the speed cameras are located, so that they can slow down in time. And it turns a blind eye to all sorts of supposedly illegal behaviour, such as driving at 80mph on motorways. Indeed, according to a recent a poll from Co-operative Insurance, almost three quarters of UK drivers regularly speed. And most get away with it.

It's a ridiculous state of affairs. The only spheres of life where the arguments are so absurd and prejudices so entrenched are education and John Sergeant's continuing survival on Strictly Come Dancing. And I don't think it would be an exaggeration to say that it is undermining the relationship between the State and the public. A generation of drivers who see themselves as law-abiding has grown up resenting the police for imposing traffic fines that work as a kind of tax, while the criminally insane run free.

I'm among them. It is annoying that the police are so efficient when it comes to dishing out driving penalties - I have a clean licence, but have notched up nine points for various minor speeding offences over time - but when I was recently violently mugged in Brixton, South London, I waited more than an hour at a police station to report the crime, before eventually giving up and leaving without the incident even being registered as a statistic.

But while it is painful to admit - and while it threatens to deprive talk radio of the majority of its programming matter - the arrival of the average-speed camera provides an opportunity to get things on a saner footing. There is at least an honesty to these new safety devices, which are not arbitrary, as existing cameras are. But they will succeed only if everyone comes clean about what they really want, and the Government develops some commonsense policies.

The money raised from traffic fines, for instance, should go directly into road safety. The cameras need to be installed only on the most dangerous roads in Britain. The speed limit on motorways must be raised to 80mph, and lowered to 20mph near all schools. The police need to put much more energy into pursuing drivers with uninsured vehicles. And someone needs to do something (chicanes, or the relocation of the Peak District?) to liven up the southern half of the M1 and M6.

sathnam@thetimes.co.uk

Times Recommends

• Tear down this wall! And save the planet
• Double click if you want the bin emptied
• Have you got permission to read this?