[Mark Davies]

<font color='#000080'>I know this is a favourite topic of yours, Dom, but the argument within the article is disengenious at best, at worst total bollocks.

I relies entirely on the graphs that show that accident risk exceeds chosen speeds at both ends of the speed scale and is therefore saying &quot;Why are cameras not put where people have accidents at low speeds - speed cameras must just be to make money&quot;. It's rubbish.

What the graph does not show is at what speeds they're talking about. Those accidents at low speed are car park bumps. The reason speed cameras are not put into car parks is that people very rarely get killed in 2mph accidents. People do get killed at higher speeds - that's the priority and that is why the cameras are there.

This is a classic example of statistics being misrepresented and shoe-horned into the desired story for the purpose of propaganda.

I get sick of the arguments about speed cameras being nothing more than revenue raisers. Speeding fines do not pay my wages, provide my equipment or go anywhere near other police budgets. The revenue retained by the police only goes towards the maintenence of the cameras. There are strict rules in place to govern this. So there is no financial incentive for using speed cameras.

No, cameras do not have any discretion and cannot make judgements on relative safety, and so people will get done for speeding when they haven't been any danger (say on a deserted road at night). I'll listen to those arguments and offer some agreement. However, until this country has 2 million police officers with one on every street cameras are the only viable and cost effective method to retain road safety.

The simple answer is this. Don't break the democratic law and you don't have to worry. I've made this argument elsewhere and I know you've read it, so I won't repeat it, but your reasons for wanting to break the speed limit are entirely selfish, frivolous and totally unjustifiable.