Speed kills, so what of speed cameras?

Taking together the article and the comment responses is a good education in the issues relating to speed camaras. I do confess that I find disturbing those conversations I've been party to where I'm expected to connive at speeding and the demonising of speed camaras. And I am worried that there should be an attitude abroad that it is a right to speed and it's not really a 'real' crime. One of the things that comes home from this, loud and clear, once you have paid appropriate homage to the issues about good and bad driving and looked at alternative strategies, seems to me, is that when all is said and done, the faster you go in these metal boxes that are strengthened for the safety of their occupants (not those outside), the more likely you are to make an error of judgement and the more likely people are to die if/when you do.
Once all the considerations are made it may be shocking but it seems true as one commenter says:
"Campaigning against speed cameras is pretty much equivalent to advocating random acts of homicide".

Interestingly, one of the persistent arguments against speed cameras is their capacity to raise revenue. I grok the emotional appeal of this argument: nasty authorities finding ways to take more money off us (note implicit connotative framing of speaker as innocent victim of acquisitive nanny state by alluding to a stock of cultural 'memes' to that effect). However, they really don't manage to clear the hurdles of the basic facts: the limits are legal limits and "Even if the devices are money makers, who cares? I'd sooner the authorities raise revenue with fees targeted at anti-social behaviour like speeding rather than increasing taxes across the board to everyone." Indeed, and wouldn't it be a great outcome if no-one speeded and they enforcement devices became redundant? The petrol-heads argument exposed hereby as merely a desire for licence to exceed the legal limits without being held to account for it.
One comment makes an interesting point I'd not seen before but resonated with me, as a sometime cyclist, "I'd make everyone ride a bike for 2 years before they're allowed to take the car test - if you don't pay attention to what's going on around you on a bike you end up dead, and you never lose that, whatever form of road transport you choose to take"
I'm not sure how I evaluate the taste of WellArdSpnge, but it's certainly an arresting challenge; "To those who honestly belief that speed has no effect on accidents may I suggest the following little experiment;

I'll take one of your children, or if you don't have any another close and dear relative. Strap them in a car and then run it in to another car travelling in the opposite direction at the same speed. The speed of each car on the initial run will be 5 miles per hour and then on each subsequent run it will increase by another 5 miles per hour, hence closing speeds of 10 mph, 20 mph...... You can let me know at what point you feel that speed may have some 'impact' upon the subject and the results.
- Any takers??"
That said, it may still be an open question as to whether the cameras are actually effective and in what condition and under what kind of usage they are best deployed.
Guardian Unlimited | Comment is free | The anti-speed-camera campaign is built on twisted truth and junk science: