jsherk wrote:

Has there been a series of injuries and fatalities in school zones recently that has prompted the cameras? I doubt it!

It's all about income generation... tax the people until they revolt!

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ Thank you

argyll wrote:

The evidence shows that it reduces injury collisions. Just because you repeat the mantra enough that speeding doesn't hurt anyone doesn't make it true. A collision at 60 kms/hr compared to a collision at 30 kms/hr is safer for everyone concerned.

The speed cameras in the UK absolutely have slowed the traffic down which is exactly the result desired with speed enforcement.

Of course the cameras need to be positioned in places where they actually make a different and not just in fishing holes. You and I agree on the stupidity and tax-generation of that. - the same as police office enforcement in the easy spots as opposed to in all areas.

Speeding, by itself does not cause accidents, nor is any more safer or less safer,

INAPPROPRIATE use of speed, bad driving, unsafe driving, impaired driving, texting, tailgating, swerving in and out of traffic, will get you 99% of the time.

A speed camera will ONLY do 1 thing, take a picture of a person speeding; at 2am in the morning, on a clear empty road, will show a "law breaker" , it won't show a person toodling along, wondering across all lanes

texting.

Yes there are some times and places where speed needs to be brought down, I grant you that, but that is NOT what it is being used for, it IS being used to generate revenue.

I found a lot of sources on line, for both cases

but I'm sure we can't posts links, nor cut and paste all articles..

anyway the info and stats are on line