You're sure it wasn't largely to milk fines from people going slightly over? What was the initial threshold for fines? What is it now?

▲

prmoustache 2 days ago | parent | next [-]

Nobody is milked. The rules are simple and trivial to follow. Those that are fined are really asking for it.

An upper limit is not the desired and accepted speed everybody needs to aim for.

▲

elric 3 days ago | parent | prev [-]

Irrelevant. Speed kills. Slower is better.

▲

Dylan16807 3 days ago | parent [-]

1. If you're calling my first question irrelevant, the one about why the system was installed, then why were you the one originally making claims about that, and using it to blame certain people?

2. "Slower is better." is a stupid half argument. Speed limits are a tradeoff between the benefits of going fast and the benefits of going slow. If it wasn't a tradeoff then the speed limit would be walking speed everywhere on every road.

▲

elric 3 days ago | parent [-]

1. If people drove the speed limit, there would be no need for privacy invasive traffic cameras. The blame there does lie squarely with the people who can't seem to get that, and who keep killing and maiming thousands of people every year.

2. There are very few benefits to cars going faster. If you want speed, trains are much more efficient at high speed. Fast cars are wasteful and dangerous.

Cars being limited to walking speeds in cities would be great. But failing that, I'm happy with the local groundrule: 30km/h if there's no bike path, 50km/h if there's a raised bike path, and 70km/h if there's a bike path that's separated from the road by at least 1 metre.

	▲	tmerc 3 days ago \| parent \| next [-]
		There will always be "good reason" for the invasion of privacy. If you didn't actively oppose their use, you're also to blame.
	▲	Dylan16807 3 days ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		The speed limit is not set at exactly 1 below irresponsibly fast. Are all these cameras in cities? Are there any on separated highways?