Question Author
Yawn - same old trolley trotted out about by people with beards and Guardian readers - if you don't speed you won't get caught yadda yadda yadda.
You are missing the point.
What we need is more police, not cameras: cameras are arbitrary whereas the police can, and do, exercise common sense. 80mph on a 70mph dual carriageway in good conditions is no more dangerous than 70mph, and 99 times out of a 100 the police will either ignore you or just tell you to slow it down a bit. However, a camera will catch you, you will be fined and you will receive points.
Meanwhile, just behind you, you have Mr Chav 18 year old in an uninsured un-mot'd untaxed Nova ripped to the tits on drink and drugs, weaving all over the road with a boot full of anthrax, semtex, ricin, ebola, cocaine, heroin, guns, knives and rotweillers generally being a danger to himself (so what) and others. However, he's going 69mph in a 70 and therefore doesn't get 'done'.
So, who would you rather see 'done' - Mr Salesman straying over the limit to get to his next appointment in order to pay the mortgage and feed his kids, or Mr Chav.
Clearly, and quite rightly, the police would be more interested in the latter.
AND that is why the answer is more police, not static piggy banks - and make no mistake, these things have absolutely nothing to do with safety - and it is naive to think they do.
Bit of an extreme example, but you get my point.
Have no argument with them being outside schools or genuine accident spots (i.e, not just spots where they know the cameras will earn more money).