That is correct.
But my argument and others posting here is that these speed cameras are being justified as in the name of safety and are nothing to do with making money.
The argument is put that 'speed' causes accidents when in reality what is being said there in that statement is that the movement of vehicles causes accidents. All movements of vehicles at any speed causes accidents eventually. The problem lies at what level does the speed become dangerous at. The only true answer to that is a stationary vehicle is the only safe vehicle. That being known, it is a simple fact that as soon as anyone creates a speed limit at whatever level it can never be argued that it is not dangerous, so the argument can never be won.
Safety is espoused as the reason for speed cameras and facts and figures are peddled out in justification for there exitance at the same time as denials are made that they are there to collect revenue.
When one considers the consequences of a vehicle passing a red traffic signal as appossed to a vehicle travelling at 35mph in a 30 mph one has to wonder why there are very few cameras located at traffic lights to deter / detec drivers failing to obey a red signal especially when saftey is the main concern.
I suspect that it may have something to do with the frequency of vehicles exceeding the speed limit rather than the consequences of red traffic signals passed at danger.
