I am somewhat against these camera's as they do seem to be a cynical exercise, i.e. they raise revenue on the premises of road safety. Here is some "evidence" that these camera's are indeed being used for revenue raising and just as importantly, reducing the cost of provision of roads, while the "safety" side is somewhat dubious:
*a nearby freeway has speed camera's at points that seem to have no bearing on road safety, e.g. straight sections, but in any case on roads where design rules are probably in excess of 160kmph
*reduced speed limits because of "black spots" - places that have been that way since day dot and have a) not been redesigned and upgraded because of the cost or where they have been "upgraded" and then found to be dangerous - so that instead of being better for over all safety, they are now "worse"
*a section of highway has been set to 80kmph for apparently no other reason other than a speedway is nearby - a venue that is used a dozen times a year now determines the speed limit for a 6kms stretch of road, 365 days a year and it is a favorite spot for police with speed camera's
*a section of freeway was "upgraded" to allow for more traffic in the mornings and evenings, by removing the emergency lanes across a bridge (actually two bridges each with 2 lanes originally, now with 3 lanes in each direction). With the removal of these emergency lanes the speed limit was reduced to 80kph from 100kph. The 50metre bridge spans are irrelevant IMO but really it was the removal of the "normal" emergency lanes along the whole 4km section of the road that caused the speed limit to be changed - they basically increased the number of lanes by removing the emergency lane over that section of road - and they called that "traffic management", i.e. they increased the number of lanes but saved a bundle by effectively scrapping the emergency lanes (ppl now have to go onto a very narrow shoulder, about 1m wide, and the adjacent grass if they need to stop)
*I have heard it said that insurance companies love the reduced speed limits because it can reduce the size of payouts for smash repairs, loss of life, injury insurance, etc. If it can be claimed that the driver/s were going above the legal speed limits, they could have a reason for eliminating or reducing payouts. NB: Not too sure about this one, but the TAC, for example, was very successful in reducing its outgoings with its ad messages about speed, alcohol, etc., and in its efforts to lobby the government (and to stir up the wowsers in the public) to reduce speed limits and increase enforcement - which undoubtedly did have an effect on their outgoings (while simultaneously needing to increase premiums due to the baaad behaviour of a "few" motorists).
Finally, there is the question of whether or not lives are being saved. I suspect that lives are not being saved because a) ppl who speed will speed no matter what (and amongst people I know, they say they are never really aware of going much faster than a speed limit and in all cases would rather watch the road than look at their speedo), b) over a period of time, claims that lives have been saved could be attributed to a number of factors, e.g., improved freeways and highsways, improved signage, improvements in the performance of cars (they hold the road better, they brake better!), improvements in public awareness (people are more aware of the need to drive diligently - not slower or faster, just concentrate more on whats going on around you!).
In short, depending on who you ask, speeding is the primary killer or just one factor in road "accidents". Speeding of course, is an easy target for pollies to pontificate about the baaaad behaviour of motorists (an easy excuse to save money and make money at the same time!), for police and emergency services (perhaps the one area where I do have some sympathy) to complain about this terribile aspect of their jobs, etc. and for other "interested parties" to get on the bandwagon to argue their own agenda's (usually only faintly veiled as a purely "safety" issue).
In the end, IMO, its always about skill, attention/diligence/concentration and judgment on the road, not about how fast your going.
It would be interesting to see how Arizona crash stats change over the next few years and in any case who/what will be blamed for whatever the results are...
