Axing speed cameras - result

[aussiblue]

What gets me is how they also use the Monash university to "prove" their agenda, I bet there is a lot of money changing hands in favor of the university for some of the stuff they "prove" correct.

No it's about getting objective, independent and published peer reviewed advice -the basis of all good science; i.e. having it peer reviewed to avoid errors and bias (including the type of corruption you are suggesting and published in science journals so others with expertise can also review it. Universities are usually also subject to reviews by various ethics committees, external Government auditors and the like so can be relied upon as a good source for objective research.

And as much as we may hate them, and as much as they are also a revenue generating device, the overwhelming objective evidence is that speed camera do result in a fall in accident rates and mortalities. Just enter the words"impact of speed camera on road accidents" into Google Scholar to find hundreds of independent research finding confirming this. It also intuitively correct; lets face it, without the deterrent of the speed camera and the hard evidence the provide to support a speeding prosecution a lot more irresponsible drivers would speed excessively.

And when it comes to speed limits you have to draw a line somewhere so it's 100 km/hr rather than 103 km/hr and most states already grade the related fines accordingly so the further over the specific limit you are the more it costs.

And yes I have sped and yes I have been caught by speed cameras so I know about the pain.

A more relevant question might be are speed cameras the most cost effective means of reducing speed related accidents and mortalities? Perhaps not; but would you prefer lots of speed bumps in low speed limt areas instead as one paper suggest these are more effective (see http://www.sciencedirect.com/science...f&searchtype=a)

Are speed enforcement cameras more effective than other speed management measures?: The impact of speed management schemes on 30 mph roads




References and further reading may be available for this article. To view references and further reading you must purchase this article.


L.J. Mountaina, , , W.M. Hirsta and M.J. Maherb

aDepartment of Civil Engineering, University of Liverpool, Brownlow Street, Liverpool, L69 3GQ, UK

bSchool of the Built Environment, Napier University, Edinburgh, UK

Received 15 March 2005; accepted 22 March 2005. Available online 10 May 2005.

Abstract
This paper presents the results of an evaluation of the impact of various types of speed management schemes on both traffic speeds and accidents. The study controls for general trends in accidents, regression-to-mean effects and migration, separately estimating the accident changes attributable to the impact of the schemes on traffic speed and on traffic volume. It was found that, when judged in absolute terms, all types of speed management scheme have remarkably similar effects on accidents, with an average fall in personal injury accidents of about 1 accident/km/year. In terms of the percentage accident reduction, however, engineering schemes incorporating vertical deflections (such as speed humps or cushions) offer the largest benefits: at 44%, the average reduction in personal injury accidents attributable to such schemes, is twice that at sites where safety cameras were used to control speeds (22%) and they were the only type of scheme to have a significant impact on fatal and serious accidents. Other types of engineering scheme (with a fall of 29% in personal injury accidents) were on average less effective in reducing accidents than schemes with vertical features but more effective than cameras. All types of scheme were generally effective in reducing speeds, with the largest reductions tending to be obtained with vertical deflections and the smallest with other types of engineering schemes.

Another fair question is the relative effectiveness of visible versus hidden cameras.

[aussiblue]

And there is research suggesting hidden cameras are more effective. eg

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science...e&searchtype=a

Michael D. Keall, , Lynley J. Povey and William J. Frith

Land Transport Safety Authority, Research and Statistics, PO Box 2840, Wellington, New Zealand

Received 5 August 1999; revised 4 January 2000; accepted 7 June 2000. Available online 31 January 2001.

Abstract
Overtly operated mobile speed cameras have been used in New Zealand since late 1993. Their operation has been confined to specific sites (called ‘speed camera areas’) which are mainly road sections with a record of speed-related crashes. A trial of hidden speed cameras began in mid-1997 in 100 km/h speed limit areas in one of New Zealand's four Police regions. This trial was still in progress at the time of writing and the current paper reports the results of an evaluation of the first year of the trial. During that period, the hidden cameras and related publicity were found (compared with the generally highly visible speed camera enforcement in the rest of New Zealand) to be associated with net falls in speeds, crashes and casualties both in speed camera areas and on 100 km/h speed limit roads generally. There were initial changes in public attitudes in response to the programme that later largely reverted to pre-trial levels. Compared with the localised effect of visible cameras on speeds and crashes mainly in speed camera areas, the hidden cameras had a more general effect on all roads. As further crash, speed and attitude data become available, the longer-term effects of the hidden camera programme will be evaluated.

[aussiblue]

The peer review process is also designed to prevent "Post hoc ergo proctor hoc" errors or bias.

[sudszy]

Originally Posted by flappist

Evidence in Australian road statistics is only ever available in one of two types:

1) Supportive of the Govco agenda

2) Inconclusive and inaccurate

Goodness, after being exposed for cherry picking the government info to support your claims, you now claim the stats (including road deaths in NT) are manipulated by the government to suit their "govco" agenda. And you have evidence of this?, I say paranoia at the extremes!

[aussiblue]

The other thing that gives me confidence is the research is that as so much of the research shows that speed cameras do reduce road accidents and mortalities, that there is a big incentive for researchers to come up with a different outcome - you don't make a name for yourself in the scientific community by confirming lots of prior research; you do it when you come up with a surprising, contrary or new result.

[flappist]

Originally Posted by sudszy

Goodness, after being exposed for cherry picking the government info to support your claims, you now claim the stats (including road deaths in NT) are manipulated by the government to suit their "govco" agenda. And you have evidence of this?, I say paranoia at the extremes!

Well in actual fact the NT Government was ACTUALLY CAUGHT manipulating statistics for road deaths and had to revise them.

But as all five of your posts are all on the same subject I wonder what you do for a living.......

Oh and if you really want to learn about evidence and facts just PM our member "Keep Left". He has everything you need.

[flappist]

Originally Posted by aussiblue

The other thing that gives me confidence is the research is that as so much of the research shows that speed cameras do reduce road accidents and mortalities, that there is a big incentive for researchers to come up with a different outcome - you don't make a name for yourself in the scientific community by confirming lots of prior research; you do it when you come up with a surprising, contrary or new result.

Yes you do get a high profile by going against the grain and saying things that others do not want known.

Just ask Julian Assange......

[aussiblue]

Yes you do get a high profile by going against the grain and saying things that others do not want known.

Just ask Julian Assange......
__________________

Exactly and universities have a boundless supply of young, rebellious skeptics (including those that hate speed cameras) who would love to do just that.

[AussieAV]

Since all the research that has been done so far is so "fair and unbiased", and each study tries to bring something new to the table, maybe you could point me to the research that shows the difference in effectiveness between speed camera enforcement when motorists are given say a 10% margin for error before being fined, and those where they aren't.

I have a sneaking suspicion such research won't exist, because if it were to prove no significant difference, "govco" would have to give up a significant amount of income.

I'll be happy to be proved wrong, looking forward to the stream of links to these studies.

[aussiblue]

One Chinese alternative to speed cameras:

[sudszy]

Originally Posted by AussieAV

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Post_hoc_ergo_propter_hoc

(see what I did there - I used a reference, therefore my point must be correct!)

The thing is these sorts of false arguments and statistic manipulations is the only type of evidence I've ever seen put forward by the pro speed camera brigade too.

.

Cheers, thanks for the link, never heard of pos_hoc_ etc, learnt something!

I hear what you are saying, but where are the false arguments and statistical manipulations you speak of?

One can always speculate that the accident rate may have been lowered by other factors where speed cameras have been introduced, yet researchers( by the process such as aussieblue mentions) are at pains to make sure that they have accounted for or eliminated other variables as causes as there is always someone waiting in the wings to tip a bucket on research that is not up to "speed", so far I havent seen that happen; just a lot of ranting from people who have scored speeding tickets.

Originally Posted by AussieAV

[url] Problem is the message I believe being promoted by the "camera war" on speeding is that the posted limit is always safe.

Yes, I agree, rain pelts down and there are drivers out there still following the car in front by only half a second(far too much in the dry) and still needling the speed limit, a pile up waiting to happen.

Would you be happy with a campaign to address this?

I would be happy with that(but dont see any need to relent the policing of those that speed), often i look in the rearview in city traffic and the car following behind at 60km/h is so close I cant even see its front rego plate, and its probably the same wingnuts that scream the "idiot in front just jumped on the brakes and there was nothing I could do"
Obviously cameras arent going to be able to adjudicate on people driving dangerously in these types of situations and a stronger police presence would be welcome.

[aussiblue]

Since all the research that has been done so far is so "fair and unbiased", and each study tries to bring something new to the table, maybe you could point me to the research that shows the difference in effectiveness between speed camera enforcement when motorists are given say a 10% margin for error before being fined, and those where they aren't.

I have a sneaking suspicion such research won't exist, because if it were to prove no significant difference, "govco" would have to give up a significant amount of income.

I'll be happy to be proved wrong, looking forward to the stream of links to these studies.

I'm sure you can use Google Scholar as equally well as I so I suggest its time you did some homework too, and bring some hard evidence rather perceptions to the debate. In any event I suspect you will find that as the motorist lives in a market of relatively low cost information courtesy of the media, the net and social networks, any discounted speed limits quickly becomes the know real speed limit (i.e, if a 5km/hr discount is allowed a large proportion would interpret the speed limit as being 5km/hr above the posted limit).

[flappist]

Originally Posted by sudszy

Cheers, thanks for the link, never heard of pos_hoc_ etc, learnt something!

I hear what you are saying, but where are the false arguments and statistical manipulations you speak of?

One can always speculate that the accident rate may have been lowered by other factors where speed cameras have been introduced, yet researchers( by the process such as aussieblue mentions) are at pains to make sure that they have accounted for or eliminated other variables as causes as there is always someone waiting in the wings to tip a bucket on research that is not up to "speed", so far I havent seen that happen; just a lot of ranting from people who have scored speeding tickets.



Yes, I agree, rain pelts down and there are drivers out there still following the car in front by only half a second(far too much in the dry) and still needling the speed limit, a pile up waiting to happen.

Would you be happy with a campaign to address this?

I would be happy with that(but dont see any need to relent the policing of those that speed), often i look in the rearview in city traffic and the car following behind at 60km/h is so close I cant even see its front rego plate, and its probably the same wingnuts that scream the "idiot in front just jumped on the brakes and there was nothing I could do"
Obviously cameras arent going to be able to adjudicate on people driving dangerously in these types of situations and a stronger police presence would be welcome.

Well you seem to be very pro speed cameras so I will ask you this.

Would you be in favour or against all speed cameras being extremely well signed and any resulting penalties having no revenue for the states?

If the cameras are obvious and well marked then only inattentive drivers will be penalised, the rest will ensure they are under the limit in the dangerous place where the camera is situated.

Is saving lives more important than money?

[AussieAV]

Originally Posted by aussiblue

I'm sure uou can use Google Scholar as equally well as I so I suggest its time you did some homework too, and bring some hard evidence rather perceptions to the debate.

Thats my point, I've searched and couldn't find any. The government won't fund research that might force them to cut fine revenue, the camera manufacturers won't fund it either because thay know the reason governments buy them if for revenue so they'd lose sales.

To me it seems a logical question to research if you're after a fair system of making the roads safer, but it hasn't been.

[aussiblue]

I would agree with things used elsewhere like different coloured road side lines for different speed limits to help prevent unintentional speeding. I know I find it very handy that my current Navman now reports the speed limit wherever I am an alerts me should I exceed it.

[gtfpv]

Originally Posted by flappist

Well you seem to be very pro speed cameras so I will ask you this.

Would you be in favour or against all speed cameras being extremely well signed and any resulting penalties having no revenue for the states?

If the cameras are obvious and well marked then only inattentive drivers will be penalised, the rest will ensure they are under the limit in the dangerous place where the camera is situated.

Is saving lives more important than money?

all speed cameras are signed here . it's agood thing . keeps you alert . i have developed more alertness i think because of this , i guess if i was to forget and go through at a higher limit than the speed and get booked , i would be frustrated , yet know that i wasnt concentrating .
Anything unsigned for speed cameras are a revenue trap .

[sudszy]

Originally Posted by AussieAV

Since all the research that has been done so far is so "fair and unbiased", and each study tries to bring something new to the table, maybe you could point me to the research that shows the difference in effectiveness between speed camera enforcement when motorists are given say a 10% margin for error before being fined, and those where they aren't.

I have a sneaking suspicion such research won't exist, because if it were to prove no significant difference, "govco" would have to give up a significant amount of income.

I'll be happy to be proved wrong, looking forward to the stream of links to these studies.

I think you'll find that that in Victoria at least they started with a 10% margin for error and found that a significant proportion of the traffic exceeded the limit by this 10% figure.

Given that australian design rules have dictated for at least the last 30 years that no speedo could have an error of more than 10% nor should it under-read! the problem could simply not be attributed to speedo error.

Clearly motorists were exceeding up to 10% as they knew they wouldnt get a ticket provided they were within that. The speed limits were effectively 66km/h and 110km/h.

That is why we have the limit now reduced to a very generous 3km/h, now of course people set their cruise control, speed alarms to this value and 3km/h over has become the new limit some people keep to, not perfect but better.

[gtxb67]

if speed cameras save lives - then why has there been instances over the last few years of horrific, very high speed, multi fatality accidents within a few kilometres or so of passing a speed camera

we know where the speed cameras are - we also know there is not a high police presence. the fact is people will sometimes go slow when passing the speed cameras and then put their foot down after passing it, safe in the knowledge they are unlikely to be caught by a patrol car

they do not stop high speed in all areas - the fact that the police sometimes catch drivers at high speed proves that. the cameras have a place if used correctly, but why does the money going into the speed cameras fund, not go into more police presence - people slow when they see police, they only hit the brakes in an almost dangerous manner when seeing a speed camera

the speed/red light cameras are pathetic - what if you are on the speed limit when the light turns amber. you cannot speed up to make it through as you may in other instances. you must stop - not a bad idea unless there is someone right behind you, who does not plan on stopping. do you risk a fine or an accident - or a very annoyed idiot behind you that doesn't appreciate your rent a cop attitude that almost made him crash


the earlier speed cameras were good, because if you could not see them, then there was a very good chance you would not see a child, dog or other car suddenly run out. at least they made the smarter drivers look for them, and of course while their mind was sharp looking for speed cameras, they could also have noticed any other possible dangers. now we are programmed to be brain dead law abiding drivers. pity help the child (and us) who runs out on the road, while we are watching our speedo needle

[aussiblue]

The government won't fund research that might force them to cut fine revenue, the camera manufacturers won't fund it either because thay know the reason governments buy them if for revenue so they'd lose sales.

Why many studies are Government funded , much of the research is also done by academics at their own cost; it's how they get their Ph. D's. It's also whye you won't now find many independent research papers saying smoking is safe.

[aussiblue]

Further,
mean preferred driving speeds on both urban and open roads suggest a perceived
enforcement tolerance of 10%, suggesting that posted limits have limited direct influence on
speed choice. Factors that significantly predicted the frequency of speeding included:
exposure to role models who speed; favourable attitudes to speeding; experiences of
punishment avoidance; and the perceived certainty of punishment for speeding.

http://rsconference.com/pdf/RS050035.pdf?check=1

Tends to confirms that discounted speed limits get interpreted as the real speed limit.

[aussiblue]

if speed cameras save lives - then why has there been instances over the last few years of horrific, very high speed, multi fatality accidents within a few kilometres or so of passing a speed camera

Now you are getting silly; they reduce don't totally stop all accidents and deaths. Similarly, seat belts and air bags etc save lives too but people still die in cars so equipped. Its also the likelihood of being caught by either potential hidden oran unknown but not hidden camera rather than the knowledge of an actual camera that is reducing speed in many cases.

[sudszy]

Originally Posted by flappist

Well you seem to be very pro speed cameras so I will ask you this.

Would you be in favour or against all speed cameras being extremely well signed and any resulting penalties having no revenue for the states?

If the cameras are obvious and well marked then only inattentive drivers will be penalised, the rest will ensure they are under the limit in the dangerous place where the camera is situated.

Is saving lives more important than money?

I dont have a problem with signed speed cameras, they have some effectiveness.

I think hidden/unsigned ones are far more effective in changing people's behaviour on all roads and at all times for the long term which is what we are after, not just for a couple of minutes on one particular stretch of road they travel on.

Abolish fines from the cameras?, as long as the driver receives some other form of incentive to moderate their behaviour. Double the demerit points, cancel licences for longer, whatever.

Dont see any problem with fining people though, it seems to work in changing behaviour(along with demerit points), whether its state or fed gov, if speedsters want to lighten the tax burden for those that do the right thing, fine with me.

[Jim Goose]

Originally Posted by sudszy

I think you'll find that that in Victoria at least they started with a 10% margin for error and found that a significant proportion of the traffic exceeded the limit by this 10% figure.

Given that australian design rules have dictated for at least the last 30 years that no speedo could have an error of more than 10% nor should it under-read! the problem could simply not be attributed to speedo error.

Clearly motorists were exceeding up to 10% as they knew they wouldnt get a ticket provided they were within that. The speed limits were effectively 66km/h and 110km/h.

That is why we have the limit now reduced to a very generous 3km/h, now of course people set their cruise control, speed alarms to this value and 3km/h over has become the new limit some people keep to, not perfect but better.

While im not an advocate for speed cameras, or doing crazy speeds on the road... I'll say this for your comment:

The 10% speedo error allowable in the ADR means that receiving a ticket for 3km over the speed limit is quite easy to contest in court. Victorians appear to prefer to roll over and pay something which technically you cant be fined for because the ADR allows for this error.
Unless you have a digital read out of your speedo, most speedos only rise in increments of 5kmh. These increments can be be as wide as the width of the needle itself.
A QLD Police officer I spoke to agreed 100% with me when I said that Victorians who are fined within 10% error margin of their speed can contest it in court.
A lot of Police would also agree that speed cameras are revenue raising including the head of the QPU.

If "speed and safetly" were a factor in the location of speed cameras then why dont we see them located in the suburbs where I constantly see people driving well in excess of 70kmh in a 50kmh zone?
The answer is simple, there isnt enough traffic in a suburban street to raise revenue.

I have no issues with more red light cameras and would support their use.
At the very least in an accident a picture would be taken to show who was at fault.
A speed camera does nothing for someone who drives past at 160kmh. He just keeps going and nothing happens until he gets his ticket in the mail.

More visible Police presence is what is required..... I rarely see any cops using a hand held lazer or radar... and the few patrol cars equipped with speed detection appears as rare as hens teeth.

[aussiblue]

The only bit of research that offers the anti-camera brigade a fraying straw to clutch:

http://www.bmj.com/content/330/7487/331.full

Existing research consistently shows that speed cameras are an effective intervention in reducing road traffic collisions and related casualties

However, the level of evidence is relatively poor, and most studies lack adequate comparison groups

Controlled introduction of speed cameras with careful data collection is needed to improve the evidence base for the effectiveness of speed cameras

Essentially just arguing for more controlled experiments.

[AussieAV]

Originally Posted by sudszy

I hear what you are saying, but where are the false arguments and statistical manipulations you speak of?

False arguments - many studies just look at figures from one period and compare them to another after cameras are used. How can they eliminate all other factors that could have contributed, or quantify the impact of each factor - without a time machine they can't.

Misleading - I've never seen a study to see if they stopped punishing minor infractions whether there would be any effect on road toll.
A Norwegian (I think) researcher appeared on the current affairs programs a number of years ago. He said that his studies showed that drivers who were regularly fined for minor speeding infractions (but not major ones) were actually statistically safer than those who never got fines. They were also more likely to travel at below the posted limit in adverse weather/road conditions. His conclusion was that this type of driver was generally more aware of their driving environment and drove accordingly. Not surprisingly has was having trouble getting funding for further research

Statistical Manipulation - a lot of studies refer to the number of accidents in which speed is a factor, implying that they were caused by speeding, when in fact some of the accidents occurred at below the posted limit but the investigating officer deemed that the speed was still too great for the road conditions.

Originally Posted by sudszy

One can always speculate that the accident rate may have been lowered by other factors where speed cameras have been introduced, yet researchers( by the process such as aussieblue mentions) are at pains to make sure that they have accounted for or eliminated other variables as causes as there is always someone waiting in the wings to tip a bucket on research that is not up to "speed", so far I havent seen that happen; just a lot of ranting from people who have scored speeding tickets.

Again, how can they possibly do this? Sure they can estimate, but I doubt they go into great depth to see how much tyre compound technology changed in that year as an "out of left field" example. The studies would be hugely expensive if they looked at everthing. Far easier to stop when you got something that appears to support what you're trying to prove.

Originally Posted by sudszy

Yes, I agree, rain pelts down and there are drivers out there still following the car in front by only half a second(far too much in the dry) and still needling the speed limit, a pile up waiting to happen.

Would you be happy with a campaign to address this?

Yes!!!, I've actually asked the question on here before. I consider tailgating to be just as important a problem. I also consider the fact that it is virtually completely ingnored by the powers that be, as proof they ain't in it to save lives. This in turn makes me sceptical of the so called safety initiatives they try to employ, as they obviously only want to do so if its also provides a positive net cash flow.


Edit: sorry this seems out of place, there have been a number of posts since I started writing this reply

[AussieAV]

Originally Posted by aussiblue

Why many studies are Government funded , much of the research is also done by academics at their own cost; it's how they get their Ph. D's. It's also whye you won't now find many independent research papers saying smoking is safe.

Any do you really think a doctoral candidate can afford to cover every subtle nuance of a topic as complex as road safety, where on top of the almost endless list of fairly quantifiable variables, you have to add human nature!
Often all they can do is search for as many studies (usually govt or interest group funded) and compile those results toi produce their own findings.

[sudszy]

Originally Posted by Jim Goose

While im not an advocate for speed cameras, or doing crazy speeds on the road... I'll say this for your comment:

The 10% speedo error allowable in the ADR means that receiving a ticket for 3km over the speed limit is quite easy to contest in court. Victorians appear to prefer to roll over and pay something which technically you cant be fined for because the ADR allows for this error.

For correct info about past and current speedo adrs and generally accuracy of speedos, please read:http://www.trafficlaw.com.au/speedos.html, the overwhelming majority of them do not under read by 10%.

Originally Posted by Jim Goose

Unless you have a digital read out of your speedo, most speedos only rise in increments of 5kmh. These increments can be be as wide as the width of the needle itself.
.

Analogue style gauges may only have 5km/h increments marked, but it doesnt mean the needle only moves about in 5km/h increments, for those that cant distinguish that the needle has moved past the increment, perhaps make sure the needle is always below it, have these drivers passed eye tests recently?

Originally Posted by Jim Goose

If "speed and safetly" were a factor in the location of speed cameras then why dont we see them located in the suburbs where I constantly see people driving well in excess of 70kmh in a 50kmh zone?
The answer is simple, there isnt enough traffic in a suburban street to raise revenue.
.

The reality is that they would be unlikely to target enough idiots to be effective.
The camera in my residential street may well get one person per day, that's only one idiot that will change their behaviour per day, whereas in a 60km/h zone the camera may moderate the behaviour of 100s of idiots.
Personally I would like to see more of them in 50km/h zones, perhaps the idea that the camera could be in any suburban street would change a lot of behaviour, yet unfortunately authorities will most likely only act when the number of little kiddies cleaned up by idiots doing 70km/h in a 50km/h zone reaches a critical number, which obviously hasnt been reached yet.

[WMD351]

How can the removal of speed cameras be saving lives if, as we all know, the cameras are not put in black spots and only installed in high traffic flow low fatality zones?

If we're all spending so much time not watching the road but instead glued to our speedo needles then why are the cameras dishing an ever growing number of tickets?

And Jim Goose, the 10% ADR line has been tried in Victorian courts more than once but it hasn't floated yet (I don't know how, it doesn't make sense to me). Rejected most recently on Friday when used by a former cop after a four year very costly battle (he got off on a different technicality though).

[aussiblue]

.. do you really think a doctoral candidate can afford to cover every subtle nuance of a topic as complex as road safety, where on top of the almost endless list of fairly quantifiable variables, you have to add human nature

I work in an area where I have to act on scientific advice and I am amazed at the philanthropic of some academics who choose for ethical and/or ability reasons to fully self fund very expensive research projects. Not all students are poor. Indeed, it is probably a sad reflection on our society that their is still some correlation between wealth and post graduate students attending the best recognised universities. Yes; the vast majority of student try and do source grants and other external funding but there is still some fully self funded or family funded research. Researchers are usually required to declare their funding sources and any potential or perceived conflicts of interest etc (see my last study quoted for example - Funding None.
Competing interests None declared)

[Jim Goose]

Analogue style gauges may only have 5km/h increments marked, but it doesnt mean the needle only moves about in 5km/h increments, for those that cant distinguish that the needle has moved past the increment, perhaps make sure the needle is always below it, have these drivers passed eye tests recently?

And clearly you have NEVER driven an old car before then.
A lot of members on here in case you havent checked also own "classic" cars.
Go for a drive in one and see exactly how much fun it is to keep your eye on the needle 100% of the time.
As for more modern cars, refer to my last comment above.
You seem to be of the mentality that a driver must keep his eye on the speedo all of the time? Exactly how safe is this?
Everyones attension will be inside the car (much like Victorians who have 3KMH to play with).

The reality is that they would be unlikely to target enough idiots to be effective.
The camera in my residential street may well get one person per day, that's only one idiot that will change their behaviour per day, whereas in a 60km/h zone the camera may moderate the behaviour of 100s of idiots.
Personally I would like to see more of them in 50km/h zones, perhaps the idea that the camera could be in any suburban street would change a lot of behaviour.

WOOOHOOO congratulations.
Im sorry to say you missed the point, but you proved another.
Day in and day out the government pushes the idea that speed cameras reduce accidents and that even if reduces ONE fatality then its a win.
So ONE person caught speeding in a suburb isnt worth the same as ONE person caught speeding on a highway?
Oh please....
What a pityful excuse