[t0mas88]

The safety increase of highway speedcameras is very limited. They help the environment and generate a lot of cash, but in terms of accidents the impact is very low because not a lot of accidents happen on highways with split lanes and only cars. And those that do happen are statistically much more related to alcohol, drugs, tired driving and adverse weather.

In cities it's different, there even a 10 km/h reduction makes a big difference for safety on intersections and with bikes/pedestrians.

[ossworkerrights]

Depends on the country I suppose. In Romania doing 150 km/h in a 50 km/h area is pretty common, and generally speaking reckless driving, road rage and a handful of other things where cameras would help. Oh, and the government made it to phone recorded incidents are not acceptable proof in court, unless the recording device is government licensed (needless to say the licensing process is not clear). In countries where people drive responsibly generally speaking, cameras might only marginally improve things, but in Romania it would mean a reduction in the thousands of preventable deaths happening each year.

[alkonaut]

Why would you put the speed cameras on highways then? Here they are on 50-60km/h roads, some times 70. On faster roads they are only near crossings where the speed limit is reduced.

[t0mas88]

Netherlands has speedcameras and average speed checks on a lot of highways. Mostly because it works as a good public statement to claim you have "caught a lot of speeding to make traffic safer" while you don't actually have to hire any extra police officers for it.

[xenospn]

That's literally all they do in Israel. They spent hundreds of millions of dollars setting up speed cameras on Highways ONLY, and the only effect is increased revenue.