Speeding is not the main cause of accidents – inattention, carelessness, and distraction are the main culprits. Does focusing our efforts on punishing speeding to the exclusion of the main accident-causing factors actually make our roads safer?
What is the point of fining people for driving 10mph over the speed limit when they are on a straight section of freeway at 3am and the only driver on the road?
Speed loggers regularly show that the majority of the population drives faster than the posted speed limits. This indicates that most people think the speed limit laws are unreasonable.
How can the police uphold laws which the people disagree with? Requiring the police to uphold speed limits creates (in the general public) a negative attitude towards police which impedes their ability to uphold other (more generally accepted) laws. ie: It puts the police squarely in opposition to the general public. Wouldn't it be far better for the population to respect our police & be fully supportive of them?
Wouldn't the money spent on preventing speeding be better spent on improving roads, driver training, car safety, and public transport?
The harsh penalties would act as a strong incentive to safe driving and would encourage people to be sober whilst driving, to ensure they are sufficiently rested, not distracted, are competent drivers, and are driving at a speed that is reasonable given the current road conditions. ie: Encourage drivers to take more responsibility for their driving!
And finally. isn't it dangerous to create laws that the majority of the population regard as unreasonable, because it encourages them to break those specific laws? When people become accustomed to habitually breaking specific laws, they gradually come to disdain law in general, and isn't that what we're seeing with the today's rates of petty crime and thuggery?