Yes, speed cameras can collect revenue

Awhile back on this blog I commented on how highway speed cameras could be used for two things: a) acting as a deterrent to high speeds on the highway and reckless high-speed drivers on the highway, and b) collecting revenue when there are forces afoot -- such as high gas mileage hybrid vehicles -- that are affecting the traditional way of funding highway and road construction and maintenance via gas taxes.

As it becomes less and less attractive to use too much gas, and as they are less and less and less gas-guzzlers on the road, the latter problem will acuten. So I think that the former solution has a lot of merit, especially in these lean revenue times.

Hardly anyone argues that reckless high-speed drivers aren't a problem. But there are too few cops on the road to catch them. Now, one way that has been hit upon to reduce smoking and to raise taxes is to increase cigarette taxes. It prices more and more smokers out of the market (one desired outcome) and is a revenue source (another desired outcome).

So use speed cameras the same way. Stop pretending they aren't a revenue source and use them to slow down speeders and get the worst ones off the road (or hit them hard in the wallet to make them slow down), and make some money off them to boot. If people want to keep speeding above a reasonable speed above the speed limit -- my suggestion is 12 miles an hour over the speed limit, using English units -- then make them pay for the privilege of going too fast, endangering their lives and the lives of other drivers, and burning too much gas.

The Brits are up in arms that a speed camera collected a lot of money. Weirdly, I see this is a good thing.

The speed camera trap on the M6