Neither I nor, I believe, most sensible drivers object to speed limits (we may grumble about limits which seem to have no justifiable road safety purpose); or, within reasonable limits, speed cameras and other methods of speed enforcement. The problem I have, and I think most speed camera opponents would share, if they addressed their mind specifically to the point, is the SCALE of the enforcement activity combined with the indiscriminate nature of the enforcement systems that are now in widespread use.
It only takes a moment's thought to realise that speed limits are not, never have been and never will be anything but a guide to safe speed. In absolute terms, it is reasonable to estimate that millions of speeding offences occur every single day (counting every discrete occasion on which any vehicle, anywhere, exceeds a posted speed limit), but only a vanishingly small percentage of them result in actual harm. If "speed kills" (meaning speed above a posted limit), we would be measuring fatalities in the hundreds of thousands or millions per annum.
Speeding is an absolute offence and it is understandable that it must be so, because enforcement would be almost impossible if it were not. Therefore (unless one takes the view that a crime is a crime only if the offence is detected), there are millions of criminal speeders (reportedly 99% of the driving population) whose culpability in law depends on no more than luck and/or their ability to avoid detection. If it was possible to detect all incidences of 'speeding' and enforce the law accordingly, it is clear that very few drivers would retain their licences for more than a few weeks or even days. If speeding really represents the danger to public safety that the 'speed kills' lobby would have us believe, that would be a desirable outcome. In fact, that would be an absurd result which would be hugely damaging to the country as a whole. (This is not the case with other crimes; for example, if it was possible to detect all incidences of burglary or theft and enforce accordingly, that WOULD be in the public good.) So, in establishing and maintaining this system of law, it must follow that the state (consciously or sub-consciously) acknowledges that it is NOT the legal definition of the offence itself, but the scope and scale of activity employed to detect offences and punish offenders, that defines the real boundary between criminal and non-criminal behaviour. Put another way, it is not exceeding the speed limit which represents the crime but whether the speed limit is exceeded so frequently or flagrantly or unsafely that, at a given level of detectablility of the offences and enforceability of the law, the offender is detected and prosecuted. Therefore, speeding is a "technical" offence.
Hitherto (before widespread use of automated speed detection), a (hypothetical) reasonable careful and reasonably competent driver, who exceeded the speed limit from time to time where the conditions were safe to do so, may well have avoided detection for speeding during an entire driving career without causing harm or alarm to anybody; although, on simple application of law, he would have been guilty of numerous criminal offences. The reason he would have escaped detection and conviction is that the narrow legal definition of the technical offence was balanced by the limitations of the previously existing detection and enforcement mechanisms so that, give or take a bit, the level of detection and punishment of offenders was proportionate to the harm which the offence actually caused. The introduction of systems which, on a previously unimagined scale, are able to detect the 'technical' offences, together with corresponding law enforcement systems, has destroyed that balance and re-defined the boundary between criminal and non-criminal behaviour.
In the binary world of speed enforcement, there can be no distinction between those people who exceed a speed limit and are detected, prosecuted and convicted, and those (reducing in number) who exceed a speed limit and are not caught. Each is equally culpable. Speaking in the House of Commons on 8.12.2003, Caroline Flint, Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department said: "There is no doubt that speeding is a serious criminal offence". Therefore (if the reported figures are correct and, from observation, I do not think it a wild exaggeration), 99% of drivers are serious criminals. This is complete nonsense. The competent and careful actions of a majority of responsible people should obviously be considered legal (unknown author acknowledged). But, according to law, they are not. If, as acknowledged earlier, it is necessary to retain the existing legal definition of a speeding offence in order to preserve a reasonable degree of enforceability, it becomes clear that the pre-existing boundary between criminal and non-criminal behaviour must be restored by removing speed cameras altogether (or drastically reducing their number) or by some other adjustment to the detection and enforcement mechanisms.
The state has re-drawn the boundary of criminal behaviour and seeks to turn a majority of its citzens into serious criminals. That is a bizarre but unavoidable conclusion. We, the public, must turn back the tide. That could be achieved if a sufficiently large number of enforcement targets do no more than require the state to meet the ordinary standards of procedure and evidence which apply in all criminal cases.
The more adventurous among us can and should go further by using every trivial and non-trivial legal device available to frustrate the enforcement process.