I mean I don't know how you could think it wouldn't be. Well signposted camera will help you pay more attention to your speed on the slope, it's woods so presumably animals could run out at you.

If you can't see a bright fucking yellow speed camera, and haven't been paying attention to the ten dozen signed, then that's 100% on you.

Why on Earth is this unfounded argument getting upvoted so heavily? Objectively the science says that it reduces injuries and deaths. Per the linked Cochrane systematic review of 35 studies:

Despite the methodological limitations and the variability in degree of signal to noise effect, the consistency of reported reductions in speed and crash outcomes across all studies show that speed cameras are a worthwhile intervention for reducing the number of road traffic injuries and deaths. However, whilst the the evidence base clearly demonstrates a positive direction in the effect, an overall magnitude of this effect is currently not deducible due to heterogeneity and lack of methodological rigour. More studies of a scientifically rigorous and homogenous nature are necessary, to provide the answer to the magnitude of effect.

People on the Internet will just upvote the most confidently incorrect shit as long as it has enough confidence behind it and it vaguely aligns with their preconceptions, I swear.

Maybe just drive the speed limit?

If that were the case, they would be hidden.

They are a deterrent for speeding most of all.

In the UK (Where the op picture is) the police cannot collect the revenue from cameras and other fines. It all goes to the gov so the cops have zero financial incentive to install speed cameras.

They do not exist solely to collect revenue, although they certainly do that as well. They have been proven time and again to reduce speeding and fatalities, as other commenters in this thread have pointed out. As far as using traffic cameras to reduce police forces, I haven't been able to find that exactly, but there are plenty of examples of deploying traffic cameras to work around a shortage of officers which works out to the same thing.

You are allowed to drive the speed limit, even if you're poor 😇

Would it generate revenue if people didn't feel so entitled to put others' lives in greater jeopardy to get to their destination 30 seconds faster? No? Not speeding is the easiest thing in the world; it's an objective number not to exceed that you directly control and that your car tells you in real time, but at least in the US, drivers are in an arms race to see what kind of bullshit they can get away with, making cops less likely to pull them over. This means that when the average driver can – without warning and with precision – be dinged for speeding, they throw a tantrum about it and act like they've been victimized.

Ticketing does disproportionately affect the poor, and we should reform ticketing to change based on income, but can you seriously tell me with a straight face that the people doing this are doing it because they're protesting socioeconomic injustice? Or because they're entitled drivers who want to be able to speed with impunity? It's the drivers here being entitled and thinking that they're above the law. Personal vehicles are a privilege, not a right, but drivers don't treat it like one. Over 100 people per day die to motor vehicle crashes in the US alone, and kinetic energy increases with the square of velocity; if drivers don't like speed limits, they're more than welcome to stay off the streets and stop thinking their personal convenience trumps people's right to life.

1. if you drive at the speed limit you won't have a problem

2. the speed camera will be well signposted (car on the left so this is the UK) while it's not a legal requirement that they have signposts I've never come across a fixed camera that isn't

3. If you don't break the law you won't have a problem

4. the camera is painted bright yellow for visibility

5. once again for the those at the back who are hard of thinking: don't speed and you won't get fined

6. usually for first time offences if you're just a bit over the limit you'll get the option of a speed awareness course.

7. You've probably come to expect odd numbered points to tell you to not break the law by now, so I'll mix it up: if you get caught breaking the law and get a slap on the wrist, don't keep breaking the law.

I do agree though that the fining structure should be reformed, it should be a percentage of income with some provision in place so the super rich can't get out of paying their appropriate share too.

If only speed cameras worked to lower the speed anyone travels at

They do. They objectively do. How are there so many people all over this thread just confidently asserting complete, disprovable bullshit, and why is it getting upvoted? From the Cochrane systematic review:

Thirty five studies met the inclusion criteria. Compared with controls, the relative reduction in average speed ranged from 1% to 15% and the reduction in proportion of vehicles speeding ranged from 14% to 65%. In the vicinity of camera sites, the pre/post reductions ranged from 8% to 49% for all crashes and 11% to 44% for fatal and serious injury crashes. Compared with controls, the relative improvement in pre/post injury crash proportions ranged from 8% to 50%.

Authors' conclusions: Despite the methodological limitations and the variability in degree of signal to noise effect, the consistency of reported reductions in speed and crash outcomes across all studies show that speed cameras are a worthwhile intervention for reducing the number of road traffic injuries and deaths. However, whilst the the evidence base clearly demonstrates a positive direction in the effect, an overall magnitude of this effect is currently not deducible due to heterogeneity and lack of methodological rigour. More studies of a scientifically rigorous and homogenous nature are necessary, to provide the answer to the magnitude of effect.