Nope. That is pure revenue raising based on numerals on a sign, whilst employing 'social guilt' for both compliance and acceptance of the 'system'. Its 'simple' and appeals to some character traits. These automated systems reduce the need for operational highway patrol police, which in turn means other important 'driving behaviours' then go unchecked as the years roll on by, - poor lane discipline, aggressive driving and a whole multitude of general driving errors that creep in. The western world has seen this develop since the advent of fixed, 'single purpose' enforcement in relation to speed. In NSW, we use three signs to warn you of fixed camera sites, the higher the applicable speed, the larger the sign. NSW has the best and fairest system in the world. We do this because we generally try to have the fixed speed cameras near as practicable to lengths of road with a recognised crash history, be that fatal/injury etc in outcome. Here, we want folk to pay 'particular attention', so the signs are placed. It is argued that if you miss the three large warning signs, each placed 100 metres apart on approach, in effect the first sign appearing 400 metres before the camera proper in 110km/h zones, that such a driver is not 'paying attention' and is inherently more dangerous 'at any speed', let alone at a speed above the speed-limit, than another driver who is paying attention and is not booked. So, we use the cameras to catch inattentive drivers, albiet using speed as the means to do so. Remove the warning signs, and the system loses that ability to target these core individuals, but also does enforce the 'applied speed limit' which will in all probability will not have been scientifically determined by either the 85th percentile method or even the Hall Matrix application in the first place! Many of our speed-limits are not. This is a secondary, seperate issue. The fixed warning signs are reasonable and fair, and authorities STILL catch multitudes of the blissfully unaware, at each and every site at each day. SPEED is overblown, BEHAVIOUR is where its at:- If hypothetically, I removed overnight ALL speed limits, from both built-up areas and rural zones, I'd gurantee a no real change in statistical measure over a year compared to years preceeding, indeed - in many cases for highways and similar, you'd see a crash reduction as the bunching-up effect is reduced, with resultant less nervous tension, meaning more relaxed drivers and even less exposure to crashes as folk get to their destinations sooner (reduced exposure with an offset), with less fatigue and aggression. On-road behaviour and respect increses through 'necessity', so more use of the indicators, mirrors, concentration is realised. Quite frankly, people don't need the state all that much. We do need the state to give us the road tools (craft/training/tuition) and the vehicle equipment we need (ADR-standards/required equipment etc) and highway patrols to enforce behaviour compliance of ALL driving rules. Of course, I see people go too fast each and every day, these types will do so - speed limit or no speed limit, and will usually in the time and exposure equation, come to grief. Behaviour! Under a 'speed limit' environ, these folk have added 'adrenalin', this means danger, realised when they feel naughty for doing something that might not kill them -but is illegal eg 'speed', but don't want police attention, yet after having spotted police, they do the stupid and flee into the night, often crashing a short time later. The reality is, the speed limit is the legal maximum at which you may drive, and if you exceed that - and are caught, you can consider it voluntary taxation, purely optional. Those delighted with this 'position', can take no victory when you realise that around 80% of crashes with cost outcome occure at or below the applicable speed limit. I note, as expected, no real change (Oh dear - sorry, look, an INCREASE - shock horror) in road toll arising despite NT's new 'get tough' speed-limits which started January 1, 2007 for NT's rural zones, which were previously speed derestricted. (This mirrors Montana's experience, as expected). So up to December 31, 2006 in the rural areas, *you* had to drive at a safe-speed of your choosing (driver onus), this meant 'comfort', rather than relying on random numerals fixed to an aluminium sign, or in legislated law. The rural default in NT is now 110km/h (like WA) and posted 130km/h speed limits apply to key NT highways. Police internet site Speed limits have a place for certain, but their use is overdone and that leads to complacency and disrespect and compliance issues where limits are needed to be followed, and enforcement-of-them means other key driver errors, dangerous ones, remain virtually unchecked by the state. This is why people drive like pigs, because they can, its the 'Australian systematic way'. I can see BIG fine and demerit increases in NSW for certain driving offence behaviours (offences) over the next 2-3 years that go beyong mere 'speed', along with a larger freed-up highway patrol with increased focus beyond 'speed issues'.