Doing the math:

• 100km/h is ~1.6km/minute
• Assuming they place the cameras 10km apart then it should take you a little under 6 minutes to get between the 2 points.
• If you've got there fast enough you have to wait 5 minutes to not be over the average limit, then you were travelling 10km/minute or 600km/h, and yeah, probably should pull over and take a few deep breaths

No one who is going to baulk at this as an attack on their "right" to speed is going to stop to average it out.

Stopping is even more anathema to them than driving under the limit.

They'll just whine about it being "bullshit" to the rest of their mates.

You could, but you will likely remember what the limit is next time.

The idea I think is for people who "normally" drive at 10 or 20kph above the speed limit, encouraging them to normally drive at the speed limit instead.

I guess we also don't know the threshold (1kph over probably won't get you a ticket, but will 5kph?)

That assumes they're actually making a mistake, instead of habitually driving too damn fast because they think they're more in control than physics is.

I think it's more likely to lead to people slowing down and not doing stuff like weaving in and out of traffic so they can keep going fast.

Whenever I feel like traffic is moving too slowly for me, I think about how long it would take me to walk instead. And then I chill out and enjoy my private climate controlled capsule and maybe turn up my music.

I remember them in the UK when we visited as long ago as 2012. My main recollection was that they seemed very effective at causing you to think very carefully about your speed, because in a long line of traffic nobody wants to be the person who drives extra slow to make up for accidentally going too fast a few seconds earlier.

I'm curious to know the reasons for them apparently being hated.

I would take trains if there were reliable services between cities I want to travel between.

If this happens in my lifetime I'd be stoked.

I just want to add that viable alternatives to driving means that those who don't want to drive, or are unable to drive, or who should not be driving, they then do not have to drive.

The people who scraped through and eventually passed the driving test, but even after a number of years driving are barely competent then don't need to be driving.

When driving isn't necessary for personal mobility, then the licensing and testing can be much stricter, or, as strict as necessary for safety without as much backlash.

This. This this this this this

A collision at a lower speed is less severe: simple as that.

A less severe collision lowers the chance of a fatality and lowers the severity of other injuries.

Arguing that an imperfect (or partially effective) measure shouldn't be implemented is disingenuous.

That ignores that they are specifically targetting the highest risk roads, which would likely increase the likelihood of being in that 15%.

I don't really understand this Matthew-Wilson guy's argument:

"Speed cameras seem like a magic solution, but they're not: they alienate ordinary motorists without affecting the behaviour of the tiny minority who cause most fatal crashes," he said. "The sad fact is: the idiots who cause most fatal accidents tend to ignore speed limits anyway." A 2009 AA analysis of fatal accidents found these crashes were caused by "people who don't care about any kind of rules. These are men who speed, drink, don't wear safety belts, have no valid licence or WoF – who are basically renegades."

And then he says

Matthew-Wilson said he favoured speed advisory signs, which simply show motorists what speed they're doing, without issuing a ticket.

"The fact is, most drivers will slow down if you remind them that they're going too fast."

So he's saying people obey road signs, and speeding is only really done by these special outlaw people who dgaf about anything we do so there's no point in even trying?

I kind of wonder what he's basing this theory on.

He cites that study from 16 years ago but if they are able to categorize these people then surely catching them and taking them off the roads would be a good idea?

Realistically, most cars these days have cruise control. If your car doesn't, the car in front of you (or in front of them) probably does. So it's unlikely you'll be unable to get the speed right.

A much harder thing is the mental hurdle of driving at a speed lower than it seems the road can handle (because our assessment is based on everything going right).

Since NZ is almost certainly modeling off overseas implementation, I'm curious; do you know if there's a threshold, like if the average works out to be 1kph over the limit, do you get a ticket?