Although speed cameras have been deemed illegal by some U.S. courts because the ticket recipient has no opportunity to question the accuser in person, in various states cameras are being installed liberally. The reason: Unlike patrol cars, cameras use no fuel and the tickets are issued automatically. Illinois is deploying cameras statewide. And in Arizona, authorities have all but admitted that the cameras are a straightforward revenue-generating device. In that state, motorists who receive a photo ticket only pay a fine. They are not penalized with points, which can lead to much higher insurance premiums or license suspensions. And in a further cynical move aimed at subduing local voter backlash, the cameras are deliberately targeting vehicles coming from California. The police have also lowered the trigger point for a ticket issuance from 11 mph to 10 mph. One curious side note to this story is the fact that an Australian firm is supplying the speed cameras being used by U.S. authorities and it receives close to $30 from each ticket issued. Even with that cut going overseas, Arizona apparently expects to pull in $165 million from the use of speed cameras. In some countries, where speed camera use is prevalent, angry motorists have hit back by vandalizing the machines, and there are reports of similar action in the United States. In Britain, authorities in one region where vandalism has been rife are even proposing installation of surveillance cameras to watch over the speed cameras. The fact that authorities have prepared to go to such extreme lengths essentially to protect a revenue stream seems to run counter to the spirit of traffic laws. What's more, this suggests that speed limits are set artificially low in order to maintain that cash flow. Making money bottom lineThe bottom line today for many local governments is how much money can be made from traffic fines, not how traffic laws can be enforced in a sensible, reasonable manner by a well-trained police force. The discretion exercised by a traffic officer in a given situation is an essential part of good policing. Simply issuing automated tickets based on camera evidence of violation of an arbitrary limit, not one based on safety, is guaranteed to annoy motorists, rather than promote safer driving. Moreover, as is clear from the Arizona example, to the authorities it is not the law that counts, but the income. In case Michigan lawmakers are toying with such a concept, let me offer a counter suggestion: If this is all about the money, then let otherwise law-abiding drivers pay a fee up front every year -- say $500 -- and allow those motorists exempt from automated speeding tickets. John McCormick is a columnist for Autos Consumer and can be reached at [email protected]