In Italy speeding fines are a fixed amount based on how far over the limit you're going, which makes them a regressive tax on going fast - wealthy people can sinply afford to speed as much as they like while the poor suffer. That woman they quoted who clearly thought the cameras would meaningfully deter speeding was full of shit; the cameras are there to generate revenue, not reduce speeding.
Just because some rich people can effectively ignore laws does not make fines for breaking those laws a tax. Not being financially able to ignore speed limits isn't "suffering".
I believe it's more complex than this: governments have some obligation to create infrastructure that's safe for everybody. Simply slapping a speed camera to fine drivers doesn't make the road safer. By comparison, the Dutch have a terrific way of designing roads in such a way that drivers adapt to the conditions, for instance through the road surface and deliberately placing vegetation near the road to help drivers accurately perceive their speed.
None of this is relevant to my comment. The Dutch don't just not have speed limits, they have speed limits AND traffic calming. And speed cameras do make roads safer:
Not everything has to be a debate; my comment is simply there to add to the conversation in the thread. Perhaps it can be argued that speed cameras in themselves are a form of traffic calming.
They do. Driving licenses are a point based system, points are taken proportionately to the infraction, they are slowly added over time if no infraction happened in the time range, but there is a cap. Once they get to zero your driving license is suspended.