Good old Jeremy

[Bagpuss]

Speed camera law means you either have to incriminate yourself or another person, if you can do neither it's up to them to prove who was driving the car. Most times they will push it as far as possible even if they have no evidence, hoping to get the money via intimidation. IMHO, this is an utter bastardisation on how the legal process should work. Guilty until proven innocent, or rather Guilty until we can no longer prove you were or you pay up through the stress of the whole sorry affair.

Don't expect them to be so tenacious if someone robs your house.

[Vito]

[QUOTE=TheFaQQer;298492]I'm not prepared to argue QUOTE]

Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha

[Vito]

If the government's sh1t, get rid of it if there's a better alternative so that the A40 has an 80 mph speed limit. Or should we all choose as individuals which laws we choose to keep or not?

Having said that, I think mass disobedience (although I don't see Clarkson as part of that) has a place in changing laws so maybe I'm talking myself out of it. Maybe I just don't like Clarkson and I'd like to see him done. Nothing wrong with personal vindictiveness IMHO.

Come on Old Greg, you are surely not kidding yourself that we have a genuine choice as to who our government is and that its a true democracy are you?? Thats like being offered the choice of being shot or strangled...my choice would be neither but that is not an option...

[vetran]

Speed cameras could save lives, however they are being abused to provide revenue and an appearance of doing something.

Mobile laser cameras have repeatedly been proved as inaccurate but are still in use.

Councils impose speed limits on the basis of revenue not safety. Why are the press not all over them? Why hasn't this changed?

If the camera can't provide sufficient evidence of who was driving then prosecution shouldn't be pursued. Improve cameras so all people caught can be recognised, enclose picture with speeding fine.

If cameras cannot be justified as the best solution to a traffic problem then they shouldn't be used. Speed sensitive signs with random cameras are more effective in preventing accidents 100% more but they don't make cash or provide prosecutions so they don't satisfy government targets.

Traffic officers are even more effective but their numbers have dropped significantly in the last 10 years.

Its an farce except its not funny, why choose one the least effective solution to save lives and make the plank of your road safety policy? The government is killing thousands needlessly because they want the cash and ccan't be bothered to fix road safety.

[IR35 Avoider]

80 on a road that was not that long ago deemed fit to be 70mph

I've been commuting the length of that road since 1992, and I can confirm that a long part of it that now has a 50 limit used to be 70. And I'm pretty sure that other parts (nearer the elevated section) used to be 60, if not 70.