Unfair treatment

[dreadnought]

Saw this on the Sussex Safety Camera site.
www.sussexsafetycameras.gov.uk/faq.html

"Will the new system mean the imposition of zero tolerance?"
"No. The police have made it clear they will not prosecute people who drive just over the speed limit."

By such a statement, the partnership could be leaving itself wide open to claims of unfair treatment. Drivers prosecuted in Sussex for doing lets say 37mph in a 30 zone may claim that people doing 33mph, still technically breaking the law, are let off.

Note how the piece omits to say what they consider "just over the speed linit" to be.

dreadnought

[Alan420]

Link brings up the 'something aint right here' page.

[pies]

Gateway timeout here

[5ltr-chim]

there's no l on the end
(unless you get 12 points! )

www.sussexsafetycameras.gov.uk/faq.htm

Extract from the last one ..

Variable speed limiters are being investigated but are only at the trial stage and so cannot solve our present problem in the short term

Hmmm don't like sound of this "short term" ..

[Teppic]

Relax.

If everyone in the country had a speed limiter, then no-one would be able to break the speed limits.

In that event, the police would lose a very large chunk of revenue as they wouldn't be able to zap anyone for speeding.

Therefore, they are unlikely to be introduced!

[dick dastardly]

www.sussexsafetycameras.gov.uk/faq.htm

I like this quote form the site's FAQ's:

"Is this not just a revenue raising exercise - another "back door tax"?

No. The revenue from the cameras will only be used for camera funding."

They make so much money that this means within 6 months there's one per rosd.

[james_j]

Note that on the "safety" camera site, there is a facility to send them comments on the scheme.

>> Edited by james_j on Monday 5th May 07:29