Speed Cameras - High Court Verdict
Discussion
Once again, a pressure group has managed to use rhetoric to overturn common sense.
If a driver travelling at 100mph (dangerous) sees a bright yellow speed camera, he is likely to slow down, and hence no longer be dangerous.
If, however, he never sees the camera, never sees the flash, he will continue on his merry way, dangerously.
How the fcuk can Transport 2000 not see this anomaly in their argument. It would seem that they would rather catch a speeder rather than prevent the speeding in the first place.
I always thought that crime prevention was better than catching the criminal after the fact.
If a driver travelling at 100mph (dangerous) sees a bright yellow speed camera, he is likely to slow down, and hence no longer be dangerous.
If, however, he never sees the camera, never sees the flash, he will continue on his merry way, dangerously.
How the fcuk can Transport 2000 not see this anomaly in their argument. It would seem that they would rather catch a speeder rather than prevent the speeding in the first place.
I always thought that crime prevention was better than catching the criminal after the fact.
Transport 2000 are funded by bus and rail companies.
Their one goal is to make using your car so unpleasant, difficult or illegal that you will give up and use one of their filthy oil-burning countryside befouling environmentally unfriendly s**tboxes instead so they can turn a profit.
They are pure evil.
Well...my argument is that public transport should be utilised where its efficient and reduces the fossil fuels we burn by carrying more people for the given quantity burned. This happens on busy commuter routes...and is an excellent idea.
Its environmentally unsound to use a bus to carry three passengers from one rural village to another.
This cameras business is nothing to do with road safety (which is a shame because they could be used for that) and is everything to do with T2000 assisting its evil sponsors in making money.
They can **** off. (Its becoming a bit of trade mark phrase that...oh dear)
Their one goal is to make using your car so unpleasant, difficult or illegal that you will give up and use one of their filthy oil-burning countryside befouling environmentally unfriendly s**tboxes instead so they can turn a profit.
They are pure evil.
Well...my argument is that public transport should be utilised where its efficient and reduces the fossil fuels we burn by carrying more people for the given quantity burned. This happens on busy commuter routes...and is an excellent idea.
Its environmentally unsound to use a bus to carry three passengers from one rural village to another.
This cameras business is nothing to do with road safety (which is a shame because they could be used for that) and is everything to do with T2000 assisting its evil sponsors in making money.
They can **** off. (Its becoming a bit of trade mark phrase that...oh dear)
This wasn't a "High Court Verdict" lads.
They withdrew their case before it was heard in Court, after the Transport Minister agreed that covert cameras can be used if police first get permission from his department.
Vicky Cann, assistant director of Transport 2000, said "This now opens the door for covert enforcement with fixed cameras. This will mean that drivers will no longer be able to assume, even if they cannot see a speed camera, that there is no longer one there."
John Spellar (Transport Minister) said "I am very pleased that Transport 2000 and the Slower Speeds Initiative have decided to withdraw their application for judicial review. It is a shame that their action has meant we have had to waste time and taxpayers' money in defending our policy."
Looks as though he too views them as a pain in the arse.
They withdrew their case before it was heard in Court, after the Transport Minister agreed that covert cameras can be used if police first get permission from his department.
Vicky Cann, assistant director of Transport 2000, said "This now opens the door for covert enforcement with fixed cameras. This will mean that drivers will no longer be able to assume, even if they cannot see a speed camera, that there is no longer one there."
John Spellar (Transport Minister) said "I am very pleased that Transport 2000 and the Slower Speeds Initiative have decided to withdraw their application for judicial review. It is a shame that their action has meant we have had to waste time and taxpayers' money in defending our policy."
Looks as though he too views them as a pain in the arse.
John Spellar (Transport Minister) meant but couldn't say "I am very pleased that Transport 2000 and the Slower Speeds Initiative have decided to withdraw their application for judicial review. It means we can continue scamming motorists and can now hide cameras again so that revenue is protected. A court case may have gone against T2000 should the judge have been compus mentus enough to have seen through their propoganda and we may have seen the legal basis for continuing our scam eroded."
Vicky Cann, assistant director of Transport 2000, said "This now opens the door for covert enforcement with fixed cameras. This will mean that drivers will no longer be able to assume, even if they cannot see a speed camera, that there is no longer one there. Today the UK, tomorrow the world! Bwoahahahaha!"
Vicky Cann, assistant director of Transport 2000, said "This now opens the door for covert enforcement with fixed cameras. This will mean that drivers will no longer be able to assume, even if they cannot see a speed camera, that there is no longer one there. Today the UK, tomorrow the world! Bwoahahahaha!"
Speed Matters | Motoring News | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff