Can someone just check my halo please. I think it's OK but I like to be sure.

I remember once hearing an interview on the radio - (must have been some banal phone in or somesuch) .... a bloke steadfastly and adamantly claimed he had never, ever exceeded the speed limit whilst driving. He was deadly serious. Never, EVER exceeded the speed limit in his entire life.

I honestly don't believe there can be a single individual, who drives a car/van /lorry....even a bicycle, who hasn't allowed their vehicle (OK, maybe the cyclist can claim exemption) to exceed a speed limit - by one mph even - coz even one mph is illegal if we're gonna be pedantic.

I don't have any points, speeding or otherwise, so aren't coming at this as Mr Bitter from Berkhamstead. But you're a brave man (or an extrememly exceptional man who has genuinely never exceeded any speed limit, ever) to put himself on a pedestal and self righteously / sactimoniously preach at others.

Edited by KB. on 23/02/2014 at 16:01

No, I still take issue with your opening post.

I, personally, don't believe speed cameras are an unnecessary evil. (I don't believe parking restrictions are either as it happens). Doesn't mean I like them either but accept them to be a deterrant to a lot of routine speeding (and all day clogging up of streets and carparks), albeit not ideal, but nothing is ideal. I'm not saying that all speed limits are correct or appropriate to their circumstances but know full well that they keep speed down in certain circumstances and, in the case of, say, the M25, are designed to prevent bunching and see-sawing of the traffic by trying to maintain an element of constancy. (Even if they HAVE been switched off for past X number of years with no-one realising it)

But you've taken the trouble to post - simply and starkly, with no further qualification - that if you don't exceed the limit you won't get flashed. And, of course, you won't! But I stand by my assertion that it is self righteous and sanctimoneous to blandly make such a simple statement with no further clarification or illustration of what's in your mind given that I would maintain that it is impossible for a driver to religiously and unwaveriingly ensure that he doesn't, EVER creep over the limit due to his attention being diverted for just a moment in time, and in doing so render himself liable to a ticket.

You've said you have sped yourself so I would be very surprised, IF you were to momentarily transgress and get flashed at 33 in a 30, that you didn't feel slightly aggrieved at getting done when you, almost invariably, stick to the limits and how unfair it was that, on the one occasion you crept over, you got done. Tell me I'm wrong. If i am, I apologise.

"Laws only really work when the public are behind them"

Exactly. If the public are not behind then you end up eventually with the extreme example of Ukraine. I am not saying governments get kicked out becuase of speed limits, but if government starts at imposing ridiculous speed limits and then takes things further with other laws that make regular acts into criminal acts, then you end up with a police state (as Ukraine was until yesterday) and that leads to anarchy.

We need to raise speed limits and explain why the selected limits were set as such - then use cameras to enforse intelligent well considered limits - the selection panel needs to include motoring representatives who understand the needs of motorist - not lowering limits causing misery for motorists and comtempt for the law

Surely if you want to enforce 'intelligent well considered limits' then you need to allow for some lower speed limits as well?

Where speed limits seem appropriate for the type of road and roadside environment, most users will comply; problems arise when a limit is perceived as unrealistic/unnecessarily low, these are where the richest haul of speeding fines are levied.

Nail hit on head!

Shooting fish in a barrel?

Its not like plod to shoot innocent people is it....

Study reports of cases where plod shot someone and the impact points on the victim are often quite a distance apart (arm, leg, chest, someone else).

Under the stress and adrenaline of having a live and possibly armed target I can understand that the results are not always as neat and tidy as one would wish.

I find it difficult to believe that anyone thinks that mobile cameras are anything other than money machines. I've nothing at all against them being used as a deterrent, but thats not the case in nearly all of the locations I see them in are simply sneaky.

They are place in hidden spots, tucked away and often in a transition area (like a 30 leading to a 40) so the chance of 'catching' you are much higher - after all, apart from the insanely self righteous mob, who hasn't crept above 30 before you have actually left the 30 zone? And I'm not talking about silly stuff but as you move from a 30 zone to a 40 or 60 you naturally let the car's speed creep up.

I've said on here before I work in a school on a busy road. The cash van is often here, but a long distance down the road from the school - hidden where the 30 limit turns into a 40 - so you can go past the school as fast as you like and they will catch you as you are slowing down for the roundabout, but possibly still going above 30. Stick that van in a nice visible spot near the school and you have my full support, but of course that won't generate any revenue will it.

A lot of the town here close to schools and quite a few of the residential areas are now limited to 20mph, fair enoughski, but the constant variation is poor. within a mile or so 30-20.30.20 30 40 30 (or the reverse. Crazy!

The " camera "is usually parked on a downhill bit before a dip depending on the direction of travel. (where it is easy to slip a bit over the limit)

i don't mind as i try very very hard to obey the urban limits very strictly nowadays, but the camera is not close to the schools