On Sun, 19 Oct 2003 10:43:04 GMT, "Martin Underwood"
wrote:

Really? So you'd prefer to let drivers speed and then penalise them
afterwards, rather than give them every incentive and reminder not to speed
in the first place?snip

This is not the intention of covert cameras. The intention is that
they are hidden, so to avoid a fine the driver would obey the limit at
all times, rather than emergency brake on seeing a camera (*very*
dangerous and liable to cause accidents[1]) as at present.

The standard of driving through 50 limits on motorways has, in my
mind, increased substantially since SPECS cameras started to replace
Gatsos, stopping this accelerate-brake business. On a motorway, it
also reduces the number of jams caused by the brake-light effect.

Of course, this kind of thing should be accompanied with increases in
the speed limit where appropriate. The speed limit should be such
that it is the maximum safe speed for that location (with certain
assumptions about the vehicle concerned). It should not be
ridiculously low as it is in places.

[1] Yes, I know, you should drive such that if the car in front
stopped dead (e.g. by hitting an obstacle) you would be able to as
well. However, there are too many people who drive so close that
*touching* the brakes would result in a rear-ending. Of course, it'd
be the rear-ender who paid the bill (assuming they were insured), but
it's still not worth the hassle...

Neil

--
Neil Williams
is a valid email address, but is sent to /dev/null.
Try my first name at the above domain instead if you want to e-mail me.