tim wrote:
"Colin McKenzie" wrote in message
Martin Underwood wrote:
I didn't know this. I suppose it fits in with the modern ruling that speed
cameras should be made highly visible so they act as a deterrent, on the
lines that it's better to slow cars down than simply to penalise the drivers
after the event for speeding.

An argument which is of course complete drivel.

eh? surely this is always the case. Lets replace speed with murder.

Do you think that it is drivel to say:
It is better to discourage murder than to simply peanilise the murderer?

No, the fallacy lies elsewhere.

"We don't want you to speed here, so we'll put up numbers in big round
signs."

"But we REALLY don't want you to speed here, so we'll put up a big
yellow camera."

Prevention of law-breaking is best achieved if potential law-breakers
believe there's a real chance of being caught - whatever the crime and
wherever it's committed.

And for one of the other responders to my comment, the argument about
setting appropriate speed limits is completely separate from the
argument about enforcing the limits set.

Colin McKenzie