"Joe" wrote in message
...
Why? If you don't reach the second camera within X seconds you haven't
broken the law, so your number can be discarded

Because People could not slow down for the cameras and turn off:

If you're suggesting that people will whizz past the first camera and then
use some rat run to avoid the second, the rat run would consume more time
than staying on the main road and obeying the speed limit, so I can't see
the point of anyone doing that. If you're talking about people whose
destination is in the side road, then okay, SPECS won't catch them, but even
on a long road with no side roads, people whose house is within the SPECS
pair will never be caught for speeding. At least it will stop most people
from speeding, whereas the current
foot-on-the-floor-whoops-there's-a-gatso-slam-on-the-brakes-okay-foot-on-the
-floor-again style of driving makes the law into a laughing stock.

The first place they should put SPECS is on every road currently blighted
with speed humps, so they can remove the bloody things. Does anyone know the
relative cost of SPECS versus speed humps?

--
John Rowland - Spamtrapped
Transport Plans for the London Area, updated 2001
http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Acro...69/tpftla.html
A man's vehicle is a symbol of his manhood.
That's why my vehicle's the Piccadilly Line -
It's the size of a county and it comes every two and a half minutes