We’d like to remind Forumites to please avoid political debate on the Forum.
This is to keep it a safe and useful space for MoneySaving discussions. Threads that are – or become – political in nature may be removed in line with the Forum’s rules. Thank you for your understanding.
📨 Have you signed up to the Forum's new Email Digest yet? Get a selection of trending threads sent straight to your inbox daily, weekly or monthly!
Speed Cameras
Comments
-
You cannot refuse to answer on the grounds of self incrimination.
In a test case taken to Europe by campaigner Idris Francis, the court decided that in the case of motorists, governments could legally ignore the law. They can legally use threats to force you to admit to a crime."Never underestimate the mindless force of a government bureaucracyseeking to expand its power, dominion and budget"Jay Stanley, American Civil Liberties Union.0 -
True.Harry_Flashman wrote: »They're revenue collection cameras nothing more and nothing less ...
The fact that they prefer to catch offenders illustrates the point. If the objective is really cutting speed and saving lives, then have more cameras, and make them obvious. Thus speeding is less likely to occur.
It's also interesting to note that drunken driving is far more dangerous, yet the penalties and thresholds for this remain remarkably low. Why is that?
Could it be that there's no money (and possibly lost votes) in banning drunks for life?"Never underestimate the mindless force of a government bureaucracyseeking to expand its power, dominion and budget"Jay Stanley, American Civil Liberties Union.0
This discussion has been closed.
Confirm your email address to Create Threads and Reply
Categories
- All Categories
- 351.7K Banking & Borrowing
- 253.4K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 454K Spending & Discounts
- 244.7K Work, Benefits & Business
- 600.1K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 177.3K Life & Family
- 258.4K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 16.2K Discuss & Feedback
- 37.6K Read-Only Boards