[P6LTD351]

Originally Posted by Jim Goose

Er... I think you need a better arguement if you want to win a debate about speed cameras? (and no I am not a supporter of them)



The camera takes a photo of you when you break the speed limit. A policeman pulls you over when they catch you on radar/lazer..... There is no difference there. You can argue about calibration, how the device is used etc etc... The device proves you broke the speed limit (and yes i know you can argue again about accuracy etc).



What does this have to do with speed cameras?
Speed limits were set in road laws decades before people thought of speed cameras. Speed limits were set as part of the road rules.
As part of your arguement are you saying we should have no road rules?
100kmh in a school zone? No traffic lights?




There is no assumption of anything... you broke the law and you get punished. Speed limits were set in order to try and find a balance to help traffic flow and lower the possibility of serious injury where applicable.. ie 60kmh in a built up area where there are a lot of people walking, lots of buildings etc.... it has nothing to do with speed cameras.

Your arguement seems to be totally based on the speed limit (which we have had long before cameras came along). You should be argueing about their location, the relationship between them and so-called accident statistics, how its a blatent revenue raiser.......

Very well said