> > Sorry, but that still isn't a reason to speed. If there is more than one lane, and the guy behind you wants to speed, he will pass you. If there is only one lane, and the guy behind you wants to speed, TOO BAD. If he tailgates you, the worst he can do in an accident is rear-end you, in which case he is at fault.
>
> Over here, if a driver behaved like that, and he got caught on one of the millions of cameras or by a passing panda or camera car, he'd be pulled over and possibly nicked.

Before people ask (and I'm sure you will), "Panda car" refers to a police car (Black and white, see?).

I don't know how widespread this is, but when I was young, most police cars in my local area were white with a fluorescent orange stripe down the middle, so we used to refer to them as "jam sandwiches". Wow - I hadn't thought of that in 15 or 20 years. It's amazing how these details come back to you.

But the main reason I'm replying to this post is that I am confuzzled by British drivers' responses to speed cameras (I'm a non-driver myself). Thanks to their constant whinging, they've managed to force the police to ensure that speed cameras are only erected at accident blackspots, have warning signs clearly signposted, and are themselves clearly visible. So far as I can tell, drivers are upset that the police are trying to catch them breaking the law, and want a fair chance to be allowed to speed.

Personally, I think drivers should be encouraged to treat *every* stretch of road as if it had cameras, and to stop moaning when people try to reduce the accident rate.

winter"Next, people will insist that bank security guards wear blindfolds"mute