> 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.

Interesting. We have a mayoral election coming up here in Calgary on the 15th, and one of the candidates is talking about abolishing photo radar (speed cameras, in your words) as one of his platforms--and that alone has made me label him as "evil" and discuss plans for a mudslingling ad campaign against him. I REALLY don't like this guy now, and if he gets elected, I hope to get up the gall to raise a fuss about his policies. Or move.

I also agree with all the stuff wintermute said about why photo radar is good. The big argument that people have against it here seems to be that it doesn't solve the problem, because since the car is identified and not the driver, all that can be done is a ticket can be mailed to the owner of the car (who is responsible for the car apparently) and demerits cannot be handed out to the driver, so the speeding driver can keep on driving--but it is better than NOTHING, and a lot more people get caught this way than what would happen if the only speeding tickets were given out by police--the cameras are just far more efficient.

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

Don "I welcome any intelligent arguments against the concept of photo radar, though--I have just never heard one around here" Monkey