> > 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.


We have the same whinging drivers here and I find it exactly as stupid as you do. What is the *point* of a sign saying "Speed Camera Ahead"? OK if it makes people slow down and thus reduces the road toll. In that case, though, you could save money by not putting the camera there at all: just plaster the country with signs saying there's one ahead. People in small towns have achieved similar results in slowing down traffic by making a fake speed camera out of a painted wooden box, an orange lightbulb and a big tin can.

You should have heard the outcry from civil liberties groups when the police wanted to put up *hidden* cameras.

The cameras here give an identifiable picture of the driver and can be used in stolen-car or other criminal cases besides speeding offences. You also have the right to get a copy of your speed camera photo, if you want it. I heard of one humorous thinker who received a photo, and responded by sending the court a photo of the money he owed for the fine.

*They* responded by sending him a photo of some handcuffs. He paid up.