And I am also a stronger beliver in getting rid of the law that states that the police has to display signs saying that there are speed cameras there, whether there temporary or perminant.
That's something which I find dictinctly odd. Downright bizarre, in fact.
If you had just thrown a brick through a jewelry store window when you felt the long arm of the law on your shoulder, could you get out of trouble by arguing that the arrest was unfair because there weren't signs posted in the street saying the police might be looking for people breaking into stores? Of course not. So what twisted logic is it that demands signs for speed cameras?
I do not believe that in general the speed limits in this country are in any way onerous. They're often inconsistent and illogical, but rarely unreasonably low for the conditions.
My main concern with speed cameras, and the penalties associated with them, is that they lack any trace of discretion. The driver who does not set out to speed but accidentally strays to 36 mph for 100 yards on one occasion before noticing and easing off (and that's most of us, at some time or another) gets hit with exactly the same penalty as the driver who deliberately drives the whole way at 50 mph. Is that fair?
When speeds were enforced solely by police officers on the beat, and when those officers still had some common sense, they could easily tell those two driver apart and apply discretion. That's completely gone with the automated systems.
So in general, I have sympathy with somebody who gets snapped during an accidental short period of slightly excess speed because of the unfairness of the punishment which is handed out to him. But if you go speeding right through a 30 mph zone at 50 mph, then I really don't think you have much to complain about when the ticket arrives.
than 40 years ago. Back then they had no speed limit on some roads as it was only introduced during the oil crisis.
The 70 mph speed limit was introduced in 1965, applying at that time to all previously unrestricted roads.