[Closed] speed camera thieves

3 points;

1) wrong forum
2) if you think you were actually speeding pay up and shut up
3) might be better to ask them that, they'll know the law better than a load of IT support staff.

Oh no here we go again.
I'd say pay it or get some legal advice.

Thanks wwaswasock.

1) sorry
2) works van so was it me?
3) they are only interested in you owning up.

was naively hoping for some (free!)helpful advice!

"works van was it me?"

memory as well as speed problems, then.

I've given you free advice, I'll repeat it;

If you think it was you then take the punishment.

If you want more evidence ask the police.

Your tone indicates that you were most likely driving and going too fast but you wonder whether they can prove it. But calling it a 'speed tax'? MTFU, if you want to break the law you must pay the penalty. You'd presumably not accept a lift from somebody 'only' 10% over the legal booze limit so where is the difference?

speed tax

🙄

Valid question.

Try here for an answer - http://www.pepipoo.com/

Cheers

The Police are obliged to disclose whatever evidence they have. If they can't evidence it, then it'll go nowhere in court.

The S.172 notice will have been sent to the registered keeper of the van. Presumably it's your company's transport dept. They will have nominated you based on their records. Or they may have just asked you and you coughed it? Anyway, someone's id'd you as the driver, which means that you are responsible for the offence. If, after you receive an NIP/S.172 notice you decide to "forget", or plain simple lie about it, then you'll still go to court and then you can be up in front of the magistrate for offering/making a false statement, perverting the course of justice, police obstruction... the list goes on.

That said, if you decide to go to court be prepared for more than 3 points and £60 fine.

as it's a company van then if the registered keeper cannot provide evidence as to who the driver was at the time (all companies should keep a log) then they'll get fined. I wouldn't have thought you'd keep your job for long.

i'm pretty sure that there is a standard get out clause for a white van on a sarnie run - you just write "we've got a job to do mate" on the form

Error number one; getting caught!
Error number 2; expecting sensible comments from the 'hollier than thou ****tard idiots' on here!

Your defense is this, innocent untill proven guilty, simple. No evidence, no case against you. Enquire about it again, say it's to refresh your memory or something like that.

mrmichaelwright has it. If you try to duck out of it your company will just get the fine. I am sure your boss will be just as evil as any £60 fine and 3pts so it may be worthwhile just taking it. That is unless you 100% think it wasnt you. Otherwise pay up and take your medicine.

Speed tax - Plonker tax

I speed regularly on dual carriageways.

I wouldn't be trying to find a get-out on here if I got caught though - I'd be guilty and I'd admit my guilt, not ask for it to be proven.

the company will get a lot more than a £60 fine

i believe it's up to £5000

OP- what was the limit and your recorded speed?

For the record, I try to never go over 30 in a 30. On a local dual carriageway though I must admit I do regularly go way over the limit.

MidLifeCyclist - Member

Try here for an answer - http://www.pepipoo.com/

Handy tips...

Hora don't look, MIKA is an Administrator

Quote from the Western morning news a couple of years ago:
Speeding Charge Dropped After Photos Demanded
Police have withdrawn a speeding prosecution without explanation after a driver asked for photographic evidence of the 'offence'. Whilst driving through roadworks on the A30, driver Martin Shirley was surprised to see a speed camera flash as he was carefully observing the 30mph speed limit. When a notice of intended prosecution arrived he asked to see the photographs. The police responded by saying they had made a mistake, and dropped the charge.
The moral of this story is simple: always ask to see photographic evidence of any alleged speeding offence.

I still can't work out who stole the speed camera??

speed tax

c**t tax, more like.

* sighs heavily***
reading this on holiday and it makes me sad...
surfs flat as a pancake.....
some bloke asks for some friendly advice and gets......well you know!

it's not looking good for this "friendly & sociable" lifestyle is it!
lets just hope some of the more negative ****tards on here get honourable mentions at the next Darwin awards!

I think if the OP hadn't given the impression of disliking the speeding laws and their implementation by referring to it as 'speeding tax' then the reaction would have been a little different.

I think I read somewhere that they have a legal requirement to give you a copy of the evidence if you request it. If they have lost it, I dont see how they can legally follow through. Thats if I have remembered correctly. There used to be guidence sites on the internet about speed camera fines or give the citizens advice beaureu a ring.

Speeding Charge Dropped After Photos Demanded
Police have withdrawn a speeding prosecution without explanation after a driver asked for photographic evidence of the 'offence'. Whilst driving through roadworks on the A30, driver Martin Shirley was surprised to see a speed camera flash as he was carefully observing the 30mph speed limit. When a notice of intended prosecution arrived he asked to see the photographs. The police responded by saying they had made a mistake, and dropped the charge.
The moral of this story is simple: always ask to see photographic evidence of any alleged speeding offence.

Another advantage to keeping within the limit: if plod try to nick you, they will fail. By contrast, I strongly suspect that the OP knows he was speeding, and is trying to wriggle out of it.

Why not check out the local Safety Camera Partnership website for some more information. They'll have all the laws and many will also have the certifications for all the cameras they operate. They are the ones who process the speeding tickets for these cameras, they should all have photos if there is film in the camera (assuming it's not digital).

You can be a right bunch of cock-ends on here some times!

The law is the law, to be followed by both parties. One aspect of the law is innocent until proven guilty. It means that you are inoccent of a crime, regardless of whether you committed the offence or not if it cannot be proven. If there are no photographs then, in Law, there was no crime.

So the Police/CPS are alledging a crime took place, yet the law says its only a crime if theres evidence, but the signs are that there is no evidence, regardless of how fast whoever was driving. It looks likely that despite all the high-horse bollocks thats been written above that there was no crime committed according to the Law.

Some helpful advice:

If it's not been done already, you do need to admit that you were driving at the time of the alledged offence. If you don't, you'll have to deal with your employer, who would have committed an offence.

Then you need to decide whether to ask to see the evidence or not. If you ask to see the evidence you'll lose the option of paying £60 and taking 3 points. But if there is no evidence you will have fun in court, if it gets that far. If there is evidence, but the NIP says no photos are available, then thats a complicated legal argument for a lay-man to make in court, but possibly not beyond you, though the website mentioned above will be able to help with that.

To the rest of you, stop pretending you never speed, you have. Stop pretending you've never broken any of the laws of the road, you have. Speed doesn't kill, shit driving does, the sooner people stop eating the government revenue-raising bullshit, the sooner road deaths will fall. A speed camera will not protect you from the morons

Speed doesn't kill

Yes it does. And exceeding the posted limit [i]is[/i] shit driving.

I've been quite open about the fact I speed.

I've been equally open in saying if he knows it was him and that he was speeding he should pay up and accept it, not try and wriggle.

I speed all the time when i deem it not to be dangerous. If i got caught however i wouldn't feel i was being 'taxed', i'd feel i was being punished for the law i had broken

Here goes my 5-penneth worth/rant...

It is a tax. (full stop) to think it relates to safely is just gullible/naive. Why are there so many speed cameras in 'safe' places like motorways, when there are none outside schools?? (where there bloody well should be some).

Anything (such as speed cameras) which take your eyes off the road is actually dangerous. Stop watching your speedo to keep at exactly 30/50/60/70 and watch the road in front of you !!

The AA say that only 15% of accidents are a result of excessive speed - so what is the rest of the 85% due to ? Shit driving, correct. Any other 'statistics' are government derived propaganda.

Also...
Motorway speed limits were derived in 1965 when driving at 70mph on the motorway (in your pram-wheeled Austin something-or-other) was actually damgerous. If you take the view that the more speed the more dangerous, then why don;t we all drive at 20mph? With regards to safety, as cars are waaaaaaay more safe than they were in 1965, the speed limits should have been raised appropriately in line with car safety. Speed limit should be dependent on what cra you're driving, Top Gear showed a thing a while back where a top car (911 or Merc, can;t remember) went from 120 to 0 in less distance than the highway code says should take a car from 60 to stop in...

Need I go on?

A work colleague of mine asked to see the evidence (all based on the various interweb whinge pages he viewed, filled with people trying to dodge the points and the fine), instead of offering up the evidence the filth offered him a £70 speeding awareness course and no points as he was obviously too much bother to convict…

He took the £70 course as it kept his licence clean, but you are chancing it by challenging the fixed penalty notice in this way, they like to threaten extra points and fines for contesting, but it all comes down to which force is bollocking you and weather they need money or convictions to keep their Bosses happy…

Best solution is not to speed in the first place, but anyone who claims to always drive within all posted limits at all times is either a liar or stunningly dull… FACT!

Speed doesn't kill, shit driving does,

Breaking the speed limit while being unobservant enough to know that there is a speed camera [i]is[/i] shit driving.

Speed limits are arbitrary lines drawn in the sand, to say that driving a fraction above the line is shit driving, while a fraction below isn't is complete idiocy.

I'd say that the person looking at the road, other road users, checking their mirrors etc is less likely to have an accident than the person who spends half their time looking at the speedo and the other half checking for cameras.

i'd say if you are an even vaguely capable driver then doing all of what you say whilst maintaining a consistent speed should come pretty damn easily to you

Stop watching your speedo to keep at exactly 30/50/60/70 and watch the road in front of you !!

If you can't keep within the limit, and observe the road at the same time, then I can only assume that you haven't passed your driving test.

It is all getting a bit Paul Smith here, isn't it?

Top Gear showed a thing a while back where a top car (911 or Merc, can;t remember) went from 120 to 0 in less distance than the highway code says should take a car from 60 to stop in...

That's all very well when you're all prepared to brake the moment you pass a couple of cones. In reality you have to factor in reaction time - if that other car pulls out in front of you, the distance travelled at 120mph while you're reacting and getting on the brakes is a lot more than it is at 60.

You also brake exponentially, so your rate of speed loss is much greater as you slow down. So 40mph as opposed to 30mph can actually make a huge difference in an accident.

This talk about car safety misses the rather important point that people haven't improved commensurately. Pedestrians and cyclists still squash just as easily, and people still take just as long to hit the brake pedal. There are also rather more cars on the road than in 1965. In any case, arguing for a speed limit increase because fewer people die on the roads these days, doesn't sound like much of an argument to me.

40 vs. 30, 30 vs. 20 etc - yes, absolutely WHERE NECCESSARY/SENSIBLE, outside schools, built up areas, estates etc , but on dual carriageways/motorways, nooooo, it's just taxing the British motorist and has nowt to do with speed. The Autobahns (with no sped limits in certain sections) have vastly superior safety records.

Speed is not the killer, it's the difference in speed which causes a crash. If everyone is toddling along nicely at 90, where's the problem. If someone is toddling along at 90 in the night, when it's wet, in fog, they're just a tw*t and deserve to crash (injuring no-one else of course)

Of course, the reaction time is going to be the same as it always was, but (this is a hypothetical debate of course as no Govt will ever implement it) if common sense were to be the driving (pardon the pun) factor, speed limits would be car/driver specific. This is part true - I remember the case a few years back where a guy got off a fine doing 90+ on the motorway because he's passed his Advanced Driver course.

People came out with similar nonsense when drink driving rules were toughened up. You only have to watch old TV programs (e.g. The Likely Lads) to see lots of people thought it was acceptable.

No-ones perfect, everyone is capable of making a mistake. Lower speeds mean the consequences will be less severe when this happens. Sounds sensible to me.

That autobahn story is a bit of a myth. Less accidents possibly, greater impact, definitely.

Cameras are also placed for cornering speeds and not just straight line speeds, i.e. M60

1. Our motorways are safer than the autobahns.
2. Increasing speed increases the severity of an accident when one does occur.
3. Higher speeds reduce the carrying capacity of our roads.
4. Higher speeds consume more fuel and cause more pollution.

And it makes **** all difference to your journey time.

FWIW How many of you know if your car gets up to 100mph? Where did you check? German autobahns? Right, that's Alpin, me, a few others. The majority use UK motorways, M40 seems the prime example. Stop pretending you obey the speed limits, virtually nobody does (apart from L-plated cars and the Police). We all are guilty of exceeding the limit, but for some 3 extra points might mean no licence at all.

I get a bit fed up with some of the nonsense on here. Guy asks a reasonable question and all these numpty's turn up with their "holier than thou" cards. There are two points here - 1) some poeple have different opinions to mine. Great, lets hear them, it may even inform me. 2) some people should learn some manners - I'm fairly sure that we're all reasonable people and we wouldn't speak like this to someone's face.

In amongst the replies here are some helpful answers - I'm a bored of trolling through the vitriol to find them.

I feel a bit sorry for the OP actually - all hes got is a load of sarcastic sh1tty comments from a bunch of bitter unhelpful Daily Wail readers. I dont approve of law breaking in any form but I do approve of good manners - there is no need for all this BS. Ill echo faddas last sentiment and say Im sure that we are all reasonable people & wouldnt use the tone thats been used in some of the posts face to face. Manners cost nothing.

Honestly who here hasnt broken the law in some way? Hmm? Anyone?

Stones & glass houses spring to mind.

Yup - there seems to be plenty on here that give [url= ]this theory[/url] some validity

Jonjones:"Anything (such as speed cameras) which take your eyes off the road is actually dangerous. Stop watching your speedo to keep at exactly 30/50/60/70 and watch the road in front of you !"

Almost right. Alternatively, "stop driving at exactly 30/50/60/70." I just cringe when I hear people come out with "Oh, you need to watch the speedo all the time now, if your speed drifts 3mph over you're in trouble", if you're so worried stop treating the speed limit as a target. Very simple concept. If you're worried your speed might drift to 73mph, drive at 67mph. It's allowed.

Anyhoo. Speed addict/repeat offender here so I'm not going to take the high moral tone on speeders, I've got no problem with speeding, just with speeding and being a c. Well, actually just with being a c now I think about it, forget the speeding.

As for the responses in this thread, it proves you don't have to be a speeder to be a c*** But I reckon the way the question was asked is partly the reason for that, "thieves" and "tax" was always going to provoke a reaction. If you want friendly advice there's ways to get it.

I drove from Carlisle to Bristol once in under 4 hours. 😀

I had a fixed penalty notice in July. I asked for the photo as that particular weekend it could have been me or my old man driving. They said there was no clear view of the driver. I pointed out that if I claimed that my father was driving it and it had actually been me, it would be an offense. They solemnly agreed - a very serious matter. I said that if it had been my father driving and I said it was me, it would also have to be an offense. I asked them again to provide evidence that an offence had been committed. They dropped the case.

OK 2 things reeely getting my goat in this thread

[i]It's a speed [b]LIMIT[/b] not a [b]TARGET[/b][/i], if the limit was 30 theres nothing stoping you driving at 20-25 other than your own ego telling you that you'r so important you need to get there a few second quicker.

As for the [b][i]Autobahn safety record[/i][/b], are you serious?
a) most of them now have a limit due to the huge number of deaths relative to other countries.
b) I've never seen a fatality on a british motorway despite tens of thousands of miles. I've done a couple of hundred on an 'unlimited' autobahn, the road was closed twice for fatal accidents.

Have you ever sat in the slow lane on the motorway? You get where your going a few minutes later, but its a whole lot less stressfull, no white vans, no BMW's, no Audi's, just sit back and relax.

TINAS - doing 56 on the motorway most weekends, never has a speeding ticket and never crashed (touch wood)

Bold text & caps so early in the morning - you're a tiger grrrrrrrrrr...

lay off the coffee a bit 😉

b) I've never seen a fatality on a british motorway despite tens of thousands of miles. I've done a couple of hundred on an 'unlimited' autobahn, the road was closed twice for fatal accidents.

Well that clinches it then. It's probably just as well you sit at 56mph, sounds like your brain wouldn't be capable of operating at higher speeds 😉

It is a tax. (full stop) to think it relates to safely is just gullible/naive

Around 85% of drivers have never had a speeding ticket. You'd think otherwise, but thats because people who get caught squeal so much about it that you'd think it was common place. Why devise a tax that so few people have to pay? Thats not 15% of driver paying the 'tax' every year, thats 15% who have [i]ever[/i] paid the 'tax' whether thats being caught by a camera, or being caught more sportingly (and time consumingly) by the fuzz.

The implimentation of average speed cameras (with no photos) near me have resulted in massive drop in the number of road crash related funerals, widows, orphans, smashed bodies and smashed lives, all from one short stretch of road. Its a success thats difficult to 'feel' because who knows who's lives / livelyhoods have been saved? Could it be mine? My GF's? My little nephew's? My Parents? I bunch of people who I'll never know? Yeah probably a bunch of people I'll never know, so thats fine.

Its the randomness of the risk that makes people simply not care, about themselves or the countless meaningless strangers on the roads and pavements around them, they're all idiots anyway. ****em. So the success of camera schemes is never seen as something to party about, even though saving quantifiable numbers of lives would be an act worthy of celebration and honour in any other instance. You could get a medal for it, or an OBE, a roundabout named after you. A national holiday in your honour.

I do tend to think that a financial penalty for speeding offences is failing though. Being found guilty of any crime should be a massive social taboo. Certainly nothing to bleat about, and in some cases even brag about.

When I need to make declarations of my worthiness/ suitablilty - on a job application or insurance application for instance. I'm asked if I have any criminal convictions, but told to except any motoring convictions. Why? They should be in there. They shouldn't be anything to be saved the shame of. Not any more or less than shoplifting or fraud or you know... victimless stuff.

Heres an off the cuff proposal.

If we consider that 12 points= 36 month ban

So each of the those points is actually worth 3 months in the end. But why wait til the end

You get caught speeding. Get 3 points. Get 9 month ban.

Two years later you get caught speeding again with 3 points still on your licence. 3 points+3 points = 18 month ban

And so on

I'd actually make it week per point (up until you hit 12 point/ 36 months) its plenty to get the idea across. A little ban, a little loss of liberty, compromise your home, social, work life. Shamefacedly explain your friends/family/children/employer/client that sorry, can't do that/go there because I'm not considered fit too.

How embarrassing.

Its a bloody stealth holiday, thats what it is. Its the government forcing us to take gardening leave and alphabetise our CD collection, its some sick social engineering experiment to make me use public transport and try to find ways of not making eye contact with people in case they talk to me. You'd be naive to think otherwise.

So quit your bleating in case one day I end up in charge 😀

Have you ever sat in the slow lane on the motorway? You get where your going a few minutes later, but its a whole lot less stressfull, no white vans, no BMW's, no Audi's, just sit back and relax.

I agreed with you up til that point, sitting in the inside lane is stressful and does take a lot longer to get where you're going. If I take my journey to see my family, for example, its 210 miles. At 56 sat quietly between the wagons I can get a nice 60mpg but it takes me 3:45 to get there. At 75 I get ~55mpg and I get home in about 2:50. That's an hour or so more time I have to stop and have food/coffee after work on a friday before going down, or an hour earlier I get to stop driving so I'm not still driving at midnight and waking people up when I get in. There's the incentive to hit the limit if at all possible, as my likelyhood of being in an accident is remarkably low.

Any speed inbetween (which is what I normally do, I like to stick to 65 for a compromise) and I'm furiously popping in and out of the lanes trying to avoid people flying at 75 and wagons trundling at 55. It's far more stressful. In my other car I could, and did (not proud of it etc, it was just the least-stress situation and I never forced anyone out of the way or tailgated etc), quite happily sit at 100 in the outside lane passing just about every car on the road and people tend to see your rapid closing speed and move left. When pootling along at 3mph more than the person in front you bearly close on them and they do not pull into the middle lane. If everyone did 100 it'd not work though. My current car an only just scrape past 90 so it never gets used anywhere near that.

Road deaths nationally have dropped from 3421 in 1998 to 3172 in 2006 - a reduction of seven per cent.

Where I live [Co. Durham] we don't have any fixed cameras, just one mobile unit & the death toll here has reduced by over 40%
The only other county not using fixed cameras is North Yorks, they reduced deaths by some 14% over the same period

Both chief constables put the reduction down to good policing rather than relying on the 'big stick approach'

Perhaps the people who choose to pay this extra 'tax' should be commended for their generosity?

Looking at national figures for road deaths means you are counting the stretches for roads that are policed along with the stretches that aren't. The actual areas of roads that are covered by cameras is miniscule, even when the cameras are roving. So a 7% or even 14% shift isn't really the picture.

The average speed scheme near me has seen 7 funerals in a period where you would have previously expected 22. So thats a huge shift, although the cameras have only been there a few years, so I'd want to see longer term stats. But even though the cameras cover quite a long stretch of road, its only about 5 miles, so its still only a tiny percentage of the roads in the region, the death/ accident rate elsewhere will (presumably) be unchanged. Averaged out it makes cameras seem less effective than they actually are.

Looking at the figures some more

Perhaps the most vociferous supporters of speed camera policing - North Wales - unfortunately bucked the national trend & saw a 4% rise in road deaths last year & a 18% rise in serious injuries.

I really don't believe that cameras make the roads any safer

I think cameras would make more of a difference if the prospect of getting caught was terrifying

Fixed location cameras are as pointless as speed humps in a 30 zone. Drivers learn where they are, slow for that tiny section and then race between them to make up time. Its human nature.

How about if the cameras could launch missiles instead of post fines? How about if we replaced speedy bumps with hidden, velocity sensitive IEDs.

How about if everyone had to drive about with their own name and address and their granny's phone number displayed clearly on their car rather than just a reg number, with an open invitation to come and discuss it if your driving upsets anyone.

I really don't believe that cameras make the roads any safer

They catch people speeding in specific locations. They're just one tool for road policing, or should be.

As for the OP, anyone who thinks that speed cameras are a tax (a tax on stupidity?) deserves what's coming to them.

their granny's phone number displayed clearly on their car rather than just a reg number, with an open invitation to come and discuss it if your driving upsets anyone.

Not sure she'd answer if they tried to discuss it.

Not sure she'd answer if they tried to discuss it.

Ok just the missiles and bombs then 🙂

if the limit was 30 theres nothing stoping you driving at 20-25 other than your own ego telling you that you'r so important you need to get there a few second quicker

*Unless there is a good reason, for example, you are driving down a narrow residential street with cars parked on the kerbside, kids playing football on the pavement, ice cream van parked up with a big queue etc.

Anything (such as speed cameras) which take your eyes off the road is actually dangerous. Stop watching your speedo to keep at exactly 30/50/60/70 and watch the road in front of you !!

I would hope that most drivers would have a pretty good idea what speed they were doing without having to check the speedo constantly.

Also speedos generally read faster than you are going and speed cameras typically allow for a 5-10% leeway, so the idea that cameras force you to check your speed every few seconds lest you creep over the limit by 0.5mph is complete nonsense.

(and yes, although I generally stick to the limit, I do speed occasionally where I think it safe and appropriate. If I get caught then I won't be on here calling it a "tax")

But try passing a driving test doing 20-25 miles per hour in a 30mph zone

Someone fetch Smee.

When I was doing my driving lessons the instructor took me down 30mph streets and said "Generally you don't want to go above 20mph here, so stay in second."

I would hope that most drivers would have a pretty good idea what speed they were doing without having to check the speedo constantly.

You'd hope, but most people are incredibly bad at speed perception. I am. I can hold a particular speed, and I can drive at a good speed for the conditions, but I'd struggle to tell you if I was doing 60 or 65 without checkin the speedo.

speed camera thieves

So nobody's actually pinched yours then? 🙄

but I'd struggle to tell you if I was doing 60 or 65 without checkin the speedo.

Yeah okay, but you can hold a speed, so you can get to a 60, check your speed and then continue without having to re-check every few seconds.

Plus, as I said, if your speedo is reading 65 then you're [i]possibly[/i] going at closer to 60 and you're almost definitely below the trigger speed of any speed cameras in a 60.

"Generally you don't want to go above 20mph here, so stay in second."

I was trying to make the point that you will be failed for not making good progress when it is safe to do so.

Don't fetch Smeetrollzoogoanfighter though. Please.

How about if the cameras could launch missiles instead of post fines? How about if we replaced speedy bumps with hidden, velocity sensitive IEDs.

You'd get a lot of dead paramedics, policemen and firefighters....

Surely it would be much better just to legislate that all vehicles are fitted with a sealed device that makes a really irritating continuous beep when you exceed the posted limit?

That would take care of the [i]"I didn't know I was speeding"[/i] argument, the [i]"taking eyes off the road to check speed"[/i] argument and the [i]"sometimes I briefly speed to avoid danger"[/i] argument.

😉

How about if the cameras could launch missiles instead of post fines? How about if we replaced speedy bumps with hidden, velocity sensitive IEDs.

OR.... Instead of an airbag in the steering wheel, there was a two foot long steel spike, designed to shoot out on impact. Everyone would drive at 20mph forever. Copyright user-removed.

if you want to break the law you must pay the penalty.

jeez there's some self important t1ts on here. In fact, I've been caught speeding on a fairly regular basis over the past few years and have always (that's every single time) managed to weasel out of it one way or another, so saying you [b]must[/b] pay the penalty is the standard "STW head up your own ar5e" bollox.

If you want to break the law, you have to accept that you [b]might[/b] have to pay the penalty, or spend some time on the internet ignoring the popmpus prix which abound in order to find out where the "get out of jail free" cards are.

jeez there's some self important t1ts on here

You're acting like one of them.

OR.... Instead of an airbag in the steering wheel, there was a two foot long steel spike, designed to shoot out on impact. Everyone would drive at 20mph forever. Copyright user-removed.

I think (and you'll probably hate me for this) that Jeremy Clarkson first coined this when being quizzed on his views of speeding. But instead of your lazy paraphrasing, he was distinguishing between careless driving and speeding...

Nah, I'm pretty sure the "steering wheel spike" thing was originally coined by some academic bloke talking about risk compensation and [url= http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peltzman_effect ]the Peltzman effect[/url].

From memory he also suggested that roads were deliberately slippy, brakes rubbish and cars made of cardboard.

His point being that once you start to remove any of these things the cars get faster and the number of accidents stays the same. Any supposed "improvement in safety" is actually absorbed as an improvement in throughput. The overall risk remains fairly constant.

(possibly Gordon Tullock, as it is sometimes called a Tullock Spike)