🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <1993Jan18.144530@axion.bt.co.uk> krees@axion.bt.co.uk (Kearton Rees) writes:

>True enough. One issue here is that if someone is photographed there is
>nothing to tell them so. I think even the most reckless of drivers is likely
>to slow down if  told that they have just been photographed for speeding.
>
>If they don't realise this they will carry on as they are (and possibly
>being photographed again). When the fine comes through later (anyone know
>how much later?) The location and the details may have been long forgotten.
>
>If they are informed at the time they are likely to take more care to keep
>their licence.


There is also the legal/civil rights issue of what constitutes "an
offence".  If I hold a steady 90mph down the M1 and am photographed by
automatic cameras ten times, is that ten offences or just one?  How
about if there are fifty cameras?  How about if the local Chief of
Police decides to crack down and lines up 100 policemen on a one mile
stretch, each of whom books me?  (Yes, this is a rhetorical example,
not something I expect to happen).  Somehow having punishment
proportional to the number of cameras does not sound right.  Surely I
should only be given a second offence after being notified of the
first, which would mean not being prosecuted more than once or twice a
week, assuming they process the films promptly and then mail out the
notices 1st class.

Paul.
-- 
Paul Johnson (paj@gec-mrc.co.uk).	    | Tel: +44 245 73331 ext 3245
--------------------------------------------+----------------------------------
These ideas and others like them can be had | GEC-Marconi Research is not
for $0.02 each from any reputable idealist. | responsible for my opinions