Sparrows are a protected species

On 28/07/2017 16:37, JNugent wrote:
On 14/07/2017 12:04, Ian Smith wrote:

JNugent wrote:
On 13/07/2017 19:33, TMS320 wrote:

That is assuming a camera is fitted - I have seen boxes fitted
with flash but no camera. No harm if the threshold is lowered,
should they do that.

Causing unnecessary anxiety to people obeying the law is acceptable
on your planet, is it?

What possible anxiety would be caused to someone obeying the law?

That's easy to understand if you are in "understand" mode.

It goes like this... you drive along a road at 29 or 30mph.

A Gatso camera flashes the rear of your vehicle even though you are
travelling within the 30mph speed limit.

Even bearing in mind that the photographs are allegedly scrutinised by a
suppposed human before decisions are taken, you don't know what the
local authority staff will try to "prove" with the image, especially in
an area (eg, Brighton) run by half-lunatics determined to do as much
harm to visiting drivers as they can get away with.

Try to imagine trying to defend yourself in court when faced by a
po-faced apparatchik who insists that the details within the image
"prove" that your vehicle was doing 29mph (or some simnilar speed), with
the bench (some of whose members may be local councillors) siding with
the bureaucracy as a matter of misplaced principle.

The answer is to adjust the cameras so that they may not "flash" unless
the speed limit had been breached (and by more than the locally-decided
tolerance level at that).

On my planet it is perfectly acceptable (to me at least) to cause no
anxiety to people obeying the law while causing all sorts of negative
emotions in those that are disregarding it.

At a guess, your vehicle has never been "flashed" by a malfunctioning
Gatso whilst you were proceeding lawfully, so you have never had to
spend the next two weeks or so wondering whether the loonies in charge
of the place are going to try to fleece you out of money and get your
licence endorsed.

ERRATUM:

The paragraph which starts "Try to imagine" contains a typo and should
have read:

"...a po-faced apparatchik who insists that the details within the image
"prove" that your vehicle was doing 39mph (or some simnilar speed)...".