Fines go to the consolidation fund, that is where they get the money to pay Zelensky and his thieves the billions tha they get, also that is where the UK government get the general taxation to pay Rothschild and company the ‘interest’ on the ‘debt they borrowed on money made out of thin air.
Motorbike spray grease works wonders on the lenses of those cameras and is weatherproof.
9now.nine.com.au
www.9news.com.au
Hmmmmm, are you saying you are not aware when you are speeding?
I think what Rob is trying to say Neil is that he just doesn't give a damn.
In both of those cases, if it was in UK, they would have been guilty of an offence.Meanwhile, in SE Cornwall, we have AI camera arrays to detect mobile phone use and people not wearing seat belts. These seem to be the same units as used in New South Wales that have wrongly penalised people who AI considered were using mobile phones but weren't and/or wearing seat belts covered or blended in with their clothing. Here's a piccy of one (AFAICT, this is on the Western end of Landrake, near Saltash) and links to a couple of stories: In one, it seems the victim doesn't have a mobile phone or computer but had to give a friends phone and email address to appeal; which was promptly denied because "he must have a mobile phone as he'd given them his number!" (You couldn't make this 5417 up!) The case was dropped after the media got involved. In another, the guy's phone is clearly in a hands-free cradle and he has something else in his hand.
View attachment 134534
Pensioner busted for using a mobile phone while driving, despite never owning one
Frank has never owned a mobile phone, but Revenue New South Wales claim he was using one while driving on a...
This man was fined for using a mobile phone in a car - he claims the photo shows otherwise
A NSW man has cried foul after being fined for using his mobile phone while driving, claiming he has photo ...
That's a misunderstanding. Motor vehicles that can't gpo faster than 25mph dpn't need a speedometer, but for those that need a speedo, it has tyo work at all speeds.
I think what Rob is trying to say Neil is that he just doesn't give a damn.
If he did give a damn about anything at all, he would do something about that unruly mop of grey hair of his and not look like an old woman at the fish market!
And he smells ofpishfish.
IMO your response is typical of speed fixation. Speed is a secondary factor of road safety in that if you adhere to all the primary factors, you invariably drive at a safe speed for the conditions. The meme about peds surviving accidents at 20mph but being seriously injured at 30mph ignores the fact that they tend to be unharmed if you miss them at 40 or even more! The authorities concentrate on absolutes while doing next to nothing about actual dangerous driving, from which many motorists infer that all they need do to be good, safe drivers is keep to the speed limit, not use a mobile phone, etc.; that the authorities have somehow warranted the speed limit to be a safe speed under all conditions; and COAST goes out of the window...
Not necessarily and in either case the offence with which they were charged should fail.
In the first case the driver says he thinks he was eating a choc ice, in the second the driver is obviously looking at a handheld device, in both cases the drivers could be prosecuted.
Neither is a de-facto offence and in both cases the driver was innocent of the offence with which they were charged. Driving without due care and attention might be an appropriate charge, but the prosecution would need to show that the driving was significantly below the standard of a hypothetical competent driver and it is not enough to merely show the driver was eating or holding something other than a mobile phone.
www.rac.co.uk
IMO /your/ response is typical of speed fixation.
the police in Bradford said he was doing twice the speed limit the clocked him at 40mph
You only prove my point. The fixation on speed is (in at least some cases) downright dangerous. A road not too far from where I live was accident-free for about two decades ... until the local authority made it a 20mph zone and installed 'traffic calming'. Within a few months a young boy was knocked over and crippled. The person who told me about the case related that the driver had claimed the boy had just run out in front of her car and she hadn't spotted the danger because she was concentrating so hard on negotiating the traffic calming measures and ensuring she was doing 20mph. RTCs now occur regularly along that road. In another case, a woman collided with the rear of a car that was emerging from a side road. Partly to blame was the council for installing a build-out that forced the emerging car to take a position where it was obscured by a wall and also where the driver had limited visibility. The woman who had 'right of way' claimed she couldn't possibly bear any blame because she was obeying the speed limit! She hit the rear of the emerging car -- so she would have had time to stop if only she had used COAST to assess the situation and adjust her driving accordingly. A hundred yards or so from that scene is another where the brain-dead council (in the interest of 'road safety') installed a build-out that reduces the carriageway width so that a large vehicle emerging can't clear fully -- and I now regularly see broken glass and other evidence of collisions where few, if any, previously occurred. The establishment fixating on speed sends a very dangerous message -- that all you need do to be a 'safe, good driver' is obey the speed limit...
