I've said it before and I'll say it again - one of the issues with speed cameras is that they don't treat everyone as equal.
A story in the Daily Mirror yesterday underlines this.
An incredible 99.9 per cent of police officers manage to dodge speed fines. Even the clowns at Brake say the figures are 'worrying'.
I'll say.
So there you have it. A great way to avoid being fined and/or losing your licence is to be caught wearing a police uniform. On duty, off duty, racing to an emeregency or not. They don't really care. They look after their own.
The whole thing stinks Talk about a two-tier justice system.
So, we are all agreed that policing by camera doesn't work (see yesterday's blog) so here we have the government wading in again.
Apparently, transport secretary Geoff Hoon has said traditional fixed-point speed cameras may be replaced by "fairer" versions which measure drivers' average speed.
He told the Sunday Times he understood why cameras which measure speed at just one point were not popular.
He suggested average-speed cameras were better as they encouraged safer driving and also reduced fuel consumption.
He told the newspaper that the traditional fixed-point cameras were viewed by the public as "arbitrary" and "unfair".
"Spot speed cameras are seen by some people as unfair because when you are driving along you perhaps don't notice your speed.
"What is interesting about average-speed cameras is that [limits] are largely observed by motorists," he said.
"It reduces fuel consumption. By encouraging that smoother flow of traffic you are getting greater reliability."
We don't trust average speed cameras. There are just too many variables. How do they know, for instance, whether you know of a really good shortcut?
And, worst of all, these cameras will be linked up so the government/police can track you wherever you go. Or where you have been.
Captain Gatso's Blog 
