The 18mph taxi driver clocked ‘doing 50mph’ by misfiring speed camera

Andrew Constantine, who fought his speeding ticket in court and won.
PHOTO BY SIMON FINLAY Andrew Constantine, who fought his speeding ticket in court and won. PHOTO BY SIMON FINLAY

Tuesday, January 29, 2013
2:03 PM

A Norwich taxi driver has won his battle against prosecution for a speeding offence – by proving the speed camera which snapped him got it wrong.

To send a link to this page to a friend, you must be logged in.

Traffic passing the speed camera at Drayton.  Photo: Bill SmithTraffic passing the speed camera at Drayton. Photo: Bill Smith

Father-of-two Andrew Constantine, below, says he was left “angry and bewildered” after being prosecuted for driving at 50mph – when he was in fact doing less than 18mph.

Now concerns have been raised at how many other drivers have been wrongly caught by the camera on Fakenham

Road in Drayton despite its pictures contradicting the radar speed reading.

Mr Constantine had to spend £1,600 and wait 11 months to clear his name in court after being accused of breaking the 30mph speed limit on February 9 last year.

However, a spokesman for Norfolk Constabulary said it was not aware the ticket was being challenged until yesterday and if it has been told about the precise nature of the case at an earlier opportunity, it would not have reached court.

The case against 47-year-old Andrew Constantine was withdrawn yesterday, as a trial was due to begin, after a simple piece of maths proved he had been travelling at around one-third of the speed the camera radar had suggested.

Two pictures taken by the camera, half a second apart, showed Mr Constantine’s car had travelled four metres over the white speed-trap road markings – which should be used as a second measure of the speed – meaning he was travelling at 17.8mph.

Speaking after the hearing yesterday, Mr Constantine said: “I’m very pleased and very relieved.

“Being called to court induces a sense of trepidation, even if someone is completely innocent.

“It was nice to walk into court innocent, leave court innocent and to be completely vindicated.”

Having travelled the road “thousands, if not hundreds of thousands of times”, Mr Constantine said he was aware of the camera and had been driving cautiously, as the paying passenger he had on board was a woman in her 80s, and was certain he had not been speeding.

“I have an instinct to check my speed,” he said. “Some other people may have just taken the medicine and accepted it, but I was innocent.”

Mr Constantine covers more than 70,000 miles a year in his job for Enterprise Taxis and said he felt “a cocktail of exasperation, anger, shock and bewilderment” when told of the charge.

He took his case to a specialist motoring offences lawyer, who identified that the two photographs contradicted the radar speed reading.

It is not clear what caused the incorrect reading from the camera, though Mr Constantine speculated the reading may have been taken from another vehicle.

Because the case was withdrawn, Mr Constantine could see around 75pc of his legal fees refunded – but is still likely to be left out of pocket.

A Norfolk police spokesman said data and images from the cameras were viewed by staff in the Criminal Justice Unit and fixed penalty notices were issued where necessary.

“In this case, an FPN was issued in error; however we were not notified that this ticket was being challenged until [Monday] morning,” she said.

“The file was reviewed and we have supported the withdrawal of this prosecution.

“If we had been alerted to the precise nature of the challenge at an earlier opportunity, this case would not have reached court.”

She added every camera is tested prior to installation, then calibrated annually, and said the Fakenham Road camera had been activated 141 times in 2011.

58 comments

  • Well Harry boy , only ever posted under one name at any one time me. Never pretended to be two or more different posters at the same time . Only held one login account at any one time......unlike your good self. Who can forget a Mick Betts posting a glowing tribute on here to the logic and brain power of a certain Harry R.?Shame they were the same person. Toodle pip !

    Report this comment

    LARSON.E. WHIPSNADE

    Wednesday, January 30, 2013

  • Interesting point - but perhaps he did not contact the police in the first place because the Scamera web site http:www.slowitdown.co.uk states "Can I challenge the offence or plead mitigating circumstances? You can choose at any time to plead not guilty to challenge the evidence. If you do not qualify for a speed awareness course and have received your conditional offer of a fixed penalty, you can choose to pay the fine and accept the points on your licence, or elect to have the matter dealt with at court. Only a Magistrate can take into account mitigating circumstances. If you elect a court hearing, you may be liable to an increase in the fine and number of points, plus additional costs." I have today pointed out to Norwich Police for the third time since 2008, and as Acpo did in 2008, that this statement is in clear breach of the code issued by the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) under Section 10 of the Prosecution of Offences Act 1985 which requires the Police to consider mitigation in all criminal cases before issuing proceedings. This seriously misleads drivers and must have led directly to innumerable drivers - lacking Mr. Constanides' guts - pleading guilty because they could not afford to fight the case in the courts, the only way according to the police statement. Unfortunately those involved have a more important motive - maximising cash flow and protecting jobs and overtime opportunities. Not that this is confined to Norfolk, its the same across most of the country - "follow the money" being the best explanation

    Report this comment

    IDRISFRANCIS

    Tuesday, January 29, 2013

  • anyone who believes the lies about speed camera benefit should read www.fightbackwithfacts.com. One section proves the DfT to be wrong by 50 to 1. Its a toxic mixture of gross incompetence, right to the top, wishful thinking, propaganda and downright lies - all these are a matter of record but politicians are more interested in saving face than saving lives. I can back up all of the above on the basis of 1000s of hours study since 2000,

    Report this comment

    IDRISFRANCIS

    Tuesday, January 29, 2013

  • Only Me. Why is it this mans " stupid fault" ?Can you imagine trying to tell the police that their camera is wrong. Oh yes, I am sure that they are going to fall over themselves to help him. It could be you next time. Good luck with that.

    Report this comment

    norman hall

    Tuesday, January 29, 2013

  • norman hall, you should read thae article properly. The camera was NOT at fault, it was just that the photos weren't checked properly. Ther is a telephone number on the form and if you phone it with your complaint, they will double check - I know because I've don just that and it cost me nothing except the phone call. This man obviously went straight to money-grubbing lawyers instead.

    Report this comment

    Only Me

    Wednesday, January 30, 2013

  • *** " 50% of cameras fail their annual checks for being out of calibration etc..." ***. 99.99% of motorists who who receive a speeding ticket are guilty as charged and properly and correctly convicted.

    Report this comment

    LARSON.E. WHIPSNADE

    Tuesday, January 29, 2013

  • Camera Operators should be made to pay his costs in full, he should not be out of pocket as that is not Justice. It is noticed this is a swivel head camera & in spite of logic which says this needs calibrating everytime it is moved to save money it is only done once a year?

    Report this comment

    Tony Lowery

    Tuesday, January 29, 2013

  • Wow, lawyers can do maths, whodathunk. Wonder how many points are on Mr Constantine's licence alreday then??

    Report this comment

    frank young

    Tuesday, January 29, 2013

  • I was flashed last year by the camera on the A146 at Loddon, doing 58mph. I set the speed control well in advance and was amazed to get a flash. Happily though, someone was on the ball because I DIDN'T get a ticket. However, this is the camera that i find more drivers slam their brakes on to slow down for when they're already just at or below the speed limit. Ridiculous behaviour.

    Report this comment

    Tom Jeffries

    Tuesday, January 29, 2013

  • No it might well not have "been his own stupid fault" - as per my other email the Scamera Website actually TELLS him that they won't listen and he has to go to court. Wrong of course, but if he was stupid it was only in believing "advice" on the website of people who want his money. Buyer beware!

    Report this comment

    IDRISFRANCIS

    Tuesday, January 29, 2013

  • Note no word of apology. If anything they seem to be blaming the innocent motorist for being taken to court. No doubt whoever decided to prosecute him will have to answer for their actions in a formal competency hearing? Silly me.

    Report this comment

    a fine city

    Tuesday, January 29, 2013

  • eleven months to get it sorted and norfolk constabulary say they were not aware that the fine was being challenged. surely it must be someones job to check that fines are paid and on time or do they just sit there issuing fines at random and sit back and watch the money come rolling in.

    Report this comment

    norfolkandgood

    Tuesday, January 29, 2013

  • There are 141 other motorists who now have excellent grounds to appeal immediately.Good luck to them all.

    Report this comment

    Robert West

    Tuesday, January 29, 2013

  • **broadsman ** " the Autobahns are safer than our roads." .* No they are not. The German Autobahns are twice as dangerous as the UK motorways . And the UK has the safest roads in Europe. "* Surley you realise from the strength of these blogs that the public are against you on this.. ". *No , repeated opinion polls show the public are against you on his...by a large majority.* " Also, for every road death, 35 peple die of cancer and even more from heart disease. ".* So what ? Are you really suggesting that to tackle cancer we must not waste time on road safety ? Are you really saying that we EITHER cure cancer OR tackle road safety . but can't possibly do both. This futile line of argument is known as the posing of false and phoney alternatives. It won't do.

    Report this comment

    LARSON.E. WHIPSNADE

    Wednesday, January 30, 2013

  • The attitude seems to be that if the camera flashed then you must have been speeding. Even if you weren't. Sort of, you are guilty because we have accused you!

    Report this comment

    marty r

    Wednesday, January 30, 2013

  • *** ",since speed is a factor in only 4% of accidents. " ***. Complete twaddle , unsupported by any published evidence . That includes the " contributary factors in accidents " publications .....which is where you got that 4% fantasy figure from. The authors of these reports make it quite clear that speeding is often classified instead as " sudden braking " and " loss of control " so the true figure is at least 15 % .

    Report this comment

    LARSON.E. WHIPSNADE

    Tuesday, January 29, 2013

  • On a Friday and Saturday night in Norwich you just want to stand and watch who the culprits of Speeding are.. driving dangerously, jumping red lights etc etc.. lets just say I wouldn't get in a taxi..

    Report this comment

    Footyboy16

    Tuesday, January 29, 2013

  • Many of these cameras are empty and sit at the side of the road as a deterrent effect but they actually cause accidents due to motorists seeing them at the last moment and slamming on the brakes! best scrap the lot of them,but the authorities would miss the money!

    Report this comment

    Harry Rabinowitz

    Wednesday, January 30, 2013

  • I don't like the cameras but they DO improve road safety. It's very simple, if you don't want to be done for speeding in a built up area keep below the speed limit. If, like in this case a camera misfunctions you get your calculator out. I would bet that the reason the police didn't know until the last minute because of a legal ploy by the defence to catch them out. Is society paid compensation (I mean extra money, not costs) to everybody who was found not guilty in a court case the country's budget deficit would be even worse than it is now. Don't forget that when people talk about THIS MAN MUST GET COMPENSATION it's your own money you're giving out.

    Report this comment

    DocOhNo

    Saturday, February 2, 2013

  • Let's nail this 'speeding causes accidents' once and for all. The safest motorways in Europe are the German Autobahns, which have no maximum speed limits. On the other hand, many U.S. motorways have a 55m.p.h. max. which is rigidly enforced. Their accident rate is much higher than ours. Speed cameras are their to make money or at worst, to make life difficult for motorists, otherwise, more warnings would be given for first offences. It is sloppy and useless enforcement. To be effective, speeding enforcement needs to be coupled with the Police witnessing the event and link it with careless or dangerous driving. But of course, such consideration and human rights do not extend to motorists. Where a speeding fine is given when no accident has occure, it is the real victimless 'crime'.

    Report this comment

    broadsman

    Wednesday, January 30, 2013

  • Because, norman hall, they are the Sheeple! Without an unfortunate predominance of such mindless beings blatantly skewed legislation such as scameras would be a political non starter.

    Report this comment

    blackcab

    Tuesday, January 29, 2013

  • dpc....still can't work out why you paid the fine,if you are 100% correct in your facts the old bill haven't got a leg to stand on.The place of speeding must be stated on the ticket and if it is wrong then bingo....no fines.

    Report this comment

    greenmanwalking

    Wednesday, January 30, 2013

  • I wondered how long it would take for someone to bite! no sane person who studies road accident statistics would conclude that the money making antics of the authorities are there for accident reduction,since speed is a factor in only 4% of accidents. These people never issue warnings,only fines,and cameras are often set up in places to maximise cash collection,not accident black spots.As is proven by the readers poll,most people distrust the motives and accuracy of these devices,there are better ways to slow people down with speed sensitive signs but they don't make money!

    Report this comment

    Harry Rabinowitz

    Tuesday, January 29, 2013

  • And the police dont understand why the public have no respect for them!!! I was pulled over in Gt Yarmouth in early december in a drink drive check point and was told i was doing 38mph in a 30mph so was given a SP30 with £60 fine. I later checked as i thought it was a 40mph road and the section i was caught was a 40mph road not 30mph after checking with a lawyer was basicly told i may still be out of pocket if i thought it so i took the fine. I was told at the time that payment could only be made by Cheque to a court in Southend as they were moving all fine payments to them. So i sent a payment by cheque by post to them within the 28 days. Today i recieve a court notice that i have failed to pay within 28 days and the fine has increased to £90. I rang the norwich number on the letter to be told that the Southend court office is a mess at the moment due to the move and have a backlog, the Norwich court will chase them(southend) to see if they payment is being processed by them and will cancel the £90 bill if so, but if southend court have lost it i would have to still pay the £90 not the £60. The whole system is just a mess.

    Report this comment

    dpc

    Tuesday, January 29, 2013

  • Broadsman :** " say what you like to try and alter the facts, but the Autobahns are safer than our roads . " ** . No .The UK has the safest roads in Europe,also safer than US and Australia. The German autobahn is 7th worst. .Motorways — Deaths per billion vehicle-km. Portugal 14.1 Italy 12.8 Austria 8.9 Belgium 7.2 France 5.4 Finland 5.0 Germany 4.5 Denmark 4.3 Ireland 4.0 Switzerland 3.3 Netherlands 3.3 Sweden 3.2 United Kingdom 2.0

    Report this comment

    LARSON.E. WHIPSNADE

    Thursday, January 31, 2013

  • 50% of cameras fail their annual checks for being out of calibration and other reasons. Hence at any given time 25% are incorrect. But keep the cash flowing anyway!

    Report this comment

    IDRISFRANCIS

    Tuesday, January 29, 2013

  • the camera actually worked properly, what happened here is that the operator back at cju failed to do the secondary checks, ie the simple maths equation and checking the location of the vehicle tyres on the white lines on the road inthe pictures provided by the camera, the secondary checks are required to avoid the mistake made here , any further info can be requested via the freedom of information act, which ever operator installed the gatso must make pocket note book entries to show tests have been sucessfully run prior to the camera going live .

    Report this comment

    Peter Law

    Tuesday, January 29, 2013

  • Cameras are checked annually. So this camera and many others could have been wrong fro the whole year. What happens when the camera during it.s annual calibration test is found to be wrong. I have never heard of the authorities stating that a particular camera failed its tests and the motorists given refunds etc., It would be interesting to find out the failure rate of these cameras. Classified information no doubt. It would be an interesting legal point to actually have access to the calibration records of a particular camera and see if adjustments were needed during the annual inspection.

    Report this comment

    norman hall

    Tuesday, January 29, 2013

  • It is quite iniquitous that Mr Constantine should be out of pocket when clearing his name of an alledged offence. Where is the natural justice in that? Added to which there is the stress he undoubtedly suffered over the 11 months it took the case to reach court .......only for it to be dropped at the last minute. How would any of us feel if we were put in Mr Constantine's postion...and what would we do if we were? I think most, if they felt strongly about their case, wrould approach a solicitor...after all prosection for a motoring offence is a legal matter.

    Report this comment

    Edmund Allenby

    Tuesday, January 29, 2013

  • You can argue all you want over the legitimacy of road cameras but realistically, there will never be the resources in place to catch errant motorists who jump red lights, fail to signal at roundabouts, drive too close to the car in front, over take on blind bends, use mobiles and all the other bad, lazy and dangerous practice behind the wheel.The only logical step is to decrease the speed at which people travel in a given area so if they do insist on driving like a nincompoop at least they'll do less damage when they hit that car, cyclist, pedestrian that apparently "..came out of nowhere.." because they failed to look further than the end of their bonnet.

    Report this comment

    frank young

    Friday, February 1, 2013

  • *** " Let's nail this 'speeding causes accidents' once and for all. The safest motorways in Europe are the German Autobahns, which have no maximum speed limits." ***. No they are not , the speed denier's favourite myth is given another outing. They are less safe than our motorways. And many autobahns do have speed limits...they had to to reduce the carnage. " Human rights " of law breaking motorists Broadsman ? Any chance you could spare a thought for the human rights of the many hundreds killed and seriously injured by speeding motorists each year ? . Sadly speed cameras make virtually no money ....otherwise the fines could help reduce the tax burden on law abiding members of the community.

    Report this comment

    LARSON.E. WHIPSNADE

    Wednesday, January 30, 2013

  • Tell them you intend to County court them to recover any out of pocket expences, its fairly easy to do. If you break the law you pay the penalty but when they get it wrong the dice are loaded against you. Its basicly a gamble even if you know you are in the right and have good evidence.

    Report this comment

    Tony

    Tuesday, January 29, 2013

  • Larson E. Whipsnade, say what you like to try and alter the facts, but the Autobahns are safer than our roads. If saving lives is what you are about, then have a zero tolerance on drug usersn not motorists. Also, for every road death, 35 peple die of cancer and even more from heart disease. These statistics are certainly far worse than France, Germany and Holland. Spend your time on getting these figures somewhere near decent. Surley you realise from the strength of these blogs that the public are against you on this. The Police are facing cuts to their budget and taking this line does nothing to win you public support. When you are in a hole, stop digging!

    Report this comment

    broadsman

    Wednesday, January 30, 2013

  • popeye, you're assuming he had travelled 4 meters and not just under? I doubt it was 4 meters exactly now was it? You clearly have too much time on your hands!

    Report this comment

    baguio

    Tuesday, January 29, 2013

  • The autobahns are not safer then our roads. far from it. My proof of this is my friend who died on the autobahn because of the HIGH SPEED, if he had been on a 60-70 mph limit then he might have lived. As for the pro-camera anti-camera arguements everyone has their own view but the facts do prove that speed kills, this is why there are speed limits, end of the day, if you drive at or under the speed limits the cameras won't pick you up (or if they do you have good chance of overturning the ticket) therefore no fine

    Report this comment

    Reaper99

    Thursday, January 31, 2013

  • Why should this man be out of pocket? If the police did their jobs properly then this would not have happened.Make the police pay his fees AND give him compensation.Police are not above the law and should be made accountable .what a disgrace!

    Report this comment

    neil298

    Tuesday, January 29, 2013

  • Jas 44 I have also noticed Mile End Road camera flashing at stationary cars.

    Report this comment

    NchNthMan

    Tuesday, January 29, 2013

  • 17.8 or 17.9 mph .. both look to be under 30 mph.

    Report this comment

    Patrick

    Wednesday, January 30, 2013

  • These camera are generally very reliable but mistakes do happen, for instance yesterday teatime at Thurton I was stuck in traffic that was almost stationary, just crawling along at walking pace, and the camera flashed twice. This is why it is essential that people should always be sent a copy of the photo taken by any speed camera together with clear instructions how they can self-check it and appeal any problem.

    Report this comment

    john smith

    Tuesday, January 29, 2013

  • i sort of agree with Harry Rabinowitz speed cameras have been known to contribute to accidents, but the main cause is a SPEEDING driver slamming brakes on to avoid getting caught speeding, I have seen it happen before.

    Report this comment

    Reaper99

    Wednesday, January 30, 2013

  • the camera actually worked properly, what happened here is that the operator back at cju failed to do the secondary checks, ie the simple maths equation and checking the location of the vehicle tyres on the white lines on the road inthe pictures provided by the camera, the secondary checks are required to avoid the mistake made here , any further info can be requested via the freedom of information act, which ever operator installed the gatso must make pocket note book entries to show tests have been sucessfully run prior to the camera going live .

    Report this comment

    Peter Law

    Tuesday, January 29, 2013

  • Frequently whilst travelling on the ring road towards Newmarket Road, I watched the speed camera on the opposite side of the road, between Unthank and Newmarket Roads, flashing even though the traffic was at a crawl. Any road markings would not have been visible.

    Report this comment

    Jas44

    Tuesday, January 29, 2013

  • ive seen it and the mile cross one flash with no car there, shame the Norfolk police cannot just admit there system is unacceptable and they make good people suffer for 11 months and that they have wasted the tax payers money here, i think someone should be sacked for this.

    Report this comment

    lisa

    Tuesday, January 29, 2013

  • larson e whipsnade and cuthbert j twillie,lots of those in the phone book! let he is without sin cast the first stone! I know your real name is J peasemould Gruntfuttock! you mean people don't use their real names to comment on here? perish the thought!

    Report this comment

    Harry Rabinowitz

    Wednesday, January 30, 2013

  • wow, a taxi doing 18mph. He must have been just pulling away or stopping !!!!!!!!!!!!!

    Report this comment

    Rorping

    Tuesday, January 29, 2013

  • These things cause more accidents than they prevent,and have nothing,repeat nothing to do with road safety. The whole business of pointing cameras at motorists is biased in favour of the authorities because if there is a fault in the calibration,they know it costs money to prove them wrong! The so called safety camera vans are there to make money and nothing else!,A nice little earner that supplements the council tax take,makes you proud to be british doesn't it?

    Report this comment

    Harry Rabinowitz

    Tuesday, January 29, 2013

  • The police clearly made a mistake and an internal inquiry needs to find out how the mistake was made. However it would appear that the taxi driver went to one of these loop hole solicitors, who specialise in motoring offences, rather than contacting the police and expressing his doubts over the credibility of the evidence. Had he done so it would have been sorted out straightaway and all it would have cost him would have been the price of a phone call.

    Report this comment

    BG

    Tuesday, January 29, 2013

  • neil298 - it's clearly stated twice that if this man had explained his case to the police in the first place it wouldn't have gone to court and he would not have incurred any costs. His own stupid fault.

    Report this comment

    Only Me

    Tuesday, January 29, 2013

  • The Home Office Joint Neighbourhood Survey (JNS) , that questioned thousands of citizens about what anti-social behaviour concerns them most in their neighbourhood , identified that residents consistently rated speeding motorists as the number one irritation. Repeated polls show a significant majority in favour of speed cameras. But apparently all these worthy citizens are just " sheeple " and " mindless beings "....what an arrogant bunch some motorists are. Thank goodness 99.99% of speedsters are correctly and properly charged to such a degree of accuracy that not even Nick " Mr Loophole " can get them off.

    Report this comment

    LARSON.E. WHIPSNADE

    Wednesday, January 30, 2013

  • Harry Rabinowitz : ** " The so called safety camera vans are there to make money and nothing else " **. They make hardly any money ....certainly not for the police and the idea they " supplement " the council tax is plain barmy. And a recent investigation by the Cochrane Collaboration into 28 separate investigations into the use of cameras has found that crashes fell significantly where cameras were introduced, in one case by as much as 49 per cent.The drop in fatal and serious crashes ranged between 11 and 44 per cent in the immediate vicinity and by as much as 58 per cent over a wider area. But then don't let the published evidence by independent scientists and statisticians , and accident investigators , alter your rigid prejudices in any way Harry. PS.... I have a whole library of evidence proving speed kills and cameras work , but i know you are not really interested in evidence based facts.

    Report this comment

    LARSON.E. WHIPSNADE

    Tuesday, January 29, 2013

  • On a Friday and Saturday night in Norwich you just want to stand and watch who the culprits of Speeding are.. driving dangerously, jumping red lights etc etc.. lets just say I wouldn't get in a taxi..

    Report this comment

    Footyboy16

    Tuesday, January 29, 2013

  • Why should this man be out of pocket? If the police did their jobs properly then this would not have happened.Make the police pay his fees AND give him compensation.Police are not above the law and should be made accountable .what a disgrace!

    Report this comment

    neil298

    Tuesday, January 29, 2013

  • ....meaning he was travelling at 17.8mph.....incorrect, it was 17.9 mph!

    Report this comment

    Fly Tipper

    Tuesday, January 29, 2013

  • for many years the cash flow bosses refused to provide photos until a not guilty plea and even then only 7 days before the hearing. In other words they prefer that defendants have to decide between a fine or much higher court costs etc, without access to the evidence that might clear them - eg wrong speed, cloned car, misread number. But as always, Cash is King! And the Jobs it safeguards of course

    Report this comment

    IDRISFRANCIS

    Tuesday, January 29, 2013

  • *** " As is proven by the readers poll..." ***. You're having a laugh there. Firstly , you can vote as many times as you have email accounts. And there are people on here who have multiple login accounts and are pretending to be at least 10 different people at once. I am reminded of a certain H Rabinowitz , Mick Betts and MB....all of whom turned out to be the same person. Repeated properly conducted polls by the way show that the majority of the population support the use of speed cameras.

    Report this comment

    LARSON.E. WHIPSNADE

    Tuesday, January 29, 2013

  • No need for County Court to claim danages - try the Small Claims Court to recover costs, and damages too

    Report this comment

    IDRISFRANCIS

    Tuesday, January 29, 2013

  • Wrong once again Larson. Your debating skills remind me of the Tony BlairAlistair Campbell days. Every time they heard an opnion they didn't like or got their hands caught in the till, they responded with agression and ridicule. The point is that our deaths from major causes are very bad in this country, so resources must be chanelled there and not providing an immaculate service in areas which are less challenging. The 'public opinion' you quote is from anti-motorist campaigners who describe themselves as 'road safety groups'. When did you last here them (or you) campaigning for action to be taken against errant pedestrians or cyclists? These groups certainly have higher casualty rates than on the Continent, so using your logic, you should take strong action against them. But of course, that won't make you any money and is very much more more difficult for you to enforce, so you won't do it. So much for you only acting in accordance with public opinion. Bet you beleive in 'global warming' and 'climate change' too.

    Report this comment

    broadsman

    Wednesday, January 30, 2013

  • Chuck this one to another "mistake". Here are a few other ones: http:articles.baltimoresun.com2012-12-14newsbs-md-speed-camera-error-rate-20121214_1_camera-tickets-camera-contractor-xerox-state http:www.stopbigbrothermd.org201212emails-reveal-more-prior-complaints.html http:www.stopbigbrothermd.org201212baltimore-camera-cited-non-moving-car.html or http:www.baltimoresun.comnewsmarylandsun-investigatesbs-md-speed-camera-stopped-car-20121212,0,6559038.story (By the way HI to the scamera side astro posters here. You know who you are. and I see at least one. Here is what one scamera exectuive did, pretended to be a local in posting pro scamera atricles. http:www.banthecams.orgRed-Light-Camera-Newsmore-fake-local-post-from-ats-vp-w-howard-a-man-of-many-screen-names-jedi-master.html) FIGHT THE PHOTO FRAUD! Ban the CAMS! www.motorists.org www.banthecams.org camerafraud on Facebook

    Report this comment

    srd275

    Tuesday, January 29, 2013

The views expressed in the above comments do not necessarily reflect the views of this site

ADVERTISEMENT

ADVERTISEMENT

Norfolk Weather

Partly Cloudy

Partly Cloudy

max temp: 11°C

min temp: 10°C

Five-day forecast

loading...

ADVERTISEMENT

ADVERTISEMENT