Skip to main content

"The London Safety Camera Partnership is dominated by bureaucrats, has no constitution and holds meetings in secret"

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/nov/17/speed-london-safety-camera-partnership

Comments

Anonymous said…
Why do you think it is acceptable for drivers to make their own decisions about what speeds they should drive at. The speed limit is the maximum allowed and drivers who exceed it should be liable to punishment.
17 November 2009 at 13:44
Professor Geoffrey Alderman said…
Reply to Clinton Hale: Consider a road where the legal limit is - say - 30 mph. The law allows me to judge for myself whether it is in fact safe to drive at this speed, or whether - given the road conditions - it is unsafe to drive at anything over - say - 20 mph. Why does the law give me this discretion, but not the discretion to drive, on that road, at 35 mph? Why the discretion one way but not the other?
17 November 2009 at 14:41
Top_starfish said…
For someone with Professor in front of your name you don't appear to be very bright.
If given complete 'discretion', many drivers would drive around town at 80 because they 'deem' it safe to do so (some idiots already do)!
Some discretion is given (usually 10% plus 2mph) with speed cameras, although a copper can still do you for 31.
In my opinion if you are caught by a safety camera you should have your licence revoked as you were not only speeding, you also failed to see a giant yellow box at the side of the road and a whole load of warning signs. What chance would you have had of seeing a child dressed in dark colours!
17 November 2009 at 15:35
Professor Geoffrey Alderman said…
Reply to Top_Starfish: What about forward-looking cameras?
19 November 2009 at 12:07
Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

  A  MILLER'S TALE On Friday 1 st October the University of Bristol issued a statement [1] in relation to Dr David Miller, who until that date (and from 2018) had been Professor of Sociology at that University. The statement told us that Professor Miller was no longer employed by the University, and it explained, in very general terms, why:   We have a duty of care to all students and the wider University community, in addition to a need to apply our own codes of conduct consistently and with integrity. Balancing those important considerations, and after careful deliberation, a disciplinary hearing found Professor Miller did not meet the standards of behaviour we expect from our staff and the University has concluded that Professor Miller’s employment should be terminated with immediate effect.   The background - or at least some background – to this decision to dismiss Professor Miller is I think well known. As I noted in the Jewish News last March [2] ...
2 comments
Read more

JONATHAN HENRY SACKS (1948-2020)

Whilst I cannot claim to have read every obituary and post-mortem appreciation of the late former chief rabbi of the United Hebrew Congregations of the British Commonwealth, Jonathan Henry Sacks (who died on 7 November 2020), I have certainly read a great many. With very few exceptions, they follow a common pattern. If they mention the multiple failures and shortcomings of his chief rabbinate at all [and most do not], they are notoriously economical with the truth, treating these as aberrational, incidental to his life and peripheral in their significance and impact. They concentrate rather on his reputation in the wider world, beyond the orbit of British Jewry, and they argue that if that reputation was high – even outstanding – then his numerous communal embarrassments must be discounted, or even entirely ignored. This is not a view that I share.   I have in fact perused with astonishment some of the encomia that have been heaped upon him. Here are very short extracts from th...
Post a Comment
Read more

THE JEWISH CHRONICLE: BEATING HEART OR BLEEDING HEART?

In recent weeks I’ve given interviews to British, Israeli and even German newspapers on the subject of the fate of the Jewish Chronicle. Naturally I have been careful to declare a number of interests. It was for the Jewish Chronicle that from 2002 until 2016 I wrote the paper’s weekly anchor comment column. I never missed a deadline. Besides filing these columns I wrote others for the paper, including book reviews and obituaries. Then I should add that as part of my academic research I have actually read every edition of the JC, from its very first in 1841. I still resort to its invaluable online searchable archive to check this fact or that. In common with many other newspapers the JC has been struggling financially in recent years. In 2018 it posted a loss of around £1.5 million. Its immediate future appeared to have been secured by donations from (as the Financial Times unhelpfully put it) “unnamed individuals,” but evidently this was not enough to sav...
1 comment
Read more