I hope they turn up to my case on the Aug 14th at Swaffham, Norfolk @ 1330 for the claimed 103mph becuase I will take them to town with the help of Mr Nick Freemans Keep on Driving and I will spend alot of money fighting this to set the precedent so future motorists dont get ripped off by the mobile tax collectors.

My company will shortly be releasing software that works with GPS systems to track journey speed along with locations for the sole purpose of giving Motorists a tool to fight back against some of the spurious claims made by speed detection devices. I will also demonstrate to them how these laser emitting devices can not determine where they are receiving the reflections from couple with the problems of these devices not being able to work at the speed of light. These laser emitting devices only work in very limited ideal situations.

So Mr Huges "bring it on"!

Richard Rose, Norwich,

I agree fully with the scrapping of speed cameras and other speeding traps as these methods are designed solely to extract easy revenue for more traps and cameras. I do not believe in the slightest that speed is the cause of accidents but it is the stupid way people drive -overtaking in dangerous places -doing stupid schoolboy manouvres - undertaking etc etc. Where are the police and the traps when this happens as I see it every day and see many near misses every day. They are never around and cameras dont detect this - just the speeding. I am not saying everyone should speed and it doesnt matter - what I am saying is that speed traps miss the real issue and simply penalise the guy doing slightly over the limit which lets be honest does not really do that much harm if the truth is known - and no i dont believe statistics and figures that they put out about speeding. there should be more patrols watching for the stupid drivers - not hiding with a speed camera just to get easy pickings

j, lincoln,

your all going on about how you are safe if you are on the speed limit, more accidents are due to slow drivers. I know alot more people are annoyed following a nissan micra doing 35 on a motorway than someone speeding going by them. How many accidents do you see down the M1 because someone speeding has crashed, not too many! How many do you see where a wagon has pulled out to overtake a slow driver, alot more, thanks! speeding does not kill people on motorways or duel carrageways, and if i am to be stopped speeding, i WILL ask for calibration certificates, 80% of the coutrys traffic police cars are not calibrated daily, so not giving a accurate reading.
Then if you ask them for it, they get all snotty with you sayin they will fight you in court, not my problem if they cant do there legal duty and have properly calibrated equipment

glenn, whitby, north yorkshire

All this 'oppressed driver' whining is unbelievable. Don't other road users have the right to use the road without the intimidating behaviour of speeders ? Do kids and OAP's have the right to cross the road safely ( even, perish the thought, miles away from schools) ? Or is it right and proper that they have to dive out of the way of anti-social motorists doing 40, 50 or whatever Andy et al unilaterally believe is 'safe' on urban roads. Clearly the rights of other people figure little in many drivers' moral vacuity. Latest stats show that the UK has one of the EU's lowest levels of trips by foot and cycle married to one of the highest casualty levels for such 'vulnerable users'. Looks like a great chunk of the our Mr Toads simply can't stop themselves driving dangerously once they've left the expensive, 'idiot-proof' trunk road/motorway system.

Denis, W Mids, UK

The problem with automatic enforcement is that it does not address the issue.
Yes motorists feel oppressed, they see resources be it man power, technology etc. being squandered to extract money from them while others who commit much more serious crimes get a slap on the wrist.

SPEED DOES NOT KILL!!
The quoted figure of 33% (conveniently one in three) of ALL accidents being due to speeding is utter bunkum!! It is a figure which our 'leaders' have pushed to reinforce their agenda. The actual rate is less than 3%.
I regularly travel on UK motorways (conditions, permitting) at more than the posted limit. But, I do NOT exceed the speed limit passing a school at 9:00am! In the eyes of the law, my greater crime is to break the motorway limit.
99.99% of the time, speeding has no victim, unlike other activities which the government deem illegal. In order to enforce a law, that law has to be just, current motoring law is more about mugging motorists to bolster govt. coffer

Andy, Winchester, Hampshire

The police nor anyone else are 'squeezing cash' out of anyone...those who break the limits...repeat LIMITS (not targets) give freely of their hard earned cash don't they? No? Then how and why do so many get caught exceeding the limit?
It would seem they don't understand that if you don't break the law you don't get punished. All the claptrap about "Safe Speed" is nothing but a smokescreen to hide the injured feelings of mugs who were actually CAUGHT speeding.

Kev, goole, East Yorkshire

Speeding is breaking the law. Children are being killed by speeders here and police are doing little to stop the speeders. i believe speeding cameras are a good idea and several should be employed here in Bowmansville. Lancaster county, Pa. Local residents here sometimes drive double the posted 35 mph speed limit within village confines and hold blatant disregard for pedestrians. If police want a paycheck i think they should do something to earn it.

wilson, bowmansville, pa

The speed camera programme has been a shocking PR disaster for the police and the Treasury more so because there is no real evidence that it has reduced casualties.

Significant income for the Exchequer and more than a million motorists within 3 points of a driving ban tells its own story. Safety camera partnerships were driven by income generation until April this year when local authorities were given the power to impose some restraint and insist on more comprehensive road safety measures.

The PR debacle goes on unchecked with intemperate language from Mr.Hughes "if you think your hard enough" and a campaign to inflict punitive damages on defendants in Magistrates Courts.
Here we have a combined task force put together at inordinate expense in order to extract £60 fines from motorists who dare to contest their case. The purpose is to set examples to dissuade others, not from committing a crime, but in seeking justice.

Letters of complaint to the Lord Chancellor please.

MC

MC, Peterlee, U.K

The police have completely lost it, in the news today, drink driving is on the increase, especially in the young age group, accidents recordings show more are found to be over the limit when breathalysed at the scene. More importantly is that even though the driver is over the limit or drunk, they record excessive speed (if speeding) as a or the contributing factor, I would argue if they were not over the limit, its possible wouldn't be speeding in the first place.

My second point is, the police seem happy to spend money making sure they prosecute a driver who believes errors to have been made for a minor speeding offence, than addressing more serious offences.

Due to fewer traffic police and as there is no camera that can detect these type of offences
drink, drug and unlicensed offences will increase, simply because it is highly unlikely they will get court, in fact probably only get court if they have an accident, and only if they do not run away from the scene.

Martin,, Cambs,

All this discussion and the ACPO wanting to convict more 'speeding' cars. Has anyone worked out that the road safety policies presently used are not working? Bear in mind the improved safety features of todays cars and the increased level of fatal accidents is a disgrace.
In my view those who are not prepared to explore other methods of road safety - and I include politicians and senior police officers here - are responsible for every death that occurs. Not the motorist who may stray over the speed limit or those of us prepared to look at the alternatives.

Keith Braithwaite, Southampton,

£9,400 in prosecution costs due to the expert witnesses is a breach of the magistraites guidelines (page 66) The case law, The dove case, found costs grossley disproportionate to the fine was not in the interests of justice.

If ACPO and the courts are cooking up irregular judgements they ought to be in the dock.

Tony Seaton, Southampton, Hants

There is bluster on this topic. Mr Smith is highly selective and just as guilty. Both sides use what is convenient to their case, which suits them better than real debate.

Officers at the scene of a collision tend to record causation only if it is very clear. Those dealing with the body parts, will tell you speed is usually one of several factors, and not recorded. The contribution of speed to injuries is likely to be grossly under reported.

Keeping to speed limits gives greater tolerance for inevitable errors, cameras have a part to play, but can't stop collisions on their own. Who is advocating re-testing of drivers every 5 years, or use of unmarked police vehicles - not many people crying out for that, but surely that would be effective if used with cameras?

Anti camera lobbyists are generally motivated by indignation at being caught, not a desire for road safety. If their argument was trully about safety they would advocate slowing down, not getting out of prosecution.

John, plymouth,

Chris R , Derby. At what point do you feel that the police should stop putting spurious information before the courts? If the police are allowed to break the law when it comes to prosecuting motorists, what is to stop them beating up burglary suspects, torturing suspected murderers, or the provision of false statements, to stop that tiresome need to walk the beat?

David Leslie, Perth, Scotland

Driving a car is another facet of human life where technique, ability and equipment are essential. Dangerous driving should be stopped and I am as alarmed as anyone when someone speeds in resdiential areas or dangerous spots and conditions. It is an aspect of folly when driving on nigh empty motorways in a well built car-often German-now they have sensible road rules and it is far more relaxing to drive in Germany than the UK- that one is supposed to remain at 70 mph. If you are driving a 1 litre town car and have driven for a year or so, or perhaps you're way past drawing a pension then 70 mph could be too much. But a driver in a good quality car where 100mph is easily and safely achieved and decelerated from isn't endangering anyone. As in Germany cars could be given certified legal top speeds when attaining their MOT or being registered. We are not simpletons so why treat motorists like we are.

chris, manchester, uk

Is this not just the government (and police) saying that they will bend the law themselves, to get convictions (innocence is not assumed, guilt is not required).

It's a sad and scary place the politicians and police(wo)men are making us live in!

Arthur, Newcastle,

I am astonished by the 'holier than thou' comments of those who believe everyone keeps to all speed limits. I have had discussions along these lines when a passenger. In every case where the driver has said 'Everyone should stick to the speed limit', I have been able to point out that they have done so several times on the journey.
If you are sticking religiously to the limit, you are not spending enough time concentrating, yes concentrating, on the road ahead. It is inappropriate speed that kills. Watching for cameras too distract from the job in hand. I do not care what the statistics say - they can be made to say anything - it is bad driving and driving under the influence that needs to be addressed. Speed cameras will not change anything.
If you are an experienced driver you know it is not speed that kills. In any case, those drivers that are caught are generally straying over the limit - not looney racers.
We need common sense solutions - not emotions.

Keith Braithwaite, Southampton,

I have been driving for over 40 years I drive at the speed appropriate to the conditions - I generally ignore the speed quoted on the sign but use it simply for guidance of up-comming change in road conditions. I have driven in Europe at speeds over 160mph. So you will think I am dangerous ...... Well to tell the truth I had one accident at 2mph, 3yrs ago (so not speed related and at 8 years ago - I was stationary waiting to turn right when a vehicle came over the brow of a hill down the middle of the road. Other than that I have Double No Claims Bonus (ie 2 x 6 years and beyond) I have NEVER injured anyone. This is simply because I keep my eyes on the road ahead and completely ignore all of the "Street Junk" and distractions. (of which cameras are one).

Cameras DO NOT improve safety, better driving improves safety, which comes from practicing at speeds higher than is normal - rather like an athlete to tune the mind and responses so when things do go wrong , you respond instinctively

paul, reading, yk

So ACPO is going to field a team of "expert witnesses dedicated to the task of rebutting spurious arguments put forward by so-called loophole lawyers". i thought it was long settled law that the "foremost duty of an expert is to the Court. This overrides any other duties to those instructing him". (Crewell J in The Ikarian Reefer, 1993, and many other cases. In other words, even if they are employed by the Police, their duty as experts is not primarily to secure convictions, but to help the Court

If this dedicated team of experts do not keep their clear and unequivocal duty to the Court at the front of their minds, then one hopes that the Courts hearing appeals in cases where they have given evidence will deal with them with the same vigour applied to other "experts" who have gone off the straight and narrow. Also one hopes that the principle of "Equality of Arms" between prosecution and defence will mean that the science on which their expertise is based will be open to the defence

Eschatologist, Sheffield,

More than 10 people a day die in hospitals of MRSA - seen anyone prosecuted lately ? - Sorry it's not a revenue earner. Mr Hughes is annoyed at the public for finding loopholes but the same loopholes are used by his own employees in S.Yorks and - guess what ? none were prosecuted. The comments above are all very nice but will someone tell me when a camera detected a drunk driver, a driver on drugs, an uninsured driver , a driver without a license - get real !

Hughes is a hypocite he is also a director of Road Safety Support Ltd along with Trevor Hall, another ACPO speed hating senior police officer. The only reason for a private company is to bypass the Freedom of Information laws. It is interesting that this company seconded people from the CPS for their team - is this allowed ? Is it legal ? If the Police intend to use this team of expert witnesses (CPS ?) to challenge motorists all over the country then they will be very busy indeed.
D.Morris Solihull

D.Morris, Solihull, UK

Several people comment that speed is a minor factor and they are simply wrong - the DETR study 'Tomorrows Roads, Safer for Everyone' 2000 concluded that it was a major factor in over one third of casualties and the largest single factor. The independent Transport Research Laboratory in report 421 conclusively demonstrated the correlation between speed and crashes on all road types after 10,000 drivers own reports of their experiences and Marie Taylor, head of the Lab research programme on speed has stated in Traffic Engineering and Control July 2001 that speed is a factor in more than one third of fatals. It's common sense anyway: would you rather be hit by a car at 30 or 45 mph ?

Andrew Pearce, Solihull,

I find it outrageous that so many people's excuse is that 'the majority of accidents are not caused by speeding'. So what? This is not an excuse for speeding, speeding can still cause accidents. As someone who is scarred for life due to someone speeding, and knowing one of my friends who's child dies as a result of someone speeding, I find this attitude of not taking responsibility and not really caring appauling. Maybe when it's your child that's died you will change your minds.

e, london,

So we have a special department to convict people, I alaways thought the police were a special department. The road safety in this country has been erroded by the action of cameras, and has reduced speeding to dinner party discussions. In 1976 I got a speeding endorsment and was treated by those who knew me as a lunatic as only bad drivers got caught speeding, now there are millions who have strayed over the limit and paid the price none who feel they were wrong. More deaths are caused by eyesight problems, health problems, vehicle faults, bad road design, weather drivers falling asleep and illegal "joyriding" than by speeding. 5% of accidents according to the goverments own figures are speed related, so 150 people die each year due to speeding, yet 5000 die each year due to dirty hospitals yet no special unit here. All deaths are sad but we need to get things in prespective.

Spaximus, yate, bristol

Chief Constable Hughes, Sth Yorks Police:
'come and have a go if you think you are hard enough'

how did he get to be a chief constable of police with an attitude and vocabulary like that?

prosecution is not a sport. it is a serious matter, taken as such by all participants (I am one). This attitude to a judicial system that is hundreds of years old simply beggars belief when uttered by one of the country's top criminal investigators and law enforcers.

Yes, challenge a defendant in Court. Prove the case against him. that in any event is the Crown's job - innocent UNTIL PROVEN guilty. But theatricals such as this have no place in our legal system.

gh, derbyshire,

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe (have been told by a senior ranking Met officer) that the Met's stats show that fatal RTAs are up 38% over the last year.

THIRTY EIGHT PER CENT !!!

What has been systematically happening over the last five years? Traffic Police numbers slashed, speed cameras increased.

This government doesn't want to save lives, it wants to save money.

Go figure.

Lon Don, London,

The people that say speeders should just accept a speeding fine are simply being ridiculous, and that it is unfair that a police officer should look stupid in court because he does not know the technicalities of the law. With regards to this point, the office should be taught how to do his job properly, so that his reading cannont be challenged!

I also agree that if the figure of 3-5% of road accidents being attributable to speed is true, then the police need to revert to traditional methods of catching dangerous drivers. People forget that often accidents do happen because of dangerous driving, often caused by people overtaking because of somebody driving far too slow.

I feel for people who have lost family in road accidents but often the safety camera partnerships, such as in Cumbria, merely give figures of the numbers of deaths on the counties roads, it would be more appropirate to break these figues down in causes, so we all known the true extent of the causes of death.

Hughes, Cumbria,

Peter Hargreaves - 'when the police lose, they pay the costs'. Utter rubbish, the crown picks up the costs, as in the majority of criminal cases, win or lose. When did you last hear of a murderer, having pleaded not guilty and having been convicted weeks or months later, being found liable for the costs? It doesn't happen. This is just a ploy to raise yet more money from the motorist, or to prevent them defending themselves in court. To be a motorist these days is to be guilty, without having the option of defending yourself.

David Leslie, Perth, Scotland

The Government is introducing exhorbitant and fines for minor non-speed related offences ( eg it is impossible sometimes to avoid a yellow box).

It is not surprising that motorists are thus hitting back when the authorities are using the law to raise large amounts of revenue

K Urban, London, UK

To all of you who say
"You shouldn't be speeding"
"Speeding is breaking the law"
"You deserve to be caught"
"The limit is there for a reason"
I just hope that you all manage to keep an eye on the road, avoiding pedestrians and obstacles whilst watching the speedo and not straying so much as 1mph over the limit. Good luck to you all, you non-speeders you!

No , Birminghamtown,

no it's not just you. What do think the solution is then? I certainely believe that it's not more speed cameras ,one snapshot in time cannot reflect the conditions/circumstancesor any other poor driving techniques. This is why i think people feel aggreived when they get caught by a scamera. Have a think about appropriate speed. I don't see a problem with 65/70 in a 60 where conditions allow ( this is where scamera are located) but feel it's nessesary to adhere to limit s in built up towns, where inherent dangers are most likely to be ( hardly see scameras in 30's). I believe 'Speed' in itself does not kill, more a lack of understanding of driving techniques (poor roadcraft). Nobody is perfect, we can all make mistakes. Perhaps more traffic police instead of scameras would be a better solution to educate the motorist rather than robbing them blind

Simon, Lincolnshire,

I think too much emphasis is put on speeding. I working for an insurer and I see a alarming amount of claims where people have pulled out of a junction to join the main road in front of another, already established third party. These people do not realize that they're the ones liable for the accident, they're defense being that they can't be at fault because they were below the speed limit and the other person was over it. Such focus has been given to anti-speed campaigns have made this happen, peoples judgment skills are being impaired as they are told what to do on the road rather than judge for themselves. This also happens in bad weather, people still drive at the posted speed limits when unsafe to do so.

The fact of the matter is that speed isn't a big killer, bad driver's do most of the damage. I believe most accidents in the UK happen at about 20mph and the worst fatal accident I've ever seen on the road was caused by lack of attention under the posted speed limit

Mat, Bristol,

Heavy handed tactics to deal with a minor cause of road accidents, purely because it is cheaply and easily enforced. While traffic has slowed down these days, cars with bald tyres / non working lights seem to be getting ever more common.

Keith Walker, Stafford, UK

To GR '10 people a day die' and Nick Haines 'What's wrong with fining drivers who exceed the speed limit? The more of them caught the safer the roads will be.'

What rubbish, between 3-5% of accidents are caused because of exceeding a speed limit. Therefore those 10 people a day are more likely to have died because of other factors that unfortunately are (as you both demonstrate clearly) overlooked to the determent of road safety and by encouraging or supporting politically correct road safety propaganda that targets the wrong accident causation factors makes you complicit in making our roads less safe - shame on you both.

Andy, Leeds, UK

The Speed camera operators/partnerships (unholy alliances more likely) have the simple and cheap technology to survey roads precisely and pick up regular dangerously fast drivers. All areas have them and they often drive the same road at the same time every day...the rat runs in our towns and countryside. They could easily target this few percent with marked or even unmarked patrol cars but they don't WHY? Because road safety went out the window when hypothecation was discovered by the likes of Brunstrom...highway robbery is a better description. CC Hughes is a similar arrogant waste of space.

Mike Cross, Amlwch, Anglesey N.wales

Its a shame that ACPO dont spend as much time and effort targeting uninsured/taxed and unlicensed drivers, sorry forgot they dont produce any revenue do they???

Even the government now admits excess speed is a causal factor in only 5% of accidents, instead of attempting to catch and fine peole doing 3mph over the limit perhaps they should attempt to look at what causes the other 95%

Despite ever more cameras and lower limits fatalities on our roads are not falling, so maybe the problem lies elsewhere

Gary, Bromley, Kent

Speeding is known to be a cause of a small minority of accidents.

Whilst so much public attention is focussed on it, the majority causes of accidents will go unnoticed and people will continue to die on Britains roads.

There is no logic to equating speeing with drink driving. That argument is nothing more than emotional blackmail and contributes nothing to road safety.

Andy, London, London

It's a real pity that senior policeman like Mr Hughes can't see the gross inconsistency in what they're doing. The UK is riddled with serious, violent crime and yet nowadays the police only seem interested in chasing crime that's easy to detect or which brings in revenue to cover costs.

The overwhelming majority of speeding offences are victimless crimes, perpetrated by people who are just going about their daily business in a country that has, in many cases, reduced speed limits to ridiculous levels.

Meanwhile, serious, violent crime gets worse and worse each year and spurious claims for compensation are brought daily by serious criminals challenging the authorities on, amongst other things, technicalities. The difference is, they're on legal aid, have nothing to lose and have committed vile crimes against members of the public.

The fact that this situation exists and Mr Hughes prefers to go after motorists who have every right to challenge their fine speaks volumes.

Simon, Aberdeen,

I believe that many motorists forget that the road system was developed to ensure swift, practical and safe driving, hence roundabouts, driving test and highway code. Thus, when travelling on a stretch of road where the speed signs reduce, it is to inform that a danger or hidden risk ie. sharp bend or school is ahead. I believe that we have all forgotten this and need to recall why it was all set up. It seems that modern life has created maniacs and having heard of working drivers schedules, breaking the speed limit is required to get things done and thus avoid being sacked. The police should, I believe, enquire about this background when dealing with offenders and then sort it out, executives downwards. Finally, I am disgusted that a policeman, Hughes, should use the language of the hoodlum, 'if you think you're hard enough'. Sensible non revenue policies are the order and once faith is restored then offenders or rather persistent offenders should face the full consequences.

Thomas Shepherd, Glasgow, Scotland

Speeding kills and injures thousands of people per year and good luck to the Police in fighting back against these technical defences put up by people who can afford to pay fancy lawyers to "get them off."

The problem for the Police is that the average bobby who uses a "speed gun" has no idea of the technicalities involved and it is easy for the lawyer to make the officer look stupid in court.

The use of "experts" will have limited effect since the "expert" was not present at the time the speed gun was used and cannot therefore testify whether the officer did the correct things.

When speeding motorists start losing these cases and are ordered to pay the FULL costs of the case then things will change. The FULL costs can run into thousands. Where the Police lose the case they have to pay the cost and it would only be fair to order defendants who lose to pay full costs. After all, these defendants briefed the fancy lawyer in the first place!

Peter Hargreaves, Stockport, Cheshire, England

I am very concerned if the Police think legal requirements can be ignored to suit, when enforcing the law. Is this just for motorists or is Mr Hughes proposing to expand to other "crimes". Why would they be so concerned about a "precedent" being set if they had done everything properly? Dropping cases to avoid a precedent certainly looks like the accused is right to take the matter to court and the threat of costs is just to intimidate. I hope the new "team" will not be confused with the Ltd company of the same name and if it is the same, why are these people not public servants? FOI issues they wish to avoid? It sounds like "guilt" has already been decided and any query or contest of is not to be tolerated. It looks like he wants to avoid public scrutiny of proceedures and equipment at all costs. I wonder why? As they are so fond of saying, If they have nothing to hide then they have nothing to fear. Have they? It certainly smells like they do!

Jim, Herts,

It is outrageous that motorists have had their speeding tickets cancelled after 'police failed to comply with certain aspects of the law when enforcing speed limits'.

Should there be a need to comply with the law when prosecuting speeding motorists?

ChrisR, Derby,

The other day, whilst driving along a deserted rural dual carriageway at 70mph, I was passed by a police car doing what must have been at least 100mph. No blue lights nor sirens were in use. One law for them, another for us.

Chris, Birmingham,

Is it me or is the standard of driving getting worse in this country. I get the feeling a large proportion of us think obeying traffic laws is optional and any risk is acceptable if it gets you there ahead of the car currently in front. Jumping red lights, tailgating, undertaking on the motorway, talking on handheld mobiles, not to mention speeding - all driving behaviours I see virutally on a daily basis.

I think speed limits should be enforced but I'd like to hear how the police are going to clamp down on dangerous driving too.

Nigel, London, UK

What on earth is wrong with raising revenue from people who break the law? The speeders who argue that their driving skills are so advanced that they are confident that they can drive safely at excessive speeds, are probably the same people who would argue that they would be safe to drive after drinking a bottle of wine, or quaffing six pints.

Sarah , Sudbury, Suffolk

nobody likes a speeding ticket but the speed limits are not secrets held by the police to catch us out ,we are warned by loads of signage.....if you get caught speeding you should accept the fine ,if not prepared to accept the fine perphaps argue your case to a family who have lost a relative or loved one due to excess speed...who knows having a ticket may alter the way you drive and save a life...

j crick, stowmarket, suffolk

The police need to make sure that the tickets issued are watertight, they do make mistakes after all they are only (supposedly) human! I think the ‘Come and get us if you think you are hard enough’ is a terribly aggressive attitude and only reinforces the 'them and us' situation that we have at present.

Chris, Wirral,

Having just got my first speeding fine in 40 years of driving, I did challenge the reading on the camera on two grounds - when it was last checked and calibrated and whether ship bourne radar in Southampton Water could interfere with the camera and cause a false reading. I received a response with a signed witness statement from an inspector telling me that the camera had been checked on the day of the incident and that it worked on laser and not radar. Basically, I am banged to rights "officer" and will have to pay the fine. It is significanlty cheaper to pay £60 than have to pay an opportunist lawyer £9,400 plus a fine.

Charlie Bloom, Southampton, England

OK GR of Ayr in Scotland - you start with an apparent fact: 10 people die on our roads each day. From this, you decide that speeding is unaceptable and dangerous. Not any other factor in a road death; just speeding. The you extrapolate that children are killed by routinely speeding drivers. So - given that speed cameras care exclusively about speed, and the law cares not a hoot for the conditions, how many children are killed by drivers where the primary cause is illegal speed?
One other question for our self-appointed statto - how many children are killed by motorcycles where the primary cause is illegal speed? Why, therefore, do motorcycles have to abide by the same blanket law that does not distinguish between speed and inappropriate speeding?

Hany Mustapha, Kingston upon Thames, UK

[the police drop cases] "because they do not want to risk losing the case and establishing a precedent"

This is outrageous, the police are there to enforce the actual law, not the law they would like to be there. They should be eager to discover precedents that will clearly establish the legal position - whether guilty or not.

When people are accused of speeding, they often pay up not because they're convinced they're guilty but because of teh potential extra cost of going to court, the police are squeezing cash out fo these innocent people by manipulating the judicial system.

They shouldn't be mainaining legal grey areas to squeeze cash out of people.

Jon Barker, Glasgow, UK

Speed alarm, Jon? My car's got one - it's called a speedometer.
Come off it - if you're going to break the speed limit, you are either aware of your speed - which makes it deliberate, enough said - or you're not aware of your speed, which doesn't make you a very safe driver, does it?

Andy O, Dundee,

£9,400 in prosecution costs due to the expert witnesses is simply a method for trying to put people off contesting possibly illegal fines.

If the police used more common sense and concentrated more on real crime motorists wouldn't feel so resentful about paying speeding fines.

Michael Debham, Bedford, UK

Spurious technicalities about the equipment are brought up to frustrate courts who have little chance of countering some of the "doubt" introduced by unqualified self proclaimed experts; the response is to employ counter-experts by the prosecution, this is no surprise, why not?
The law regarding speed limits and the notices regarding parking is very clear, flout them and you should not regard teh resulting enforcement as unfair but a hazard related to what you have knowingly done.
Well done to ACPO and the CPS, when Police don't react we are all too ready to criticise.

Aran Edwards, Sunderland, England

10 people a day die on British roads (on average). Dozens more are seriously injured. It is high time drivers were made aware that their speeding behaviour is unacceptable and dangerous. It took years for society to accept that drink driving was unacceptable. Perhaps some drivers who routinely speed would like to attend the funeral of a chidl killed by a speeding driver. The speed limit is there for a reason. If you break the law you should pay the penalty.

GR, Ayr, Scotland

What's wrong with fining drivers who exceed the speed limit? The more of them caught the safer the roads will be.

Nick Haines, East Peckham, Kent

With speeding seen as a criminal offense, we should give rise to reasonable areas of this offense. Is it a crime to watch the road and go slightly over the limit due to road conditions, or the characteristics of the car that make it feel uncomfortable when its outside its torque range?
I believe a speed alarm should be fitted to a car, and "if" Road Safety is such an issue, rather than revenue, these should be mandatory, and road activated.
Speed cameras and parking meters are all about entrapment and decent citizens shouldn't be taxed due to inefficiencies in managing finances by local governments, who have Sheriff of Nottingham tendencies. Good citizens are loosing jobs due to the corporation sponsored morons and should be enlightened.
All power to Safe Speed and people who all over the world are staring to fight back by not paying the fines.

Jon Vance, Melbourne , Australia

With speeding seen as a criminal offense, we should give rise to reasonable areas of this offense. Is it a crime to watch the road and go slightly over the limit due to road conditions, or the characteristics of the car that make it feel uncomfortable when its outside its torque range?
I believe a speed alarm should be fitted to a car, and "if" Road Safety is such an issue, rather than revenue, these should be mandatory, and road activated.
Speed cameras and parking meters are all about entrapment and decent citizens shouldn't be taxed due to inefficiencies in managing finances by local governments, who have Sheriff of Nottingham tendencies. Good citizens are loosing jobs due to the corporation sponsored morons and should be enlightened.
All power to Safe Speed and people who all over the world are starting to fight back by not paying the fines.

Jon Vance, Melbourne , Australia