Who was at the wheel" case to be heard. 572I'm not so sure. I still reckon that the normal driver is constrained by the speed at which they feel "comfortable", and this, buttuming that the limit is set sensibly, is in general...
So, essentially, what you are saying is that rather than actually trying to do something about road safety, ie stopping drivers travelling dangerously fast in known black spots, you were instead on a safe piece of road, stopping people who were committing a purely technical offence (speeding) but who obviously weren't doing anything dangerous - otherwise they'd have been unable to stop before mowing down your "stopping officer".
But it's the truly anal selection of the group of "law breakers" and the laws broken that are detected that upsets so many people. It's technical, administrative and by your own admission above not targeted in order to make the roads safer.
"Law breaking", but probably not breaches of safety. Taking the (not unreasonable) buttumption that the purpose of much of the law is to ensure the safety of the public, what earthly use are you being just nicking people for nicking people's sake? I've said it before - "do you consider applying the full majesty of the "Theft Act" to people who take a few paperclips or a biro home from the office? Because that's *exactly* what you're doing.
If I was responsible for doing enforcement of a limit I'd want to do it in a place where exceeding that limit by anything more than a couple of mph is dangerous - which rules out just about everywhere you *ever* see limits being enforced - and things were obviously the same "in your day" as described in your scenario above...
Other than that, there's no real *reason* for anything. But there's pragmatism and common sense - neither of which appear to have any relationship to the vast majority of prosecutions for "speeding".
-- and don't bother with ralf4, it's a spamtrap and I never go there.. :)
... There's pleasure sure in being mad That none but madmen know... Dryden
