Unsuspecting eh?

For a long time now it's been generally recognised that the alleged deterrent effect of so-called 'safety cameras' is virtually non-existent. Many have suggested that it is and always has been nothing more than a cover story to hide their real purpose of raising revenue by penalising unsuspecting motorists.

Naturally there appears to be a certain degree of truth in this allegation until you consider the simple fact that these idiots wouldn't have been fined if they hadn't broken the law.

Nothing demonstrates this more clearly than the case of Tom Riall, chief executive of Serco Civil Government who was convicted of speeding at Sudbury Magistrates Court. Riall, who pleaded guilty to driving at 102.9mph on a 70mph road, was fined £300, banned for six months and had six penalty points added to his licence.

Quite frankly, with Serco having supplied more than 5000 'safety cameras' within the UK there are many things you might wish to call Tom Riall, but "unsuspecting" is certainly not one of them.

Speed camera boss in 100mph drive