Debate Rounds (3)
Today I was listening to a live (UK) radio phone-in show (BBC Radio 2) debating about the successful conviction of a motorist after being caught flashing oncoming drivers which was adjudged as an attempt to warn them of a stationary mobile speed camera.
He was charged and convicted of obstructing a certain WPC whilst on the course of her duties.
Various analogies were put forward by listeners in support of and against the action, but due to time restraints of the show nothing was settled, so let's try and settle it now.
My position as Pro is pretty straight forward, I will debate the practice of flashing oncoming drivers when they are heading towards a stationary Mobile speed camera should not be against the law, thus not merit a conviction.
From the outset (Round one) Con will debate the action does merit a conviction.
As this debate is based purely on personal opinion, no party shall carry a burden of proof.
Thank you in advance to my opponent for their participation.
As a citizen of Arizona, our state recently tried to use these cameras set up in various areas to try to catch speeders. For about two years we had these cameras up and as of this last year they were taken down. I will explain why.
They are ineffective! What happens when they set up these cameras is that people know where they are. They may be speeding, but if they know a camera is coming up they will slow down just for the camera and then speed back up. Sure, it may catch people every now and then, but then what? What happens once they take your picture of you speeding and your drivers license? Well, they send you a letter. That's it. Many people I know have disregarded these letters and gotten away just okay. But say on the slim chance an officer of the law delivers this letter to you, how does he prove it was you driving the vehicle? He can't! I let friends or family borrow my car all the time. It would be absurd to punish someone if they were not the one driving. I propose that these cameras be illegal because of their ineffectiveness.
The debate on offer is in relation to the legality of flashing oncoming vehicles to warn them of Mobile speed cameras, (As clearly stated in my opening round) - not the legality and the effectiveness of " photo-radar cameras", which are totally separate issues.
In view of my opponent ignoring his debate requirements for the first round, - " From the outset (Round one) Con will debate the action does merit a conviction". I have no choice but to end this debate, and consider offering it again at a later date.
thisoneguy forfeited this round.
No votes have been placed for this debate.
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.