It's lunchtime, and from my current base in Amsterdam I like to keep an eye on the world through the lens of the BBC News page. It's gone one o'clock as I write this, and it's probably not one o'clock as you read this, but I hope you'll forgive me and allow for a bit of Artistic License with the title.
You would have thought that I had far more interesting things to talk about in Amsterdam than what's happening in Swindon, and - fortunately - you'd be right. I do. But I haven't yet had time to perfect my writings, so you'll have to wait for JP's take on the Dutch capital. In the meantime, I can't resist passing comment on this BBC News Article.
Specifically, I want to draw your attention to the quote by Labour councillor Derique Montaut, who apparently opposed the decision.
"I think speed cameras locally, nationally and internationally, have shown that they're one measure - one of many measures - that can be used to regulate speed," he said.
"It hasn't always been popular, but it's proved, and shown, to have saved lives."
The rationale behind the decision is that the death toll is rising and that speed is not always a factor in road accidents. To me, it would seem fair enough to put money in to other safety initiatives instead. Besides, even if you are set on controlling speed what would be wrong with trialling one of the other "many measures that can be used to regulate speed?"
Finally what's the difference between proving something and showing something in this case?
That is all.