RE: 'Speed kills' policy unsafe: campaign
Discussion
apache said:
vonhosen said:
Governments don't ignore huge numbers who voice opinion over issues that are important to them if they want to be re-elected.
They ignored over 1 million anti war protestors though
What did the other millions think ?
What do they do at the ballot box where they could "force" change unitedly ?
Edited by vonhosen on Thursday 10th August 16:30
jasandjules said:
vonhosen said:
Do the 2.7 million think they were right for speeding though ?
Did every offender who had no insurance believe it was right for them to do it, simply because they did ?
Does everyone who commits any offence believe they are right to commit such offences simply because they did ?
In respect of the number of speeding offences commited daily, I would imagine the number of prosecutions that are carried out are of a significantly lower proportion compared to many others offences. It must have one of the worst clear up rates of any offence so it is hardly over enforced.
Did every offender who had no insurance believe it was right for them to do it, simply because they did ?
Does everyone who commits any offence believe they are right to commit such offences simply because they did ?
In respect of the number of speeding offences commited daily, I would imagine the number of prosecutions that are carried out are of a significantly lower proportion compared to many others offences. It must have one of the worst clear up rates of any offence so it is hardly over enforced.
Whether they "think" they were right or not is not in issue. Simply put, Majoritarianism dicates that if the majority do not feel that a "crime" is a crime, then it is not a crime. If they speed, whether by accident or design, then they accept it is not an offence in their eyes. If it were such a heinous crime, then people would ensure they stuck to the limits. I don't see many accidental whoops did I lose my concentration there for a minute rapes......
In any event I don't think many people who mug/rape/burgle would ever stand up in court and say they were right to do it, we don't have a dickensian society now where people steal bread to feed their families. But speeding, I am willing to bet most caught would not say they were wrong. I know damn well if I am ever nicked for it I shall not bow down to the court and accept I was a naughty boy.
We have a Democracy (in theory, rapidly diminishing, but there we are). This does not mean that one person, Blair, or a small group, his cabinet, can dicate what laws are acceptable over and above the will of the people. The very fact that the vast majority disobey them means that the law is unjust, and thus is in theory unenforceable. The reason being that we allow ourselves to be governed by the State and we do not take action ourselves against transgressions (i.e. someone robs me, I don't go round his house with my Samurai sword and chop his head off, but my word I would like to..)in return for the protection of that state. When the state begins to adopt policies/law which the majority do not agree with then those laws/policies ought not to be obeyed.
Your statement actually also verifies what I have said. You stated that you imagine the number of prosecution is significantly less than the offences committed, thus, by your admission, more than 2.7 million offences take place in relation to speeding, therefore reducing once more its authority in the eyes of the population and its resulting enforcability.
What about driving without due care/reasonable consideration ?
How many acts of that a day ?
How many of the 32 million drivers have done something that be classed as that offence ?
Do you not want without due care/reasonable consideration now, as the people have spoken by their actions ?
Edited by vonhosen on Thursday 10th August 16:39
Many do not consider voting because the manifesto's of the parties concerned are very similar. Hence there is no party that considers their views. The problem this brings is that such as the BNP are becoming a viable force because of this. Freedom brings risks and if you stifle freedom you will find that increasing sections of the population will begin to "rebel".
Edited by telecat on Thursday 10th August 16:36
vonhosen said:
Governments don't ignore huge numbers who voice opinion over issues that are important to them if they want to be re-elected. This government wants to be re-elected & Mr Cameron wants to get elected.
Yes they do and anyway any party needs to get the correct mix of policies, people are selfish and generally vote for what benefits them the most. From what you've said I can work out that you a tory voter due to you supporting the first war in Iraq and not the second, a fair assumption?
vonhosen said:
jasandjules said:
vonhosen said:
What did they do at the ballot box ?
Many showed their disdain by not voting at all.
And where did they that wasted opportunity to speak get them ?
Edited by vonhosen on Thursday 10th August 16:31
It would have got them the same shower of sh1te whoever they voted for though wouldn't it.
Their all barmy ignorant commies these days
Dave
vonhosen said:
What about driving without due care/reasonable consideration ?
How many acts of that a day ?
How many of the 32 million drivers have done something that be classed as that offence ?
Do you not want without due care/reasonable consideration now, as the people have spoken by their actions ?
I have no idea. I suspect significantly less than speeding though. I also haven't see 2.7million prosecutions for DUC. If we were to take it further, and propose that for every second you drove above the speed limit you were committing an offence, we would be in the stratosphere of motoring offences would be not...
If people want to adopt Darwin Driving, then fair enough, I'll be in the queue for a Hummer...... You miss the point, it matters not what I want. That is the idea of democracy you see.. It is what the Majority want. Depending on your view of democracy of course.
Changing your argument by citing different offences each time by the way shows the flaws. If the argument is sound then another angle can be used to justify it.
jasandjules said:
vonhosen said:
What about driving without due care/reasonable consideration ?
How many acts of that a day ?
How many of the 32 million drivers have done something that be classed as that offence ?
Do you not want without due care/reasonable consideration now, as the people have spoken by their actions ?
I have no idea. I suspect significantly less than speeding though. I also haven't see 2.7million prosecutions for DUC. If we were to take it further, and propose that for every second you drove above the speed limit you were committing an offence, we would be in the stratosphere of motoring offences would be not...
If people want to adopt Darwin Driving, then fair enough, I'll be in the queue for a Hummer...... You miss the point, it matters not what I want. That is the idea of democracy you see.. It is what the Majority want. Depending on your view of democracy of course.
Changing your argument by citing different offences each time by the way shows the flaws. If the argument is sound then another angle can be used to justify it.
I'd be willing to bet that the majority have/do commit offences of without due care/reasonable consideration, but at the same time the majority want that offence on the statutes.
If (as I suspect) I am right, then it is your argument, that because the majority speed they don't consider it an offence is what's flawed.
If the majority want something, then they'll have to express it in less ambiguous terms to those that they voted into power to make/change the laws.
At the moment I don't see huge numbers being clear with that. (As said before, noise at both ends & apathy in the middle)
If they don't, then they have less chance of seeing change & one must assume they know that.
No government will be forced to change policy through a display of apathy & silence.
I am afraid my argument is not flawed to my knowledge. It is the rationalisation of the jurisprudential debate regarding democracy.
As I said already above, if the majority wanted to bin DUC as a cr*p law, then I would be in the queue for a Hummer...
There is a law and morality aspect to this as well, which of course links in with the democratic position. If people do not feel that something is "wrong", then they will disobey a law which upholds that wrong, and indeed some say are obliged to disobey, that law. If the majority therefore believe that something IS wrong, then they are resigned to obey any law which upholds that wrong, for example murder or rape. I suspect the majority feel that these laws are just.
Speeding however, the vast majority of people clearly do not believe is a morally wrong thing to do. Hence the huge numbers who do it. Many quite deliberately. Thus, the law ought not to be enforced.
When the Govt and Police remember that they are here to serve the country, and not vice versa, then things will change for the better.
You are quite right however, noise is what is important, the electorate need to make their feelings clear. Sadly it appears that in the UK people are content to moan a lot but do little. I hope this position changes soon, before more people die needlessly obeying a stupid limit but driving like a f**kwit.
Of course, making noise would be easier if our dictactor had not implemented terrorism acts which conflict with our right of assembly and free speech. I think it is clear that truckers who showed their disdain, and the many thousands who joined them, were browbeaten into silence. Along with a 70 year old man who dared to say something against the dictator and his party. Thus, it follows that more noise could and would be made if the police had the balls to stand up and not enforce those laws against the people whom they were clearly not designed to prevent from demonstrating.
As I said already above, if the majority wanted to bin DUC as a cr*p law, then I would be in the queue for a Hummer...
There is a law and morality aspect to this as well, which of course links in with the democratic position. If people do not feel that something is "wrong", then they will disobey a law which upholds that wrong, and indeed some say are obliged to disobey, that law. If the majority therefore believe that something IS wrong, then they are resigned to obey any law which upholds that wrong, for example murder or rape. I suspect the majority feel that these laws are just.
Speeding however, the vast majority of people clearly do not believe is a morally wrong thing to do. Hence the huge numbers who do it. Many quite deliberately. Thus, the law ought not to be enforced.
When the Govt and Police remember that they are here to serve the country, and not vice versa, then things will change for the better.
You are quite right however, noise is what is important, the electorate need to make their feelings clear. Sadly it appears that in the UK people are content to moan a lot but do little. I hope this position changes soon, before more people die needlessly obeying a stupid limit but driving like a f**kwit.
Of course, making noise would be easier if our dictactor had not implemented terrorism acts which conflict with our right of assembly and free speech. I think it is clear that truckers who showed their disdain, and the many thousands who joined them, were browbeaten into silence. Along with a 70 year old man who dared to say something against the dictator and his party. Thus, it follows that more noise could and would be made if the police had the balls to stand up and not enforce those laws against the people whom they were clearly not designed to prevent from demonstrating.
Edited by jasandjules on Thursday 10th August 18:08
vonhosen said:
If the majority want something, then they'll have to express it in less ambiguous terms to those that they voted into power to make/change the laws.
That could be difficult for me and England as a whole, I don't vote labour and can never really see it happening tbh. Along with the majority of people who voted in England, I would prefer (not by much but anything's better than our Tone) a Tory government who started introducing sensible laws in favour of the public rather than hiding the facts and filling their wallets with our cash. Getting OT again.
Griffter said:
The crux of the issue seems to me to be to be a change in policy from a speed limit being just that - the maximum legally allowable speed - to being 'the speed at which we would like you to drive'. Big difference, one giving the motorist responsibility and accountability, the other seeming to imply some guarantee of safety.
The crux of the issue is that we have TOO MUCH LAW, yet nasty, petty authoritarian twonks keep getting elected by a shrinking MINORITY of the populace.
Sack the turds.
Yugguy said:
I was watching Traffic Cops last night
Speed cameras would not have caught the drunk woman, the petrol thief or the several uninsured drivers. Police in cars caught them, but there's less and less of them. But it's ok, those evil people doing 65 in the NSL will all get nice fines.
Speed cameras would not have caught the drunk woman, the petrol thief or the several uninsured drivers. Police in cars caught them, but there's less and less of them. But it's ok, those evil people doing 65 in the NSL will all get nice fines.
Cameras can & do supply evidence of petrol thieves, why else do you think petrol stations spend millions on having CCTV systems on their forecourts ?
ANPR can reveal uninsured vehicles on the road in some circumstances.
I agree we need more trafpol, but that doesn't mean we should have no cameras.
Do you know actually anyone who has been prosecuted for 65 in a NSL ?
Yugguy said:
I haven't seen too many anpr cameras driving along persuing theives recently.
I didn't say cameras would do that or that they can do everything, but they can do more than just prosecute speeders.
They can provide evidence that can help officers trace & convict offenders (including thieves) without any pursuing going on.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff