|
TwigtheWonderkid
6,089 posts
19 months
|
julianc said: 10 Pence Short said: You, like others, try to make it sound like a rare skill to avoid getting caught speeding.
Bear in mind that most, if not all cameras, will give you opportunity to run at least 10% over the limit before triggering.
Then also bear in mind that most forces will now offer speed awareness courses in lieu of points for minor transgressions.
It is hardly an authoritarian, unreasonable situation where all but the most skilled drivers will be forced into hardship by simply driving a few miles every year, as some on here would have you believe.
In any case, once again there's an abject failure to explain why when caught, a speeding driver has rights to pervert the course of justice where other offenders do not. I'm not trying to say it's a rare skill to avoid getting caught speeding. My point was related to the probability of getting caught increasing as miles driven increases. Does that apply to all offences? Does the chance of being done for shoplifting increase with the amount of shopping you do? Or the chance of commiting a bank robbery go up in line with the amount of times you visit the bank? Surely, if you don't commit the crime, the exposure is irrelavant.
|
|
|
Mill Wheel
5,000 posts
65 months
|
TwigtheBlunderkid said: Does that apply to all offences? Does the chance of being done for shoplifting increase with the amount of shopping you do? Or the chance of commiting a bank robbery go up in line with the amount of times you visit the bank? Surely, if you don't commit the crime, the exposure is irrelavant. Given that it is legal to drive up to and including the limit, AND the limit can change from as high as 70 to 40 or 30, then it is possible to accidentally stray over the limit - even Brundstrom admitted he had done this. On the other hand, nobody NEARLY robs a bank, although some have inadvertently forgotten to pay for something on leaving a shop - and if you NEVER shopped, but used home delivery instead, then the possibility would be reduced!
|
|
|
Engineer1
7,182 posts
78 months
|
TwigtheWonderkid said: julianc said: 10 Pence Short said: You, like others, try to make it sound like a rare skill to avoid getting caught speeding.
Bear in mind that most, if not all cameras, will give you opportunity to run at least 10% over the limit before triggering.
Then also bear in mind that most forces will now offer speed awareness courses in lieu of points for minor transgressions.
It is hardly an authoritarian, unreasonable situation where all but the most skilled drivers will be forced into hardship by simply driving a few miles every year, as some on here would have you believe.
In any case, once again there's an abject failure to explain why when caught, a speeding driver has rights to pervert the course of justice where other offenders do not. I'm not trying to say it's a rare skill to avoid getting caught speeding. My point was related to the probability of getting caught increasing as miles driven increases. Does that apply to all offences? Does the chance of being done for shoplifting increase with the amount of shopping you do? Or the chance of commiting a bank robbery go up in line with the amount of times you visit the bank? Surely, if you don't commit the crime, the exposure is irrelavant. The issue is shopping tends to be easy to get right, shops don't change how they work pick up item pay at till or variations on this. Now on the road 2 lanes with a central reservation is expected to be 70 as it is a dual carriageway. But if there are enough houses around even if they are behind fences the limit might be 50, or even 40 yet the road looks very similar, and worse still a road that you travel on every year on holiday may have been 50 last year but reduced to 30 this and it only takes missing one sign and you are speeding.
|
|
|
fluffnik
17,394 posts
96 months
|
cmoose said: (...sensible stuff...)
For me, none of this makes an argument for abolishing the limits. Ah, but it does. I used to think as you do but there is simply no way to enforce arbitrary limits in a consistent yet just way.
|
|
|
deltashad
2,743 posts
66 months
|
Fines are not the answer. Mr money fancy pants will laugh in the face of a ticket.
A ban is not the answer. The knock on effect to a family can be catastrophic.
I would think taking some ones time is a good deter-ant, community service work. There should be much more community service work manipulated within the legal punishment system imo.
If a person is caught a certain amount of times then they should be forced to be retrained, paid for by the offender before the licence is reinstated.
This would be a fairer way of hitting people.
|
Advertisement
|
|
|
10 Pence Short
27,632 posts
86 months
|
deltashad said: ...A ban is not the answer. The knock on effect to a family can be catastrophic...
...If a person is caught a certain amount of times then they should be forced to be retrained, paid for by the offender before the licence is reinstated... I'm not sure you thought it through.
|
|
|
fluffnik
17,394 posts
96 months
|
deltashad said: This would be a fairer way of hitting people. Why should people get "hit" at all for doing no harm? If excessive speed is an issue a prosecution for DWDCA should succeed...
|
|
|
14-7
5,714 posts
60 months
|
deltashad said: If a person is caught a certain amount of times then they should be forced to be retrained, paid for by the offender before the licence is reinstated.
This would be a fairer way of hitting people. If you get caught several times for endorsable offences you lose your licence and have to retake your test. We all know the rules when we start driving and a condition of having a driving licence is that you obey those rules. If you don't you suffer the consequences or feel free to hand your driving licence back.
|
|
|
aw51 121565
2,707 posts
102 months
|
14-7 said: If you get caught several times for endorsable offences you lose your licence and have to retake your test.
We all know the rules when we start driving and a condition of having a driving licence is that you obey those rules. If you don't you suffer the consequences or feel free to hand your driving licence back. You don't retake your test after totting up, but you do have to apply for your driving licence to be returned to you.
|
|
|
10 Pence Short
27,632 posts
86 months
|
aw51 121565 said: 14-7 said: If you get caught several times for endorsable offences you lose your licence and have to retake your test.
We all know the rules when we start driving and a condition of having a driving licence is that you obey those rules. If you don't you suffer the consequences or feel free to hand your driving licence back. You don't retake your test after totting up, but you do have to apply for your driving licence to be returned to you. The Court has the power to order a retest, though it is rarely used.
|
|
|
cmoose
18,654 posts
98 months
|
14-7 said: If you get caught several times for endorsable offences you lose your licence and have to retake your test.
We all know the rules when we start driving and a condition of having a driving licence is that you obey those rules. If you don't you suffer the consequences or feel free to hand your driving licence back. Problem with that theory is that they change the rules and the way they enforce them as we go along. And for the most part we don't get consulted. Plus, as I argued above, the way they now enforce the limits dumbs down driving and ignores the vast majority of driving practices that cause accidents and deaths according to official statistics. So morally, it's far from clear that bending over and taking it when it comes to speeding is the right course of action. It's hard to prove one way or another, but it's certainly possible that broader resistance to unthinking enforcement might encourage the authorities to police the roads more intelligently and effectively. To be honest, improvement wouldn't be difficult. All they have to do is shift the emphasis from speed to dangerous driving.
|
|
|
deltashad
2,743 posts
66 months
|
Very few people don't speed. Yes, we all know the rules, and all chose to not obey those rules. The rules are in place for a reason whether we agree or not, there has to be consequences.
The present system is unfair for those who have to travel excessively compared to the average motorist.
Maybe DWDCA is the answer. I don't want to tempt fate but my licence at present is very pretty.
I lost it in the past with the totting up procedure when I was young and inexperienced. It made my life very awkward living in a rural community where public transport is horrendous. I was had to travel to work on a school bus, luckily I had a boss who let me work flexible hours to accommodate the poor transportation.
I would have much more welcomed doing a stint of community service at the weekends and a slap on the wrist condescending training course rather than a loss of licence.
There must be many people who drive for a living or had no facilities of public transport to get to work who's lives were extremely disrupted or worse due to losing their licence.
|
|
|
cmoose
18,654 posts
98 months
|
fluffnik said: Ah, but it does.
I used to think as you do but there is simply no way to enforce arbitrary limits in a consistent yet just way. It can't be done perfectly. But the police exercise discretion routinely with regard to all sorts of laws. It's not beyond the wit of man do do it fairly well. No law is perfect or can truly be applied fairly. That's no reason to give up entirely on the legal system. The law's much more of an arse than most would believe. But it's still the lesser of two evils.
|
|
|
TwigtheWonderkid
6,089 posts
19 months
|
deltashad said: I would have much more welcomed doing a stint of community service at the weekends and a slap on the wrist condescending training course rather than a loss of licence. I'm sure you would. But then your licence might no be clean now. The fact that losing your licence was such a nightmare is a deterent for not losing it again. That's the idea of punishment, it's meant to be unpleasent and unpopular!!
|
|
|
10PenceShort
27,632 posts
86 months
|
deltashad said: Very few people don't speed. Yes, we all know the rules, and all chose to not obey those rules. The rules are in place for a reason whether we agree or not, there has to be consequences.
The present system is unfair for those who have to travel excessively compared to the average motorist.
Maybe DWDCA is the answer. I don't want to tempt fate but my licence at present is very pretty.
I lost it in the past with the totting up procedure when I was young and inexperienced. It made my life very awkward living in a rural community where public transport is horrendous. I was had to travel to work on a school bus, luckily I had a boss who let me work flexible hours to accommodate the poor transportation.
I would have much more welcomed doing a stint of community service at the weekends and a slap on the wrist condescending training course rather than a loss of licence.
There must be many people who drive for a living or had no facilities of public transport to get to work who's lives were extremely disrupted or worse due to losing their licence. Did your totting up and subsequent ban have any effect on your attitude towards speeding? In other words, have you been caught speeding many times since you were banned for totting up?
|
|
|
fluffnik
17,394 posts
96 months
|
TwigtheWonderkid said: That's the idea of punishment, it's meant to be unpleasent and unpopular!! It also ought to be justified and proportionate...
|
|
|
10PenceShort
27,632 posts
86 months
|
fluffnik said: It also ought to be justified and proportionate... £60 doesn't seem too disproportionate, does it?
|
|
|
cmoose
18,654 posts
98 months
|
10PenceShort said: £60 doesn't seem too disproportionate, does it? It is if you've not been driving dangerously while all around you dangerous driving goes ignored.
|
|
|
10PenceShort
27,632 posts
86 months
|
cmoose said: 10PenceShort said: £60 doesn't seem too disproportionate, does it? It is if you've not been driving dangerously while all around you dangerous driving goes ignored. Round and around. So what is your standpoint? That there should be no speed limits, or that there should be and the punishment less severe than a £60 fine?
|
|
|
cmoose
18,654 posts
98 months
|
10PenceShort said: Round and around.
So what is your standpoint? That there should be no speed limits, or that there should be and the punishment less severe than a £60 fine? I've already said. I'm not arguing in favour of abolishing limits. I'm arguing in favour of road policing that majors on safety / reducing dangerous driving rather than merely breaking speed limits, which official stats show is involved in only a small minority of accidents. That doesn't mean speed limits are ignored. But it does mean a return to a greater exercise of discretion, more intelligent policing, a campaign to educate drivers better and so on. I'm not saying it will be easy. But then, how often is something really worthwhile and effective easy? Mindlessly enforcing speed limits is easy and serves to overlook most dangerous driving, dumbs down driving and policing standards, perverts the legal system by putting citizens in conflict with it and eroding confidence. In some reagrds (not all!) it's a little like the "war" on drugs, this has to be about utility. Whether or not you think people should be able to take recreational drugs or not, you can't ignore the negative impact of prohibition. With drugs it's been all about prohibition and the results have been pretty horrible. To a much lesser extent the same applies to speeding. It's taken the focus off dangerous driving in general and I believe significantly contributed to the rapidly deteriorating standards of unthinking driving and road policing we see today.
|
|
