Mum got an NIP, 40 in a 30 but the letter is LATE

[Zeeky]

If you choose to bring a car onto the road should that choice be declared to the authorities or should it be a case of 'catch me if you can'? I think there is a difference between walking on the public highway where the principles of human/fundamental rights law apply in much greater weight and bringing a motor vehicle onto the road which is a highly regulated activity where rights laws are substantially ignored.

[10 Pence Short]

Alex said:

If there is proof that the driver was speeding, then identifying yourself as the driver will incriminate you. So in my opinion, you should have the right to remain silent.

If the speeding case against the driver is sound enough to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the driver was speeding, and the 172 allows the driver to be identified, then the result is a just one.

If the 172 names the driver, and the named driver believes they are innocent of the speeding, they have ample opportunity to avoid prosecution by having the case tried in court. The result from that will be a just one.

If the evidence of speeding is overwhelming, but the 172 is not available to identify the driver, the speeder never faces justice or has opportunity to test the case against them. That is not a just result.

[Devil2575]

fluffnik said:

Devil2575 said:

fluffnik said:

Tell me where I'm wrong and why.

You're not wrong, you gave an opinion and there's no such thing as a wrong opinion.

However the notion that the S172 is entirely incompatible with a free and just society, IMHO, marks you out as a liar or a crazy person.

No, it marks me out as someone who thinks the right not to self-incriminate is intrinsic to a free and just society.

Identifying the driver is not self incriminating. It is simply identifying the driver in a vehicle at a particular time.

Devil2575 said:

I think people object to the S172 because they want to get away with speeding, IMHO it's as simple as that. This rubbish about free and just society is BS to divert attention from the fact that you object to the state catching and punishing people for breaking speed limits.

So, on balance, not crazy really, just dishonest, IMHO of course

fluffnik said:

No dishonesty either.

If you look back through my posts you'll find that I consistently oppose all arbitrary laws, every sort of administrative oppression, the criminalisation of victimless actions and restrictions on free thought.

I consider speeding, if done safely, to be much, much more morally defensible than working for an SCP...

Define safely? Given that driving faster is inherantly more dangerous on account of the fact you have less time to react, the speed differential is likely to be greater and if you do crash there will be more kinetic energy to dissipate then you could argue that any form of speeding is putting other road users at greater risk.
Driving will always provide some level of risk, speed limits seek to minimise that risk.
Simply allowing individuals to pick and choose the speed they wish to travel with no upper limit is going to result in more deaths and injuries, which is why every developed country has speed limits.

[Alex]

10 Pence Short said:

If the speeding case against the driver is sound enough to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the driver was speeding, and the 172 allows the driver to be identified, then the result is a just one.

If the 172 names the driver, and the named driver believes they are innocent of the speeding, they have ample opportunity to avoid prosecution by having the case tried in court. The result from that will be a just one.

If the evidence of speeding is overwhelming, but the 172 is not available to identify the driver, the speeder never faces justice or has opportunity to test the case against them. That is not a just result.

Whether it is just or not is irrelevant.

[Steffan]

Alex said:

10 Pence Short said:

If the speeding case against the driver is sound enough to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the driver was speeding, and the 172 allows the driver to be identified, then the result is a just one.

If the 172 names the driver, and the named driver believes they are innocent of the speeding, they have ample opportunity to avoid prosecution by having the case tried in court. The result from that will be a just one.

If the evidence of speeding is overwhelming, but the 172 is not available to identify the driver, the speeder never faces justice or has opportunity to test the case against them. That is not a just result.

Whether it is just or not is irrelevant.

Many years ago a Red Judge trying a case where a client of mine was a defendant made the remark to another defendant who was bitterly protesting the unfairness and lack of justice in the case.

" Mr XXXX.

In this court I can offer you only the Law. That is the reality of our situation. We deal only within the Law as defined by Parliament and refined by the courts. That is our function. I can offer you nothing more. "

Best definition I have ever heard in many years of Court proceedings. My client did win his case: but that one remark by the Judge still lives with me. Masterful intellect. Fairness and Justice are not necessarily available under the Law. But this is the nearest we can get.

[fluffnik]

Devil2575 said:

fluffnik said:

No, it marks me out as someone who thinks the right not to self-incriminate is intrinsic to a free and just society.

Identifying the driver is not self incriminating. It is simply identifying the driver in a vehicle at a particular time.

If the only bit of evidence missing is the identity of the driver and the RK happens to be driving they are indeed required to incriminate themselves under threat of an even more oppressive legal sanction.

This is not compatible with liberty and justice.

Devil2575 said:

fluffnik said:

I consider speeding, if done safely, to be much, much more morally defensible than working for an SCP...

Define safely? Given that driving faster is inherantly more dangerous on account of the fact you have less time to react, the speed differential is likely to be greater and if you do crash there will be more kinetic energy to dissipate then you could argue that any form of speeding is putting other road users at greater risk.

That the higher the speed the more energy will be carried into any collision which might occur is given, however:

There is no linear relationship between speed and risk.

As you move from rest the (speed related component of) risk of collision rises rapidly from near zero to a small but significant value which remains effectively constant until some point where the risk will once more climb rapidly before levelling off as it converges to one.

The point at which the risk rapidly becomes non negligible will vary massively - perhaps 10mph in a crowded shopping street, perhaps over 150mph across open moorland - but it is reasonable to characterise any speed below that point as "safe".

Devil2575 said:

Driving will always provide some level of risk, speed limits seek to minimise that risk.

They may seek to but they fail utterly, they don't even serve to consistently inform.

Devil2575 said:

Simply allowing individuals to pick and choose the speed they wish to travel with no upper limit is going to result in more deaths and injuries, which is why every developed country has speed limits.

Every driver who has successfully negotiated a tight bend on an NSL road or driven past a school at chucking out time has demonstrated the ability to chose a suitable speed independent of any posted limit.

The evidence of the IoM, Montana and Australia's Northern Territories suggests that speed limits offer far more oppression than they do utility...

Edited by fluffnik on Wednesday 23 May 00:31

[Zeeky]

Alex said:

10 Pence Short said:

If the speeding case against the driver is sound enough to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the driver was speeding, and the 172 allows the driver to be identified, then the result is a just one.

If the 172 names the driver, and the named driver believes they are innocent of the speeding, they have ample opportunity to avoid prosecution by having the case tried in court. The result from that will be a just one.

If the evidence of speeding is overwhelming, but the 172 is not available to identify the driver, the speeder never faces justice or has opportunity to test the case against them. That is not a just result.

Whether it is just or not is irrelevant.

What is relevant then? (Whatever it is cannot be related to any notion of justice otherwise 'just' becomes relevant )

Edited by Zeeky on Wednesday 23 May 00:50

[daemonoid]

Devil2575 said:

if you do crash there will be more kinetic energy to dissipate then you could argue that any form of speeding is putting other road users at greater risk.

So, given that my vehicles all weigh less than 800kg fully laden I should be able drive faster than average as I have less kinetic energy? I also have wide grippy tyres and good brakes to offset the extra distance taken to react so again should be allowed to go a bit faster?

[fluffnik]

10 Pence Short said:

If the speeding case against the driver is sound enough to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the driver was speeding, and the 172 allows the driver to be identified, then the result is a just one.

Nope, there is no justice where evidence has been acquired under duress.

[Devil2575]

fluffnik said:

If the only bit of evidence missing is the identity of the driver and the RK happens to be driving they are indeed required to incriminate themselves under threat of an even more oppressive legal sanction.

This is not compatible with liberty and justice.

I don't agree. I think that it's entirley reasonable in a just society to have to disclose who was driving a car registered to you on a certain day and time.

fluffnik said:

That the higher the speed the more energy will be carried into any collision which might occur is given, however:

There is no linear relationship between speed and risk.

As you move from rest the (speed related component of) risk of collision rises rapidly from near zero to a small but significant value which remains effectively constant until some point where the risk will once more climb rapidly before levelling off as it converges to one.

The point at which the risk rapidly becomes non negligible will vary massively - perhaps 10mph in a crowded shopping street, perhaps over 150mph across open moorland - but it is reasonable to characterise any speed below that point as "safe".

This all sounds very good but on what evidence is this based? 150mph across open moorland? Really? I trust there are no sheep...

Even if your view on the relationship between speed and risk is correct, which I doubt, the speed below which it is safe will vary depending on the time of day etc.

fluffnik said:

They may seek to but they fail utterly, they don't even serve to consistently inform.

Really? Again what evidence can you supply to support this assertion?
In the UK we have a lot of cars and in many places heavy traffic, yet we have some of the safest roads in the world.

fluffnik said:

Every driver who has successfully negotiated a tight bend on an NSL road or driven past a school at chucking out time has demonstrated the ability to chose a suitable speed independent of any posted limit.

The evidence of the IoM, Montana and Australia's Northern Territories suggests that speed limits offer far more oppression than they do utility...

Edited by fluffnik on Wednesday 23 May 00:31

Montana and the Northern territories have several orders of magnitude less traffic that UK roads.
The IoM is a small island with limited population.

Please explain how any of these cases demonstrates that speed limits offer more oppression than utility.


People tend to believe things because they support exisiting held views.

You believe all this stuff because it supports your exisiting view that you should be allowed to drive at what ever speed you want.

[Devil2575]

daemonoid said:

Devil2575 said:

if you do crash there will be more kinetic energy to dissipate then you could argue that any form of speeding is putting other road users at greater risk.

So, given that my vehicles all weigh less than 800kg fully laden I should be able drive faster than average as I have less kinetic energy? I also have wide grippy tyres and good brakes to offset the extra distance taken to react so again should be allowed to go a bit faster?

If you were only to take the risk of kinetic energy in to consideration they you could argue that point. However even if you did win the argument how would you propose to set speed limts? variable based on weight and relative grip levels?

It would be infintely complicated and entirely impractical.

[Alex]

Zeeky said:

What is relevant then? (Whatever it is cannot be related to any notion of justice otherwise 'just' becomes relevant )

Edited by Zeeky on Wednesday 23 May 00:50

The law.

[10 Pence Short]

Devil2575 said:

The IoM is a small island with limited population.

Notwithstanding it does have speed limits, too. It's just Fluffy dear likes to imagine that a NSL without a specific number supports his "no controls over humanity" approach whilst casually ignoring the 30 limits the same authority imposes on the very same roads at the very same time.

[daemonoid]

Devil2575 said:

If you were only to take the risk of kinetic energy in to consideration they you could argue that point. However even if you did win the argument how would you propose to set speed limts? variable based on weight and relative grip levels?

It would be infintely complicated and entirely impractical.

Oh, I agree it would be impractical but my point is that speed limits are fairly arbitrary and in general an easy way to collect revenue, they are not a safety device when we're talking about motorways and to some extent dual carriageways.

You claimed that more speed == more risk. I implied more weight == more risk. If the Gov were genuinely interested in cutting accident deaths (and as a secondary benefit, cutting emissions) they would enforce lower weights on vehicles. You getting defensive of the gov's speeding policy shows you've bought into the hype - 'speed kills', it doesn't! Driving above your abilities and the road conditions does, but speed itself - not so much. I hate to use the autobahns as an argument (it's kind of the Godwin's law for car discussions), but they are safer than the UK's motorways.

[10 Pence Short]

Lower speed = lower risk and, according to you, lower weight = lower risk.

Is there a reason one has to be enforced at the exclusion of the other? If both reduce risk, why not enforce both?

[Alex]

Most of the extra weight in modern cars is due to crash protection.

[Zeeky]

Alex said:

Zeeky said:

What is relevant then? (Whatever it is cannot be related to any notion of justice otherwise 'just' becomes relevant )

The law.

The law requires the RK to disclose who was driving a vehicle when asked by the authorities.

Below you appear to be introducing the concept of what is just in claiming that the S172 is wrong. If not why is it wrong in law? It is the law.

Alex said:

If there is proof that the driver was speeding, then identifying yourself as the driver will incriminate you. So in my opinion, you should have the right to remain silent.

[Alex]

My original point was that the S172 law is wrong. In my opinion, you SHOULD have the right to remain silent, but the law says, in this case, that you do not. I disagree with that.

[Devil2575]

daemonoid said:

You claimed that more speed == more risk. I implied more weight == more risk. If the Gov were genuinely interested in cutting accident deaths (and as a secondary benefit, cutting emissions) they would enforce lower weights on vehicles. You getting defensive of the gov's speeding policy shows you've bought into the hype - 'speed kills', it doesn't! Driving above your abilities and the road conditions does, but speed itself - not so much. I hate to use the autobahns as an argument (it's kind of the Godwin's law for car discussions), but they are safer than the UK's motorways.

Kinetic energy is related to mass and velocity. However velocity has a greater impact as it is a squared relationship.

KE = 1/2mv2

As to me getting defensive because I've bought into the hype, nothing of the sort. I don't like the speed kills campaign, I don't much like speed cameras and I still do break the posted limit although a lot less than I used too.

However I understand the need for speed limits and the enforcement of them. I may not always agree with them, but that's the downside to not living in a dictatorship where I make all the rules.

It is very difficult to legislate against bad driving. It is much easier to control speed and hence limit the effect of accidents when they occur.

[Devil2575]

Alex said:

Most of the extra weight in modern cars is due to crash protection.

Is it?

Electric windows, airconditioning, the fact that cars are getting bigger etc etc.

Crash protection is one aspect but it is far from the whole story.