Letting other drivers know of approaching Scamera vans

[Clivey]

R0G said:

Why help an illegal driver - its their fault if they are either incapable or deliberately breaking the limit.

Because I don't agree with the authorities' approach to speed and enforcement, because many limits are set low by do-gooders for dubious reasons and because we all ignore speed limits on purpose (those who claim they don't are liars, quite frankly) as we're all human.

I would love to follow these SCP parasites (and their advocates) around and supply the relevant authorities with proof of every single little transgression or error. Hypocritical gobstes, the lot of them.

[Pablo68]

Clivey said:

R0G said:

Why help an illegal driver - its their fault if they are either incapable or deliberately breaking the limit.

Because I don't agree with the authorities' approach to speed and enforcement, because many limits are set low by do-gooders for dubious reasons and because we all ignore speed limits on purpose (those who claim they don't are liars, quite frankly) as we're all human.

I would love to follow these SCP parasites (and their advocates) around and supply the relevant authorities with proof of every single little transgression or error. Hypocritical gobstes, the lot of them.

Funnily enough I recent did a SAC and when the chap asked us to give reasons for speeding, all the usual stuff like "late for work" etc came out I said "because I choose too" he demanded I explain myself I said I choose to speed when I believe the conditions are appropriate and not because of a number on a stick, which I use as a guide to possible hazards., and since in 28 years of driving I have neither hit anything or been prosecuted for anything prior to this 79 in a 70 for which I am now here, a speed I would do and will do again because it was perfectly safe regardless of the camera van hidden, and it is highly unlikely I have just been extremely lucky, so I consider my speed choices have been appropriate. He was not amused.

[delboy735]

Pablo68 said:

Clivey said:

R0G said:

Why help an illegal driver - its their fault if they are either incapable or deliberately breaking the limit.

Because I don't agree with the authorities' approach to speed and enforcement, because many limits are set low by do-gooders for dubious reasons and because we all ignore speed limits on purpose (those who claim they don't are liars, quite frankly) as we're all human.

I would love to follow these SCP parasites (and their advocates) around and supply the relevant authorities with proof of every single little transgression or error. Hypocritical gobstes, the lot of them.

Funnily enough I recent did a SAC and when the chap asked us to give reasons for speeding, all the usual stuff like "late for work" etc came out I said "because I choose too" he demanded I explain myself I said I choose to speed when I believe the conditions are appropriate and not because of a number on a stick, which I use as a guide to possible hazards., and since in 28 years of driving I have neither hit anything or been prosecuted for anything prior to this 79 in a 70 for which I am now here, a speed I would do and will do again because it was perfectly safe regardless of the camera van hidden, and it is highly unlikely I have just been extremely lucky, so I consider my speed choices have been appropriate. He was not amused.

[anonymous-user]

That's great if you're a good driver with good observational skills. On the other side I'd rather lesser drivers operate in a range where they can't do too much damage if they make an error which results in a collision. I propose the majority of road users fall into the latter category.

[MGJohn]

Recently a female driver flashed her lights at me repeatedly whilst passing in the opposite direction in her BMW. What's that all about was my immediate reaction. A few hundred yards later I understood why the flashes. Thank you Madam ...

Have had that happen before but that was a long time ago now.

There's a hedge near the road where I live where Police have been known to lurk with their camera guns. Some years ago, saw a BiB crouching down behind it with a camera gun as I drove away from my home. Hmmm. Drove round the block and approached from opposite direction accelerating briskly towards lurking BiB who emerged quickly from behind hedge pointing gun at my car just as I lifted off indicating left to enter my street where he was crouching and lurking... He soon ducked back behind the hedge when the reading was well within the speed limit.

Well helps to pass the time. It was like something out of a Norman Wisdom film ... Hilarious!

[Pablo68]

La Liga said:

That's great if you're a good driver with good observational skills. On the other side I'd rather lesser drivers operate in a range where they can't do too much damage if they make an error which results in a collision. I propose the majority of road users fall into the latter category.

Agreed. But I'd prefer they made road craft mandatory on passing your driving test and taught good COAST skills as a matter of course including refreshers rather than just dumb everyone down to the point everyone assumes its safe to drive around in robot mode as long as you stick rigidly to the speed limit.

[Phatboy317]

Pablo68 said:

Agreed. But I'd prefer they made road craft mandatory on passing your driving test and taught good COAST skills as a matter of course including refreshers rather than just dumb everyone down to the point everyone assumes its safe to drive around in robot mode as long as you stick rigidly to the speed limit.

This is something they're going to have to face up to once autonomous cars start appearing in numbers on our roads.

[R0G]

Clivey said:

Because I don't agree with the authorities'

Many of us do not but we choose to accept the rules they lay down by using the licence - that is the condition of using that licence

If you do not want to accept the rules then do not use the licence

Its like somebody wanting to play football but not accepting the rules of the game = do not play

[delboy735]

R0G said:

Clivey said:

Because I don't agree with the authorities'

Many of us do not but we choose to accept the rules they lay down by using the licence - that is the condition of using that licence

If you do not want to accept the rules then do not use the licence

Its like somebody wanting to play football but not accepting the rules of the game = do not play

You obviously haven't watched football recently have you ??

[Pablo68]

R0G said:

Many of us do not but we choose to accept the rules they lay down by using the licence - that is the condition of using that licence

If you do not want to accept the rules then do not use the licence

Its like somebody wanting to play football but not accepting the rules of the game = do not play

Sometimes the rules are wrong, and when enough people break them on a regular basis they should be evaluated.

[Clivey]

R0G said:

Many of us do not but we choose to accept the rules they lay down by using the licence - that is the condition of using that licence

If you do not want to accept the rules then do not use the licence

Its like somebody wanting to play football but not accepting the rules of the game = do not play

Tell me...have you fully read the End User Licence Agreements for every piece of software on on your computer?

[g3org3y]

Mk3Spitfire said:

R0G said:

Not read all the posts ....

Why help an illegal driver - its their fault if they are either incapable or deliberately breaking the limit

Because people should be allowed to hoon round at whatever speed they like. Speeding has no correlation with crashes and it's perfectly suitable to speed at warp speed whenever the need takes you. Speeding is purely policed for revenue and no other reason. It's disgusting that people should have to abide by laws if they don't agree with them.

I have no doubt that some speeders are caught at a vast excess above the posted limit. However I'd wager the majority of 'captures' are borderline/SAC territory. I wouldn't consider it quite the noble task you are making out.

[Pablo68]

Clivey said:

R0G said:

Many of us do not but we choose to accept the rules they lay down by using the licence - that is the condition of using that licence

If you do not want to accept the rules then do not use the licence

Its like somebody wanting to play football but not accepting the rules of the game = do not play

Tell me...have you fully read the End User Licence Agreements for every piece of software on on your computer?

Or lent or given a book or magazine or game or dvd to a mate or relative? Tut tut, naughty...totally against the rules of the purchase license. Take away his play station, tv, eyes now, or better still charge him £85 to lecture him on how naughty he was and how many lives he has negatively affected by his heinous actions and if he does It 4 more times he'll lose his play station.

Edited by Pablo68 on Tuesday 11th November 08:11

[Phatboy317]

R0G said:

Its like somebody wanting to play football but not accepting the rules of the game = do not play

It's not so much objecting to the rules, as objecting to the ref from hell

[Rovinghawk]

Phatboy317 said:

It's not so much objecting to the rules, as objecting to the ref from hell

A ref who only gets paid when he calls for a penalty............

[robinessex]

Some while ago, a scamera van decided that a lay bye just as you come up a hill into the 30mph limit was a good place to lurk. It was also the start of residental houses. A local guy who lived there, with a nice builders truck, decided that every time the scamera van appeared, he 'needed' to park his truck in front of it to 'unload' it !!!! Eventually, the scamera van got the message, and buggered off. Was the builder man obstructing an officer then ?

[Clivey]

robinessex said:

Some while ago, a scamera van decided that a lay bye just as you come up a hill into the 30mph limit was a good place to lurk. It was also the start of residental houses. A local guy who lived there, with a nice builders truck, decided that every time the scamera van appeared, he 'needed' to park his truck in front of it to 'unload' it !!!! Eventually, the scamera van got the message, and buggered off. Was the builder man obstructing an officer then ?

Shame he couldn't have spilt a few nails (and cleared them up after the camera van had gone).

I must admit I laughed when I saw somebody else throwing either nails, screws or tacks from their car window as they passed a local hard standing that's reserved for one of the vans.

[GC8]

Mk3Spitfire said:

I think what they go for is Obstructing an officer in the course of their duty.

I wouldn't ever do this, although I may well indicate to the speeding maniac that I wish them to slow down.

I suspect that along with so many other things, this relies on what you say when called to account.

[Nigel_O]

So - I'm in the pub, and I see someone who I believe is over the limit, with car keys in their hand, making for the door.

I approach said person and tell then that their actions would be inadvisable, and that they should leave their keys with the landlord and get a lift home.

Am I then perverting the course of justice, in the same way that warning an oncoming driver of a "safety camera van"? I would certainly be preventing any chance of him being detected. Even if my hypothetical drink driver was already in his car and on the road, my intervention would be in order to prevent a crime being committed (or continuing to be committed), NOT just for the sake of saving him from prosecution.

Surely, by warning a driver of their speed, I'm preventing a "crime" rather than aiming to spoil Plod's party

In fact, isn't the presence of a camera warning sign doing exactly the same as warning an oncoming driver? perhaps all the councils should be prosecuted for perverting the course of justice by warning drivers of a camera van.....

I have no issue with cameras in appropriate places - what really peeves me is the denial that the core purpose is revenue generation - the hard fact is that warning oncoming drivers of a van is depriving the treasury of £60 - that's why it is "illegal"

rant over...

[Clivey]

Nigel_O said:

So - I'm in the pub, and I see someone who I believe is over the limit, with car keys in their hand, making for the door.

I approach said person and tell then that their actions would be inadvisable, and that they should leave their keys with the landlord and get a lift home.

Am I then perverting the course of justice, in the same way that warning an oncoming driver of a "safety camera van"? I would certainly be preventing any chance of him being detected. Even if my hypothetical drink driver was already in his car and on the road, my intervention would be in order to prevent a crime being committed (or continuing to be committed), NOT just for the sake of saving him from prosecution.

Surely, by warning a driver of their speed, I'm preventing a "crime" rather than aiming to spoil Plod's party

In fact, isn't the presence of a camera warning sign doing exactly the same as warning an oncoming driver? perhaps all the councils should be prosecuted for perverting the course of justice by warning drivers of a camera van.....

I have no issue with cameras in appropriate places - what really peeves me is the denial that the core purpose is revenue generation - the hard fact is that warning oncoming drivers of a van is depriving the treasury of £60 - that's why it is "illegal"

rant over...