12 Points on the Horizon...
Discussion
anonymous said:
[redacted]
How about if somebody has extensive experience, but their licence is from another country, and they're a day over the maximum period they can drive on it here? Or it's a time-limited licence and it's not been renewed in time. Yesterday, they were legal. Today, their licence is expired. Administrivial offence. But...?What about insurance? Perhaps they thought they had DOC cover, but don't?
roofer said:
Doing nearly 70k a year, it's a hazard of the occupation, but the explosion of revenue raisers everywhere is a pain.
Generally, don't speed in 30-40 limits at all and you won't get points, I've been a courier since 1990, 80k a year, in and out of London 2-3 times a week, speeding convictions in 26 years, one, and that was in roadworks on the M6 where there was a 1 mile gap in the middle, no cones, everybody started coming past me at 70 so I assumed I'd missed the NSL sign but no, cop car waiting in the middle where the 50 reminder sign was, they must have caught 100s, the police didn't stop any of these lunatics doing 70 in a 50 though which given I got 4 points would suggest they thought it was more dangerous than normal, but if the copper had chased me down he wouldn't have been there to ring the till.
My opinion is anyone with 9 points has already had 3 chances to reform so hardship shouldn't apply, being on the bus for a month or two and going back to 9 points when the licence is returned would make people think more
Driving should be a privilege not a right
singlecoil said:
We punish it because we don't know that it was safe. In some cases we will even think it was downright dangerous.
People will be punished soon for exceeding a permanent 'temporary' 50mph speed limit on the downhill approach to Brynglas tunnels M4 Newport Westbound. Its something to do with the fact that they STILL haven't fixed all the lights after a fire in the tunnels in 2011
Thousands will be prosecuted for not hitting the brakes to drop down from 70 for no apparent reason and for not constantly braking on the downhill where no reasonable driver thinks braking is needed or necessary. But they will be prosecuted. I wont but I guess s
te like that switches me off the mob in charge and it probably shouldn't as I actually really did see a GATSO outside a school in Pencoed the other day and thought 'brilliant'. I realise my issues are complex but it is centred on fair and reasonable application in good contexts rather than pinging for the sake of the coffers with hardly any connection to safety. Ohh and all the disservice this 'we fixed it' approach has had on other far more crucial areas of policing that is of far greater consequence. But its a simple absolute isn't it and who cares about any bigger picture?singlecoil said:
Let's suppose for a moment you were in charge and could simply impose such rules and laws as you saw fit.
If you do that you won't be in charge for long. There has to be a modicum of what you think you can get away with (as in will be acceptable to the populace) tinged in with it rather simply what you see as fit.Digby said:
Devil2575 said:
You said that something happened quite a lot, I asked how you knew this. I understand you have your own example and you may have other examples, but to say that something happens quite a lot implies something more. I simply challeneged you on this. This isn't playground stuff, this is what we all should be doing everytime someone makes bold claims like that.
And I told you you can adapt percentages to suit any way you like.You know this, just as you know nobody has a figure to hand as an overall statistic because it won't likely have ever been measured.
Playground stuff, exactly as I said. Try to be grown up.
I didn't know whether there was a statistic to hand or not which is why I asked.
It isn't playground stuff to ask people to back up a statement with evidence. If you haven't got any data then you have no basis to make the claim you did. It is as simple as that.
Digby said:
There have been thousands of drivers fined wrongly for many different reasons. I class that as "quite a lot" Some fight back, some don't even know. Either way, it happens, will happen again and trying to make it appear as though I'm wrong in any way regarding that doesn't change anything.
Ok, what is the source of this "Thousands"?If some don't even know who do you know?
Digby said:
That's just part of a system often used to make money and hit targets. I don't like or appreciate that way of operating and as with recent cases abroad, some of those involved with cameras and links to the UK systems have been convicted of corruption, bribery and numerous other offences. The entire thing needs shaking up and maybe 'mistakes' wouldn't happen quite a lot?
This is another claim that you need to back up with evidence. Who has been convicted of corruption and what links do they have to UK camera partnerships/policing?Digby said:
It has turned very sour and money related in many instances and all I want, as you should want, is for the system to be as it was intended; to catch only the very worst offenders and not be based around greed and targets and lowered limits with that in mind.
Who said that was how the system was intended to be? Devil2575 said:
Digby said:
There have been thousands of drivers fined wrongly for many different reasons. I class that as "quite a lot"
Ok, what is the source of this "Thousands"?However, when the total number of fixed penalties issued every year is in the millions, I wouldn't call that "quite a lot".
WARNING: EVIDENCE BEYOND THIS POINT...
https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploa...
Ken Figenus said:
Very defeatist and passive attitude by some here.
Speed cameras are a blip on the radar when it comes to the things I think are really important. If I'm going to worry about stuff it's not going to be that the motivation behind catching me breaking a speed limit may be money. It's not like I don't know what the limit is and that we haven't had them since well before I started driving. It's also not like we're the only country to have speed limits. When pretty much every country thinks something is a good idea you either have to reason that there must be something in it or that there is a massive global conspiracy going on. I'll leave the latter for the tin foil hat wearers.There's plenty of stuff that does get me hot under the collar but this isn't one of them.
TooMany2cvs said:
Devil2575 said:
Digby said:
There have been thousands of drivers fined wrongly for many different reasons. I class that as "quite a lot"
Ok, what is the source of this "Thousands"?However, when the total number of fixed penalties issued every year is in the millions, I wouldn't call that "quite a lot".
WARNING: EVIDENCE BEYOND THIS POINT...
https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploa...
Thousands sounds plausible but that doesn't make it true though. In my job I hear lots of plausible reasons why things happen every day and it might not surprise you to learn that I frequently discover them to be incorrect. Data is everything and personal testimony is the least valuable source of evidence when trying to find the truth.
singlecoil said:
anonymous said:
[redacted]
If someone drives on the M25 during the afternoon at 155mph and doesn't crash, or cause any crashes, then that piece of driving is thereby proved to be safe. The lack of consequences is convincing evidence.As no one was hurt then no action should be taken to prevent people from dropping hammers like this again. We should wait until someone is hit by a hammer before we act.
Logic fail
singlecoil said:
Let's suppose for a moment you were in charge and could simply impose such rules and laws as you saw fit.
How would you put things right?
I'll draft a PPT by the morning for you - or I can just roll over and think its all ticketyboo currently. I know which one is the lesser effort and I know any utopian tweaks really would be designed to refocus on issues of real safety rather then churn stats on general speed trivialities. I'd take the cameravans enforcing 79mph off motorway bridges for a start and pop them outside old peoples homes and orphanages and catterys!!! Those poor kittens! How would you put things right?
Devil2575 said:
singlecoil said:
anonymous said:
[redacted]
If someone drives on the M25 during the afternoon at 155mph and doesn't crash, or cause any crashes, then that piece of driving is thereby proved to be safe. The lack of consequences is convincing evidence.As no one was hurt then no action should be taken to prevent people from dropping hammers like this again. We should wait until someone is hit by a hammer before we act.
Logic fail
anonymous said:
[redacted]
The idea that there is such a thing as a safe speed (whether it happens to be above or below the limit) is a silly idea. There are no absolutes here, there are only degrees of safety and degrees of danger. There's not even a way of measuring the degree of safety of a given speed in a given situation.Earlier he suggested that the possession of a licence entitles drivers to make their own decisions about speed and that it's possible to prove safety!
anonymous said:
[redacted]
Ken Figenus said:
singlecoil said:
Let's suppose for a moment you were in charge and could simply impose such rules and laws as you saw fit.
How would you put things right?
I'll draft a PPT by the morning for you - or I can just roll over and think its all ticketyboo currently. I know which one is the lesser effort and I know any utopian tweaks really would be designed to refocus on issues of real safety rather then churn stats on general speed trivialities. I'd take the cameravans enforcing 79mph off motorway bridges for a start and pop them outside old peoples homes and orphanages and catterys!!! Those poor kittens! How would you put things right?
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff