Discussion
Heaveho said:
The conversation is more centred around the hyperactive approach to policing speeding compared to all other forms of car related misdemeanours, and the reasons behind it, ie, financial, not safety. The problem we should be dealing with are the drivers who don't drive within the law for other reasons not getting dealt with adequately or at all in many cases.
You present your speculation as fact. Raygun said:
Greendubber said:
The attitude that they are there to do a job and not be your best mate?
The old excuses that came out in Nuremberg in 46.Digby said:
Greendubber said:
OK, I asked you to enlighten me and you've decided not to. You have offered nothing to support your numerous claims making them to appear nothing more than your opinion.
If you're going to make such claims you need to do a little more to convince someone you are challenging that they are true.
The only point I said I dont care about is why cameras came about but if you want skew that and use it as an out so you dont have to back up your claims then feel free.
I would ask why you have not looked in to any of this yourself, but, as you don't care why cameras came about, I would assume you have no interest in those involved that made it happen etc. I'm sure you wouldn't care about this bit of info over here, but explore that bit over there...If you're going to make such claims you need to do a little more to convince someone you are challenging that they are true.
The only point I said I dont care about is why cameras came about but if you want skew that and use it as an out so you dont have to back up your claims then feel free.
You simply don't care. I get it. Move on
Edited by Digby on Thursday 15th September 19:49
Oh well.
Greendubber said:
Digby said:
Greendubber said:
OK, I asked you to enlighten me and you've decided not to. You have offered nothing to support your numerous claims making them to appear nothing more than your opinion.
If you're going to make such claims you need to do a little more to convince someone you are challenging that they are true.
The only point I said I dont care about is why cameras came about but if you want skew that and use it as an out so you dont have to back up your claims then feel free.
I would ask why you have not looked in to any of this yourself, but, as you don't care why cameras came about, I would assume you have no interest in those involved that made it happen etc. I'm sure you wouldn't care about this bit of info over here, but explore that bit over there...If you're going to make such claims you need to do a little more to convince someone you are challenging that they are true.
The only point I said I dont care about is why cameras came about but if you want skew that and use it as an out so you dont have to back up your claims then feel free.
You simply don't care. I get it. Move on
Edited by Digby on Thursday 15th September 19:49
Oh well.
Raygun said:
La Liga said:
ppeal to extremes fallacy and semi-Goodwin's law all in one.
Well to avoid them comparisons I suggest the police show some common sense(a percentage do) rather than enforce to the 'letter of the law' any little misdemeanour.It isn't be enforced to the letter of the law.
You don't get prosecuted for 1mph over the limit, for small margins over no action is taken & then there is a sliding scale ranging from education instead of prosecution through to banning depending on the margin over.
vonhosen said:
So you exaggerate again.
then there is a sliding scale ranging from education instead of prosecution through to banning depending on the margin over.
A £100 education lesson for doing 36 in a 30!! Not to mention some snidey insurance companies jacking your insurance up.then there is a sliding scale ranging from education instead of prosecution through to banning depending on the margin over.
You know as well as I know when 36 in a 30 warrants a ticket/£100 education lesson or not.
Are you suggesting that 36 in a 30 does not warrant any action and should just be ignored? If so at what speed in a 30 zone should someone face consequences if caught?
I did an SAC for 35 in a 30. Totally warranted, my main issue was that I didn't see the van causing me to thoroughly question my observational skills that day, rather than whine about getting caught. 20 years without any points and I didn't even see the van, embarrassing.
I did an SAC for 35 in a 30. Totally warranted, my main issue was that I didn't see the van causing me to thoroughly question my observational skills that day, rather than whine about getting caught. 20 years without any points and I didn't even see the van, embarrassing.
_dobbo_ said:
Are you suggesting that 36 in a 30 does not warrant any action and should just be ignored? If so at what speed in a 30 zone should someone face consequences if caught?
I did an SAC for 35 in a 30. Totally warranted, my main issue was that I didn't see the van causing me to thoroughly question my observational skills that day, rather than whine about getting caught. 20 years without any points and I didn't even see the van, embarrassing.
Good to hear you're a reformed character and may it be lesson to you if you ever think about committing a crime of this magnitude again!!I did an SAC for 35 in a 30. Totally warranted, my main issue was that I didn't see the van causing me to thoroughly question my observational skills that day, rather than whine about getting caught. 20 years without any points and I didn't even see the van, embarrassing.
Raygun said:
_dobbo_ said:
Are you suggesting that 36 in a 30 does not warrant any action and should just be ignored? If so at what speed in a 30 zone should someone face consequences if caught?
I did an SAC for 35 in a 30. Totally warranted, my main issue was that I didn't see the van causing me to thoroughly question my observational skills that day, rather than whine about getting caught. 20 years without any points and I didn't even see the van, embarrassing.
Good to hear you're a reformed character and may it be lesson to you if you ever think about committing a crime of this magnitude again!!I did an SAC for 35 in a 30. Totally warranted, my main issue was that I didn't see the van causing me to thoroughly question my observational skills that day, rather than whine about getting caught. 20 years without any points and I didn't even see the van, embarrassing.
Raygun said:
Greendubber said:
You sound like a spoilt child.
Spare me the insults because you've lost the argument.If you disagree with the law, use your energies to try and bring about change.
If you disagree with the way it's enforced, you make yourself look double-digit IQ stupid.
I speed frequently, as do the majority of people here. We do so, in the knowledge and acceptance that we will take our medicine if caught. That's how laws work, particularly those that are absolute and easily enforced.
Raygun said:
La Liga said:
ppeal to extremes fallacy and semi-Goodwin's law all in one.
Well to avoid them comparisons I suggest the police show some common sense(a percentage do) rather than enforce to the 'letter of the law' any little misdemeanour.However, as has been pointed out, it's not the case. A fraction of a % of excess speed offences are detected. Also don't assume everyone shares your world view i.e. doesn't like nor support speed enforcement of the nature being discussed.
vonhosen said:
Terminator X said:
99% of people are not "law-breakers" if they speed then it's only because those 50 year old limits are out of date. Let's just say that people mostly drive at 75-85 on the m/way or DC; if say the limit was increased to 80 you wouldn't all of a sudden see them driving at 85-95 as imho that really is too fast for the majority. What would happen though is that the amount of tickets issued for speeding would collapse 
Yes some t
ts will abuse it but they always will no matter what the limit is.
TX.
They are law breakers & that doesn't make it bad law either. Yes some tts will abuse it but they always will no matter what the limit is.TX.
99%+ of drivers also commit Sec 3 RTA offences from time to time too. It doesn't make that bad law either & we shouldn't consider removing the offence because they do.
TX.
Terminator X said:
I meant they generally do not break the law in all walks of life other than "speeding" which says to me that the limits are set too low.
I get frustrated with some speed limits, just like everyone does. But I don't think they're too low. There are huge numbers of new houses popping up everywhere and loads more people have cars now than when the road networks were originally designed. Speed limits are going down because the roads aren't as empty as they used to be.
Also cars are getting faster so feel slower at legal speeds, but thinking time is the same and damage to pedestrians is almost the same.
They should make the roads better, but in the meantime most speed limits do make sense.
Terminator X said:
vonhosen said:
Terminator X said:
99% of people are not "law-breakers" if they speed then it's only because those 50 year old limits are out of date. Let's just say that people mostly drive at 75-85 on the m/way or DC; if say the limit was increased to 80 you wouldn't all of a sudden see them driving at 85-95 as imho that really is too fast for the majority. What would happen though is that the amount of tickets issued for speeding would collapse Yes some tts will abuse it but they always will no matter what the limit is.
TX.
They are law breakers & that doesn't make it bad law either. Yes some tts will abuse it but they always will no matter what the limit is.TX.
99%+ of drivers also commit Sec 3 RTA offences from time to time too. It doesn't make that bad law either & we shouldn't consider removing the offence because they do.
TX.
(You can also add whatever other offences you want in e.g. tax evasion?)
vonhosen said:
Terminator X said:
vonhosen said:
Terminator X said:
99% of people are not "law-breakers" if they speed then it's only because those 50 year old limits are out of date. Let's just say that people mostly drive at 75-85 on the m/way or DC; if say the limit was increased to 80 you wouldn't all of a sudden see them driving at 85-95 as imho that really is too fast for the majority. What would happen though is that the amount of tickets issued for speeding would collapse Yes some tts will abuse it but they always will no matter what the limit is.
TX.
They are law breakers & that doesn't make it bad law either. Yes some tts will abuse it but they always will no matter what the limit is.TX.
99%+ of drivers also commit Sec 3 RTA offences from time to time too. It doesn't make that bad law either & we shouldn't consider removing the offence because they do.
TX.
(You can also add whatever other offences you want in e.g. tax evasion?)
TX.
Terminator X said:
vonhosen said:
Terminator X said:
vonhosen said:
Terminator X said:
99% of people are not "law-breakers" if they speed then it's only because those 50 year old limits are out of date. Let's just say that people mostly drive at 75-85 on the m/way or DC; if say the limit was increased to 80 you wouldn't all of a sudden see them driving at 85-95 as imho that really is too fast for the majority. What would happen though is that the amount of tickets issued for speeding would collapse Yes some tts will abuse it but they always will no matter what the limit is.
TX.
They are law breakers & that doesn't make it bad law either. Yes some tts will abuse it but they always will no matter what the limit is.TX.
99%+ of drivers also commit Sec 3 RTA offences from time to time too. It doesn't make that bad law either & we shouldn't consider removing the offence because they do.
TX.
(You can also add whatever other offences you want in e.g. tax evasion?)
TX.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff