When is the law not the law??
Discussion
Reading through the many threads on Gassing Station one thought has always struck me....
If there is a post about drink driving, driving without a licence, insurance etc, the replies always seem to say, terrible, lock 'em up, throw away the key etc........
However somebody happens to mention they reached 160mph on a deserted 70mph limit motorway, but that was "OK because it was 4am in the morning, the conditions were clear, the vehicle was more than up to the task" that somehow is [b]usually[/b] deemed to be fair game and acceptable....
What's the difference, surely the law is the law and there to be obeyed???...:scratchchin:
Just interested in people's views on this
If there is a post about drink driving, driving without a licence, insurance etc, the replies always seem to say, terrible, lock 'em up, throw away the key etc........
However somebody happens to mention they reached 160mph on a deserted 70mph limit motorway, but that was "OK because it was 4am in the morning, the conditions were clear, the vehicle was more than up to the task" that somehow is [b]usually[/b] deemed to be fair game and acceptable....
What's the difference, surely the law is the law and there to be obeyed???...:scratchchin:
Just interested in people's views on this
Laws cannot possibly deal with all sets of circumstances, so they are there to be interpreted. The police and (to a greater extent I think) the judiciary need to interpret the laws better rather than following them to the letter. There is a time to follow the rules/laws and a time to ignore them.
Arbitarily set limits are just that and there are times when the limit is inappropriate. The governmaent trust us enough to slow down below 30mph when it is not safe (eg 8.50 am in front of a school) but do not give us the same leaway above the limit.
However I think most people would agree certain laws should be absolute eg license and insurance.
However I think most people would agree certain laws should be absolute eg license and insurance.
If the judiciary decides it is fine to drive at 160mph on a deserted motorway at certain times of the day or night, how long before word gets out and that motorway and other motorways become undeserted by those who have heard the news?
What about the likes of Mrs Miggins who decides to mix it due to circumstances through necessity at the same time as the fast ones?
What about the severity of crashes that will inevitably occur when all those who can do?
Don't quote Germany! This is not Germany
What about flexibility on consumption of alcohol?
160mph whilst on the limit of 40 ug% breath reading?
Some people respond better when they are pissed apparently
from another thread!
differing amounts of alcohol affect different people in different ways. Are the judiciary to take this into account? With the social innaceptance of most of the public about DD, will they accept a flexible approach to these limits too?
Flexibility is the word. No problem with being flexible under the limit of reasonable rules.
Those who decide to push the envelope of flexibility over the reasonable limit have to take the consequences of doing so with a judicairy who have a conflicting opinion and the means to do something about it!
>> Edited by gone on Sunday 17th July 10:45
What about the likes of Mrs Miggins who decides to mix it due to circumstances through necessity at the same time as the fast ones?
What about the severity of crashes that will inevitably occur when all those who can do?
Don't quote Germany! This is not Germany
What about flexibility on consumption of alcohol?
160mph whilst on the limit of 40 ug% breath reading?
Some people respond better when they are pissed apparently
from another thread! differing amounts of alcohol affect different people in different ways. Are the judiciary to take this into account? With the social innaceptance of most of the public about DD, will they accept a flexible approach to these limits too?
Flexibility is the word. No problem with being flexible under the limit of reasonable rules.
Those who decide to push the envelope of flexibility over the reasonable limit have to take the consequences of doing so with a judicairy who have a conflicting opinion and the means to do something about it!
>> Edited by gone on Sunday 17th July 10:45
Then make why not just it illegal to drive dangerously, if you want to avoid dangerous driving?
Driving under a fixed speed limit isn't inherently safe, and driving over a fixed speed limit isn't inherently dangerous.
You don't make dangerous drivers safe by forcing them to slow down, and you don't make safe drivers dangerous by allowing them to speed up.
IMO the way to make drivers safer is to improve their driving skills, not teach them to engage cruise control and switch off their brain.
Driving under a fixed speed limit isn't inherently safe, and driving over a fixed speed limit isn't inherently dangerous.
You don't make dangerous drivers safe by forcing them to slow down, and you don't make safe drivers dangerous by allowing them to speed up.
IMO the way to make drivers safer is to improve their driving skills, not teach them to engage cruise control and switch off their brain.
gone said:
If the judiciary decides it is fine to drive at 160mph on a deserted motorway at certain times of the day or night, how long before word gets out and that motorway and other motorways become undeserted by those who have heard the news?
What about the likes of Mrs Miggins who decides to mix it due to circumstances through necessity at the same time as the fast ones?
What about the severity of crashes that will inevitably occur when all those who can do?
Don't quote Germany! This is not Germany
What about flexibility on consumption of alcohol?
160mph whilst on the limit of 40 ug% breath reading?
Some people respond better when they are pissed apparently
differing amounts of alcohol affect different people in different ways. Are the judiciary to take this into account? With the social innaceptance of most of the public about DD, will they accept a flexible approach to these limits too?
Flexibility is the word. No problem with being flexible under the limit of reasonable rules.
Those who decide to push the envelope of flexibility over the reasonable limit have to take the consequences of doing so with a judicairy who have a conflicting opinion and the means to do something about it!
>> Edited by gone on Sunday 17th July 10:45
i agree with you gone - what I said in my post is that there is a time to enforce the rules to the letter and a time to use some common sense. For example - driving whilst drunk - there is no excuse whatsoever. Going through a red light (carefully) to let an ambulance through - there really isn't any need to punish someone for that. Speeding on your way to hospital with your wife in labour beside you - I don't think that it does anyone any favours to prosecute the driver in that situation...
extenuating circumstance can't always be forseen, so laws have to be applied with some flexibility.
Wacky the question you should have asked is as follows.
Puts wooden spoon away, back to gardening.
Wacky Racer should have said:
Reading through the many threads on Gassing Station one thought has always struck me....
If there is a post about drink driving, driving without a licence, insurance etc, the replies always seem to say, terrible, lock 'em up, throw away the key etc........
However somebody happens to mention they reached 160mph on a deserted 70mph limit motorway, but that was "OK because it was 4am in the morning, the conditions were clear, the vehicle was more than up to the task" that somehow is usually deemed to be fair game and acceptable....
unless it is PC99 doing the driving when the terrible, lock 'em up, throw away the key etc. mode is engaged
What's the difference, surely the law is the law and there to be obeyed???...
Just interested in people's views on this
Puts wooden spoon away, back to gardening.
Speed limits are there to stop people killing themselves and others, it's a safety thing. So if it's all about safety why not just get rid of out of date limits and make all motor related crimes about dangerous driving whether that's travelling too fast for the conditions or driving whilst merry or just shite driving?
Wacky Racer said:
However somebody happens to mention they reached 160mph on a deserted 70mph limit motorway, but that was "OK because it was 4am in the morning, the conditions were clear, the vehicle was more than up to the task" that somehow is usually deemed to be fair game and acceptable....
But the law did agree that is was perfectly safe
If you are a policeman und are testing your car's capabilities - und this ist also acceptable in a 30 mph area mit people und traffic light und druinks milling about ... so long as you can clamim to be "testing the car in accordance mit your duties
- or after unexploded doughnuts 
Flat in Fifth said:
Wacky the question you should have asked is as follows.
Wacky Racer should have said:
Reading through the many threads on Gassing Station one thought has always struck me....
If there is a post about drink driving, driving without a licence, insurance etc, the replies always seem to say, terrible, lock 'em up, throw away the key etc........
However somebody happens to mention they reached 160mph on a deserted 70mph limit motorway, but that was "OK because it was 4am in the morning, the conditions were clear, the vehicle was more than up to the task" that somehow is usually deemed to be fair game and acceptable....
unless it is PC99 doing the driving when the terrible, lock 'em up, throw away the key etc. mode is engaged
What's the difference, surely the law is the law and there to be obeyed???...
Just interested in people's views on this
Puts wooden spoon away, back to gardening.
Liebchen - we appear to be almost telepathic
gone said:
If the judiciary decides it is fine to drive at 160mph on a deserted motorway at certain times of the day or night,
Youre a month or two late on this one mate; They did agree it was safe.
gone said:
how long before word gets out and that motorway and other motorways become undeserted by those who have heard the news?
Whats the problem? As long as its SAFE then just whats the complaint?
gone said:
What about the likes of Mrs Miggins who decides to mix it due to circumstances through necessity at the same time as the fast ones?
Driver training, better road maintainance, dedicated high speed lanes....solution is obvious.
gone said:
What about the severity of crashes that will inevitably occur when all those who can do?
Dead at 40 is just the same as dead at 140. Accidents happen, so does life, and so does death. Get used to it.
gone said:
Don't quote Germany! This is not Germany
You noticed? Yes, this isnt Germany...pity us for having a bunch of retards in charge of our "safety".
gone said:
What about flexibility on consumption of alcohol?
160mph whilst on the limit of 40 ug% breath reading?
Zero alcohol consumption before driving should be made law. No discretion, no misunderstandings, and no bloody excuses for it.
gone said:
Some people respond better when they are pissed apparently
differing amounts of alcohol affect different people in different ways.
Obviously such an assumption is Bollox whoever the proposer may be.
gone said:
Are the judiciary to take this into account? With the social innaceptance of most of the public about DD, will they accept a flexible approach to these limits too?
Answered above.
gone said:
Flexibility is the word. No problem with being flexible under the limit of reasonable rules.
The keyword here is "reasonable". At the moment the rules such as they are, are entirely Unreasonable.
Motoring offences seem to be the only ones where guilt is automatically presumed, where rights are denied, and money is seen as the way to punish/re-educate people.
So be it. Keep pushing it for the way its going and watch as the backlash gathers pace even faster.
Thats already happening.
gone said:
Those who decide to push the envelope of flexibility over the reasonable limit have to take the consequences of doing so with a judicairy who have a conflicting opinion and the means to do something about it!
Answer as above, but in addition: We also have "the means" as a large section of the population to "do something" about it also.
>> Edited by gone on Sunday 17th July 10:45[/quote]
lieber gone said:
If the judiciary decides it is fine to drive at 160mph on a deserted motorway at certain times of the day or night, how long before word gets out and that motorway and other motorways become undeserted by those who have heard the news?
Und it works fine elsewhere like "G-G-Germany"
Safe speed for conditions ist chosen. People do drive at speed per 85 th percentile und at thwich they feel most comfortable. Very, very few would drive at 160 mph if road ist busy und traffic ist flowing at fast but fair rate - of say 80-95 mph - which ist actually more normal - even on Germany's fastest A/bahn at normal business. Und it works for you on hard shoulder at 110 mph - on hunt for unexploded doughnuts
lieber gone said:
What about the severity of crashes that will inevitably occur when all those who can do?
You undermine the intelligence of majority by confusing mit minority who would have an accident regardless of speed driven. Ist sort which need to be identified in Learning processs und perhaps if we encouraged assessment und continous learning - especially because of latest gimmick/gadget/safety feature in the car's technical development - we may find minority become even more of minority as we will never overcome the Darwin gene und stupidity in some
lieber gone said:
Don't quote Germany! This is not Germany
Ist that because you know they have a point?
Besides ist a better training und more disciplined style ....und they have 
Polizei mit g-g-guns! 
Und we are not talking hairydryers But German breed ist not more intelligent or more skilled than UK breed - but perhaps have been brought up mit better understanding of discipline.
lieber gone said:
What about flexibility on consumption of alcohol?
160mph whilst on the limit of 40 ug% breath reading?
Some people respond better when they are pissed apparently
differing amounts of alcohol affect different people in different ways. Are the judiciary to take this into account? With the social innaceptance of most of the public about DD, will they accept a flexible approach to these limits too?
We have tangible medical and scientific research on how alcohol affects different people. body weight und fat mass, und gender etc. Limit ist chosen because this ist the norm per all tests world wide - und whilst we accept some may have better tolerance or have built up this tolerance by drinking middlish amount on daily basis - we are still aware of overall effect dulling the brain und the reflex - und medical research ist absolutely bomb proof on this one
Mit the speed issue - we have conflicting und one sided dodgy statistics und no standardisation of data collection - und whilst the standardisation of this data collection ist so apparently random - we cannot base research on a reliable control - und this ist same for both side of argument as to scam "effectiveness".
On the other hand - most average Josefs und Josefinas know that the scamera ist not where the accident occurred und ist alwasy either on gradient or near a speed limit change. Ist never where it should be
lieber gone said:
Flexibility is the word. No problem with being flexible under the limit of reasonable rules.
Those who decide to push the envelope of flexibility over the reasonable limit have to take the consequences of doing so with a judicairy who have a conflicting opinion and the means to do something about it!
But this ist the problem Liebchen - nicht. The scammers are not taking any circumstance into account und they proved this mit
1. The donor ambulance scandal (und the amount of hho-ha before they dropped the case unter pressure!)
2. The chap mit the heavily pregnant wife in last throes of labour (und mit kittens - ist either quick or long drawn out affair - und one never knows until that moment
) flashed whilst driving to hopsital (dropped after public anger und tabloid backlash) 3. Recent red light affair - und ist was case of creeping forward to create the space so that ambulance driver could sound siren und cross under his allowed code of conduct at traffic lights - as I understand from BiB family member that even BiB have to stop und sound sirens und cross only if traffic responds und makes it safe for him or her to do so
But we are losing the discretion to pernickety nit picking over trivialities - ist not case of blatting - ist case of just overs getting roughest justice - und silliness, arrogance und bullying over genuine mitigating circumstances.
D Mike said:
extenuating circumstance can't always be forseen, so laws have to be applied with some flexibility.
Laws are, by their nature, a set of inflexible rules that lawmakers pass so that they do not have to prescribe rules for every circumstance. The are "arbitrary" - all laws are - in that they draw a fixed line in the sand. They will create errors of things which should be punished and are left unpunished, and will punish things which should not be punished.
What is very important for the rule of law, is that they are not interpreted or applied flexibly - for then the law ceases to be a law and becomes a rule-of-thumb, and the public no longer know what the law is. The law is then made by those who interpret the law. A dangerous step for society.
That some acts are punished when the lawmakers did not intend that they should be punished, is a good reason for leniency and clemency for some of the guilty. So I would rather D Mike's words were:-
"Extenuating circumstances can't always be forseen, so punishments for those who break the law have to be applied with some flexibility."
This is what sentencing guidelines are about.
gone said:
What about the likes of Mrs Miggins who decides to mix it due to circumstances through necessity at the same time as the fast ones?
What about the severity of crashes that will inevitably occur when all those who can do?
You're theorising.
I've been there and done it.....before we had a 70 limit.
I assure you it is not a problem.
How do you define "dangerous driving"? Typical example of "I can't describe it, by I know it when I see it".
If you want to just prosecute people for dangerous driving, you end up with a dilemma when you get to court. What evidence, other than their opinion, can you accept the Police to present? If you want to be able to obtain convictions you have to assume the policeman's judgement is sound. If you are going to make that assumption, what is the point of bringing the case before a court? You might as well make the Police judge, jury and executioner too.
To try to alleviate this, we have a halfway house. Justice is only served if the Police choose to prosecute people they believe to be behaving dangerously, but we allow them to prosecute for something lesser that is easier to prove, e.g. speeding, which is not necessarily dangerous in itself.
The position of the Police in these cases has a large smack of "judge and jury" about it, but this is inevitable. It's a big burden to put on the Police's shoulder, and appears to be a burden that causes a fair bit of discomfort and denial. Nonetheless it is key to fair and practical law enforcement in a subjective area.
If you want to just prosecute people for dangerous driving, you end up with a dilemma when you get to court. What evidence, other than their opinion, can you accept the Police to present? If you want to be able to obtain convictions you have to assume the policeman's judgement is sound. If you are going to make that assumption, what is the point of bringing the case before a court? You might as well make the Police judge, jury and executioner too.
To try to alleviate this, we have a halfway house. Justice is only served if the Police choose to prosecute people they believe to be behaving dangerously, but we allow them to prosecute for something lesser that is easier to prove, e.g. speeding, which is not necessarily dangerous in itself.
The position of the Police in these cases has a large smack of "judge and jury" about it, but this is inevitable. It's a big burden to put on the Police's shoulder, and appears to be a burden that causes a fair bit of discomfort and denial. Nonetheless it is key to fair and practical law enforcement in a subjective area.
7db said:Codswallop
What is very important for the rule of law, is that they are not interpreted or applied flexibly - for then the law ceases to be a law and becomes a rule-of-thumb, and the public no longer know what the law is. The law is then made by those who interpret the law. A dangerous step for society.
. It is a step a fair society can not avoid. All it takes is a bit of maturity and a reasonable degree of scrutiny. Proof of the pudding is that it happens all the time and society has not yet crumbled.ATG said:
Proof of the pudding is that it happens all the time and society has not yet crumbled.
In fact it happens remarkably rarely - that is the point of a large number of posts.
And don't mistake a society in which power falls into unaccountable hands with one which is unstable and crumbles.
7db said:Yes, but how do you objectively define "standard required" or "far" in a manner that can be tested in a court? Answer: you can't. Again, it boild down to "I know it when I see it".
How do you define "dangerous driving"?
Driving which falls far below the standard required, is the RTAs stab at it.
7db said:Right ... so the rule of thumb to only prosecute speeding at the limit +10% or whatever is not a sign of descretion being applied on a regular basis?
Proof of the pudding is that it happens all the time and society has not yet crumbled.
In fact it happens remarkably rarely - that is the point of a large number of posts.
And don't mistake a society in which power falls into unaccountable hands with one which is unstable and crumbles.
Just because authority gets delegated to individual police officers, doesn't mean that there is no accountability. We are all ultimately accountable for the system's performance and if it deteriorates we can change it. I would have thought the backlash against speed cameras was rather a good example of that?
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff