UnmarkedBlack 911 Carrera 4 on M4 near Reading!!
Discussion
vonhosen said:
We are policed by consent.
There are those vociferous for more speed enforcement, just as there are those vociferous for less. There are also larger numbers for who it isn't an issue of huge importance & they will have a "what will be will be" attitude.
If a government is elected that abolishes speed limits, I'll live with it, can't see it happening though.
First, when I travel on a motorway and the majority of drivers are travelling (or at least their speedos lead them to believe that they are travelling) above 70 mph, but they do it anyway, they are consciously breaking the law. There are those vociferous for more speed enforcement, just as there are those vociferous for less. There are also larger numbers for who it isn't an issue of huge importance & they will have a "what will be will be" attitude.
If a government is elected that abolishes speed limits, I'll live with it, can't see it happening though.
The law in this case is contrary to the actions of the majority of those whom it affects at that moment.
I'm sorry, but the idea that we are policed by consent at present is very wide of the mark.
In the first place, every five years the populace is offered two choices (the Lib-Dems being tossed in the pot for comic relief, which no one takes seriously).
Neither of the choices has anything meaningful to say about driving issues. That's fair enough, in that there are more important things.
However, once party A or B gets elected, it operates as if it had a blank cheque to do whatever it likes for the next five years. That is not "by consent", that is "by default".
Then we have the legions of bureaucrats behind the scenes: the unelected, unaccountable, invisible men and women who decide that we're going to go from 85th percentile limit setting to "mean speed" setting, who come up with the brilliant idea to deliberately occlude the view across a roundabout or narrow a two-lane road to one lane or purposefully conceal a speed camera behind a road sign. One could go on and on and on.
This is "by consent"?
vonhosen said:
Speed limits are preventative legislation & are not unique in that.
Those who may carry a gun don't necessarily intend to harm anyone with it, but they can't carry one.
Those who may carry a knife don't necessarily intend to harm anyone with it, but they can't carry one.
Those who don't wish to wear a seatbelt don't necessarily wish to harm anyone, but they have to wear one.
Those who may carry a gun don't necessarily intend to harm anyone with it, but they can't carry one.
Those who may carry a knife don't necessarily intend to harm anyone with it, but they can't carry one.
Those who don't wish to wear a seatbelt don't necessarily wish to harm anyone, but they have to wear one.
I did not say that they were "unique", but that they were different "from almost all other laws".
Even the examples that you offer, however, are not analogous.
The purpose of carrying a handgun is to threaten or actually to harm another person. It has no other common function. (Yes, one person in ten thousand may be a target shooter, but his needs can be easily dealt with in other ways.)
The same for a large knife, switchblade, etc. If we're talking about a folding penknife, there's no reason why someone with no criminal record shouldn't be allowed to carry one. A penknife is a legitimate tool.
As for a seatbelt, there is no reason at all why a competent adult should be forced to wear a seatbelt under any circumstances. An adult is responsible for him- or herself. If he wants to live more riskily at no additional risk to anyone else, WHAT THE F..K has the bloody Government got to do with it?
I ride a pushbike. That's more dangerous than taking the bus and it always will be. Should the gov't be in the business of telling me that I may not ride a bike?
Seatbelts for children are different. The concept there is that they are not competent to make the choice for themselves, so society as a whole makes it for them with the more conservative option.
I fail to see how the Gov't's imposition of seatbelt rules for children, virtually all of whom are not competent to act for themselves, is analogous to the gov't's imposition of speed limits for adults, virtually all of whom are competent to act for themselves.
vonhosen said:
They are set fairly conservatively (because it's for the lowest common denominator)
Indeed, and this is another source of injustice. The rule for the worst is imposed on the rest, with no option for even the best of the rest to be free. It's not fair and it makes no sense. It's nothing more than a futile spasm of contro-freakery by people who cannot think of anything better, and, at heart, don't care either.
Edited by flemke on Sunday 12th November 23:02
vonhosen said:
The place where it is likely to be most obviously inappropriate to tarvel at the limit (IMHO) is narrow residential
l side streets with lots of parked vehicles. If the Road Safety Bill changes the default limit to 20 from 30 as is mooted, then that will be taken care of.
By a speed camera on every corner and sensors in the road (as I would guess that other methods would be inapprpriate) or by Specs everywhere that would only work for some journeys?
And exactly how does a default 20 rather than 30 offer benefits on the many main roads where 30 is nominally an appropriate speed to set. Shall I rush out an buy up all the metal tubes I can find in anticiaption of a rash of street furniture required to mark the 'new' 30 limits throughout the land? Or would it be better to keep my cash on the basis they will not be changed from 'default' and many parts of the country, where the existing 'default' limits are certainly suitable and very widespread, will suddenly be reduced to 20? Which in practice will mean 15 for those who are intent on not 'speeding'.
My cruise control, which frees my attention from speedo to focus on the road and surroundings, does not work at 20, in common with most others. Nice safety move.
Why is it that when the figures have been falling in nearly all categories of road injuries (though not by as much as they might have done, and are clearly far lower than 30 or 40 years agoespecially for 'children and pedestrians') that we, society at large, should apparently demand ever more restrictions on our activities in a costly attempt to reach a 'risk free' holy grail?
Odd that we should, aparently, demand this form of self flagellation at a time when the jails are full and punishments for more traditional crimes - theft, murder, rape, that sort of stuff - seem to be reduced weekly.
'Society' seems to have some very strange values. Stranger still is that I can't recall talking to anyone recently, face to face, who represents the philosophy of someone who would support them. Odd that. I must only meet people who are outsiders in society.
Perhaps the only reason Blair and Co bang on about climate Change is that it distracts the generations who, they claim, might be affected by leaving them blind to what is happening today. They will have nothing left that will be worth worrying about, if 'society' has it way, long before any climate effect could possible be a factor no matter how caused.
But then if 'society' is so stupid that its members cannot judge a suitable speed at which to travel in residential areas (mostly it does of course, every minute of every day) it may be best that it is simply disbanded and dispersed as painlessly as possible.
flemke said:
vonhosen said:
We are policed by consent.
There are those vociferous for more speed enforcement, just as there are those vociferous for less. There are also larger numbers for who it isn't an issue of huge importance & they will have a "what will be will be" attitude.
If a government is elected that abolishes speed limits, I'll live with it, can't see it happening though.
First, when I travel on a motorway and the majority of drivers are travelling (or at least their speedos lead them to believe that they are travelling) above 70 mph, but they do it anyway, they are consciously breaking the law. There are those vociferous for more speed enforcement, just as there are those vociferous for less. There are also larger numbers for who it isn't an issue of huge importance & they will have a "what will be will be" attitude.
If a government is elected that abolishes speed limits, I'll live with it, can't see it happening though.
The law in this case is contrary to the actions of the majority of those whom it affects at that moment.
The fact that someone is breaking the limit is not evidence that they don't support limits.
Look at those who cry out for speed enforcement in their village & then they themselves get caught.
People break laws where they think they can get away with it, where they don't fear the consequences, for all manner of reasons. It doesn't necessarily mean that they think the law is wrong.
flemke said:
I'm sorry, but the idea that we are policed by consent at present is very wide of the mark.
In the first place, every five years the populace is offered two choices (the Lib-Dems being tossed in the pot for comic relief, which no one takes seriously).
Neither of the choices has anything meaningful to say about driving issues. That's fair enough, in that there are more important things.
However, once party A or B gets elected, it operates as if it had a blank cheque to do whatever it likes for the next five years. That is not "by consent", that is "by default".
Then we have the legions of bureaucrats behind the scenes: the unelected, unaccountable, invisible men and women who decide that we're going to go from 85th percentile limit setting to "mean speed" setting, who come up with the brilliant idea to deliberately occlude the view across a roundabout or narrow a two-lane road to one lane or purposefully conceal a speed camera behind a road sign. One could go on and on and on.
This is "by consent"?
In the absence of massively expressed & demonstrated opinion to the contrary, we have to take it that the public want speed limits & if we have speed limits they have to be enforced. I see very few calling for an abolition of limits, just like I see very few calling for outlawing of car use.
flemke said:
vonhosen said:
Speed limits are preventative legislation & are not unique in that.
Those who may carry a gun don't necessarily intend to harm anyone with it, but they can't carry one.
Those who may carry a knife don't necessarily intend to harm anyone with it, but they can't carry one.
Those who don't wish to wear a seatbelt don't necessarily wish to harm anyone, but they have to wear one.
Those who may carry a gun don't necessarily intend to harm anyone with it, but they can't carry one.
Those who may carry a knife don't necessarily intend to harm anyone with it, but they can't carry one.
Those who don't wish to wear a seatbelt don't necessarily wish to harm anyone, but they have to wear one.
I did not say that they were "unique", but that they were different "from almost all other laws".
Even the examples that you offer, however, are not analogous.
The purpose of carrying a handgun is to threaten or actually to harm another person. It has no other common function. (Yes, one person in ten thousand may be a target shooter, but his needs can be easily dealt with in other ways.)
The same for a large knife, switchblade, etc. If we're talking about a folding penknife, there's no reason why someone with no criminal record shouldn't be allowed to carry one. A penknife is a legitimate tool.
As for a seatbelt, there is no reason at all why a competent adult should be forced to wear a seatbelt under any circumstances. An adult is responsible for him- or herself. If he wants to live more riskily at no additional risk to anyone else, WHAT THE F..K has the bloody Government got to do with it?
I ride a pushbike. That's more dangerous than taking the bus and it always will be. Should the gov't be in the business of telling me that I may not ride a bike?
Seatbelts for children are different. The concept there is that they are not competent to make the choice for themselves, so society as a whole makes it for them with the more conservative option.
I fail to see how the Gov't's imposition of seatbelt rules for children, virtually all of whom are not competent to act for themselves, is analogous to the gov't's imposition of speed limits for adults, virtually all of whom are competent to act for themselves.
I disagree.
The decision to not wear a seatbelt etc does impact on others & quite literally too. If someone isn't wearing one their colliding with another person can result in injuries that wouldn't otherwise have been sustained by that person. The human skull can do a lot of damage to others. There is also the matter of others who have to deal with that unnecessary trauma to be considered.
flemke said:
vonhosen said:
They are set fairly conservatively (because it's for the lowest common denominator)
Indeed, and this is another source of injustice. The rule for the worst is imposed on the rest, with no option for even the best of the rest to be free. It's not fair and it makes no sense. It's nothing more than a futile spasm of contro-freakery by people who cannot think of anything better, and, at heart, don't care either.
I've said, campiagn for tiered licencing then.
Edited by vonhosen on Sunday 12th November 23:50
vonhosen said:
andmole said:
Previous 2 posts both well thought out, and logically argued, well done folks 
And I still haven't had any comment from VH regarding my earlier post about a BiB who quoted to me "only a fool breaks the 2 second rule", a rule which VH himself has rubbished.
Why?
And I still haven't had any comment from VH regarding my earlier post about a BiB who quoted to me "only a fool breaks the 2 second rule", a rule which VH himself has rubbished.
Why?
19.51
Missed that, my fault, not looking carefully enough.
You see, even though I am agreeing with VH's stance on the 2 second rule, because I am pointing something out that cannot be explained away within the black and white interpretation of life that some people apply, I am ignored. Despite all of the insults thrown at me over the past few weeks, most of them justified I hasten to add, I have not spat out the dummy, and continue to engage with all concerned. This is the adult way of proceeding, something that appears to be lost on some.
andmole said:
vonhosen said:
andmole said:
Previous 2 posts both well thought out, and logically argued, well done folks
And I still haven't had any comment from VH regarding my earlier post about a BiB who quoted to me "only a fool breaks the 2 second rule", a rule which VH himself has rubbished.
Why?
And I still haven't had any comment from VH regarding my earlier post about a BiB who quoted to me "only a fool breaks the 2 second rule", a rule which VH himself has rubbished.
Why?
19.51
Missed that, my fault, not looking carefully enough.
You see, even though I am agreeing with VH's stance on the 2 second rule, because I am pointing something out that cannot be explained away within the black and white interpretation of life that some people apply, I am ignored. Despite all of the insults thrown at me over the past few weeks, most of them justified I hasten to add, I have not spat out the dummy, and continue to engage with all concerned. This is the adult way of proceeding, something that appears to be lost on some.
I thought he was being a bit arsey with you as well.
andmole said:
vonhosen said:
andmole said:
Previous 2 posts both well thought out, and logically argued, well done folks
And I still haven't had any comment from VH regarding my earlier post about a BiB who quoted to me "only a fool breaks the 2 second rule", a rule which VH himself has rubbished.
Why?
And I still haven't had any comment from VH regarding my earlier post about a BiB who quoted to me "only a fool breaks the 2 second rule", a rule which VH himself has rubbished.
Why?
19.51
Missed that, my fault, not looking carefully enough.
Y Despite all of the insults thrown at me over the past few weeks, most of them justified I hasten to add, .
you're funny!
Von what Flemke says has a great deal of merit.
There is no doubt that the majority of people in this country have become uninterested in politics. Perhaps because they don't feel represented, perhaps because they don't care enough about some issue, perhaps because they may feel what's the point. Therefore you have an elected government where less than the majority of the country even bothered to vote.
You might say that's their problem - but given what subsequently happens is it a surprise that this situation exists?
Take David Sainsbury - just happened to forget he loaned the Labour party £2Mil.
Stockwell tube - OK fair enough difficult circumstances, etc, etc but he was shot 8 times, 7 in the head after officers discharged a total of 11 rounds. Is that normal? Don't you think the public might be a little bit concerned that these officers can do this stuff?
Coming back to motoring - recently the police officer "testing" at 140mph, the many commanding officers who can't remember who was driving - don't get me wrong both could be perfectly OK but it doesn't feel right does it?
I had one of my motorbikes stolen last weeek - reported it and you know what pissed me off the most is that the call taker was more interested in the "support for victims of crime" than the crime itself. We see to have lost the plot. Look if they spent as much money on actual police than support officers to wipe my tears away maybe so many crimes wouldn't have been committed.
There is no doubt that the majority of people in this country have become uninterested in politics. Perhaps because they don't feel represented, perhaps because they don't care enough about some issue, perhaps because they may feel what's the point. Therefore you have an elected government where less than the majority of the country even bothered to vote.
You might say that's their problem - but given what subsequently happens is it a surprise that this situation exists?
Take David Sainsbury - just happened to forget he loaned the Labour party £2Mil.
Stockwell tube - OK fair enough difficult circumstances, etc, etc but he was shot 8 times, 7 in the head after officers discharged a total of 11 rounds. Is that normal? Don't you think the public might be a little bit concerned that these officers can do this stuff?
Coming back to motoring - recently the police officer "testing" at 140mph, the many commanding officers who can't remember who was driving - don't get me wrong both could be perfectly OK but it doesn't feel right does it?
I had one of my motorbikes stolen last weeek - reported it and you know what pissed me off the most is that the call taker was more interested in the "support for victims of crime" than the crime itself. We see to have lost the plot. Look if they spent as much money on actual police than support officers to wipe my tears away maybe so many crimes wouldn't have been committed.
slowly slowly,
any comments about words beginning with 't' duly withheld,
nothing that sinister or derogatory anyway.
But the point about "assume watched by camera affecting decisions" is a fair one.
It's the main essence of why I have been against electronic as apoosed to organic enforcement right from way back in 19-mumbly mumble. Very often the most important thing in any situation is not the actualite of an event, but how you got or allowed yourself to get there in the first place. A camera can never, or hardly ever, take that into account, but proper observation by a 3rd party can.
Just a few examples.
Standing in a YBJ, perfectly legal to wait when turning right and exit blocked by oncoming trafic, didn't stop issuing of tickets by councils though.
Bus lane camera, won't take any account of the vehicle that you are undertaking is actually broken down.
Pertinent to current thread, Overtaking slower traffic in lane 2, someone too close behind you in lane 3, vehicle in lane 2 starts to move right. Hard braking no good, staying put no good, booting it past actually is probably the single most effective way to deal with it despite what I and others have said earlier. Camera won't see it like that though.
And so on.
any comments about words beginning with 't' duly withheld,
nothing that sinister or derogatory anyway. But the point about "assume watched by camera affecting decisions" is a fair one.
It's the main essence of why I have been against electronic as apoosed to organic enforcement right from way back in 19-mumbly mumble. Very often the most important thing in any situation is not the actualite of an event, but how you got or allowed yourself to get there in the first place. A camera can never, or hardly ever, take that into account, but proper observation by a 3rd party can.
Just a few examples.
Standing in a YBJ, perfectly legal to wait when turning right and exit blocked by oncoming trafic, didn't stop issuing of tickets by councils though.
Bus lane camera, won't take any account of the vehicle that you are undertaking is actually broken down.
Pertinent to current thread, Overtaking slower traffic in lane 2, someone too close behind you in lane 3, vehicle in lane 2 starts to move right. Hard braking no good, staying put no good, booting it past actually is probably the single most effective way to deal with it despite what I and others have said earlier. Camera won't see it like that though.
And so on.
^Slider^ said:
Sorry, missed the post.
We have Customs and excise who roam nationally as well as SOCA.
They have the ability to go anywhere in the country rather than say Sussex who would only operate in Sussex.
They may not have been police at all but are still able to stop cars etc.
We have Customs and excise who roam nationally as well as SOCA.
They have the ability to go anywhere in the country rather than say Sussex who would only operate in Sussex.
They may not have been police at all but are still able to stop cars etc.
Thanks
flemke said:
...every five years the populace is offered two choices...Neither of the choices has anything meaningful to say about driving issues.
perhaps if we took away their free first class rail travel, taxi allowances, grace and favour central london apartments and ministerial limos they might have more to say on the issue.
p490kvp said:
Von what Flemke says has a great deal of merit.
There is no doubt that the majority of people in this country have become uninterested in politics. Perhaps because they don't feel represented, perhaps because they don't care enough about some issue, perhaps because they may feel what's the point. Therefore you have an elected government where less than the majority of the country even bothered to vote.
You might say that's their problem - but given what subsequently happens is it a surprise that this situation exists?
Take David Sainsbury - just happened to forget he loaned the Labour party £2Mil.
There is no doubt that the majority of people in this country have become uninterested in politics. Perhaps because they don't feel represented, perhaps because they don't care enough about some issue, perhaps because they may feel what's the point. Therefore you have an elected government where less than the majority of the country even bothered to vote.
You might say that's their problem - but given what subsequently happens is it a surprise that this situation exists?
Take David Sainsbury - just happened to forget he loaned the Labour party £2Mil.
We get the government we deserve. If we don't pay any interest or ask difficult questions, then it is easy for any government to ride roughshod over us.
p490kvp said:
Stockwell tube - OK fair enough difficult circumstances, etc, etc but he was shot 8 times, 7 in the head after officers discharged a total of 11 rounds. Is that normal? Don't you think the public might be a little bit concerned that these officers can do this stuff?
With what they believed they were dealing with, then it would appear so. No charges for excessive force were brought against any officer.
p490kvp said:
Coming back to motoring - recently the police officer "testing" at 140mph, the many commanding officers who can't remember who was driving - don't get me wrong both could be perfectly OK but it doesn't feel right does it?
The Police officer "testing" his vehicle, was shopped by his colleagues, summonsed by his bosses, prosecuted by the CPS & convicted of dangerous driving by a court (they aquitted him of speeding & the DD verdict is being appealed against).
I only know of one case where the Police couldn't name the driver. There are driving regulations for the Police covering their use of Police vehicles. A written record of all vehicle use must be kept. If an officer neglects to do this then it's a discipline offence. When Police cars set off cameras the driver will get a NIP personally addressed to them.
p490kvp said:
I had one of my motorbikes stolen last weeek - reported it and you know what pissed me off the most is that the call taker was more interested in the "support for victims of crime" than the crime itself. We see to have lost the plot. Look if they spent as much money on actual police than support officers to wipe my tears away maybe so many crimes wouldn't have been committed.
Sorry to hear about your bike.
Victim Support isn't Police officers. You will be referred to them, they are a voluntary charitable organisation.
Edited by vonhosen on Monday 13th November 16:23
vonhosen said:
We get the government we deserve.
I deserve better. My children deserve better. The Nation deserves better.
You consider that you derserve them, I'm sorry to hear that.
Do we deserve:
- Prescott
- Blair
- Gordon Bennett (oops Brown)
- Blunkett
- insert endless list of low life tossers from all parties
Yes of course we can vote - but as has been said already - issues like road policy/policing are not those that get a government elected/ejected. Changing the government (and preferably the governmental system) is not a simple matter.
And, BTW - I talked to a long serving officer/instructor from one of the police driving schools and he said that the notion that the regular police are using an unmarked black 911 to nick people is (as it sounds) ridiculous.
Edited by Joe911 on Monday 13th November 16:43
francisb said:
vonhosen said:
We get the government we deserve.
simply not true. i voted in an absolute no hope seat for the opposition, my vote is completely worthless, i am unrepresented.
You are really because you are one of about 3.8 million (or what ever the number is) that voted for that party and if they got 24 seats that represents 7% of the population(or what ever).
Bearing in mind you perhaps didn't vote for the person you wanted (which is what you are supposed to do) to win but for someone else so that the one you disliked didn't get in.
You twist the system then expect it to work.
Edited by slowly slowly on Monday 13th November 17:35
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff