We'l have your car if your not insured! 23.09.04
Discussion
Getting back to the original subject of impounding uninsured cars... For once I agree with Bogush. Punishment without trial or conviction. Guilty until proved innocent. Not the kind of legal system I want to live under. Everybody moans about these things where S172/NIPs are concerned - I seem to detect a certain inconsistency here.
Pigeon said:
Getting back to the original subject of impounding uninsured cars... For once I agree with Bogush. Punishment without trial or conviction. Guilty until proved innocent. Not the kind of legal system I want to live under. Everybody moans about these things where S172/NIPs are concerned - I seem to detect a certain inconsistency here.
Bogush, I agree with some of the things you say but I wish you'd moderate your tone a bit. If we can't exchange views here in a reasonably civilised manner the communications will cease and then we shall get nowhere. Differing views firmly held and positively expressed are one thing, but rudeness is quite unnecessary and it adds no strength to one's case.
As far as 'gone' is concerned I have no reason to doubt his qualifications, but I do wish he would not (seemingly) take the view that those of us who have not had the benefit of advanced driver training have a driving ability quite so close to zero.
Best wishes all,
Dave.
As far as 'gone' is concerned I have no reason to doubt his qualifications, but I do wish he would not (seemingly) take the view that those of us who have not had the benefit of advanced driver training have a driving ability quite so close to zero.
Best wishes all,
Dave.
TripleS said:
Bogush, I agree with some of the things you say but I wish you'd moderate your tone a bit. If we can't exchange views here in a reasonably civilised manner the communications will cease and then we shall get nowhere.
Might I be allowed to beg to differ.
We weren't exchanging views:
I was pointing out that the actions being supported by too many people here were anti-motorist, not anti-criminal.
Others were at first patronising, then insulting me.
Follow the posts (I finally first came in at the bottom of page 2).
In the circumstances I reserve the right to get irate.
One of the main reasons for my reservation of this right (apart from "they started it, sir") is that, contrary to the opinion:
TripleS said:
Differing views firmly held and positively expressed are one thing, but rudeness is quite unnecessary and it adds no strength to one's case.
Whilst it adds no strength to the "case": it adds strength to the cause.
Have the green environMentalist reclaim the streets motorway protestor types, raging about Car-nage and ranting about speedo
s, got where they have by polite and reasoned discussion? Ermmmmmmmmm
That would be a no then.
While polite and reasoned discussion has its place, and is, in fact, necessary, all things being equal, to win the debate:
Things aren't equal and no one is going to join in the debate until they realise that people are getting very angry and prepared vent their anger, and it is no longer politically practical to ignore the polite and reasoned attempts at debate.
Why is it that any official discussion on roads has often more than one body representing each of pedestrians, cyclists, ramblers, environmentalists, greens, public transport, etc, etc?
But not motorists!
Is it because the motorists have been ranting and raving and spinning and lying and having protests and mass civil disobedience since the 60's?
Whilst everybody else has sat at home writing polite letters to the government asking them to maybe consider cutting back motorway construction plans just a teensy bit, or put in just a few speed cameras, but if the government couldn't agree to these polite requests, they'd fully understand?
Did anyone ever follow my link to:
All The Way Down The Slippery Slope ?
One of the points it highlights is the way the UK gun lobby were moderate in tone, exchanged views in a reasonably civilised manner, kept up the communications, and if they had differing views firmly held they merely positively expressed them.
And look where it got them.
And if we're not careful we'll all be catching the bus back from the scrap yard.
Think that is far fetched?
Read the article:
It describes how firearms over the course of a century went from being an everyday tool in common ownership and use to being banned.
No one a century ago would have believed it could happen.
No one even a couple of decades ago would have believed it could have gone as far as it has.
And yet it has.
Because people didn't show the goverment they were angry.
And because some people in the gun owning fraternity agreed with some aspects of the government's case.
Unfortunately:
If a few motorists agree that cars cause pollution and something should be done about it.
And a few motorists agree that cars cause global warming and something should be done about it.
And a few motorists agree that cars cause the deaths of ickle children and something should be done about it.
And a few motorists agree that "drinking" (not being drunk) and driving is evil and something should be done about it.
And a few motorists agree that "speeding" is evil and something should be done about it.
And a few motorists agree that 4x4's are evil and something should be done about them.
And a few motorists agree that cars cause congestion and something should be done about it.
And a few motorists agree.......
The government can rightly claim that their policies have support from all motorists.
And you'll have only yourself to blame when cars are banned.
>> Edited by bogush on Sunday 26th September 00:42
fergus said:
Bogush - are you american?
If the limit on the road is 30 (whether you deem a safe limit to be 40 or whatever), then by exceeding the limit, you have committed an offence. QED.
And your point is?
I am fully aware of what the law is.
I am fully aware it is wrong.
I am fully aware that if the general opinion is:
fergus said:
If the limit on the road is 30 (whether you deem a safe limit to be 40 or whatever), then by exceeding the limit, you have committed an offence. QED.
It will stay that way.
Did you always attend Sunday archery practice until that law was repealed in the last parliament?
Do you still refrain from whichever of eating Christmas pud or celebrating Christmas they forgot to legalise at that time (can anyone in the know remind me which it was?).
Do you always hand your license in at the nearest police station and ask for points to be added whenever you spot you have crept over the limit?
Did you support Saddam's laws?
Do you support stoning of adulteresses in Islamic countries?
Do you support the punishment of political criminals (ie one's who write that the regime they live under might not be quite perfect, as opposed to the terrorists who claim that their murderous crimes are "political") around the world?
Or are you just a hypocritical wind-up merchant.
Oops, there I go again!
TripleS said:
.....but I do wish he would not (seemingly) take the view that those of us who have not had the benefit of advanced driver training have a driving ability quite so close to zero.
Best wishes all,
Dave.
I have never ever said that. There will be some excellent drivers amongst the membership of PH. there will alos be some poor ones too. There may well be a majority of PH members amongst the general public. However, there are 30 million other people out there who hold driving licences of some description or another and many others who do not who still use motor vehicle transport.
That is the point of my arguements. The lowest common denominator has to be catered for (unfortunate I agree, but that again, unfortunately is life!).
Bogush.
I will simplify it even more for you as you are obviously still struggling.
If you get 30% discount, you are doing well.
If we catch you 30% above a speed limit, you are doing 'Markedly in excess' in your words.
10% over the limit is rarely prosecuted as that is not 'markedly in excess' of the limit.
20% above anything is 'markedly in excess' of it and in old money 1/5th above.
30% is even greater. So that is where the 'markedly in excess' decision applies. Too bad that you are cross/angry about it.
So are the countless people who are bereaved/injured/inconvenienced by bad driving at in excess of a limit on a tin plate when that driver who is to blame gets it wrong because he/she decides that the law is wrong for him/her at that time because it does not suit their purpose or whim.
In effect you are given discounts on your excess.
10% is not bothered with.
20% is dealt with by a fixed penalty
30% is a visit up the steps!
If no discount was available for every occasion caught over the limit, you would appear at court to be dealt with. Is that easy enough for you to understand?
I will simplify it even more for you as you are obviously still struggling.
If you get 30% discount, you are doing well.
If we catch you 30% above a speed limit, you are doing 'Markedly in excess' in your words.
10% over the limit is rarely prosecuted as that is not 'markedly in excess' of the limit.
20% above anything is 'markedly in excess' of it and in old money 1/5th above.
30% is even greater. So that is where the 'markedly in excess' decision applies. Too bad that you are cross/angry about it.
So are the countless people who are bereaved/injured/inconvenienced by bad driving at in excess of a limit on a tin plate when that driver who is to blame gets it wrong because he/she decides that the law is wrong for him/her at that time because it does not suit their purpose or whim.
In effect you are given discounts on your excess.
10% is not bothered with.
20% is dealt with by a fixed penalty
30% is a visit up the steps!
If no discount was available for every occasion caught over the limit, you would appear at court to be dealt with. Is that easy enough for you to understand?
gone said:
That is the point of my arguements. The lowest common denominator has to be catered for (unfortunate I agree, but that again, unfortunately is life!).
So, now we know!
The lowest common denominator isn't fit to be on the roads, so we should all be banned.
Nice one gone!
Remind me, gone:
If you take out all the fatalities caused by cops, and in cop chases.......
And all the ones caused by real criminals in the course of their criminal activities.........
And by real homicidal maniacs and psychopaths and sociopaths.........
And real drunk drivers and dangerous speeders.......
And by suicidal drivers and pedestrians.......
And by cyclists (around five pedestrians, ten cyclists, and god knows how many drivers a year)..........
And by buildings, scaffolding, trees, vandal thrown objects.....
And by people already dead at the wheel, having a heart attack or stroke or fit, or.........
Or falling asleep at the wheel because of all the "catering" for the "lowest common denominator"...
Or mechaincal failure.......
Or..........
How many are left for the "lowest common denominator" to be blamed for?
Remind me, even if you don't take all those out of the equation, how many millions (billions?) of miles does the "average" driver have to do to kill someone?
The vast majority of drivers are quite capable of driving perfectly safely (or were before they stopped being educated, and started being indoctrinated to stick to arbitrary and artificial limits) without speedo or speed limits.
How many people crash into the backs of their garages because there aren't 29, 28, 27, 26, 25, 24, 23, 22, 21, 20, 19, 18, 17, 16, 15, 14, 13, 12, 11, 10, 9, 8, 7, 6, 5, 4, 3, 2, 1, 0mph signs counting them down and keeping them safe?
In fact, how come all us lowest common denominators ever get out of the drive in the first place when we don't have helpfull speed limit signs to guide us out?
How do we not all kill ourselves when 35 is the appropriate speed in a 40?
After all: we're all totally incapable of judging when 35 is appropriate, remember!
Never mind 40.
Although I'm baffled as to how I've survived so long despite frequently having done 50, 60 and even 70!
gone said:
Bogush.
I will simplify it even more for you as you are obviously still struggling.
If you get 30% discount, you are doing well.
If we catch you 30% above a speed limit, you are doing 'Markedly in excess' in your words.
10% over the limit is rarely prosecuted as that is not 'markedly in excess' of the limit.
20% above anything is 'markedly in excess' of it and in old money 1/5th above.
30% is even greater. So that is where the 'markedly in excess' decision applies. Too bad that you are cross/angry about it.
And if I responded bollocks: people would accuse me of being rude.
Are you just a wind-up merchant, or do you really believe that crap?
30 might sound like a big number.
30% might sound like a big percentage.
But 40mph on a safe fast dual carriageway artificially and arbitrarily lowered to 30mph is not markedly in excess of the reasonable speed for the road and the conditions.
And 40mph on many "urban" single carriageways, even during the daytime, is not markedly in excess of the reasonable speed for the road and the conditions.
gone said:
So are the countless people who are bereaved/injured/inconvenienced by bad driving at in excess of a limit on a tin plate when that driver who is to blame gets it wrong because he/she decides that the law is wrong for him/her at that time because it does not suit their purpose or whim.
Well, perhaps I live in a unique area, but the "people (not countless) who are bereaved/injured/inconvenienced by bad driving at in excess of a limit on a tin plate when that driver who is to blame gets it wrong because he/she decides that the law is wrong for him/her at that time because it does not suit their purpose or whim"
"are bereaved/injured/inconvenienced" by people doing double or triple (that's 100% or 200%, not, 10%, 20% or even 30%) the "limit on a tin plate".
And usually drunk and drugged and driving a stolen vehicle.
Or they are police drivers.
gone said:
Bogush.
I will simplify it even more for you as you are obviously still struggling.
No, let me simplify it for you:
If someone causes a death at 80 on a reasonable 40 you are not improving safety by lowering the limit to 30, setting up a speed camera, and giving people a "discount".
You are harassing the law abiding and safe "lowest common denominator" as you insultingly refer to us.
gone said:
Is that easy enough for you to understand?
bogush said:
No, that is the way it is SUPPOSED to work.
Hence my post.
Do try to keep up!
OK, please give me an example of a case where someone has been convicted of speeding for doing 60 in a 70.
And I can keep up just fine, thanks, I'm just struggling to throttle back my brain to your level.
icon?!Northernboy said:Try reading the papers:
No, that is the way it is SUPPOSED to work.
Hence my post.
Do try to keep up!
There's been a couple of thousand discovered to have been done by one camera just recently.
There have also been people done for doing under 30, under 20, under 10 and even one or two under 5mph if I recall correctly.
Northernboy said:Clearly you can't.
And I can keep up just fine, thanks
Northernboy said:Whatever.
I'm just struggling to throttle back my brain to your level.
Northernboy said:
Which bit of "safe" did you miss, gone?
With observation skills like that, I hope you don't drive.
And with attitudes and reasoning like yours, I hope that you don't breed.
Or are crass insults only ok when you provide them?
So, as well as not reading the papers before making your intelligent and reasoned comments, you don't bother to read the posts before responding with your polite and complimentary contributions.
I find your finely crafted little pieces so amusing that I'm sure that if you and gone were to get together your offspring would be a wit.
TripleS said:
OK bogush you will no doubt suit yourself, but I stand by my previous comments.
Read All The Way Down The Slippery Slope all the way to the end yet?
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff