Why?????????????
Discussion
funkyrobot said:Why do you think they are mutually exclusive? - Streaky
I said that because I know what speed cameras are really about, check my posts properly and you'll see.
funkyrobot said:
Try this scenario,
you get caught speeding one day and it just so happens that the money from your fine completes the budget for the siting of a new speed camera.
A few days after the speed camera goes live your best friend (who normally drives at the limit) is in a real rush to get to work for an important meeting, he/she doesn't know its there and snap!
Your defiance has effectively cost your friend points and money.
How do you feel about that?
Don't worry, my mate will be driving to work with cloned plates.
BliarOut said:
But what about this proposed legislation to restrict all cyclists to 12MPH with a £120 fine if they get zapped. You said you don't want to obey a law like that. As you have said many many times, the law is the law.
I publicly challenge you to justify your apparent hypocrisy.
In case you missed my challenge on the first page Funky... Do your best, I'm all ears on this one
The speed limits would be obeyed by most drivers if they were sensibly and realistically updated. Stamp duty and income tax thresholds are other examples of how the government raises funds by failing to update things.
If the government were a business, this would be quite logical as:
1. The costs of studying and implementating new limits is high.
2. The new limits would invariably result in less income from these sources, requiring the need to either cut costs or develop new income sources.
But the government isn't supposed to be a business.
If the government did what it was supposed to do there wouldn't be a problem.
As has been said earlier in this thread, people always have and always will defy laws that are plainly unjustifiable and exist purely for purposes other than those stated by the authorities. This is especially true if these laws are backed up by spurious propoganda that winds people up. When it gets to this stage, the cost of defiance becomes irrelevant.
If the government were a business, this would be quite logical as:
1. The costs of studying and implementating new limits is high.
2. The new limits would invariably result in less income from these sources, requiring the need to either cut costs or develop new income sources.
But the government isn't supposed to be a business.
If the government did what it was supposed to do there wouldn't be a problem.
As has been said earlier in this thread, people always have and always will defy laws that are plainly unjustifiable and exist purely for purposes other than those stated by the authorities. This is especially true if these laws are backed up by spurious propoganda that winds people up. When it gets to this stage, the cost of defiance becomes irrelevant.
BliarOut said:
But what about this proposed legislation to restrict all cyclists to 12MPH with a £120 fine if they get zapped. You said you don't want to obey a law like that. As you have said many many times, the law is the law.
I publicly challenge you to justify your apparent hypocrisy.
In case you missed my challenge on the first page Funky... Do your best, I'm all ears on this one
Where will the limits be posted then?
I assume that with motor vehicle speed limits they will be higher in some areas than others?
Can't see this happening though because a bicycle speeding over the speed limit is a whole different ball game to a motorist speeding over the limit.
Maybe if they are trying to cut fatalities they can also address the element of bad cycling, just like they should be doing now with motorists (bad driving)??
They could bring in some harsh punishments for pavement cycling, jumping red lights etc. I would be for that
Where in this post does it say that 'I' don't want to obey this law?
Funkyrobot, are the current speed limits and the manner in which they are enforced in the name of safety fair and justified? Is it fair that motorists do not have the right to remain silent? Is it fair that accused speeders are assumed to be guilty unless they are able to prove their innocence? Is it fair that the areas of road safety that will save lives are being ignored in preference to a self funding sham? If you think these policies are unfair then you already have the answer to your question....
I drive at the speed that is appropriate to the situation unless there's a scamera present in which case its bang on the speed limit.
I drive at the speed that is appropriate to the situation unless there's a scamera present in which case its bang on the speed limit.
MilnerR said:
Funkyrobot, are the current speed limits and the manner in which they are enforced in the name of safety fair and justified? Is it fair that motorists do not have the right to remain silent? Is it fair that accused speeders are assumed to be guilty unless they are able to prove their innocence? Is it fair that the areas of road safety that will save lives are being ignored in preference to a self funding sham? If you think these policies are unfair then you already have the answer to your question....
I drive at the speed that is appropriate to the situation unless there's a scamera present in which case its bang on the speed limit.
I do think that they are unfair!
I just don't think that if I were to speed and be caught I would have done anything positive in getting rid of the schemes.
funkyrobot said:
I do think that they are unfair!
I just don't think that if I were to speed and be caught I would have done anything positive in getting rid of the schemes.
Now that is an interesting point.
What are your suggestions for getting rid of the schemes, remembering that simply not speeding will only encourage the proliferation of cameras and lowering of limits. Both of which are already widespread.
You have to rebel against the stupidity/unfairness of the situation to affect change. Would the Berlin wall have come down if the population of the Eastern Bloc had just said "ignore it, don't get in any trouble and they'll get bored of oppressing us" 
I accept that the situation regarding communist dictatorships and our present government are completly different.......
I accept that the situation regarding communist dictatorships and our present government are completly different.......
funkyrobot said:
BliarOut said:
But what about this proposed legislation to restrict all cyclists to 12MPH with a £120 fine if they get zapped. You said you don't want to obey a law like that. As you have said many many times, the law is the law.
I publicly challenge you to justify your apparent hypocrisy.
In case you missed my challenge on the first page Funky... Do your best, I'm all ears on this one
Where will the limits be posted then?
I assume that with motor vehicle speed limits they will be higher in some areas than others?
Can't see this happening though because a bicycle speeding over the speed limit is a whole different ball game to a motorist speeding over the limit.
Maybe if they are trying to cut fatalities they can also address the element of bad cycling, just like they should be doing now with motorists (bad driving)??
They could bring in some harsh punishments for pavement cycling, jumping red lights etc. I would be for that
Where in this post does it say that 'I' don't want to obey this law?
You say that exceeding a limit on a bicycle and in a car is very different. It's not the vehicle that's in question here, it's whether we all have to comply with every law, or just the ones we choose.
From what I read in the draft legislation, it won't need signs, as it will be a blanket 12MPH limit for cyclists, much like the current NSL for cars.
Sounds like you cyclists are in for a similar tax raising binge just like us motorists!!!
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff