80 in a 70 - Pointless question
Discussion
LotsOfLaughs said:
Pit Pony said:
I bet you braked before each camera didn't you, not realising they were average speed cameras. They are signed. I know the section well. I drove that way to my parent on Ynys Mon yesterday. Just as you leave the M53, and go into Wales it's a 50 average speed check for about 3 miles, and then about 10 miles further on, it's a 70 mph average speed check for about 4 miles.
I've also seen plenty of scamera vans over the years
Just set the cruise control at the speed limit and relax. (Usually it's impossible to get to the speed limit for more than a few seconds due to traffic volume,but this time of year its great)
Mind you my 85 year old mother had to do the course after being done on that section about 6 months back. 79 mph IIRC
No, I didnt brake for each camera. I had cruise set for the camera zone, iirc, but Im not sure. Its silly because the road going the other way is actually 3 lanes, and its one of the fastest sections of the A55 for that reason (when Im in the quick car at least)I've also seen plenty of scamera vans over the years
Just set the cruise control at the speed limit and relax. (Usually it's impossible to get to the speed limit for more than a few seconds due to traffic volume,but this time of year its great)
Mind you my 85 year old mother had to do the course after being done on that section about 6 months back. 79 mph IIRC
Does your cruise keep to a constant speed downhill ?
I know I have to break occasionally if I want to stay within the speed limit.
vonhosen said:
The majority of the public support the existence of speed limits.
Enforcement of them (by a variety of means) is a natural consequence of their existence.
Ahh, indeed. But the mechanism of the enforcement is what makes the difference.Enforcement of them (by a variety of means) is a natural consequence of their existence.
Most of the public support it being illegal to shoplift. But they wouldnt support public money being spent on security tags for every single item in every single shop?
Pit Pony said:
That third lane is a crawler lane.
Does your cruise keep to a constant speed downhill ?
I know I have to break occasionally if I want to stay within the speed limit.
Ish, its a manual, petrol, so cruise will slow it down as much as lifting off the throttle completely, but it wont apply the brakes. Its a very steep hill though, so maybe using cruise in 5th for that stretch in future (mines a 6 speed).Does your cruise keep to a constant speed downhill ?
I know I have to break occasionally if I want to stay within the speed limit.
And yes, I know its a crawler lane, but at the top, its lanes 2 and 3 that merge together, not 1 and 2. And because all the big slow stuff is in the crawler lane, theres plenty of room to make good progress up that hill
LotsOfLaughs said:
vonhosen said:
The majority of the public support the existence of speed limits.
Enforcement of them (by a variety of means) is a natural consequence of their existence.
Ahh, indeed. But the mechanism of the enforcement is what makes the difference.Enforcement of them (by a variety of means) is a natural consequence of their existence.
Most of the public support it being illegal to shoplift. But they wouldnt support public money being spent on security tags for every single item in every single shop?
The public leave it up to their elected government to sort out the enforcement methods that the Police may use or not & cameras have been certified by the successive governments.
Have you any evidence to present that the majority of the population are against the methods that their government have certified?
I'm not aware of any.
vonhosen said:
Why would public money be spent on such a private retail initiative?
The public leave it up to their elected government to sort out the enforcement methods that the Police may use or not & cameras have been certified by the successive governments.
Have you any evidence to present that the majority of the population are against the methods that their government have certified?
I'm not aware of any.
I suppose I dont.The public leave it up to their elected government to sort out the enforcement methods that the Police may use or not & cameras have been certified by the successive governments.
Have you any evidence to present that the majority of the population are against the methods that their government have certified?
I'm not aware of any.
But the question is, would one NEED to, in order to argue it as a defence? Obviously its great if one did have such evidence.
If you hit someone self defence, you dont have to prove they were a threat, you just have to say you thought they were a threat, i.e. you can punch somwone in the face based on how they make you feel.
Now Im not sure if this is the same as the argument that smashing a car window or a speed camera isnt criminal damage. Do you need to prove that the owners would agree with you, or do you just need to argue why you thought they would agree with you?
LotsOfLaughs said:
vonhosen said:
Why would public money be spent on such a private retail initiative?
The public leave it up to their elected government to sort out the enforcement methods that the Police may use or not & cameras have been certified by the successive governments.
Have you any evidence to present that the majority of the population are against the methods that their government have certified?
I'm not aware of any.
I suppose I dont.The public leave it up to their elected government to sort out the enforcement methods that the Police may use or not & cameras have been certified by the successive governments.
Have you any evidence to present that the majority of the population are against the methods that their government have certified?
I'm not aware of any.
But the question is, would one NEED to, in order to argue it as a defence? Obviously its great if one did have such evidence.
If you hit someone self defence, you dont have to prove they were a threat, you just have to say you thought they were a threat, i.e. you can punch somwone in the face based on how they make you feel.
Now Im not sure if this is the same as the argument that smashing a car window or a speed camera isnt criminal damage. Do you need to prove that the owners would agree with you, or do you just need to argue why you thought they would agree with you?
And as for the defence to criminal damage that you are suggesting for cameras.
vonhosen said:
The majority of the public support the existence of speed limits.
Enforcement of them (by a variety of means) is a natural consequence of their existence.
The majority of the British public aren't very bright, something I believe we both already know. Therefore the system is pandering to a not very bright majority, instead of trying to educate them into being more intelligent. Backward thinking.Enforcement of them (by a variety of means) is a natural consequence of their existence.
Heaveho said:
vonhosen said:
The majority of the public support the existence of speed limits.
Enforcement of them (by a variety of means) is a natural consequence of their existence.
The majority of the British public aren't very bright, something I believe we both already know. Therefore the system is pandering to a not very bright majority, instead of trying to educate them into being more intelligent. Backward thinking.Enforcement of them (by a variety of means) is a natural consequence of their existence.
To know something, first you have to learn you know nothing
BertBert said:
richhead said:
So the rules dont apply if you pass an iq test? like it or not we have to set laws to deal with people who think laws dont apply to them, be they stupid or clever.
To know something, first you have to learn you know nothing
What on earth does that mean?To know something, first you have to learn you know nothing
BertBert said:
richhead said:
either you are who im talking about, or its a not very clever joke
No, it must be the former as it's nonsensical https://theknowledgex.com/infopedia/four-stages-of...
richhead said:
So the rules dont apply if you pass an iq test? like it or not we have to set laws to deal with people who think laws dont apply to them, be they stupid or clever.
To know something, first you have to learn you know nothing
If enough people are breaking a law ( and on the motorway, that seems to be a significant proportion of the population ), that would indicate it isn't a very good law. Ironic really, as almost certainly a proportion of those who say they support limits are also breaking them.To know something, first you have to learn you know nothing
Heaveho said:
richhead said:
So the rules dont apply if you pass an iq test? like it or not we have to set laws to deal with people who think laws dont apply to them, be they stupid or clever.
To know something, first you have to learn you know nothing
If enough people are breaking a law ( and on the motorway, that seems to be a significant proportion of the population ), that would indicate it isn't a very good law.To know something, first you have to learn you know nothing
Everybody commits s3 offences.
That doesn't mean that we want careless or dangerous driving on our roads or that it shouldn't be legislated against because everybody does it at some time or other.
It's possible to support the premise of speed limits (the right of a democratically elected government to impose them where they see fit) even if you do break them yourselves.
vonhosen said:
Been here before with that.
Everybody commits s3 offences.
That doesn't mean that we want careless or dangerous driving on our roads or that it shouldn't be legislated against because everybody does it at some time or other.
It's possible to support the premise of speed limits (the right of a democratically elected government to impose them where they see fit) even if you do break them yourselves.
Breaking the speed limit and careless or dangerous driving don't mean the same thing. I'm not advocating the latter, and not universally defending the former.Everybody commits s3 offences.
That doesn't mean that we want careless or dangerous driving on our roads or that it shouldn't be legislated against because everybody does it at some time or other.
It's possible to support the premise of speed limits (the right of a democratically elected government to impose them where they see fit) even if you do break them yourselves.
Heaveho said:
vonhosen said:
Been here before with that.
Everybody commits s3 offences.
That doesn't mean that we want careless or dangerous driving on our roads or that it shouldn't be legislated against because everybody does it at some time or other.
It's possible to support the premise of speed limits (the right of a democratically elected government to impose them where they see fit) even if you do break them yourselves.
Breaking the speed limit and careless or dangerous driving don't mean the same thing. I'm not advocating the latter, and not universally defending the former.Everybody commits s3 offences.
That doesn't mean that we want careless or dangerous driving on our roads or that it shouldn't be legislated against because everybody does it at some time or other.
It's possible to support the premise of speed limits (the right of a democratically elected government to impose them where they see fit) even if you do break them yourselves.
But you were effectively saying large number of people disobeying equals bad law.
I disagree.
Everybody commits s3 offences (careless & inconsiderate driving). I don't think it's bad law that legislates against that.
Ergo I don't agree with your earlier equivalence of widespread offending equals bad law.
vonhosen said:
I didn't say it did.
But you were effectively saying large number of people disobeying equals bad law.
I disagree.
Everybody commits s3 offences (careless & inconsiderate driving). I don't think it's bad law that legislates against that.
Ergo I don't agree with your earlier equivalence of widespread offending equals bad law.
" Everybody commits s3 offences (careless and inconsiderate driving)" is a pretty sweeping statement. But you were effectively saying large number of people disobeying equals bad law.
I disagree.
Everybody commits s3 offences (careless & inconsiderate driving). I don't think it's bad law that legislates against that.
Ergo I don't agree with your earlier equivalence of widespread offending equals bad law.
Not sure how that correlates to what seems to be widespread motorway speeding in percentage terms.
Heaveho said:
vonhosen said:
I didn't say it did.
But you were effectively saying large number of people disobeying equals bad law.
I disagree.
Everybody commits s3 offences (careless & inconsiderate driving). I don't think it's bad law that legislates against that.
Ergo I don't agree with your earlier equivalence of widespread offending equals bad law.
" Everybody commits s3 offences (careless and inconsiderate driving)" is a pretty sweeping statement. But you were effectively saying large number of people disobeying equals bad law.
I disagree.
Everybody commits s3 offences (careless & inconsiderate driving). I don't think it's bad law that legislates against that.
Ergo I don't agree with your earlier equivalence of widespread offending equals bad law.
Not sure how that correlates to what seems to be widespread motorway speeding in percentage terms.
People following too closely, people not paying enough attention, people not signalling appropriately, people failing to make proper observations, poor mirror work, poor lane discipline etc etc.
You've only got to fall short on one of many, not all.
It's a sweeping statement but it doesn't make it any less true.
We all fall short of the standards expected at times (some more frequently & by a larger margin than others, but all at some time or other).
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff