Discussion
Bit disappointed with the BIB this weekend. I was wafting through Cambridgeshire when I passed a dark blue volvo in very light traffic. He fell in behind me so I eased up as I always do when I notice a suspect unmarked. I continued at about low 80s. Anyhow he followed for miles and inevitably the hidden lights came on so I stopped.
He was a decent bloke (appart from openening the conversation by giving me an FP for 94 in a 70). We chatted about the Porsche, his T5, traffic police etc and I ventured to see if he had any advice about my driving having followed me for that long, and he said it was courteous and safe and no problem at all, the only problem he had was with the speed.
Now my understanding is that you bibs take a rational approach, but in my case there was no suggestion of bad or dangerous driving, just of speeding. And it wasn't exactly taking the pee either at 94 I wouldn't have thought.
Do you think he saw me approaching at apparently much > 94 and decided to follow to see what he could get me for but just had to settle at 94? Or would he have mentioned that when we chatted?
Be interested in hearing views...
SM
He was a decent bloke (appart from openening the conversation by giving me an FP for 94 in a 70). We chatted about the Porsche, his T5, traffic police etc and I ventured to see if he had any advice about my driving having followed me for that long, and he said it was courteous and safe and no problem at all, the only problem he had was with the speed.
Now my understanding is that you bibs take a rational approach, but in my case there was no suggestion of bad or dangerous driving, just of speeding. And it wasn't exactly taking the pee either at 94 I wouldn't have thought.
Do you think he saw me approaching at apparently much > 94 and decided to follow to see what he could get me for but just had to settle at 94? Or would he have mentioned that when we chatted?
Be interested in hearing views...
SM
Hollywood Wheels said:
Supermono, I must admit to being a bit confused. If you kept in the low 80's (as i would, and wouldn't expect to be pulled over...) how comes the figure quoted is 94+?? If having passed him you're convinced you did nothing like that speed, i presume you'll be contesting it? If you DID attain that sort of speed before noticing him, but don't want to admit it here, just say so! I've said it before, you're amongst friends here....
I probably reached that speed or perhaps a little more even (after all I tend to look at the road rather than my speedo) just as I passed him. I suspected he was unmarked when I noticed he'd sped up after I'd overtaken him so I eased up a little.
Not contesting it. The magistrates would probably "think of the children" and I'd get screwed over.
SM
vonhosen said:
The idea of preventative legislation is that it exercises control over behaviour before it presents a danger. Better to prevent than deal with the consequences afterwards.
Who's suggesting that my behaviour is going to soon present a danger? Surely the logical extrapolation of your argument is that everyone about to get in a car should be stopped before they drive off so as to "exercise control over behaviour before it presents a danger"? After all every accident on the roads today started by someone getting into a car.
Surely if you follow somebody for about 10 miles and observe them driving reasonably for the conditions at about 1/2 the potential speed they could have been doing (94 vs 190) there's plenty of evidence there to suggest that control is already being exercised by the driver?
It sounds very police state to start taking into account what someone they might do rather than what they've done...
SM
vonhosen said:
It is society's wish...
You keep talking about society's wish, and I sort of see what you mean about voting in the government, but it's a bit stupid in this case because there's no alternative.
Supposing every political party decided they wanted a law against people stepping on the cracks in the pavement. We'd have to vote in one of the parties, so would that imply it's society's wish to have a law against stepping on the cracks in the pavement?
Of course not. I don't remember society being asked the question about speed limits or how they're enforced, but what I do know is that pretty much everyone I speak to in the real world either thinks speed limits are often innapropriate, enforced arbitrarily or both.
There is a gulf between society and the government (and you) when it comes to this topic, and it's beginning to come to a head.
Having said that I'm not desperately annoyed about my particular case because at least I got to speak to a properly trained and qualified law enforcement professional.
But I'm furious about these bullshit "safety camera partnerships" merrily eroding all the respect we have for road policing and screwing up our road safety at the same time.
Vonhosen, before you talk about society wanting anything, you really should check what society actually wants -- you might be surprised.
SM
>> Edited by supermono on Wednesday 26th April 08:09
7db said:
As far more people voted against Labour in the last election than voted for it you can't really say it's our fault for voting them in.
What nonsense. You know how it works in a parliamentary democracy.
Actually it's quite true more people voted against than for, but I'd imagine that's usually true in any election. What is surprising, however, is that more people voted conservative than voted labour. Constituency boundries meant that Labour won more seats though.
As far as your other point, there are already pressure groups like ABD and Safespeed looking after our interests so I support them. I have also had conversations with the local scamming company (not that they respond much when you point out their bafoonery), written letters to the national press and helped debunk some scammer's propaganda for a local radio piece. This internet forum is just another place for me to engage with people.
SM
vipers said:
With the amount of crunches on a daily basis WITH A NSL, what on earth would it be like with no limit???
Er.... Given that we know hardly any of those crunches are related to speed I don't really see it how it could have a detrimental effect.
Seems to me that the effect of people being given responsibility to choose a safe speed for the conditions would far outweigh the odd nutcase wanting to do 180+ everywhere.
Imagine if people drive around with the rosy glow that comes from being considered responsible enough to choose their own speed. People might once again start taking a pride in their driving. Now that would have a real impact on road safety...
SM
Errrm, I saw an unmarked on the A11 Saturday...
Most town centres have these chavs flying about on a Saturday night and they definitely need sorting out. But I don't see they present a valid argument against letting the rest of us (who after all represent the *huge* majority) choose a safe speed on the open roads.
After all while once the PTB's fixation with speed enforcement has gone they'll have to start jacking up the numbers of trafpol again and guess what? They'll be able to sort out Mr Saxo and his mates...
SM
Most town centres have these chavs flying about on a Saturday night and they definitely need sorting out. But I don't see they present a valid argument against letting the rest of us (who after all represent the *huge* majority) choose a safe speed on the open roads.
After all while once the PTB's fixation with speed enforcement has gone they'll have to start jacking up the numbers of trafpol again and guess what? They'll be able to sort out Mr Saxo and his mates...
SM
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff