Eight months for using a laser jammer ?!! Wtf

Eight months for using a laser jammer ?!! Wtf

Author
Discussion

cmaguire

3,589 posts

108 months

Thursday 26th April 2018
quotequote all
Reminds me of obeying the speed limits

anonymous-user

Original Poster:

53 months

Friday 27th April 2018
quotequote all
jm doc said:
La Liga said:
PCoJ said:
The course of justice begins when:

An event has occurred, and it is reasonable to expect that an investigation will follow; or
Investigations which might bring proceedings have actually started; or
Proceedings have started or are about to start.
None of the above apply.
Thank you confirming precisely what i said. An event has occurred (Officer exceeds speed limit without lawful exclusion). It is reasonable to expect an investigation will follow (Indeed in the current climate of speed enforcement it must surely be mandatory, all those people put at risk blah blah) And yet the police officer, by not reporting said offence perverts the course of justice by concealing it.
Not through self-reporting it isn't. No different from anyone else.

Email the CPS and ask them if you still think it's the case. See what they say.

jm doc said:
You just want to have your cake and eat it, don't you. Dishing out all those speeding tickets to all and sundry, pursuing anyone who dares to try and avoid a ticket and jailing them, pontificating and obfuscating when members of the public dare to object on sites like this, but merrily carrying on breaking the law without any regard for the utter hypocrisy involved.
If an on / off-duty police officer is caught committing a road traffic offence, then they should / will be dealt with the same way as a non-police officer.

jm doc said:
Still avoiding the issue as ever. The point is, why isn't he reporting himself?
He isn't under an obligation to, just as you're not.



JNW1

7,711 posts

193 months

Friday 27th April 2018
quotequote all
Wills2 said:
A wanton disregard for the conditions and road you're on is asking for trouble no matter how good you think you are, however the current policy of blaming everything on speed is stupid and insulting to everyone's intelligence and is creating a zombie driving culture that says I can do what I want because I'm at or below the limit, which actually makes it even worse for the press on driver.
+1

Spot on sir!

vonhosen

40,198 posts

216 months

Friday 27th April 2018
quotequote all
jm doc said:
vonhosen said:
jm doc said:
La Liga said:
PCoJ said:
The course of justice begins when:

An event has occurred, and it is reasonable to expect that an investigation will follow; or
Investigations which might bring proceedings have actually started; or
Proceedings have started or are about to start.
None of the above apply.

Thank you confirming precisely what i said. An event has occurred (Officer exceeds speed limit with lawful exclusion). It is reasonable to expect an investigation will follow (Indeed in the current climate of speed enforcement it must surely be mandatory, all those people put at risk blah blah) And yet the police officer, by not reporting said offence perverts the course of justice by concealing it.

You just want to have your cake and eat it, don't you. Dishing out all those speeding tickets to all and sundry, pursuing anyone who dares to try and avoid a ticket and jailing them, pontificating and obfuscating when members of the public dare to object on sites like this, but merrily carrying on breaking the law without any regard for the utter hypocrisy involved.
He isn't reporting himself, no investigation is likely to follow, there is nothing to pervert.

If somebody else reports him an investigation is likely to follow. If he now commits an act likely to pervert he commits the offence.
Still avoiding the issue as ever. The point is, why isn't he reporting himself?
It's not avoiding 'the issue'.
'The issue' under discussion is PtCoJ & that is what is being addressed.
An omission isn't PtCoJ.
ie. Not filling in the 172 notice isn't PtCoJ. That's why it is legislated as it's own offence.
He is not obliged in law to report himself (anymore than you are) or report anybody else come to that.
Doesn't mean he isn't committing an offence (speeding that is), but it's for others to report him for that. If they do he mustn't pervert that course of justice. If he remains silent if they do report him, that isn't PtCoJ.

bad company

18,484 posts

265 months

Friday 27th April 2018
quotequote all
andy_s said:
Steviesam said:
I could be wrong (probably am), but I would guess that the majority of the public would prefer that the teenager in the link above who brutally attacked a 52 year old woman requiring plastic surgery went to prison, rather than a middle finger waving speeder who tried to get away with it.
One doesn't preclude the other Steve.
Our prisons are overcrowded and very expensive. Better to jail the violent criminal and give the motorist community service imo.

vonhosen

40,198 posts

216 months

Friday 27th April 2018
quotequote all
bad company said:
andy_s said:
Steviesam said:
I could be wrong (probably am), but I would guess that the majority of the public would prefer that the teenager in the link above who brutally attacked a 52 year old woman requiring plastic surgery went to prison, rather than a middle finger waving speeder who tried to get away with it.
One doesn't preclude the other Steve.
Our prisons are overcrowded and very expensive. Better to jail the violent criminal and give the motorist community service imo.
People keep talking about 'the motorist', it's not a motoring offence. It's an indictable serious criminal offence committed whilst the offender was in a vehicle.
John Worboys was a motorist, but the serious offences he committed in his taxi were not motoring offences.
It just so happens that it was in vehicles that these offences were committed.


andy_s

19,397 posts

258 months

Friday 27th April 2018
quotequote all
bad company said:
andy_s said:
Steviesam said:
I could be wrong (probably am), but I would guess that the majority of the public would prefer that the teenager in the link above who brutally attacked a 52 year old woman requiring plastic surgery went to prison, rather than a middle finger waving speeder who tried to get away with it.
One doesn't preclude the other Steve.
Our prisons are overcrowded and very expensive. Better to jail the violent criminal and give the motorist community service imo.
Aside from the perspicacious point from vonhosen, as I say above, it's not a binary choice; this doesn't mean they won't give a violent criminal bird. He'll be out on licence in a few months anyway.

julian64

14,317 posts

253 months

Friday 27th April 2018
quotequote all
vonhosen said:
julian64 said:
vonhosen said:
PtCoJ is not about addressing disrespect for individual laws, it's not a demand of respect on individual laws.
That's why it isn't terribly important what the original offence was, it's a serious offence whatever the original offence was.
It's because it undermines the whole legal process. It's an attack on the very fabric of justice, rather than the individual offence from which it originated.
I'm not in the legal process, I'm outside it. I don't have to win hearts & minds.
Are you really saying that you would apply PCOJ to any crime no matter how trivial based upon the criminal lying to police abut their involvement?
Lying isn't PtCoJ.
It is beyond telling simple untruths.
Hmm well at least we can agree that small simple untruths should be exempt. I feel my work here is done pulling you back from the brink of totalitarianism. smile I shall retire a happy man.

The Selfish Gene

5,470 posts

209 months

Friday 27th April 2018
quotequote all
vonhosen said:
You're speaking for the whole demographic. I don't feel vilified. I don't feel oppressed either.
People keep speaking as if being allowed to do 80 is freedom, being allowed to only do 70 is severe oppression.
Truth is it makes censored all difference to my journey times or my feelings of oppression.
fair enough - I can't speak for everyone. I guess if you never remotely are in a hurry, or break any limits then you'll be fine. I just would argue the majority of drivers often break the limits (particularly on motorways).

I don't agree with your last point at all. I'm not sure how far your travel takes you. I routinely drive across Europe and most weekend to various corners of the UK. The difference I could make if I was to ignore the 70mph speed limit on motorways for long periods of times is hours and hours of time per weekend, over a year it really mounts up.

The Selfish Gene

5,470 posts

209 months

Friday 27th April 2018
quotequote all
vonhosen said:
It's a fact, look around you.
We are all imperfect, we all make mistakes & errors of judgement at the expense of others.
Just look at following distances routinely used by the majority.
100% agree on this one. I try and be the best driver I can be. (I incidentally don't think that breaking the speed limits affects that in anyway).

Speed limits aside, I try and do everything (regardless of whatever the law says) to be massively safe and courteous.

I split my time between a slow car, a fast car and a motorbike - and I drive them all the same way (except for the speed)

The Selfish Gene

5,470 posts

209 months

Friday 27th April 2018
quotequote all
Greendubber said:
So who's the victim of me carrying an offensive weapon on me in public?
on a simple black and white level, as you are inferring there is no difference.

On a reasonable level - when people take their cars out, it isn't designed to be a weapon. When someone takes an offensive weapon out it has one purpose. It's also being taken out to be used in that way as the sort of person that carries one is the sort of person that has an intention to use it as a weapon.

Clearly that same person could take a car out with the sole intention of being an offensive weapon. As we have all sadly seen in the UK, Germany, France and Canada to name but a few.

I think it's unreasonable to put a car and a machete in the same category when it comes to offensive weapons.

The Selfish Gene

5,470 posts

209 months

Friday 27th April 2018
quotequote all
La Liga said:
The Selfish Gene said:
does it? So the social and economic needs are more important than the deaths on the road?

interesting.
Where did I say that?

I said there needs to be a balance. A balance between the risk of harm and the reward of social and economic benefit.

The Selfish Gene said:
I'd argue (as we are being told) that we need to clamp down. My solution would drastically and immediately massively cut road deaths. Unless that's not really what it's all about, and really we are more interested in making money from motorists and not solving the problem.
Or alternatively we may be close to a saturation point where we're unlikely to make significant reductions as we're now consistently below 2000 road deaths, of which a good % will be pedestrian / cyclist error (as they make up a 3rd of deaths), reducing the scope for driver improvement further.

The Selfish Gene said:
I solve problems for a living. What is currently happening is not solving any problems. It's using a set of outdated rules with an agenda to make money from a vilified demographic.
Apart from that long-term downtrend in road deaths against a backdrop of more vehicles and more miles travelled.
all fair comment La Liga

although I would dispute the stats on the downtrend being as a result of tax cameras.

the old line always trotted out still stands for me

If there is a death on a road, and a camera goes up, and the next year there isn't a death, that isn't a 100% reduction in deaths due to the camera.

That's half flippant, but my point is there are very many ways to make it look like something is improving to fit the master plan. (I do it every single day)

.........I'd need much more evidence to agree with the cameras doing any safety improvement whatsoever.

vonhosen

40,198 posts

216 months

Friday 27th April 2018
quotequote all
The Selfish Gene said:
vonhosen said:
You're speaking for the whole demographic. I don't feel vilified. I don't feel oppressed either.
People keep speaking as if being allowed to do 80 is freedom, being allowed to only do 70 is severe oppression.
Truth is it makes censored all difference to my journey times or my feelings of oppression.
fair enough - I can't speak for everyone. I guess if you never remotely are in a hurry, or break any limits then you'll be fine. I just would argue the majority of drivers often break the limits (particularly on motorways).
I never said I never exceed the limits. But I don't feel vilified or oppressed about it, because despite all these drivers doing it (as you say) very very few of those offences result in a prosecution. Where they are detected (& that's only a drop in the ocean) a graded disposal relative to the margin over the limit is deployed. The locations they operate at are well known or publicised in the main. They cover a tiny fraction of the total available UK road network.
I don't see it as unreasonable for a government to want to impose limits & with the scale prosecutions I don't see it as excessive either. It's also in the main pretty easy to avoid detection, with just a little forethought & control (even if you are regularly exceeding limits).

47 million licence holders & less than 3 million currently have points on their licence from any offence (let alone just speeding which you say the majority are doing all the time). Of those 2.2 million have only 3 points & 460k 6 points.



The Selfish Gene said:
I don't agree with your last point at all. I'm not sure how far your travel takes you. I routinely drive across Europe and most weekend to various corners of the UK. The difference I could make if I was to ignore the 70mph speed limit on motorways for long periods of times is hours and hours of time per weekend, over a year it really mounts up.
I travel all over the country & regularly in Europe too.
If I were to set myself a limit of driving at 80 in the UK (despite the 70 limit) I wouldn't get close to averaging 70.
If at 80 I passed myself doing 70, it isn't long (because of conditions ahead) before I have to drop below 70 (often for a considerable period of time) & myself doing 70 makes back ground on myself doing 80. Truth is for me to make considerable time gains in my journey at legal speeds I would have to attain & maintain much higher differential speeds.
When I do that I also burn more fuel doing all that up/down with the speeds & I spend more time in the filling station with my other self making up more ground on me again.
With no other traffic me doing & able to maintain 80 will make (& maintain) ground over me doing 70, but we aren't in a country with no other traffic. We are on a tiny island with 47 million other drivers often with too many of us wanting to use the same piece of road at the same time.



Edited by vonhosen on Friday 27th April 10:20

vonhosen

40,198 posts

216 months

Friday 27th April 2018
quotequote all
The Selfish Gene said:
La Liga said:
The Selfish Gene said:
does it? So the social and economic needs are more important than the deaths on the road?

interesting.
Where did I say that?

I said there needs to be a balance. A balance between the risk of harm and the reward of social and economic benefit.

The Selfish Gene said:
I'd argue (as we are being told) that we need to clamp down. My solution would drastically and immediately massively cut road deaths. Unless that's not really what it's all about, and really we are more interested in making money from motorists and not solving the problem.
Or alternatively we may be close to a saturation point where we're unlikely to make significant reductions as we're now consistently below 2000 road deaths, of which a good % will be pedestrian / cyclist error (as they make up a 3rd of deaths), reducing the scope for driver improvement further.

The Selfish Gene said:
I solve problems for a living. What is currently happening is not solving any problems. It's using a set of outdated rules with an agenda to make money from a vilified demographic.
Apart from that long-term downtrend in road deaths against a backdrop of more vehicles and more miles travelled.
all fair comment La Liga

although I would dispute the stats on the downtrend being as a result of tax cameras.

the old line always trotted out still stands for me

If there is a death on a road, and a camera goes up, and the next year there isn't a death, that isn't a 100% reduction in deaths due to the camera.

That's half flippant, but my point is there are very many ways to make it look like something is improving to fit the master plan. (I do it every single day)

.........I'd need much more evidence to agree with the cameras doing any safety improvement whatsoever.
The camera isn't what gives you safety, the limit is the safety (amongst other things) measure.
The camera is there to uphold & enforce the limit.
Our fatality figures aren't as a result of cameras. They are as a result of a whole raft of interwoven measures.
You don't judge the camera for safety, you judge the limit for safety.
You judge the camera on what it is tasked to do. Encourage compliance where it is situated as well as detect & provide evidence of those who don't comply. Cameras are effective at doing what they are tasked to do. They do it far more efficiently than a Police officer on patrol can. Police officer on patrol is better concentrating on other things & cameras mean they can ignore that thing they traditionally used to do in favour of the other things, which when traffic officer numbers have been reduced is a good thing.

The Selfish Gene

5,470 posts

209 months

Friday 27th April 2018
quotequote all
vonhosen said:
I travel all over the country & regularly in Europe too.
If I were to set myself a limit of driving at 80 in the UK (despite the 70 limit) I wouldn't get close to averaging 70.
If at 80 I passed myself doing 70, it isn't long (because of conditions ahead) before I have to drop below 70 (often for a considerable period of time) & myself doing 70 makes back ground on myself doing 80. Truth is for me to make considerable time gains in my journey at legal speeds I would have to attain & maintain much higher differential speeds.
When I do that I also burn more fuel doing all that up/down with the speeds & I spend more time in the filling station with my other self making up more ground on me again.
With no other traffic me doing & able to maintain 80 will make (& maintain) ground over me doing 70, but we aren't in a country with no other traffic. We are on a tiny island with 47 million other drivers often with too many of us wanting to use the same piece of road at the same time.



Edited by vonhosen on Friday 27th April 10:20
fair enough and each to their own..........(good stats on the number of points) - I have a clean licence too although it wasn't always that way.

on your 70 versus 80mph example. What if it's 70 versus 120 though? It is definitely faster to get somewhere if your average speed is higher. Nobody can argue with that.

The Selfish Gene

5,470 posts

209 months

Friday 27th April 2018
quotequote all
vonhosen said:
The camera isn't what gives you safety, the limit is the safety (amongst other things) measure.
The camera is there to uphold & enforce the limit.
Our fatality figures aren't as a result of cameras. They are as a result of a whole raft of interwoven measures.
You don't judge the camera for safety, you judge the limit for safety.
You judge the camera on what it is tasked to do. Encourage compliance where it is situated as well as detect & provide evidence of those who don't comply. Cameras are effective at doing what they are tasked to do. They do it far more efficiently than a Police officer on patrol can. Police officer on patrol is better concentrating on other things & cameras mean they can ignore that thing they traditionally used to do in favour of the other things, which when traffic officer numbers have been reduced is a good thing.
Gatso and Truvelo that argument holds some weight in 30s, 40s etc. They are easy to avoid, but definitely are unsporting.

The average cameras are hateful things, and waste a lot of time for drivers (as I said in enough post encouraging one to increase speed massively afterwards to get back the average time lost).

The motorway gantry things though - now they are dangerous - as they encourage hard braking for drivers without the skills........you may as well throw banana peels out.

Yes - if we all weren't speeding it wouldnt' be a factor- but we are, so it is.


vonhosen

40,198 posts

216 months

Friday 27th April 2018
quotequote all
The Selfish Gene said:
vonhosen said:
I travel all over the country & regularly in Europe too.
If I were to set myself a limit of driving at 80 in the UK (despite the 70 limit) I wouldn't get close to averaging 70.
If at 80 I passed myself doing 70, it isn't long (because of conditions ahead) before I have to drop below 70 (often for a considerable period of time) & myself doing 70 makes back ground on myself doing 80. Truth is for me to make considerable time gains in my journey at legal speeds I would have to attain & maintain much higher differential speeds.
When I do that I also burn more fuel doing all that up/down with the speeds & I spend more time in the filling station with my other self making up more ground on me again.
With no other traffic me doing & able to maintain 80 will make (& maintain) ground over me doing 70, but we aren't in a country with no other traffic. We are on a tiny island with 47 million other drivers often with too many of us wanting to use the same piece of road at the same time.
fair enough and each to their own..........(good stats on the number of points) - I have a clean licence too although it wasn't always that way.

on your 70 versus 80mph example. What if it's 70 versus 120 though? It is definitely faster to get somewhere if your average speed is higher. Nobody can argue with that.
That's what I said, I realistically need to have large differentials to make considerable time differences in my journey times.
But it's the hold ups ahead of us both that are invariably the limiting factor. You just get to the next queue quicker, using more fuel & having to wait whilst the slower vehicle catches up. The advantage clock then resets to zero. Average speed is the important factor & the lots of slower speeds on your journey tend to have a larger impact on the higher speeds.

vonhosen

40,198 posts

216 months

Friday 27th April 2018
quotequote all
The Selfish Gene said:
vonhosen said:
The camera isn't what gives you safety, the limit is the safety (amongst other things) measure.
The camera is there to uphold & enforce the limit.
Our fatality figures aren't as a result of cameras. They are as a result of a whole raft of interwoven measures.
You don't judge the camera for safety, you judge the limit for safety.
You judge the camera on what it is tasked to do. Encourage compliance where it is situated as well as detect & provide evidence of those who don't comply. Cameras are effective at doing what they are tasked to do. They do it far more efficiently than a Police officer on patrol can. Police officer on patrol is better concentrating on other things & cameras mean they can ignore that thing they traditionally used to do in favour of the other things, which when traffic officer numbers have been reduced is a good thing.
Gatso and Truvelo that argument holds some weight in 30s, 40s etc. They are easy to avoid, but definitely are unsporting.

The average cameras are hateful things, and waste a lot of time for drivers (as I said in enough post encouraging one to increase speed massively afterwards to get back the average time lost).

The motorway gantry things though - now they are dangerous - as they encourage hard braking for drivers without the skills........you may as well throw banana peels out.

Yes - if we all weren't speeding it wouldnt' be a factor- but we are, so it is.
They are all relatively easy to avoid prosecution with.
In the M6 miles of 50 limit I can average 50 doing 50.
On the 70 limit I can't average 70 doing 70.

If I travel 200 miles & set my satnav, it tells me what time I'm going to get there & guess what to within a minute or two that's the time I get there. There isn't time to be made up, I arrived when expected.
The only time that doesn't happen is when circumstances beyond control occur, such as a fatality collision causing the motorway to close & me being stuck in it. But then the speeder was stuck in that too & the speeding didn't stop them being delayed either.

The motorway gantry is an inanimate object, just like the Police car parked at the side of the road. They aren't dangerous, it's how idiots react that's dangerous. That's down the idiot, much like a person who complains someone should warn him boiling water is hot.

It isn't a factor for us all speeding. It's a factor for the smaller number who speed & get caught, not those who manage a bit of speeding & not getting caught.

Edited by vonhosen on Friday 27th April 10:48

anonymous-user

Original Poster:

53 months

Friday 27th April 2018
quotequote all
The Selfish Gene said:
all fair comment La Liga

although I would dispute the stats on the downtrend being as a result of tax cameras.

the old line always trotted out still stands for me

If there is a death on a road, and a camera goes up, and the next year there isn't a death, that isn't a 100% reduction in deaths due to the camera.

That's half flippant, but my point is there are very many ways to make it look like something is improving to fit the master plan. (I do it every single day)

.........I'd need much more evidence to agree with the cameras doing any safety improvement whatsoever.
The cause is going to be a complex mix, which is why I use 'overall road safety strategy' when talking about it.

The encompasses everything including aspects there are indisputable such as greatly improved vehicle safety and design, as well as faster, better trauma care etc.




JNW1

7,711 posts

193 months

Friday 27th April 2018
quotequote all
La Liga said:
he cause is going to be a complex mix, which is why I use 'overall road safety strategy' when talking about it.

The encompasses everything including aspects there are indisputable such as greatly improved vehicle safety and design, as well as faster, better trauma care etc.
Indeed and yet despite all those things fatalities on the roads of North Yorkshire haven't changed since the introduction of our fleet of mobile camera vans; on the face of it they appear to be achieving very little in terms of improving safety...