Eight months for using a laser jammer ?!! Wtf
Discussion
cmaguire said:
vonhosen said:
You aren't incriminating yourself you are complying with your obligation for the licenced activity.
I've nominated myself tons of times. Didn't mean I was guilty of an offence.
I was however fulfilling my obligations under the licensed activity.
Of course if I didn't want to be subject of that I could have taken my pedal cycle, the train, the bus or walked instead. they aren't licenced activities.
A vehicle is recorded exceeding the speed limit at a speed where prosecution will automatically occur.I've nominated myself tons of times. Didn't mean I was guilty of an offence.
I was however fulfilling my obligations under the licensed activity.
Of course if I didn't want to be subject of that I could have taken my pedal cycle, the train, the bus or walked instead. they aren't licenced activities.
The registered keeper is asked to identify the driver of the vehicle at the time of the offence.
How is that anything other than incriminatory?
Refuse to say and get done over anyway.
Talk about a stacked deck.
They 'may' where there is sufficient evidence to prosecute, but it isn't automatic. Far more 172s get issued than prosecutions resulting from their issue.
Believe me I've seen plenty of 172 notices issued, driver identified, yet no prosecutions resulting.
Of course it's not a free deck, because everybody isn't free to drive. It's a licenced activity.
Roman Rhodes said:
I was just making a simple point:
Some are arguing that a PCoJ charge was inappropriate because speeding is a trivial matter. I asked whether they should just be let off and whether the same would apply to someone who had been flytipping. Flytipping doesn't kill people, speeding can kill people - so flytipping, by that measure, must be even more trivial than speeding. Your belief that nobody is killed by speeding is risible. By your logic, the woman in this case http://metro.co.uk/2018/04/25/young-woman-died-car... just needed to be a better driver so that she could get the car round the bend at 69mph? It doesn't matter whether someone is charged with dangerous driving, reckless driving or whatever if the cause of the accident is excessive speed. Therefore your response to my exaggerated example "how on earth could driving past a school at 100mph when children are being escorted across the road ever be considered "just" speeding?" is irrelevant (apart from the fact that no-one said it anyway).
Why do you think we have speed limits?
Next time you are out try to count the number of people speeding. Not those running over lollipop ladies, or any of your other links, but the 99.99999999% or thereabouts of incidents which constitute the massive norm. People doing 35 in a 30 or 83 on a Motorway or 47 in a 40 etcSome are arguing that a PCoJ charge was inappropriate because speeding is a trivial matter. I asked whether they should just be let off and whether the same would apply to someone who had been flytipping. Flytipping doesn't kill people, speeding can kill people - so flytipping, by that measure, must be even more trivial than speeding. Your belief that nobody is killed by speeding is risible. By your logic, the woman in this case http://metro.co.uk/2018/04/25/young-woman-died-car... just needed to be a better driver so that she could get the car round the bend at 69mph? It doesn't matter whether someone is charged with dangerous driving, reckless driving or whatever if the cause of the accident is excessive speed. Therefore your response to my exaggerated example "how on earth could driving past a school at 100mph when children are being escorted across the road ever be considered "just" speeding?" is irrelevant (apart from the fact that no-one said it anyway).
Why do you think we have speed limits?
There will be so many you'll lose count, and it really doesn't matter. Near enough everybody is doing it, even the ones that get all uptight about others doing it differently to them.
It must be trivial or there wouldn't be so many doing it.
La Liga said:
jm doc said:
vonhosen said:
jm doc said:
Anyway, PtCoJ, isn't that what Police Officers do every time they break the speed limit (not in the course of their duty) and don't report themselves??
Where is the perverting?vonhosen said:
Prosecutions don't automatically occur as a result of 172 notices.
They 'may' where there is sufficient evidence to prosecute, but it isn't automatic. Far more 172s get issued than prosecutions resulting from their issue.
Believe me I've seen plenty of 172 notices issued, driver identified, yet no prosecutions resulting.
Of course it's not a free deck, because everybody isn't free to drive. It's a licenced activity.
Where did I say they did?They 'may' where there is sufficient evidence to prosecute, but it isn't automatic. Far more 172s get issued than prosecutions resulting from their issue.
Believe me I've seen plenty of 172 notices issued, driver identified, yet no prosecutions resulting.
Of course it's not a free deck, because everybody isn't free to drive. It's a licenced activity.
You are using semantics to dodge the fact the registered keeper is pressured into incriminating someone by the authorities. Whether a prosecution subsequently occurs does not change that.
cmaguire said:
Next time you are out try to count the number of people speeding. Not those running over lollipop ladies, or any of your other links, but the 99.99999999% or thereabouts of incidents which constitute the massive norm. People doing 35 in a 30 or 83 on a Motorway or 47 in a 40 etc
There will be so many you'll lose count, and it really doesn't matter. Near enough everybody is doing it, even the ones that get all uptight about others doing it differently to them.
It must be trivial or there wouldn't be so many doing it.
Can you explain how many people doing something makes that thing trivial?There will be so many you'll lose count, and it really doesn't matter. Near enough everybody is doing it, even the ones that get all uptight about others doing it differently to them.
It must be trivial or there wouldn't be so many doing it.
cmaguire said:
You are using semantics to dodge the fact the registered keeper is pressured into incriminating someone by the authorities. Whether a prosecution subsequently occurs does not change that.
Have you considered de-registering your car with DVLA, and rescinding the contract that your parents made with the state on your behalf?I believe it makes it 'trivial' because it shows the law up for being incorrect, or outdated.
i.e. in my team (let's say 100 people ish), if everyone is breaking one of my rules. I'm not such an arrogant prick dictator that I would look at why everyone is break that rule, and modify it, or remove it.
As I'm probably incorrect to apply a rule that the large percentage (or the entire percentage ignore).
Or the rule has become out of date.
Therefore - it's trivial because nobody agrees with it - except those that are making money from it, unfairly.
i.e. in my team (let's say 100 people ish), if everyone is breaking one of my rules. I'm not such an arrogant prick dictator that I would look at why everyone is break that rule, and modify it, or remove it.
As I'm probably incorrect to apply a rule that the large percentage (or the entire percentage ignore).
Or the rule has become out of date.
Therefore - it's trivial because nobody agrees with it - except those that are making money from it, unfairly.
cmaguire said:
Where did I say they did?
You are using semantics to dodge the fact the registered keeper is pressured into incriminating someone by the authorities. Whether a prosecution subsequently occurs does not change that.
There's no pressure, that's your interpretation/spin, it's an obligation under law as a condition of keeping a vehicle if there is an offence committed. Either don't commit an offence or don't keep a vehicle and the Man can't touch you, or crowd fund a legal challenge.You are using semantics to dodge the fact the registered keeper is pressured into incriminating someone by the authorities. Whether a prosecution subsequently occurs does not change that.
You're persistent insistence leads me to think a) you don't like it so can't accept it and/or b) you're not looking for enlightenment but merely looking to argue to no end.
The Selfish Gene said:
I believe it makes it 'trivial' because it shows the law up for being incorrect, or outdated.
i.e. in my team (let's say 100 people ish), if everyone is breaking one of my rules. I'm not such an arrogant prick dictator that I would look at why everyone is break that rule, and modify it, or remove it.
As I'm probably incorrect to apply a rule that the large percentage (or the entire percentage ignore).
Or the rule has become out of date.
Therefore - it's trivial because nobody agrees with it - except those that are making money from it, unfairly.
So what sort of alternative solution would you propose?i.e. in my team (let's say 100 people ish), if everyone is breaking one of my rules. I'm not such an arrogant prick dictator that I would look at why everyone is break that rule, and modify it, or remove it.
As I'm probably incorrect to apply a rule that the large percentage (or the entire percentage ignore).
Or the rule has become out of date.
Therefore - it's trivial because nobody agrees with it - except those that are making money from it, unfairly.
well that's rather complex to respond to on something as basic as PH.
Also would be heavily influenced by my personal agenda and therefore biased.
Simply though - I'd reduce the number of road users and increase the standard of driving for those that are left.
I would do this by making driving a privilege, not a right.
I would achieve that by improving training, and having a much more Private Pilots Licence type model for gaining a car licence. Many hours let's call it 45 like the PPL. Multiple written exams (not multiple guess).
Then once we had removed all the dross from the roads - I would increase the motorway speed limits to move with more modern times and the ability of cars. Let's say 100 outside lane. 70 inside and some graduation between the number (be it 2, 3 or 4).
I would remove the ridiculous gantry tax cameras (which are dangerous) as they wouldn't be required with a higher standard of driving.
If you break the higher levels of speed limit, the enforcement would be similar to now.
I think as a society we need to stop catering for the lowest common denominator.
If for any reason you can't reach the required standard, you don't get to drive. That's where autonomous cars , buses and taxis come into place.
Also would be heavily influenced by my personal agenda and therefore biased.
Simply though - I'd reduce the number of road users and increase the standard of driving for those that are left.
I would do this by making driving a privilege, not a right.
I would achieve that by improving training, and having a much more Private Pilots Licence type model for gaining a car licence. Many hours let's call it 45 like the PPL. Multiple written exams (not multiple guess).
Then once we had removed all the dross from the roads - I would increase the motorway speed limits to move with more modern times and the ability of cars. Let's say 100 outside lane. 70 inside and some graduation between the number (be it 2, 3 or 4).
I would remove the ridiculous gantry tax cameras (which are dangerous) as they wouldn't be required with a higher standard of driving.
If you break the higher levels of speed limit, the enforcement would be similar to now.
I think as a society we need to stop catering for the lowest common denominator.
If for any reason you can't reach the required standard, you don't get to drive. That's where autonomous cars , buses and taxis come into place.
Edited by The Selfish Gene on Thursday 26th April 16:37
Edited by The Selfish Gene on Thursday 26th April 16:38
cmaguire said:
In principle I agree with you, but that expectation is a green light for easy convictions for all manner of trivial transgressions to the point it could be argued it encourages the authorities to look for them in the first place because it is so easy.
In what other scenario are you expected to snitch on yourself or someone else because if you don't you get punished anyway? Smacks of bully-boy tactics.
It's easy. Don't commit the offence and you won't have to incriminate yourself. In what other scenario are you expected to snitch on yourself or someone else because if you don't you get punished anyway? Smacks of bully-boy tactics.
The Mad Monk said:
MB140 said:
the police fail to catch and get convicted, mainly due to them being to busy in there crime reference number distribution call centers.
Your not a member of the crime number distribution center brigade by any chance.
Doesn't sound as though you were busy when your class studied English language and grammar.Your not a member of the crime number distribution center brigade by any chance.
I have a HNC and HND in Electrical and Electronic Engineering and a degree in engineering.
Thanks for pointing out my grammar. It’s clearly about as relevant to this discussion as my qualifications in engineering.
Integroo said:
cmaguire said:
In principle I agree with you, but that expectation is a green light for easy convictions for all manner of trivial transgressions to the point it could be argued it encourages the authorities to look for them in the first place because it is so easy.
In what other scenario are you expected to snitch on yourself or someone else because if you don't you get punished anyway? Smacks of bully-boy tactics.
It's easy. Don't commit the offence and you won't have to incriminate yourself. In what other scenario are you expected to snitch on yourself or someone else because if you don't you get punished anyway? Smacks of bully-boy tactics.
Green shoes are illegal - if you know anyone that wears them you have to tell the police and if you don't you're in trouble.
That's how silly I view laws like we are discussing. Someone doing 65 in a 50 that was a 70 until last week and now someone plonked an entrapment camera to ensure we are FOLLOW ZE RULES!!
The Selfish Gene said:
well that's rather complex to respond to on something as basic as PH.
Also would be heavily influenced by my person agenda and therefore biased.
Simply though - I'd reduce the number of road uses and increase the standard of driving for those that are left.
I would do this by making driving a privilege, not a right.
I would achieve that by improving training, and having a much more Private Pilots Licence type model for gaining a car licence. Many hours let's call it 45 like the PPL. Multiple written exams (not multiple guess).
Then once we had removed all the dross from the roads - I would increase the motorway speed limits to move with more modern times and the ability of cars. Let's say 100 outside lane. 70 inside and some graduation between the number (be it 2, 3 or 4).
I would remove the ridiculous gantry tax cameras (which are dangerous) as they wouldn't be required with a higher standard of driving.
If you break the higher levels of speed limit, the enforcement would be similar to now.
I think as a society we need to stop catering for the lowest common denominator.
If for any reason you can't reach the required standard, you don't get to drive. That's where autonomous cars , buses and taxis come into place.
It may surprise you but I have also thought like this, I do think that drivers should pass an advanced test as per RoSPA and as motorcyclists have to, I think this would make a large contribution to road safety.Also would be heavily influenced by my person agenda and therefore biased.
Simply though - I'd reduce the number of road uses and increase the standard of driving for those that are left.
I would do this by making driving a privilege, not a right.
I would achieve that by improving training, and having a much more Private Pilots Licence type model for gaining a car licence. Many hours let's call it 45 like the PPL. Multiple written exams (not multiple guess).
Then once we had removed all the dross from the roads - I would increase the motorway speed limits to move with more modern times and the ability of cars. Let's say 100 outside lane. 70 inside and some graduation between the number (be it 2, 3 or 4).
I would remove the ridiculous gantry tax cameras (which are dangerous) as they wouldn't be required with a higher standard of driving.
If you break the higher levels of speed limit, the enforcement would be similar to now.
I think as a society we need to stop catering for the lowest common denominator.
If for any reason you can't reach the required standard, you don't get to drive. That's where autonomous cars , buses and taxis come into place.
Unfortunately it's not particularly practical in the real world to go from where we are today to there, and the next best option is reducing speed/enforcing limits. I think in some cases the reductions in speed limits are inappropriate and driven not by statistical evidence but by political pressure/virtue signalling and yes - cynically a revenue stream, unfortunately once lowered it would be a brave man to raise them again as then they would be deemed responsible for any accidents happening afterwards, so we are in a downward spiral.
Granted modern cars are much better ones than when the almost arbitrary limits were set by Mrs Castle (a non-Driver) and then Home Secretary [iirc], however reaction times remain the same at best and perhaps less in normal conditions due to increased cockpit distractions, so I'm not sure about autobahn limits personally.
However, if it's a question of 95% of the population being mobile for work etc at a reduced speed or 50% of the population only to be mobile for work etc at a slightly higher speed then the pragmatic solution (because we don't NEED to go fast) is to leave things as they are.
Even in your proposal we see limits, and these would have to be enforced and would be subject to s172, cameras etc anyway, so as far as the legalities are concerned they would remain much the same, and I'm certain that even then we'd still have people unhappy about getting done at 110 in the middle lane as there was no immediate danger, victimless crime etc etc.
I'm with you on most of that - but I think the 'next best option' is my problem.
Everyone is talking about air quality, pollution etc - with my proposal we would get a load of people off the road.
They can still get to work, it's just they go in public transport.
You could dumb it down to a level I suppose of a two tier system - and have times of day when the advanced drivers are allowed and the limits are improved. I guess that would be even more complicated.
You final point is a good one - the new limits would still be enforceable (I'm not an anarchist) - and we would quickly want more speed and be annoyed at the 110mph speeding ticket.
That being said I think it would take us a long time to get to that point.
You talk about it would be a brave man that would reintroduce sensible speed limits, but yet, surely having a much higher standard of driving would be the safest way of all.
Clearly the massive flaw in my plan is it would be a vote loser..........as the majority of people are stupid, and can't drive. So the people i'd want off the road would never vote for the new rules and would vote me out when I was trying to implement them.
So I'm dreaming with my proposal - but you did ask me what I would do, and that would be my solution in a perfect world.
Everyone is talking about air quality, pollution etc - with my proposal we would get a load of people off the road.
They can still get to work, it's just they go in public transport.
You could dumb it down to a level I suppose of a two tier system - and have times of day when the advanced drivers are allowed and the limits are improved. I guess that would be even more complicated.
You final point is a good one - the new limits would still be enforceable (I'm not an anarchist) - and we would quickly want more speed and be annoyed at the 110mph speeding ticket.
That being said I think it would take us a long time to get to that point.
You talk about it would be a brave man that would reintroduce sensible speed limits, but yet, surely having a much higher standard of driving would be the safest way of all.
Clearly the massive flaw in my plan is it would be a vote loser..........as the majority of people are stupid, and can't drive. So the people i'd want off the road would never vote for the new rules and would vote me out when I was trying to implement them.
So I'm dreaming with my proposal - but you did ask me what I would do, and that would be my solution in a perfect world.
The Selfish Gene said:
Simply though - I'd reduce the number of road users and increase the standard of driving for those that are left.
I would do this by making driving a privilege, not a right.
Ummm... <scratches head>I would do this by making driving a privilege, not a right.
It already is a privilege not a right... It has been for, well, ever since driving licences started to be issued and could be withdrawn.
The Selfish Gene said:
I believe it makes it 'trivial' because it shows the law up for being incorrect, or outdated.
i.e. in my team (let's say 100 people ish), if everyone is breaking one of my rules. I'm not such an arrogant prick dictator that I would look at why everyone is break that rule, and modify it, or remove it.
As I'm probably incorrect to apply a rule that the large percentage (or the entire percentage ignore).
Or the rule has become out of date.
Therefore - it's trivial because nobody agrees with it - except those that are making money from it, unfairly.
According to the lunchtime news today a large percentage of people, particularly young people, in some areas are ignoring the rules on carrying offensive weapons. So by your logic carrying offensive weapons is trivial or prohibiting possession is out of date?i.e. in my team (let's say 100 people ish), if everyone is breaking one of my rules. I'm not such an arrogant prick dictator that I would look at why everyone is break that rule, and modify it, or remove it.
As I'm probably incorrect to apply a rule that the large percentage (or the entire percentage ignore).
Or the rule has become out of date.
Therefore - it's trivial because nobody agrees with it - except those that are making money from it, unfairly.
Cat
TooMany2cvs said:
The Selfish Gene said:
Simply though - I'd reduce the number of road users and increase the standard of driving for those that are left.
I would do this by making driving a privilege, not a right.
Ummm... <scratches head>I would do this by making driving a privilege, not a right.
It already is a privilege not a right... It has been for, well, ever since driving licences started to be issued and could be withdrawn.
k wit can get qualified for a few hundred quid.I'm talking about 15/20k worth of training and an IQ level higher than a vegetable.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff