Eight months for using a laser jammer ?!! Wtf

[vonhosen]

The Selfish Gene said:

vonhosen said:

Everybody drives careless & inconsiderately.
Do you consider that bad law?
Should we have no offences for it because everybody does it (even though they shouldn't)?

is that a statement of fact or a scenario?

see my other comment about driver training. I'd solve that too, just in a different way.

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.

[Greendubber]

jm doc said:

Greendubber 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?

How would you describe it then? They're job is to uphold the law is it not? When they break a law shouldn't they self report and hand themselves in? Otherwise aren't they deliberately preventing the course of justice from taking place?

Look up lawful exemptions.

Get some reading lessons, I excluded lawful exemptions.

Get some time in reading about what PCOJ is!

[Greendubber]

The Selfish Gene said:

Cat said:

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I believe it makes it 'trivial' because it shows the law up for being incorrect, or outdated.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Or the rule has become out of date.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 So by your logic carrying offensive weapons is trivial or prohibiting possession is out of date?

Cat

erm no.......because there are victims of offensive weapons. Cars are not offensive weapons before you go down that route. Speed is not a weapon either. Two completely separate arguments.

When one carries an offensive weapon it's sole use it to injure or maim. The law seems fine in this regard.

So who's the victim of me carrying an offensive weapon on me in public?

[vonhosen]

Greendubber said:

The Selfish Gene said:

Cat said:

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?

Cat

erm no.......because there are victims of offensive weapons. Cars are not offensive weapons before you go down that route. Speed is not a weapon either. Two completely separate arguments.

When one carries an offensive weapon it's sole use it to injure or maim. The law seems fine in this regard.

So who's the victim of me carrying an offensive weapon on me in public?

Regina, the same victim for PtCoJ

[Greendubber]

vonhosen said:

Greendubber said:

The Selfish Gene said:

Cat said:

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?

Cat

erm no.......because there are victims of offensive weapons. Cars are not offensive weapons before you go down that route. Speed is not a weapon either. Two completely separate arguments.

When one carries an offensive weapon it's sole use it to injure or maim. The law seems fine in this regard.

So who's the victim of me carrying an offensive weapon on me in public?

Regina, the same victim for PtCoJ

Bingo!

[anonymous-user]

JNW1 said:

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?

In terms of the PCOJ aspect, I think there's a question as to whether it's an appropriate use of that particular charge to pursue what was in the first instance a trivial offence. I think in these speeding cases it's being used to make a point but that's probably no great surprise given the investment North Yorkshire have made in their camera fleet.

However, even accepting it's an appropriate use of the charge - and in fairness the police and the judiciary obviously think it is - my question on whether the resultant sentence was proportionate still remains. Is adding criminals like this to our over-crowded prison population really a sensible response when we know people who present more of a threat to people and/or property often get away with non-custodial sentences? Can't see it personally, surely community service, a hefty fine and more points on the licence would have been more appropriate?

As for my belief that nobody is killed by speeding, we'll have to agree to disagree on that I'm afraid. In terms of the example you quote, that's actually a perfect illustration of how poor judgement causes accidents and - sadly in this case - a fatality. The problem seemed to be quite simply the inability of the driver to assess what speed was appropriate for the conditions; sounds like the fact she was running late impaired her judgement but whatever the reason it was her judgement that was at fault and caused the accident. Of course excessive speed made the consequences worse but the cause was driver error, not speed per se.

Why do I think we have speed limits? Probably because a lot of drivers can't be trusted to make sensible judgements of what's appropriate but in reality they (the limits) are just a blunt instrument which address only symptoms not causes; their ever wider enforcement through technology appears to be having no effect on safety which probably illustrates what a blunt instrument they are. The real cause of problems on our roads is incompetent drivers but that's far more difficult to solve (and hence instead we appear to have a process whereby we're all being gradually dumbed-down to the level of the lowest common denominator).

Pretty much agree with that except:

Para 1: Do you mean speeding when you say "pursue what was in the first instance a trivial offence". I haven't seen anything that says he was speeding. What he did was use a jammer that tampered with evidence that would demonstrate whether he was speeding or not (if he wasn't speeding then he's an even bigger muppet). That tampering with the evidence is what resulted in the charge of PCoJ.

Para 3: All nonsense I'm afraid. The "poor judgement" and "driver error" was driving too fast - they were breaking the speed limit. If they hadn't, no accident would have occurred.

[cmaguire]

Roman Rhodes said:

Para 3: All nonsense I'm afraid. The "poor judgement" and "driver error" was driving too fast - they were breaking the speed limit. If they hadn't, no accident would have occurred.

In your opinion.
I expect I, along with numerous other people could negotiate that road perfectly safely in a similar car at a significantly higher speed than she was doing.
It was poor judgement on her part and her ability wasn't up to it.

Cue the predictable driving God BS response(s).

[anonymous-user]

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.

[anonymous-user]

cmaguire said:

Roman Rhodes said:

Para 3: All nonsense I'm afraid. The "poor judgement" and "driver error" was driving too fast - they were breaking the speed limit. If they hadn't, no accident would have occurred.

In your opinion.
I expect I, along with numerous other people could negotiate that road perfectly safely in a similar car at a significantly higher speed than she was doing.
It was poor judgement on her part and her ability wasn't up to it.

Cue the predictable driving God BS response(s).

In my opinion there is also a speed at which the Driving Gods would end up in the tree too so your skills versus that of the dead woman don't seem especially relevant.

[Cat]

The Selfish Gene said:

erm no.......because there are victims of offensive weapons. Cars are not offensive weapons before you go down that route. Speed is not a weapon either. Two completely separate arguments.

When one carries an offensive weapon it's sole use it to injure or maim. The law seems fine in this regard.

Ignoring the fact that there is no more a victim of someone carrying an offensive weapon than there is a victim of someone speeding. The point you made had nothing to do with victims - you said "it's trivial because nobody agrees with it".

Cat

[Jagmanv12]

andy_s said:

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.
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've had similar thoughts to this for a long time.
The driving test should be considerably stricter. There is too much dumbing down to the lowest level.
If someone doesn't reach the required level then they can use cycle, bus, train, etc.
OT just because there's a shortage of doctors are the requirements lowered? Of course not. Meet the level or do something else.
Likewise with driving.
As has been posted reducing the number of cars/drivers on the roads would keep the environmentalists happy, ease congestion, reduce journey times. etc. A winning solution.

[cmaguire]

Roman Rhodes said:

In my opinion there is also a speed at which the Driving Gods would end up in the tree too so your skills versus that of the dead woman don't seem especially relevant.

What is relevant is driving within your ability in any given situation. Whether the speed limit has any bearing on that is entirely down to the driver.

Continuously slowing everybody down is a crass method of casualty reduction and lacks any imagination.

[anonymous-user]

Roman Rhodes said:

cmaguire said:

Roman Rhodes said:

Para 3: All nonsense I'm afraid. The "poor judgement" and "driver error" was driving too fast - they were breaking the speed limit. If they hadn't, no accident would have occurred.

In your opinion.
I expect I, along with numerous other people could negotiate that road perfectly safely in a similar car at a significantly higher speed than she was doing.
It was poor judgement on her part and her ability wasn't up to it.

Cue the predictable driving God BS response(s).

In my opinion there is also a speed at which the Driving Gods would end up in the tree too so your skills versus that of the dead woman don't seem especially relevant.

One's assessment of their own driving skills is often used as an example of the human bias / heuristic of overconfidence i.e. most people think they're above average drivers.

[cmaguire]

La Liga said:

ne's assessment of their own driving skills is often used as an example of the human bias / heuristic of overconfidence i.e. most people think they're above average drivers.

Some of them are right.

[JNW1]

Roman Rhodes said:

Pretty much agree with that except:

Para 1: Do you mean speeding when you say "pursue what was in the first instance a trivial offence". I haven't seen anything that says he was speeding. What he did was use a jammer that tampered with evidence that would demonstrate whether he was speeding or not (if he wasn't speeding then he's an even bigger muppet). That tampering with the evidence is what resulted in the charge of PCoJ.

Para 3: All nonsense I'm afraid. The "poor judgement" and "driver error" was driving too fast - they were breaking the speed limit. If they hadn't, no accident would have occurred.

Yes, I suppose I was assuming the reason a camera was on him in the first place was because he was suspected of speeding - as has been the case in other PCoJ instances that have been highlighted - but perhaps it was only on him because he was gesturing at the van (in which case you're right, that makes him an even bigger idiot).

As for my paragraph 3 being nonsense, don't agree I'm afraid. Leaving aside unforeseeable acts of god I'd contend there are only two reasons an accident happens, driver error or a failure of some sort on the vehicle. You could perhaps argue severe weather as well - such as running into an unexpected bank of fog - but even then I'd argue a competent driver should be able to adjust to the conditions and if they don't it's driver error that causes any accident.

To take the example you used, driver error resulted in excess speed which sadly caused a fatal accident; however, that excess speed didn't just happen, it was a direct consequence of the actions of the person behind the wheel who unfortunately got it wrong. So for me excess speed is down to driver error and the ever increasing enforcement of speed limits won't solve that; what it might do is make the consequences of error less severe if accidents happen at lower speeds but I'm seeing nothing in any of the official accident statistics to prove that. For example, the camera van fleet in North Yorkshire appears to have achieved the square root of bugger all in terms of reducing serious injuries and fatalities...

[Wills2]

cmaguire said:

What is relevant is driving within your ability in any given situation. Whether the speed limit has any bearing on that is entirely down to the driver.

Continuously slowing everybody down is a crass method of casualty reduction and lacks any imagination.

Indeed, however many people have an over inflated view of their ability and everything is OK until suddenly it isn't and any enthusiastic driver has been there and knows that when it goes wrong you're often no longer in charge as you've run out of talent sooner than you thought possible.

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.

[jm doc]

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.

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.

[vonhosen]

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.

[jm doc]

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?

[andy_s]

God almighty, this is tedious.