Oh goody, I've got myself a section 59.
Discussion
saaby93 said:
Mr_annie_vxr said:
Honesty got a biker off 110 today.
I'm not happy with a hit and miss approach to policing 
If 110mph is not to be penalised the normal channels should be approached to raise the limit to 120mph.
Surely cant have one rule for some and not for others depending how the officer felt on the day
Edited by saaby93 on Tuesday 23 February 20:10
Any moves - even further - toward a situation where the need for such judgement is removed and replaced by strict liability should be resisted.
saaby93 said:
Mr_annie_vxr said:
Honesty got a biker off 110 today.
I'm not happy with a hit and miss approach to policing If 110mph is not to be penalised the normal channels should be approached to raise the limit to 120mph.
Surely cant have one rule for some and not for others depending how the officer felt on the day
Edited by saaby93 on Tuesday 23 February 20:10
- in that you seem to suggest you'd prefer there to be no skill, judgement or - if you like - luck in "getting off". Personally I'd prefer to know that some (if not all) officers will respond to honesty and courtesy and hope that I'm able to demonstrate both in order to generate a positive outcome for myself. Others in society are less able or less willing to do so, but I don't believe that treatment should be indepdendent of attitude, nor that there isn't some benefitting to trying to be better than the average bear skwdenyer said:
saaby93 said:
Mr_annie_vxr said:
Honesty got a biker off 110 today.
I'm not happy with a hit and miss approach to policing If 110mph is not to be penalised the normal channels should be approached to raise the limit to 120mph.
Surely cant have one rule for some and not for others depending how the officer felt on the day
Edited by saaby93 on Tuesday 23 February 20:10
- in that you seem to suggest you'd prefer there to be no skill, judgement or - if you like - luck in "getting off". Personally I'd prefer to know that some (if not all) officers will respond to honesty and courtesy and hope that I'm able to demonstrate both in order to generate a positive outcome for myself. Others in society are less able or less willing to do so, but I don't believe that treatment should be indepdendent of attitude, nor that there isn't some benefitting to trying to be better than the average bear I think a persons receptiveness to education is important.
What I want is the person I deal with to consider their actions and adjust their behaviour. Some I feel a chat will encourage this other need enforcement to remind them and other still may need more.
Some offences though (drink driving) I won't leave at education alone.
saaby93 said:
Mr_annie_vxr said:
Honesty got a biker off 110 today.
I'm not happy with a hit and miss approach to policing If 110mph is not to be penalised the normal channels should be approached to raise the limit to 120mph.
Surely cant have one rule for some and not for others depending how the officer felt on the day
Edited by saaby93 on Tuesday 23 February 20:10
Welcome to the world of cameras, you'll be in heaven.
Personally, I'd prefer to meet someone who is going to use common sense and experience, and will do you if you DLAC even if you are driving slowly enough for Mr Camera to bless you.
Edited by eldar on Tuesday 23 February 20:54
The problem is that you dont know what the real rules are or how the day is going to turn out with this discretion
It's one of the reasons we ended up with cameras in the first place.
Local councils put in unreasonable limits. The police often refused to enforce them citing that theyd only catch the very people who were asking. The councils get fed up with the police and bring in cameras. The police respond with proposing the 10% + 2 guidelines. The speed limit is no longer the limit - or is it? The government realise this helps no-one so asks councils to make the limits above mean traffic speeds. Does it happen?
Someone somewhere is going to say that because policing is so variable we need more cameras. Isn't what we really need is more appropriate limits?
Or do we need one officer to say something is ok while another may not?
Why do I know which one would stop me
It's one of the reasons we ended up with cameras in the first place.
Local councils put in unreasonable limits. The police often refused to enforce them citing that theyd only catch the very people who were asking. The councils get fed up with the police and bring in cameras. The police respond with proposing the 10% + 2 guidelines. The speed limit is no longer the limit - or is it? The government realise this helps no-one so asks councils to make the limits above mean traffic speeds. Does it happen?
Someone somewhere is going to say that because policing is so variable we need more cameras. Isn't what we really need is more appropriate limits?
Or do we need one officer to say something is ok while another may not?
Why do I know which one would stop me
saaby93 said:
The problem is that you dont know what the real rules are or how the day is going to turn out with this discretion
It's one of the reasons we ended up with cameras in the first place.
Local councils put in unreasonable limits. The police often refused to enforce them citing that theyd only catch the very people who were asking. The councils get fed up with the police and bring in cameras. The police respond with proposing the 10% + 2 guidelines. The speed limit is no longer the limit - or is it? The government realise this helps no-one so asks councils to make the limits above mean traffic speeds. Does it happen?
Someone somewhere is going to say that because policing is so variable we need more cameras. Isn't what we really need is more appropriate limits?
Or do we need one officer to say something is ok while another may not?
Why do I know which one would stop me
IMHO we need no speed limits and a blanket offence of Dangerous Driving, together with thorough - and regularly reviewed - guidelines. I'm probably in the minority there It's one of the reasons we ended up with cameras in the first place.
Local councils put in unreasonable limits. The police often refused to enforce them citing that theyd only catch the very people who were asking. The councils get fed up with the police and bring in cameras. The police respond with proposing the 10% + 2 guidelines. The speed limit is no longer the limit - or is it? The government realise this helps no-one so asks councils to make the limits above mean traffic speeds. Does it happen?
Someone somewhere is going to say that because policing is so variable we need more cameras. Isn't what we really need is more appropriate limits?
Or do we need one officer to say something is ok while another may not?
Why do I know which one would stop me
sorry saaby, completely with Mr_Annie_vxr on this and it's why I prefer organic policing as opposed to the electronic version.
The electronic version simply records an instantaneous parameter on a go/ no go type of measure, whereas an intelligent and observant officer, as almost all of them are, can also add in what is often the most important element, ie how the devil did you allow yourself to get into that position, and using that information can then act and/or advise accordingly from there.
That means favourable or unfavourable discretion according to the circumstances and therefore will result in what may seem as variable standards to some though I personally wouldn't agree it is all that variable in the overall scheme of things.
Or am I being unreasonable, or too trusting and placing too high demands on people?
The electronic version simply records an instantaneous parameter on a go/ no go type of measure, whereas an intelligent and observant officer, as almost all of them are, can also add in what is often the most important element, ie how the devil did you allow yourself to get into that position, and using that information can then act and/or advise accordingly from there.
That means favourable or unfavourable discretion according to the circumstances and therefore will result in what may seem as variable standards to some though I personally wouldn't agree it is all that variable in the overall scheme of things.
Or am I being unreasonable, or too trusting and placing too high demands on people?
saaby93 said:
The problem is that you dont know what the real rules are or how the day is going to turn out with this discretion
It's one of the reasons we ended up with cameras in the first place.
Local councils put in unreasonable limits. The police often refused to enforce them citing that theyd only catch the very people who were asking. The councils get fed up with the police and bring in cameras. The police respond with proposing the 10% + 2 guidelines. The speed limit is no longer the limit - or is it? The government realise this helps no-one so asks councils to make the limits above mean traffic speeds. Does it happen?
Someone somewhere is going to say that because policing is so variable we need more cameras. Isn't what we really need is more appropriate limits?
Or do we need one officer to say something is ok while another may not?
Why do I know which one would stop me
The 'real' rules are set out in statute. You can try to second guess them, but you'd be wiser to stay within them or, should you, for example, exceed the posted speed limit, do so only on the assumption that if caught you will be prosecuted.It's one of the reasons we ended up with cameras in the first place.
Local councils put in unreasonable limits. The police often refused to enforce them citing that theyd only catch the very people who were asking. The councils get fed up with the police and bring in cameras. The police respond with proposing the 10% + 2 guidelines. The speed limit is no longer the limit - or is it? The government realise this helps no-one so asks councils to make the limits above mean traffic speeds. Does it happen?
Someone somewhere is going to say that because policing is so variable we need more cameras. Isn't what we really need is more appropriate limits?
Or do we need one officer to say something is ok while another may not?
Why do I know which one would stop me
Should you break the rules, and be caught by a PC who feels that what you did, under the circumstances in which you did it, doesn't merit reporting you, then count yourself fortunate and move on. Personally I see the status quo as entirely analogous to the way rules are applied in school, in the workplace and, for that matter, in most peoples' homes. If that's too hard to grasp, and you really can't function without knowing exactly, to the metaphysical micron, what you can and cannot expect to be reported for, then may I suggest sheltered accomodation?
We have cameras because, for decades, motorists have trotted-out the 'haven't you got some real criminals to catch' line when they've stopped for speeding. And because they are cheaper than policemen.
I can see both sides...
Is what's happening a separation of crime and punishment?
The crime was established - 110mph.
The punishment is chosen by the officer and time and place aside can depend on attitude, chemistry and good/bad hair day.
Rather than individual police interpretation is the problem that 110mph is automatically a crime ?
Is what's happening a separation of crime and punishment?
The crime was established - 110mph.
The punishment is chosen by the officer and time and place aside can depend on attitude, chemistry and good/bad hair day.
Rather than individual police interpretation is the problem that 110mph is automatically a crime ?
Nick_F said:
We have cameras because, for decades, motorists have trotted-out the 'haven't you got some real criminals to catch' line when they've stopped for speeding. And because they are cheaper than policemen.
If speed limits were set at the correct value then we would not need that line.vonhosen said:
saaby93 said:
I can see both sides...
Rather than individual police interpretation is the problem that 110mph is automatically a crime ?
Not everyone considers that a problem though & that's why it is a crime.Rather than individual police interpretation is the problem that 110mph is automatically a crime ?
There are many speed limits which I believe are wrong, the exceeding of which I perceive to be "not a problem", and in which views I am - based upon the evidence of the vast majority of drivers - very much in the majority.
It is a little silly, don't you think, to simply say "see, it has to be a crime, because you - all of you, the vast majority of drivers on this piece of road - just don't understand that it is a problem."
Policing by consent implies some consent. It does not confer the right to arbitrarily restrict the freedoms of the population regardless of their wishes. It is a fine balance to keep, but one which - from time to time - your pronouncements seem to ignore.
And, yes, I realise you are just "telling it how it is". For that I'm grateful, not least because it provides more ammunition for those who believe that root-and-branch reform of the organs and principles of our state is required.
skwdenyer said:
vonhosen said:
saaby93 said:
I can see both sides...
Rather than individual police interpretation is the problem that 110mph is automatically a crime ?
Not everyone considers that a problem though & that's why it is a crime.Rather than individual police interpretation is the problem that 110mph is automatically a crime ?
There are many speed limits which I believe are wrong, the exceeding of which I perceive to be "not a problem", and in which views I am - based upon the evidence of the vast majority of drivers - very much in the majority.
It is a little silly, don't you think, to simply say "see, it has to be a crime, because you - all of you, the vast majority of drivers on this piece of road - just don't understand that it is a problem."
Policing by consent implies some consent. It does not confer the right to arbitrarily restrict the freedoms of the population regardless of their wishes. It is a fine balance to keep, but one which - from time to time - your pronouncements seem to ignore.
And, yes, I realise you are just "telling it how it is". For that I'm grateful, not least because it provides more ammunition for those who believe that root-and-branch reform of the organs and principles of our state is required.
Edited by vonhosen on Tuesday 23 February 22:20
skwdenyer said:
Hmm, I'm not sure that's a very reasonable or balanced position. Democracy is generally such that if enough people believe something isn't a problem then, lo and behold, it isn't a problem. This is the justification behind increasing limits to a little above mean speeds - it is, in a roundabout way, a form of democracy.
It may be a roundabout way of democracy, but it would have been no use if it didn't show improvements in safety too not only for drivers but other road users.saaby93 said:
skwdenyer said:
Hmm, I'm not sure that's a very reasonable or balanced position. Democracy is generally such that if enough people believe something isn't a problem then, lo and behold, it isn't a problem. This is the justification behind increasing limits to a little above mean speeds - it is, in a roundabout way, a form of democracy.
It may be a roundabout way of democracy, but it would have been no use if it didn't show improvements in safety too not only for drivers but other road users.vonhosen said:
skwdenyer said:
vonhosen said:
saaby93 said:
I can see both sides...
Rather than individual police interpretation is the problem that 110mph is automatically a crime ?
Not everyone considers that a problem though & that's why it is a crime.Rather than individual police interpretation is the problem that 110mph is automatically a crime ?
There are many speed limits which I believe are wrong, the exceeding of which I perceive to be "not a problem", and in which views I am - based upon the evidence of the vast majority of drivers - very much in the majority.
It is a little silly, don't you think, to simply say "see, it has to be a crime, because you - all of you, the vast majority of drivers on this piece of road - just don't understand that it is a problem."
Policing by consent implies some consent. It does not confer the right to arbitrarily restrict the freedoms of the population regardless of their wishes. It is a fine balance to keep, but one which - from time to time - your pronouncements seem to ignore.
And, yes, I realise you are just "telling it how it is". For that I'm grateful, not least because it provides more ammunition for those who believe that root-and-branch reform of the organs and principles of our state is required.
Edited by vonhosen on Tuesday 23 February 22:20
Therefore, no, your "Sec 3 shouldn't exist" argument fails, since it is unlikely that "everybody does it" every day or all at once, but instead they might every now and again do so.
That is not to say that Sec 3 shouldn't fail on this basis; if, as you say, "everybody does it", then it is only the unlucky few who are caught and punished. In that case, it is no longer a law not to be broken, but instead a lottery in which winning is by not being selected. In fact, I can't think of any other situation in which something which "everybody does" would nonetheless be a crime (well, apart from possessing items which could be of use to terrorists, but we've been there before...).
skwdenyer said:
Why? Democracy implies that, if the majority are happy with decreased road safety, they may have decreased road safety. There is a balance to be struck, and it doesn't have to converge to a point of greatest safety.
I'm trying to think of a parallel where the majority would vote to do something more dangerous than before, which could adversly affect the minority.Luckily this isnt the case here
skwdenyer said:
vonhosen said:
skwdenyer said:
vonhosen said:
saaby93 said:
I can see both sides...
Rather than individual police interpretation is the problem that 110mph is automatically a crime ?
Not everyone considers that a problem though & that's why it is a crime.Rather than individual police interpretation is the problem that 110mph is automatically a crime ?
There are many speed limits which I believe are wrong, the exceeding of which I perceive to be "not a problem", and in which views I am - based upon the evidence of the vast majority of drivers - very much in the majority.
It is a little silly, don't you think, to simply say "see, it has to be a crime, because you - all of you, the vast majority of drivers on this piece of road - just don't understand that it is a problem."
Policing by consent implies some consent. It does not confer the right to arbitrarily restrict the freedoms of the population regardless of their wishes. It is a fine balance to keep, but one which - from time to time - your pronouncements seem to ignore.
And, yes, I realise you are just "telling it how it is". For that I'm grateful, not least because it provides more ammunition for those who believe that root-and-branch reform of the organs and principles of our state is required.
Edited by vonhosen on Tuesday 23 February 22:20
Therefore, no, your "Sec 3 shouldn't exist" argument fails, since it is unlikely that "everybody does it" every day or all at once, but instead they might every now and again do so.
That is not to say that Sec 3 shouldn't fail on this basis; if, as you say, "everybody does it", then it is only the unlucky few who are caught and punished. In that case, it is no longer a law not to be broken, but instead a lottery in which winning is by not being selected. In fact, I can't think of any other situation in which something which "everybody does" would nonetheless be a crime (well, apart from possessing items which could be of use to terrorists, but we've been there before...).
I'd imagine that the majority of people have stolen something at some time of other too, so we can strike theft off the books too.
Edited by vonhosen on Tuesday 23 February 23:21
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff