Discussion
black-k1 said:
I wasn't talking about unmarked bikes catching bikes, I was taking about unmarked bikes catching other road users (cars, lorries, busses etc.)
Unmarked vehicles should only ever be part of the options for policing in my opinion, with marked vehicles making up the majority.
Sorry. I missunderstood.Unmarked vehicles should only ever be part of the options for policing in my opinion, with marked vehicles making up the majority.
My point still stands though about what I think they'll actually be used for... unfortunately
m3psm said:
black-k1 said:
I wasn't talking about unmarked bikes catching bikes, I was taking about unmarked bikes catching other road users (cars, lorries, busses etc.)
Unmarked vehicles should only ever be part of the options for policing in my opinion, with marked vehicles making up the majority.
Sorry. I missunderstood.Unmarked vehicles should only ever be part of the options for policing in my opinion, with marked vehicles making up the majority.
My point still stands though about what I think they'll actually be used for... unfortunately
All those in favour of Covert bikes etc are relying on one thing.. That Police motives are purely safety driven and not financial targets etc.
Sadly there have been more and more cases of Politics getting in the way of Policing and as a result i am quite rightly cynical of this kind of measure..
Sadly there have been more and more cases of Politics getting in the way of Policing and as a result i am quite rightly cynical of this kind of measure..
Edited by Fire99 on Thursday 3rd July 22:54
black-k1 said:
hiccy said:
black-k1 said:
Perhaps each of us should first answer a few simple questions:
Should there be traffic laws?
a) Yes.
b) No.
c) Only if applied to others and not to me.
If there are traffic laws, how should they be enforced?
a) By specifically qualified police.
b) By third party QUANGOS or private companies.
c) By any vigilant that wants to.
Should there be any speed limits?
a) Yes.
b) No.
c) Only if applied to others and not to me.
If there are speed limits, how should they be enforced?
a) By specifically qualified police.
b) By third party QUANGOS or private companies.
c) By any vigilant that wants to.
Now, working on the assumption that most right minded people would actually answer a) to all of the above, the question then is:
How should the specifically qualified police actually enforce the traffic laws and speed limits?
a) By using lots of marked vehicles that only ever appear in known locations and pre-prescribed times and provide advice and education in addition to charges and punishment.
b) By using some marked and some unmarked vehicles that provide advice and education in addition to charges and punishment and focusing on locations where statistics show there is an increased safety risk.
c) By using covert automated equipment that is focused on areas where there are known to be a greater likelihood of law transgression even though statistics show there is no greater safety risk.
If you are against the unmarked bikes, what are the alternatives? How do you suggest that you catch the chav in the body kitted Corsa who almost ran you off the road, but who behaves like ‘Reginald Molehusband’ as soon as there is a marked police vehicle in sight? How do you catch the ‘Mr Magoo’ who travels down country roads at a whopping 20mph but always pulls over to let police cars past ‘in case there is an emergancy’?
I couldn't answer "A" to all those questions, the third question is missing the most accurate answer, namely:Should there be traffic laws?
a) Yes.
b) No.
c) Only if applied to others and not to me.
If there are traffic laws, how should they be enforced?
a) By specifically qualified police.
b) By third party QUANGOS or private companies.
c) By any vigilant that wants to.
Should there be any speed limits?
a) Yes.
b) No.
c) Only if applied to others and not to me.
If there are speed limits, how should they be enforced?
a) By specifically qualified police.
b) By third party QUANGOS or private companies.
c) By any vigilant that wants to.
Now, working on the assumption that most right minded people would actually answer a) to all of the above, the question then is:
How should the specifically qualified police actually enforce the traffic laws and speed limits?
a) By using lots of marked vehicles that only ever appear in known locations and pre-prescribed times and provide advice and education in addition to charges and punishment.
b) By using some marked and some unmarked vehicles that provide advice and education in addition to charges and punishment and focusing on locations where statistics show there is an increased safety risk.
c) By using covert automated equipment that is focused on areas where there are known to be a greater likelihood of law transgression even though statistics show there is no greater safety risk.
If you are against the unmarked bikes, what are the alternatives? How do you suggest that you catch the chav in the body kitted Corsa who almost ran you off the road, but who behaves like ‘Reginald Molehusband’ as soon as there is a marked police vehicle in sight? How do you catch the ‘Mr Magoo’ who travels down country roads at a whopping 20mph but always pulls over to let police cars past ‘in case there is an emergancy’?
"Where appropriate, and of an appropriate level"
And that is the whole nub of the issue! Speed limits on motorways and NSL in this country are NOT always appropriate to the road conditions; in fact, often the speed limit on either can be comfortably exceeded by large margins. Yet whilst doing so you risk losing your licence regardless of the fact that the punishment makes no contribution to road safety.
This slavish pedantic enforcement of a blanket and often inappropiate limit is the problem, and the reason why many people on any number of wheels regularly exceed speed limits. Rather than training people to think about the speed they are travelling at and assess their safety, we use a "one size fits all" approach and wonder why people do 70 down a snow covered icy motorway.
I do appreciate the potential benefits of unmarked vehicles, but can't help feeling they are more than a little unfair when put into the context of our current road and legal system. Why should driving or riding in a safe and reasonable manner be endorsable?
If you read some of my previous posts you will see that I actually believe that artificially low limits (which many are today) represent an increase in risk rather than a reduction in risk and I think that limits should be set according to scientific principles (the 85th percentile rule) rather than political whim. That doesn’t change the requirement for limit enforcement.
hole to do 60 past a school, but I can't criticise an experienced rider on a well maintained NSL pulling 90+ where safe to do so. Unmarked bikes can and will be abused in this circumstance and sometimes, with no improvement in road safety, have a huge detrimental effect to some riders. That's unfair.Incidentally, I've read many of your posts in the past couple of years, agreed with a great many of them, more importantly respected all of them. This once I guess we have a minor difference of perspective.
Heskey said:
Yoda954 said:
Heskey said:
I very much doubt I will be; I don't want to point the finger here but unlike the views expressed in this thread, I am constantly weary of hidden cameras and so on, and so I don't attempt to bend to rules once in while.
But like you say. Maybe in future
You're quite fun for a troll...a bit young perhaps, but I think we'll let you stay around here for a bit longer But like you say. Maybe in future
I'm just expressing a genuine opposing viewpoint?
debate is not just saying i am not a troll you are like you did last year in the playground at school.
i have shown examples while you just spout the speed kills mantra, and just say no!
so i am going down the M20 70 mph on cruise control, not paying much attention as i don't need to observe revenue collecting devices at that speed in lane 1. comming up behind a lorry look well ahed to come out audi comming up fast in lane two followed by a volvo, decide to let them go past then come out.
audi comes past volvo goes to lane 3 alongside audi i come out into lane 2 safe distance behind audi.
audi and volvo have words as volvo now matches audis speed.
then audi slams on anchors volvo carves infront of him for no good reason.
split second decision , check mirrors room to get out but i would cause a car to slow if i don't accelerate. decide this is safer than slamming on the anchors and causing a ripple effect down the motorway and then leave theese muppets to there argy bargy, as it is nothing to do with me.
go past the audi as i pass the volvo i check his intentions because he should have gone back to lane 1, but no as i am passing him he has accelerated and is now trying to undertake.
quick check 2.5 vers 5.7 no contest, so i just floor it to finish my manauver to finish the overtake and get back to lane one. the blue lights go on and i get pulled.
get verbal abuse from two traffic offers who i have great delight in returning
so yes you jumped up prick this is the actual scenario as it happened. now put the keyboard down and get back to pulling your cock of in you bedroom to reruns of weird science
SplatSpeed said:
when you sit on your front desk do you have a little uniform that makes you feel important, you odious little prick!
SplatSpeed said:
i have shown examples while you just spout the speed kills mantra, and just say no!
Umm, nope? I've not been saying speed kills. I've just been saying don't complain about how unfair the law is if you openly admit to knowingly break it.It wasn't you on the telephone yesterday was it?
Heskey said:
SplatSpeed said:
when you sit on your front desk do you have a little uniform that makes you feel important, you odious little prick!
SplatSpeed said:
i have shown examples while you just spout the speed kills mantra, and just say no!
Umm, nope? I've not been saying speed kills. I've just been saying don't complain about how unfair the law is if you openly admit to knowingly break it.It wasn't you on the telephone yesterday was it?
SplatSpeed said:
Heskey said:
SplatSpeed said:
when you sit on your front desk do you have a little uniform that makes you feel important, you odious little prick!
SplatSpeed said:
i have shown examples while you just spout the speed kills mantra, and just say no!
Umm, nope? I've not been saying speed kills. I've just been saying don't complain about how unfair the law is if you openly admit to knowingly break it.It wasn't you on the telephone yesterday was it?
Shall we call it a day?
trumpet600 said:
SplatSpeed said:
Heskey said:
SplatSpeed said:
when you sit on your front desk do you have a little uniform that makes you feel important, you odious little prick!
SplatSpeed said:
i have shown examples while you just spout the speed kills mantra, and just say no!
Umm, nope? I've not been saying speed kills. I've just been saying don't complain about how unfair the law is if you openly admit to knowingly break it.It wasn't you on the telephone yesterday was it?
Shall we call it a day?
Heskey said:
trumpet600 said:
SplatSpeed said:
Heskey said:
SplatSpeed said:
when you sit on your front desk do you have a little uniform that makes you feel important, you odious little prick!
SplatSpeed said:
i have shown examples while you just spout the speed kills mantra, and just say no!
Umm, nope? I've not been saying speed kills. I've just been saying don't complain about how unfair the law is if you openly admit to knowingly break it.It wasn't you on the telephone yesterday was it?
Shall we call it a day?
Gassing Station | Biker Banter | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff