SPEED ENFORCEMENT - A STEP TOO FAR
Discussion
Neither I nor, I believe, most sensible drivers object to speed limits (we may grumble about limits which seem to have no justifiable road safety purpose); or, within reasonable limits, speed cameras and other methods of speed enforcement. The problem I have, and I think most ordinary drivers would share, if they addressed their mind specifically to the point, is the SCALE of the enforcement activity combined with the indiscriminate nature of the enforcement systems that are now in widespread use.
It only takes a moment's thought to realise that speed limits are not, never have been and never will be anything but a guide to safe speed. In absolute terms, it is reasonable to estimate that millions of speeding offences occur every single day (counting every discrete occasion on which any vehicle, anywhere, exceeds a posted speed limit), but only a vanishingly small percentage of them result in actual harm. If "speed kills" (meaning speed above a posted limit), we would be measuring fatalities in the hundreds of thousands or millions per annum.
Speeding is an absolute offence and it is understandable that it must be so, because enforcement would be almost impossible if it were not. Therefore (unless one takes the view that a crime is a crime only if the offence is detected), there are millions of criminal speeders (reportedly 99% of the driving population) whose culpability in law depends on no more than luck and/or their ability to avoid detection. If it was possible to detect all incidences of 'speeding' and enforce the law accordingly, it is clear that very few drivers would retain their licences for more than a few weeks or even days. If speeding really represents the danger to public safety that the 'speed kills' lobby would have us believe, that would be a desirable outcome. In fact, that would be an absurd result which would be hugely damaging to the country as a whole. (This is not the case with other crimes; for example, if it was possible to detect all incidences of burglary or theft and enforce accordingly, that WOULD be in the public good.) So, in establishing and maintaining this system of law, it must follow that the state (consciously or sub-consciously) acknowledges that it is NOT the legal definition of the offence itself, but the scope and scale of activity employed to detect offences and punish offenders, that defines the real boundary between criminal and non-criminal behaviour. Put another way, it is not exceeding the speed limit which represents the crime but whether the speed limit is exceeded so frequently or flagrantly or unsafely that, at a given level of detectablility of the offences and enforceability of the law, the offender is detected and prosecuted. Therefore, speeding is a "technical" offence.
Hitherto (before widespread use of automated speed detection), a (hypothetical) reasonable careful and reasonably competent driver, who exceeded the speed limit from time to time where the conditions were safe to do so, may well have avoided detection for speeding during an entire driving career without causing harm or alarm to anybody; although, on simple application of law, he would have been guilty of numerous criminal offences. The reason he would have escaped detection and conviction is that the narrow legal definition of the technical offence was balanced by the limitations of the previously existing detection and enforcement mechanisms so that, give or take a bit, the level of detection and punishment of offenders was proportionate to the harm which the offence actually caused. The introduction of systems which, on a previously unimagined scale, are able to detect the 'technical' offences, together with corresponding law enforcement systems, has destroyed that balance and re-defined the boundary between criminal and non-criminal behaviour.
In the binary world of speed enforcement, there can be no distinction between those people who exceed a speed limit and are detected, prosecuted and convicted, and those (reducing in number) who exceed a speed limit and are not caught. Each is equally culpable. Speaking in the House of Commons on 8.12.2003, Caroline Flint, Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department said: "There is no doubt that speeding is a serious criminal offence". Therefore (if the reported figures are correct and, from observation, I do not think it a wild exaggeration), 99% of drivers are serious criminals. This is complete nonsense. The competent and careful actions of a majority of responsible people should obviously be considered legal (Paul Smith, Safespeed). But, according to law, they are not. If, as acknowledged earlier, it is necessary to retain the existing legal definition of a speeding offence in order to preserve a reasonable degree of enforceability, it becomes clear that the pre-existing boundary between criminal and non-criminal behaviour must be restored by removing speed cameras altogether (or drastically reducing their number) or by some other adjustment to the detection and enforcement mechanisms.
The state has re-drawn the boundary of criminal behaviour and seeks to turn a majority of its citzens into serious criminals. That is a bizarre but unavoidable conclusion. We, the public, must turn back the tide. That could be achieved if a sufficiently large number of enforcement targets do no more than require the state to meet the ordinary standards of procedure and evidence which apply in all criminal cases.
The more adventurous among us can and should go further by using every trivial and non-trivial legal device available to frustrate the enforcement process.
It only takes a moment's thought to realise that speed limits are not, never have been and never will be anything but a guide to safe speed. In absolute terms, it is reasonable to estimate that millions of speeding offences occur every single day (counting every discrete occasion on which any vehicle, anywhere, exceeds a posted speed limit), but only a vanishingly small percentage of them result in actual harm. If "speed kills" (meaning speed above a posted limit), we would be measuring fatalities in the hundreds of thousands or millions per annum.
Speeding is an absolute offence and it is understandable that it must be so, because enforcement would be almost impossible if it were not. Therefore (unless one takes the view that a crime is a crime only if the offence is detected), there are millions of criminal speeders (reportedly 99% of the driving population) whose culpability in law depends on no more than luck and/or their ability to avoid detection. If it was possible to detect all incidences of 'speeding' and enforce the law accordingly, it is clear that very few drivers would retain their licences for more than a few weeks or even days. If speeding really represents the danger to public safety that the 'speed kills' lobby would have us believe, that would be a desirable outcome. In fact, that would be an absurd result which would be hugely damaging to the country as a whole. (This is not the case with other crimes; for example, if it was possible to detect all incidences of burglary or theft and enforce accordingly, that WOULD be in the public good.) So, in establishing and maintaining this system of law, it must follow that the state (consciously or sub-consciously) acknowledges that it is NOT the legal definition of the offence itself, but the scope and scale of activity employed to detect offences and punish offenders, that defines the real boundary between criminal and non-criminal behaviour. Put another way, it is not exceeding the speed limit which represents the crime but whether the speed limit is exceeded so frequently or flagrantly or unsafely that, at a given level of detectablility of the offences and enforceability of the law, the offender is detected and prosecuted. Therefore, speeding is a "technical" offence.
Hitherto (before widespread use of automated speed detection), a (hypothetical) reasonable careful and reasonably competent driver, who exceeded the speed limit from time to time where the conditions were safe to do so, may well have avoided detection for speeding during an entire driving career without causing harm or alarm to anybody; although, on simple application of law, he would have been guilty of numerous criminal offences. The reason he would have escaped detection and conviction is that the narrow legal definition of the technical offence was balanced by the limitations of the previously existing detection and enforcement mechanisms so that, give or take a bit, the level of detection and punishment of offenders was proportionate to the harm which the offence actually caused. The introduction of systems which, on a previously unimagined scale, are able to detect the 'technical' offences, together with corresponding law enforcement systems, has destroyed that balance and re-defined the boundary between criminal and non-criminal behaviour.
In the binary world of speed enforcement, there can be no distinction between those people who exceed a speed limit and are detected, prosecuted and convicted, and those (reducing in number) who exceed a speed limit and are not caught. Each is equally culpable. Speaking in the House of Commons on 8.12.2003, Caroline Flint, Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department said: "There is no doubt that speeding is a serious criminal offence". Therefore (if the reported figures are correct and, from observation, I do not think it a wild exaggeration), 99% of drivers are serious criminals. This is complete nonsense. The competent and careful actions of a majority of responsible people should obviously be considered legal (Paul Smith, Safespeed). But, according to law, they are not. If, as acknowledged earlier, it is necessary to retain the existing legal definition of a speeding offence in order to preserve a reasonable degree of enforceability, it becomes clear that the pre-existing boundary between criminal and non-criminal behaviour must be restored by removing speed cameras altogether (or drastically reducing their number) or by some other adjustment to the detection and enforcement mechanisms.
The state has re-drawn the boundary of criminal behaviour and seeks to turn a majority of its citzens into serious criminals. That is a bizarre but unavoidable conclusion. We, the public, must turn back the tide. That could be achieved if a sufficiently large number of enforcement targets do no more than require the state to meet the ordinary standards of procedure and evidence which apply in all criminal cases.
The more adventurous among us can and should go further by using every trivial and non-trivial legal device available to frustrate the enforcement process.
I object to speed limits and I think we should gather in our millions to 
because Ted's a sissy all members of the government and the establishment civil service that have got us into this mess. Then we should start again with no speed limits anywhere. Dig all the traffic lights up. Dig up all the bumps. Switch off almost all the street lights, remove all the road markings and lets see how long before driving standards improve. 
But mostly I object...
because Ted's a sissy all members of the government and the establishment civil service that have got us into this mess. Then we should start again with no speed limits anywhere. Dig all the traffic lights up. Dig up all the bumps. Switch off almost all the street lights, remove all the road markings and lets see how long before driving standards improve. But mostly I object...
Observer: Top marks for an excellent post. You have put into one post all that I consider is wrong with the current never ending crop of legislation and the corrosive effect it is having on all our lifes. A man who I have a great deal of respect for passed on a saying to me that I heartily agree with "laws are for the guidance of the wise and to be obeyed by the fool". This is was essentially the policy used by our police force until recently.
observer said:
The more adventurous among us can and should go further by using every trivial and non-trivial legal device available to frustrate the enforcement process.
The post, which might seem enormously long to those who can only communicate in soundbites, is fine by me.
The conclusion is exactly what many, many in the UK have reached. The conclusion reached by many others omits the word 'legal'
observer said:I refer you to thse resonant quotations (again):
The state has re-drawn the boundary of criminal behaviour and seeks to turn a majority of its citzens into serious criminals.
"There's no way to rule innocent men. The only power any government has is the power to crack down on criminals. Well, when there aren't enough criminals, one makes them. One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible for men to live without breaking laws. Who wants a nation of law-abiding citizens? What's there in that for anyone? But just pass the kind of laws that can neither be observed nor enforced nor objectively interpreted and you create a nation of law-breakers." -- Ayn Rand, "Atlas Shrugged", Part II, Chapter 3
"If you have 10,000 regulations, you destroy all respect for the law." -- Winston Churchill
"Good people do not need laws to tell them to act responsibly, while bad people will find a way
around the laws." -- Plato
"Of all tyrannies, a tyranny exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end, for they do so with the approval of their consciences." -- C. S. Lewis
"It is dangerous to be right when the government is wrong." -- Voltaire
"Corruptissima re publica plurimae leges." (The more corrupt the state, the more numerous the laws.) -- Publius Cornelius Tacitus
Streaky
streaky said:
I refer you to thse resonant quotations (again):
"There's no way to rule innocent men. The only power any government has is the power to crack down on criminals. Well, when there aren't enough criminals, one makes them. One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible for men to live without breaking laws. Who wants a nation of law-abiding citizens? What's there in that for anyone? But just pass the kind of laws that can neither be observed nor enforced nor objectively interpreted and you create a nation of law-breakers." -- Ayn Rand, "Atlas Shrugged", Part II, Chapter 3
"If you have 10,000 regulations, you destroy all respect for the law." -- Winston Churchill
"Good people do not need laws to tell them to act responsibly, while bad people will find a way
around the laws." -- Plato
"Of all tyrannies, a tyranny exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end, for they do so with the approval of their consciences." -- C. S. Lewis
"It is dangerous to be right when the government is wrong." -- Voltaire
"Corruptissima re publica plurimae leges." (The more corrupt the state, the more numerous the laws.) -- Publius Cornelius Tacitus
Streaky
More please Streaky, they're great!
Streaky - thanks for the interesting quotes from thinking, intelligent people. Makes a change from simplistic low-achieving-control-freakish pen-pushers.
You would think that if the government really was so obsessed with "safety", they would be 35 times more obsessed with the legalised smoking-related deaths of 120,000 people per annum (Department of Health's own figures). (It's about 3,500 motoring-related deaths per annum.)
All they do is put out a few advertisements to try to put people off smoking, now if they were really bothered, you wouldn't hear the end of it - they may even ban the sale of tobacco in the UK. But, of course, there are other agendas at work.
You would think that if the government really was so obsessed with "safety", they would be 35 times more obsessed with the legalised smoking-related deaths of 120,000 people per annum (Department of Health's own figures). (It's about 3,500 motoring-related deaths per annum.)
All they do is put out a few advertisements to try to put people off smoking, now if they were really bothered, you wouldn't hear the end of it - they may even ban the sale of tobacco in the UK. But, of course, there are other agendas at work.
james_j said:Ban cigarettes ... and increase road tax, petrol duty and speeding fines to make up the shortfall in revenue. Only kidding!
You would think that if the government really was so obsessed with "safety", they would be 35 times more obsessed with the legalised smoking-related deaths of 120,000 people per annum (Department of Health's own figures). (It's about 3,500 motoring-related deaths per annum.)
streaky said:Sounds an excellent idea. Not kidding.
You would think that if the government really was so obsessed with "safety", they would be 35 times more obsessed with the legalised smoking-related deaths of 120,000 people per annum (Department of Health's own figures). (It's about 3,500 motoring-related deaths per annum.)
Ban cigarettes ... and increase road tax, petrol duty and speeding fines to make up the shortfall in revenue. Only kidding!
james_j said:
You would think that if the government really was so obsessed with "safety", they would be 35 times more obsessed with the legalised smoking-related deaths of 120,000 people per annum (Department of Health's own figures). (It's about 3,500 motoring-related deaths per annum.)
All they do is put out a few advertisements to try to put people off smoking, now if they were really bothered, you wouldn't hear the end of it - they may even ban the sale of tobacco in the UK. But, of course, there are other agendas at work.
The figures for deaths from smoking each year is itself another major statistical fraud from the Government and the same people who are pushing the simplistic agenda on speeding. This number includes many in their eighties who are dying "prematurely" caused by smoking each year. Smoking is not good for you but on the other hand it is not nearly as bad for you as the Government would have you believe. The current big lie is the passive smoking issue. Secondhand tobacco smoke may be unpleasent odour on your clothes after a night in the pub, but there is no proof it causes cancer in other people. The BMA only last week published a report on smoking and sexual health, this was almost a complete tissue of lies from beginning to end, but as we have seen with speeding once something has been demonised the truth no longer matters.
Leaving all this aside though the fact remains that smoking kills many more than speeding each year. And so what. If you don't understand the risks by now you will be unable to exercise any judgement in any area of your life. This is all about where the state draws it's boundaries, where do you stop. There are plenty of people out there warning about the dangers of binge drinking, and the harm alcohol does, should we ban that. Before long they will be banning birth as a means of reducing the death rates.
>> Edited by IAnReid on Wednesday 18th February 10:07
andrew54 said:
james_j said:
You would think that if the government really was so obsessed with "safety", they would be 35 times more obsessed with the legalised smoking-related deaths of 120,000 people per annum (Department of Health's own figures). (It's about 3,500 motoring-related deaths per annum.)
Ban cigarettes ... and increase road tax, petrol duty and speeding fines to make up the shortfall in revenue. Only kidding!
Sounds an excellent idea. Not kidding.
This wild and wacky comment from the man who said "state your position and lets talk about it"?
andrew54 said:
james_j said:
You would think that if the government really was so obsessed with "safety", they would be 35 times more obsessed with the legalised smoking-related deaths of 120,000 people per annum (Department of Health's own figures). (It's about 3,500 motoring-related deaths per annum.)
Ban cigarettes ... and increase road tax, petrol duty and speeding fines to make up the shortfall in revenue. Only kidding!
Sounds an excellent idea. Not kidding.
Liebchen!
How much muesli do you consume?
IAnReid said:
The figures for deaths from smoking each year is itself another major statistical fraud from the Government and the same people who are pushing the simplistic agenda on speeding. This number includes many in their eighties who are dying "prematurely" caused by smoking each year. Smoking is not good for you but on the other hand it is not nearly as bad for you as the Government would have you believe. The current big lie is the passive smoking issue. Secondhand tobacco smoke may be unpleasent odour on your clothes after a night in the pub, but there is no proof it causes cancer in other people. The BMA only last week published a report on smoking and sexual health, this was almost a complete tissue of lies from beginning to end, but as we have seen with speeding once something has been demonised the truth no longer matters.
See www.numberwatch.co.uk for details. Fascinating facts on how governments twist science to their own ends. Speeding lies are just a minor sideline compared with smoking, global warming and salt.
Oh, and I also thought Observer's post was excellent. You can only ban things when the public are with you, hence demonise "road hogs", wait a few years, and speed limiters are the natural answer to the public's baying for blood. Democracy's at the root of the problem, of course -- giving everyone a vote when most are incapable of understanding the issues is fatal to good government. Bring back hereditary peers....
Good post, observer. I agree.
I suppose this state of affairs is dictated by the system which our "Pyramid" has put into place. The fact is, far too much in this country is state financed. Taxing the people who work hard to benefit a Left handed lesbian trombonist who has used her "Human Right" to have 30 kids by different "dads". I also think the medical ethics of this country are wrong. For instance, spending a ridiculous amount of money on things like IVF and the expensive treatment of congenital defects so that breeding may be allowed. Of course, I am fit and so i can criticise things like this. I may also be branded as a budding Hitler. the fact is that developed European countries like Germany enjoy a decent standard of living without being shagged from all angles. I assume this is because they have some sort of common sense government spending policy. Speed cameras are another way of the "pyramid" taking to provide. I am not some sort of "Needy Freakshow" therefore I see few of the benefits and am pretty blinkin' cross about it. I say, if I get a horrible disease which is going to cost a fortune, unless I have a policy of insurance, I should die. That is nature, that's how it goes. Essentially the government is getting stung by these pirate pharmaceutical companies. This brings me into the genre of "Public science" and research by universities. Which goes on to say that "we don't have the staff" because all our students are doing fashion degrees..............
Well, the more I diverge into the rot of this country, the more I realise that it is a uniform breakdown in standards which reflects a country in its twighlight years. The whole pace is falling apart. Our opulence and indulgence has led us to have a dependent burden, an expensive useless population which is excessive in numbers. The rot is everywhere. the only solution is to have a massive cull. This will begin with that bastard Blair (and his wife!) we will then move on to Jack Straw, because he's a bastard too. We will then move on to Scotland because that's the breeding ground of our stinking government.......
AND.........whilst we are talking about useless dross, what do we need a military for (as we are a part of Europe)? This antiquated waste of money must be got rid of. Surely we can do something more constructive with our workforce than employ them to train as barbaric cavemen and kill other humans. Is that why we developed the NUKES? Surely military weapons technology means that we need less "Cannon Fodder" and we can just Nuke them........? I suggest we abolish the military as it is a huge waste of money and do something profit making instead. perhaps if Britain wound it's neck in, we could get on in the shadows of the world CHEAPLY.....
Anyway, my point was that this country has fallen apart from everything from the primary schools to government, people and industry. The result of overpopulation and parasitic ways of earning cash. I suggest to my fellow Cornishmen that we tell England to sod off, declare it as an independent republic of which I will be the president/dictator and join Europe as another parasitic leech.
Stu (rant off my chest)
I suppose this state of affairs is dictated by the system which our "Pyramid" has put into place. The fact is, far too much in this country is state financed. Taxing the people who work hard to benefit a Left handed lesbian trombonist who has used her "Human Right" to have 30 kids by different "dads". I also think the medical ethics of this country are wrong. For instance, spending a ridiculous amount of money on things like IVF and the expensive treatment of congenital defects so that breeding may be allowed. Of course, I am fit and so i can criticise things like this. I may also be branded as a budding Hitler. the fact is that developed European countries like Germany enjoy a decent standard of living without being shagged from all angles. I assume this is because they have some sort of common sense government spending policy. Speed cameras are another way of the "pyramid" taking to provide. I am not some sort of "Needy Freakshow" therefore I see few of the benefits and am pretty blinkin' cross about it. I say, if I get a horrible disease which is going to cost a fortune, unless I have a policy of insurance, I should die. That is nature, that's how it goes. Essentially the government is getting stung by these pirate pharmaceutical companies. This brings me into the genre of "Public science" and research by universities. Which goes on to say that "we don't have the staff" because all our students are doing fashion degrees..............
Well, the more I diverge into the rot of this country, the more I realise that it is a uniform breakdown in standards which reflects a country in its twighlight years. The whole pace is falling apart. Our opulence and indulgence has led us to have a dependent burden, an expensive useless population which is excessive in numbers. The rot is everywhere. the only solution is to have a massive cull. This will begin with that bastard Blair (and his wife!) we will then move on to Jack Straw, because he's a bastard too. We will then move on to Scotland because that's the breeding ground of our stinking government.......
AND.........whilst we are talking about useless dross, what do we need a military for (as we are a part of Europe)? This antiquated waste of money must be got rid of. Surely we can do something more constructive with our workforce than employ them to train as barbaric cavemen and kill other humans. Is that why we developed the NUKES? Surely military weapons technology means that we need less "Cannon Fodder" and we can just Nuke them........? I suggest we abolish the military as it is a huge waste of money and do something profit making instead. perhaps if Britain wound it's neck in, we could get on in the shadows of the world CHEAPLY.....
Anyway, my point was that this country has fallen apart from everything from the primary schools to government, people and industry. The result of overpopulation and parasitic ways of earning cash. I suggest to my fellow Cornishmen that we tell England to sod off, declare it as an independent republic of which I will be the president/dictator and join Europe as another parasitic leech.
Stu (rant off my chest)
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff