4m British drivers admit they'd pervert justice

rothbook · June 2007

Four million British drivers admit they would Pervert Justice

Nearly 4 Million drivers would swap penalty points
Points or Prison

Nearly 4 Million drivers would swap penalty points

Swinton Group
A staggering 3.7 million* motorists - 12% of the drivers on UK roads - would ask a relative or friend to take speed camera penalty points for them if they were facing a driving ban, a new nationwide poll by Ipsos MORI on behalf of Swinton has revealed.

http://www.keepumoving.co.uk/news/7/

Half a million have already done so:

http://www.carkeys.co.uk/news/2006/sept ... /11393.asp

The roads are out of control. Lawless. Drivers Pervert Justice and lie to wriggle out of the fines accrued by their own reckless stupidity.

I can't think of another aspect of British life so polluted with criminality. Cannabis smoking or handling stolen goods may be the next most commonly broken laws, but then again handling stolen goods or skinning up doesn't kill 3400 people a year...

PetrolHeadcp · June 2007

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">handling stolen goods or skinning up doesn't kill 3400 people a year...
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

Neither does exceeding a speed limit. That figure is total road deaths, including all causes.

What would you suggest is the answer to the problem, since millions clearly don't think that the cameras have any value?

Jaded · June 2007

Educate those millions. Give speed cameras back the value that people like you have tried to damage.

--
[Warning] This post may contain a baby elephant or traces of one

PetrolHeadcp · June 2007

Why people like me?

And why only educate those people. Surely the problem is all drivers, indicating a massive faliure somewhere.

Would it not be more productive to eduate drivers?

[edit] Apologies, I meant to add, how would we restore value to the cameras, what is it that has really destryed their value?

mossycp · June 2007

Unfortunately it's the selfish, I'm all right jack, the law doesn't apply to me, look after number one attitude of the general masses brought about by the Thatcher government! Sorry, made it political and didn't mean to, and I think I voted conservative in the 80's so it's all my fault. Many apologies, I hope you can all forgive me.

Seriously though, that is an appalling statistic but one that doesn't really surprise me. Typical stats though seeing as they "Ipsos MORI questioned 1,151 drivers across the UK on behalf of insurance brokers Swinton". Presumably the figures are extrapolated out to get to the "nearly 4 million" and it doesn't say where or who the drivers were. If you surveyed on some of the estates around here you'd probably get far higher than that!

<h5>Today is your day, your mountain is waiting, so get on your way {Dr Seus}</h5>

linfordlunchbox · June 2007

Should this not be in soapbox ?

Jaded · June 2007

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by PetrolHead

Why people like me?
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

I'm not sure, only you can answer that.

You know the law, yet fight against a mechanism that enforces the law. Who knows why you do that.

--
[Warning] This post may contain a baby elephant or traces of one

linfordlunchbox · June 2007

What strikes me is that Tabernacles stance seems to be less and less 'pro bike', and more and more 'anti car' !

PetrolHeadcp · June 2007

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">You know the law, yet fight against a mechanism that enforces the law. Who knows why you do that.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

No I fight against an unfair mechansim that profit from lawlessness. I have never said that the law should not be enforced.

My definition of enforcement is: someone breaks the law, an official person stops offender and deals with the offence.

Let's be clear, cameras don't actually stop people breaking the law. Surely we all want safer roads, if that includes slowing traffic at certain points, then why not slow the traffic, rather than allowing it to pass at the same speed, but sending a fine in the post. I don't see how that helps.

rothbook · June 2007

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"> Let's be clear, cameras don't actually stop people breaking the law.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

Speed cameras reduce accidents, save lives and prevent injuries. Even allowing for RTTM, as Linda Mountain did, the conclusions is that they save lives.And I sisn't say speeding killes 3400 a year petrolhead, don't start off on the wrong foot by lying about what I said please.

Speed is a factor in a third of all fatal RTA's probably a lot more.

rothbook · June 2007

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"> what is it that has really destryed their value? <hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

Nothing, since their value has not been destroyed, where are you getting this garbage from? You're not a poster on the notorious perverter of justice site are you?

the one with pretty graphs that "prove" that safety cameras kill people?

The one run by a man who refuses to discuss his qualifications or training, refuses to subject his beer-mat scribbles to peer review, and the one run by a man who bans anyone who points out he hasn't a scooby what he's talking about?

Do me a favour, toddle over to crapspeed and ask Small Pith some of the above points, then come back and tell us what he said.

And anyone who thinks condemning the Perversion of Justice is anti-motorist is an idiot.

pzycoman · June 2007

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by PetrolHead

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">You know the law, yet fight against a mechanism that enforces the law. Who knows why you do that.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

No I fight against an unfair mechansim that profit from lawlessness. I have never said that the law should not be enforced.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

Thats something I find really funny about people like you (tm) - "I WAS SPEEDING THEN I GOT FINED! ITS NOT FAIR" - its actually quite simple.

Go over the speed limit, you get fined
Go under the speed limit, you dont get fined

OMG! ITS SOO CONFUSING!

rothbook · June 2007

Speeding fines are a voluntary "Stupidity Tax" paid by whining snivelling selfish boy racers like the ones Petrolhead defends.

PetrolHeadcp · June 2007

I do not defend boy racers, never have and never will.

But perhaps you could tell me what I should have done recently.

I received a notice of intended prosecution through the post, alleging that I was photographed travelling at 59mph in a 30mph zone.

Now what you all seem to be suggesting is that I should have simply paid the fine and taken the points, because there is no way that the system could possibly be flawed.

Well I knew damn well I was not speeding, so I pleaded not guilty - it is possible, but you really have to hunt for it on the forms. And this gives me the right to have sight of the evidence, ie the pictures. When I received the pictures, it was comical, I was in a traffic jam behind a car waiting to turn right. My vehicle moved around an inch between the 2 photos.

So now talk to me about fair! It has taken me nearly 2 months to get the prosecution dropped.

rothbook · June 2007

Err, you got a letter, filled a form in, case dropped.

Get over it.

snorri · June 2007

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by PetrolHead

What would you suggest is the answer to the problem, since millions clearly don't think that the cameras have any value?
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">
I think you overestimate the number of people who consider cameras to be of no value as part of the effort in reducing danger on our roads.

PetrolHeadcp · June 2007

Somewhat makes a mockery of this quote though don't you agree

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Go over the speed limit, you get fined
Go under the speed limit, you dont get fined
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

And please, why am I being misquoted, all I have done is ask questions. I will go through each one for you.

I asked what has damaged the value of cameras in response to this:
<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">posted by jaded
Give speed cameras back the value that people like you have tried to damage.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">And anyone who thinks condemning the Perversion of Justice is anti-motorist is an idiot.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

I agree and never said different

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">by rothbrook
And I sisn't [sic] say speeding killes 3400 a year <hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">by rothbrook
I can't think of another aspect of British life so polluted with criminality. Cannabis smoking or handling stolen goods may be the next most commonly broken laws, but then again handling stolen goods or skinning up doesn't kill 3400 people a year...<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

PetrolHeadcp · June 2007

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">I think you overestimate the number of people who consider cameras to be of no value as part of the effort in reducing danger on our roads.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

Sorry, no I just assume if someone is willing to pervert the course of justice, apparently 4m then that shows that they don't have faith in the system.

CometGirl · June 2007

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by PetrolHead

I do not defend boy racers, never have and never will.

But perhaps you could tell me what I should have done recently.

I received a notice of intended prosecution through the post, alleging that I was photographed travelling at 59mph in a 30mph zone.

Now what you all seem to be suggesting is that I should have simply paid the fine and taken the points, because there is no way that the system could possibly be flawed.

Well I knew damn well I was not speeding, so I pleaded not guilty - it is possible, but you really have to hunt for it on the forms. And this gives me the right to have sight of the evidence, ie the pictures. When I received the pictures, it was comical, I was in a traffic jam behind a car waiting to turn right. My vehicle moved around an inch between the 2 photos.

So now talk to me about fair! It has taken me nearly 2 months to get the prosecution dropped.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

Surely that simply proves that the system works? Where you are not admitting guilt, you complete the relevant forms (believe me, it's no easier to locate any others) and get your full right to a fair trial resulting in the correct outcome.

Exactly the same as if you were falsely accused of shoplifting and given a ticket (they use tickets for other minor criminal offences too now). Refuse to pay the fine, go to court, burden of proof on prosecution, hope for just result.

linfordlunchbox · June 2007

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by rothbook

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"> Let's be clear, cameras don't actually stop people breaking the law.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

Speed cameras reduce accidents, save lives and prevent injuries. Even allowing for RTTM, as Linda Mountain did, the conclusions is that they save lives.And I sisn't say speeding killes 3400 a year petrolhead, don't start off on the wrong foot by lying about what I said please.

Speed is a factor in a third of all fatal RTA's probably a lot more.

<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

I think you will find that they are marked down as 'inappropriate speed' for the conditions, not breaking the 'posted limit'. There is a very big difference between the two !

I am amazed that after all this spouting, that you cannot get your head around this detail Tabernacle !

If you need an explanation, then you have truly been talking out of your arse (again)

"I'd clean my car with a baby elephant - if I had a baby elephant !"

PetrolHeadcp · June 2007

I posted this to demonstrate the misconception that if the camera goes off you are guilty.

And you are wrong, I have had the camera partnership on the phone, sending me letters telling me that I should accept the fine and not go to court.

PetrolHeadcp · June 2007

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">I think you will find that they are marked down as 'inappropriate speed' for the conditions, not breaking the 'posted limit'. There is a very big difference between the two !
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

Couldn't agree more, shame that cameras don't detect the former.

Who is Tabernacle?

rothbook · June 2007

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"> I posted this to demonstrate the misconception that if the camera goes off you are guilty. <hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">
A misconception that you've just invented. Nobody's said this or anything like it. There's an appeals process that works, as you've demonstrated brilliantly.

Petrolhead, you are plucking myths and unfounded claims out of thin air.

Look back up your posts and see the claims you've made with zero evidence.

rothbook · June 2007

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"> Somewhat makes a mockery of this quote though don't you agree <hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

 Nope, because as you've already shown, you didn't speed so you weren't fined!

CometGirl · June 2007

Petrolhead, you're not one of the Bill of Rights nutters who believes that civil fines for criminal offences are illegal, are you? If so, I can explain very clearly why it is that they are.

PetrolHeadcp · June 2007

You would have to go through the process to understand, it is in no way fair or balanced.

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">A misconception that you've just invented. Nobody's said this or anything like it. There's an appeals process that works, as you've demonstrated brilliantly.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

In that case I apologise, the feet stamping going on around here led me to believe that this was the general opinion.

rothbook · June 2007

That's very gracious, thanks.

Mister Paul · June 2007

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by PetrolHead

Let's be clear, cameras don't actually stop people breaking the law. Surely we all want safer roads, if that includes slowing traffic at certain points, then why not slow the traffic, rather than allowing it to pass at the same speed, but sending a fine in the post. I don't see how that helps.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

Let's be clear that they do. Second offences are dropping.

And they improve safety, which is what it's about. As you can see every time you pass one. People slow down at the black spots.

__________________________________________________________
What we need is a new, national White Bicycle Plan

linfordlunchbox · June 2007

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by PetrolHead

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">I think you will find that they are marked down as 'inappropriate speed' for the conditions, not breaking the 'posted limit'. There is a very big difference between the two !
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

Couldn't agree more, shame that cameras don't detect the former.

Who is Tabernacle?
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

Rothbooks incarnation from about 4 banned profiles ago - he loses his temper, gets offensive, they ban him, he re registers and kicks off again. Some call him the 'multiple man'

"I'd clean my car with a baby elephant - if I had a baby elephant !"

rothbook · June 2007

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"> I just assume if someone is willing to pervert the course of justice, apparently 4m then that shows that they don't have faith in the system. <hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

Maybe it shows that obscure pro-speeding lobby groups have fostered, with a compliant media's help, an attitude of lawlessness...?

CometGirl · June 2007

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by PetrolHead
Sorry, no I just assume if someone is willing to pervert the course of justice, apparently 4m then that shows that they don't have faith in the system.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

Dead right, perverting the course of justice is now so common that it should be legalised, then that nice Maxine Carr could have got off too.

4m British drivers admit they'd pervert justice

Comments

Categories