Now Clarkson is wriggling off the hook...

Anonymous

Careful there Tony.
Sounds like you are disagreeing with Cuno.
His posts are sooo confusing though are'nt they?

Cunobelin

whitley wrote:

Careful there Tony.
Sounds like you are disagreeing with Cuno.
His posts are sooo confusing though are'nt they?

I know and deliberately so!

I was waiting for the "autobahn" argument which usually arises before comparing differing national standards.

But why be coherent and sensible in this argument - there is no justification for speeding and then not having the moral fibre to admit to it. It is moral cowardice.

I just like winding up the " I can drive at whatever speed I like 'cos i am a brilliant driiver and never have accidents 'cos speeding is safe" merchants!

I promise to behave in future!

The only really legitimate argument is that like so many activities, society has accepted limits. These limits are promulgated and enforced. You are not exempt because you disagree and shouldn't bleat when caught. These limits and standards may be arbitrary, but this is a cost of living in society.


Edited - Spelling

MattBlackBigBoysBMX

Cunobelin wrote:

If one has sufficient responsibility and moral fibre to recognise they are in the wrong, and the other is arogant and stupid enough to believe the law does not apply to them and thatthey should be able to dbreak it with impunity then surelky the answer is self-explanatory?

No it isn't self explanatory.
Answer the question, yes or no:
Do you think that paedophiles are morally superior to those that drive in excess of the speed limit?

Cunobelin wrote:

Stuff about how paedophiles feel.

Cunobelin wrote:

y paedophiles to hand to ask, and no proof about their feelings has been shown, lets just drop that particular assumption, either way.

Cunobelin wrote:

But speeding is symptomatic of aggressive and dangerous driving - hence the increase in pyschometric testing for deriivers. In both cases the act itself is the offence, not trhe "danger"

The whole reason I posted was because someone said "speeding is dangerous, it kills people" which is a horrendous simplification and one I do not believe to be wholly true.
I never said speeding was not an offence, quite the opposite!

If you spent less time arguing about things that have not been said, and arguing in favour of things I have said, then the thread and this discussion would be a lot neater!

Cunobelin wrote:

]Sex ofences cover a wide range. The important point is thatthe "age of consent" is an arbitrary limit - as claimed for sped limits. [bSurely if you can ignore one, you can ignore both.[/b] Two sixteen year olds would be the same as a driver doing 30 in a 30 mph zone, no probklem.

You seem totally unable to differentiate between the seriousness of either offence. It's a good job the people who enforce our laws don't suffer from this affliction and are able to use their judgement and discretion in upholding our laws.
This is why the police will not pull you over for doing 31mph in a 30mph zone. The offences are totally incomparable, as I have pointed out countless times and it would seem that the police force agrees with me.

wrote:

"Still no proof of a "Lie"

Still no examples given to back up your claim.

You have yet tos substantiate that it was a lie

You are asking the impossible. I can't prove you were lying by you not giving reference to the cases you mention. You can only prove that you weren't by giving those references.
It's the same twisted and false logic that rothers uses, but I'm sure by now you've had time to google for something to back you up.

Cunobelin wrote:

Hence we know the vehicle was being driven illegally, and we cannot verify whether it was insured. It is an offence for a vehicle to be driven without insurance. The onus is on th owner to prove it was insured.

No, we don't know the vehicle was being driven without insurance. If the onus is on the owner, then it has nothing to do with Clarkson.






MattBlack wrote:

Breaking the speed limit in itself is not necessarily dangerous. If it was true that "breaking the speed limit=people will die" then we would have millions of deaths every year rather than the approx 3,500 that we currently have.

Incoherent argument.... The present situation is a "snapshot withthe level of speeding, standard of driving and accident ratye fixed at that point.-


It's not an incoherent argument, that would be your reply.

Cunobelin wrote:

The real argument is if we clamped down on the poresent speeding the figure copuld drop significantly.

Hang on, over the past 15 years we have clamped down on speeding, and it is over this period that the fall in the annual fatality rate has started to halt.




There would also be no need for the charge of driving in excess of the speed limit, we could just refer every case to a charge of dangerous driving.

There is no problem with both - Speeding is illegal, and is an offence, choose to speed get done, don't bleat about it

But if it isn't dangerous, why is it illegal? If it is dangerous, why have both?
There is no point in having a law for no reason. If wearing red became illegal tomorrow, would that be a justifiable law?




There have been several cases where people have been taken to court for dangerous driving because they were driving in excess of the speed limit and it has been shown in court that their driving was not dangerous.

Separate issues - they were still speeding and breaking the law

Cunobelin wrote:

s in reply to the statement that speeding is dangerous. I have shown, in agreement with our courts, that it isn't always the case. You have seperated the issues; I have already stated that speeding is an offence and applies to everyone bar the aforementioned exceptions.




It is also true that most accidents occur when driving within the speed limit.

Cunobelin wrote:

Irrelevant - these figures include a myriad of causes, including illegal parking, lack of observation, failing to stop at junctions etc. Symptomatic of poor driving in the same way as speeding is. As speeding motorists are twice as likely to be involved in a collision within six months of theri offence, it is entirely possible that their belief in their imunity is a factor

That's my point. Bad driving causes accidents, not driving faster than the speed limit.
As to your quoted stats, I have not seen reference to them so cannot comment.






Of course, if you are involved in an accident, then the higher the differential speed, the greater the chances of more serious injuries, but avoiding the accident is much more important than mitigating the effects. Idea
(I am also not saying that we can't do both)

Cunobelin wrote:

REducing inury is a eresult in bioth cases, why not have safe driving within the sped limit as adviocated by the Institute of Advanced Motorists?

Read what I wrote in brackets, Cun!
You make an amazing job of arguing against me when you are in agreement!

It's also quite apparant that you are not IAM.






Wheelies ARE cool.

Zaskar X

MattBlackBigBoysBMX

Cunobelin wrote:

whitley wrote:

Careful there Tony.
Sounds like you are disagreeing with Cuno.
His posts are sooo confusing though are'nt they?

I know and deliberately so!

I was waiting for the "autobahn" argument which usually arises before comparing differing national standards.

But why be coherent and sensible in this argument - there is no justification for speeding and then not having the moral fibre to admit to it. It is moral cowardice.

I just like winding up the " I can drive at whatever speed I like 'cos i am a brilliant driiver and never have accidents 'cos speeding is safe" merchants!

I promise to behave in future!

The only really legitimate argument is that like so many activities, society has accepted limits. These limits are promulgated and enforced. You are not exempt because you disagree and shouldn't bleat when caught. These limits and standards may be arbitrary, but this is a cost of living in society.


Edited - Spelling

And just to clarify, I have never said that I break the speed limit, and have never had need to bleat about being caught.

Tourist Tony

Ah--a reference to IAM! How familiar....(I know Smeggy and the other geeklets are still watching)
I think we've all read enough here about the IAM, how they teach and encourage smooth and safe progress WITHIN the speed limit.
Or is this the IAM whose members, in a recent poll, complained that traffic light cameras weren't given adequate warning?
Now, why would you need a warning sign for a traffic light camera? Isn't the big set of red/amber/green lights enough?

MattBlackBigBoysBMX

Tourist Tony wrote:

Ah--a reference to IAM! How familiar....(I know Smeggy and the other geeklets are still watching)
I think we've all read enough here about the IAM, how they teach and encourage smooth and safe progress WITHIN the speed limit.
Or is this the IAM whose members, in a recent poll, complained that traffic light cameras weren't given adequate warning?
Now, why would you need a warning sign for a traffic light camera? Isn't the big set of red/amber/green lights enough?

What's your point? Are you saying that the IAM encourages driving within the law or outside of it?


Traffic light cameras need no warning, as you say they are the cameras next to the big set of red, amber and green lights that the cyclists are ignoring.
(apologies in advance for that last comment)

Tourist Tony

..and 25%of London bus drivers....

The point about IAM is that it has been done to death here. The organisation promotes driving within the speed limit, but we get professed members from SS, such as Smeggy, claiming otherwise. Newcomers may not remember Small Pith's fundraiser (yes, really!), but he is the one who claimed that accelerating was the best way ro cope with driver fatigue.
My point about the traffic light cameras is simple. You threw in a quick "bet you ain't IAM" to Cuno, and my reply to that is that these "superior" drivers demanded, in a membership poll, better warning of traffic light cameras, a result that speaks for itself with regard to their attitude to safety.

Anonymous

Tourist Tony wrote:

..and 25%of London bus drivers....

The point about IAM is that it has been done to death here. The organisation promotes driving within the speed limit, but we get professed members from SS, such as Smeggy, claiming otherwise. Newcomers may not remember Small Pith's fundraiser (yes, really!), but he is the one who claimed that accelerating was the best way ro cope with driver fatigue.
My point about the traffic light cameras is simple. You threw in a quick "bet you ain't IAM" to Cuno, and my reply to that is that these "superior" drivers demanded, in a membership poll, better warning of traffic light cameras, a result that speaks for itself with regard to their attitude to safety.

Too bleedin' right there mate.And by whom?
Your soul mate Cuno.

MattBlackBigBoysBMX

I've never come across any IAM members who have mentioned their desire for greater notice of red light cameras. With regards to safety, it is paramount and backed up by the fact that IAM drivers are (correct me if I'm wrong) a third less likely to be involved in an accident (had a quick look for figures, but only found some from the 70's, which was 50-75% less likely to be involved).
If you really want to know what the IAM teaches, then join up. I would certainly recommend it, and not just for car drivers, a lot of the things taught are applicable to all modes of transport.

Tourist Tony

As I will never own a car, I don't think I will take up your offer.
I went oil-free three years ago.

MattBlackBigBoysBMX

They do cycle training as well, though I have no experience of it.
If it's anything like their driving tuition it would be well worth it, even for cyclists who consider themselves experienced.

robbie the roadie

Basically it comes down to this. If your car is caught speeding you have to provide a named driver. As an incentive to provide a name there is a large fine to deter you from saying it was whoever. Premier league football clubs and the beeb can, unlike us, probably absorb this fee.

MattBlackBigBoysBMX

robbie the roadie wrote:

Basically it comes down to this. If your car is caught speeding you have to provide a named driver.

Only if you know who was driving. If you don't know who was driving and cannot find out using due diligence, then you are not guilty of anything.

Cunobelin

Apart from potentially allowing your vehicle to be driven by an uninsured, or unlicenced driver in contravention of the law......

Cunobelin

Problem solved...........................

Motorists who fail to disclose who was driving when a speeding offence was committed will receive much heavier penalties under a new law that comes into force on Monday.

Courts will be able to impose six penalty points on a driver’s licence, up from a maximum of three at present.

The change in the law is being introduced in response to a sharp rise in attempted evasion of speeding tickets by drivers who claim they cannot remember who was at the wheel at the time of the offence.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/u ... 507829.ece

Now I wonder if people will be so "forgetful" or "not know" who is driving their vehicle after Monday?

MattBlackBigBoysBMX

All they have done is to disproportionately increase the maximum penalty, the defence I mentioned still stands.
It has nothing to do with allowing uninsured or unlicensed people to drive your car, that's just your ridiculous and sensationalist tangent.

What it will do is force people by way of fear to commit the offence of perverting the course of justice by owning up to a possible crime that they might not have committed.

Hardly justice, is it?

Cunobelin

Police Officer stops car for speeding and approaches driver


Police Officer..... "Can I see your Licence and Insurance and please"

Driver - "I haven't got any, and anyway it's not my car and the owner doesn't realise that I am driving it."

Police Officer - "That's alright then Sir, please continue to drive illegally"

Police Officer waves driver off into the sunset.

There is a responsibility in Law for s vehicle to meet certain legal requirements, be safe and sound mechanically, be insured and be driven by a qualified driver.

If the vehicle is being driven in contravention it is the responsibility of the driver of the vehicle, but also the responsibility of the vehicle's owner to ensure that these conditions are met when they allow their vehicle to be driven.

But then again these are speeding and statistically more dangerous drivers - applyingthe law or moral responsibility to them is of course victimisation, unfair and forces them into breaking the law.


It is so simple
You have a vehicle
You know who is driving when you allow your vehicle to be driven
You ensure that person driving your vehicle meets the legal requirements of licensing and insurance illegally.
If a crime is committed with your vehicle you assist the Police with the apprehension of the offender.


No-one is being forced to commit perjury, just take responsibility for their actions and actually behave responsibly.

Tourist Tony

"What it will do is force people by way of fear to commit the offence of perverting the course of justice by owning up to a possible crime that they might not have committed. "

Please explain how penalising the culprit is "perverting the course of justice". Quite the reverse....

MattBlackBigBoysBMX

Tourist Tony wrote:

"What it will do is force people by way of fear to commit the offence of perverting the course of justice by owning up to a possible crime that they might not have committed. "

Please explain how penalising the culprit is "perverting the course of justice". Quite the reverse....

You misunderstand; if the registered keeper of the car does not know who was driving when the offence was committed (let's say for example they are on holiday and their two licensed insured kids both had access, and neither of them can determine who was driving), they are now encouraged to name themselves as the driver and wrongly accept the FPN of 3 points and £60 fine (or however much it is these days) rather than tell the truth and risk a four figure fine and six points.

This is already happening.

I read about one girl who posted about getting a speeding fine on an owners marque forum, who then after accepting the FPN came to realise that it wasn't actually her driving, it was her boyfriend. She also posted about that.
Unfortunately for her, the police were monitoring the forum and she was summonsed for perverting the course of justice.

All because at the time of filling in the S172 requirement, she could not ascertain who was driving.

This is the problem with automated enforcement.

MattBlackBigBoysBMX

Cunobelin wrote:

Police Officer stops car for speeding and approaches driver


Police Officer..... "Can I see your Licence and Insurance and please"

Driver - "I haven't got any, and anyway it's not my car and the owner doesn't realise that I am driving it."

Police Officer - "That's alright then Sir, please continue to drive illegally"

Police Officer waves driver off into the sunset.

There is a responsibility in Law for s vehicle to meet certain legal requirements, be safe and sound mechanically, be insured and be driven by a qualified driver.

If the vehicle is being driven in contravention it is the responsibility of the driver of the vehicle, but also the responsibility of the vehicle's owner to ensure that these conditions are met when they allow their vehicle to be driven.

But then again these are speeding and statistically more dangerous drivers - applyingthe law or moral responsibility to them is of course victimisation, unfair and forces them into breaking the law.


It is so simple
You have a vehicle
You know who is driving when you allow your vehicle to be driven
You ensure that person driving your vehicle meets the legal requirements of licensing and insurance illegally.
If a crime is committed with your vehicle you assist the Police with the apprehension of the offender.


No-one is being forced to commit perjury, just take responsibility for their actions and actually behave responsibly.

Once more Cunobelin, you are straying far from the subject.
If a policeman stops someone for an offence, there is no need for S172 as the identity of the driver can be established then and there. The officer can then offer a FPN, or give a verbal NIP and let the courts deal with it.
The situation you describe is fantasy.

This is the beauty of having humans enforce our laws.

Perhaps forced was the wrong word to use, bullied and lied to is probably more accurate. Google for "operation cheetah", and the scare tactic booklet they released which I believe had to be pulled because it breeched the Advertising Standards Agency rules, the rules that state you are not allowed to print outright lies.

Cunobelin

The simple fact is that the registered owner maintains responsibility for the vehicle.

Whether the vehicle is stopped for an offence by a "Human" or "other method" there is a requirement for the Police to enforce the same basic standard of ensuring that the driveris licensed and insured - the vehicle being legally on the road at the time of the offence.

This is where the buck stops.

You misunderstand; if the registered keeper of the car does not know who was driving when the offence was committed (let's say for example they are on holiday and their two licensed insured kids both had access, and neither of them can determine who was driving), they are now encouraged to name themselves as the driver and wrongly accept the FPN of 3 points and £60 fine (or however much it is these days) rather than tell the truth and risk a four figure fine and six points.

So the little scrotes have the moral integrity of a Wombat!

You must know whether you are driving a vehicle, you look around you and see a big metal box (a big clue).

The point is that this is nnot "bullying" or intimidation" it is about taking the responsibility as an owner.

Cunobelin

You really nee to get a grip here.

The "operation Cheetah" booklet was censured on two accounts.

One - That the quoted cost per accident was erroneous, but that the figure was quoted "IN GOOD FAITH" Hardly an outright lie?

Two - Although the 'general' websites included forums where contributers could exchange information, and some of those exchanges involved enquiries relating to penalty point and fine avoidance, we noted those sites did not offer to help drivers break the law. We considered that, to include those sites under the heading "TRICK DEALERS" alongside others that encouraged drivers to act illegally was potentially denigratory to those sites.We advised Drivesafe not to imply in future campaigns that information on those sites was illegal if it was not. [/u]

One mistake (recognised so by the ASA) and one entry, the rest was uncriticised!

So if they correct the sum of money and move these three sites - the rest is valid!


Now who is the propagandist?

MattBlackBigBoysBMX

Cunobelin wrote:

The simple fact is that the registered owner maintains responsibility for the vehicle.

Whether the vehicle is stopped for an offence by a "Human" or "other method" there is a requirement for the Police to enforce the same basic standard of ensuring that the driveris licensed and insured - the vehicle being legally on the road at the time of the offence.

The legal responsibility is far less than you keep going on about, and the basic enforcement requirements you mention aren't correct either.

Cunobelin wrote:

So the little scrotes have the moral integrity of a Wombat!

You must know whether you are driving a vehicle, you look around you and see a big metal box (a big clue).

It's got nothing to do with morality which you keep wrongly harping about. Of course one knows if they are driving a car at the time, but it is not unreasonable that after two weeks or more they might not be so sure.
I certainly don't keep a diary of what cars I have been driving and when, and I wouldn't expect any other private owner to.

Cunobelin wrote:

The point is that this is nnot "bullying" or intimidation" it is about taking the responsibility as an owner.

No, it's about getting people to pay fines without the hassle and expense of taking them to court, which is fine, except when they are not guilty.

Tourist Tony

Then the "legal responsibility" (and the penaltiesfor failing it) for not taking care that your vehicle is used according to the law should be strengthened.

Your stance here seems to be that the law doesn't lean heavily on permutting a vehicle to be used legally, so it's no big deal. This is the mindset that leads obnoxious justice perverters (in the real sense0 to print pages of advice about how to lie when caught.

Local obituaries, anyone? Points broking?

MattBlackBigBoysBMX

Tourist Tony wrote:

Then the "legal responsibility" (and the penaltiesfor failing it) for not taking care that your vehicle is used according to the law should be strengthened.

Maybe, but that is another discussion.

Tourist Tony wrote:

Your stance here seems to be that the law doesn't lean heavily on permutting a vehicle to be used legally, so it's no big deal.

Not really, I think you are reading too much into what I have written. The law looks quite seriously at knowingly permitting someone to drive your car without insurance, which is a good thing, but Cunobelin seems to think that lending your car to someone who then goes on to break the speed limit by a few miles an hour is an offence as serious as sexual assault or murder.
I simply don't agree with that, and have always preferred people to be responsible for their own actions.

Tourist Tony wrote:

This is the mindset that leads obnoxious justice perverters (in the real sense0 to print pages of advice about how to lie when caught.

Local obituaries, anyone? Points broking?

Nah, you've lost me there mate.

Cunobelin

Just to help you find your feet again.......


Google "Operation Cheetah"

http://www.pepipoo.com/index.php?page=Cheetah_booklet

One of the websites that was listed was "SafeSpeed"

Amongst other dubious practices such as getting an elderly relative who doesn't drive to take out a licence and accept your points, altering your plates and claiming that local kids did it, or changing the numbers and claiming that you are dyslexic, is a real classic;

One of the more delightful suggestions about how to avoid a ticket was to trawl the obituary column and take a name form it of someone recently deceased.............................

Then claim they were driving your car at the time of the offence, on the grounds that unlike the amoral offender, the Police have standards of behaviour and would respect the grief the family was going through by not intruding to follow up the offence.

Absolute charmers!
!
Edited - Spelling

MattBlackBigBoysBMX

What does that have to do with this discussion?

Tourist Tony

It's an example of what perverting the course of justice REALLY means.

Cunobelin

MattBlackBigBoysBMX wrote:

What does that have to do with this discussion?

Your statement:

MattBlackBigBoysBMX wrote:

Nah, you've lost me there mate

I simply helped you out by explaing ia point that had you confused.

MattBlackBigBoysBMX wrote:

Perhaps forced was the wrong word to use, bullied and lied to is probably more accurate. Google for "operation cheetah", and the scare tactic booklet they released which I believe had to be pulled because it breeched the Advertising Standards Agency rules, the rules that state you are not allowed to print outright lies..

It also expanded on the point that you raised when you implied the "Operation Cheetah" manual as being "outright lies". - I posted the booklet and pointed out some of the "Lies" were in fact statements from the organisations protesting therir innocence!

Note that the statements themselves were not challenged, as it is doubtful they would have been defendable. The complaint was only upheld that no money was charged!


The whole point is that this simply illustrates that there is an underclass who have no integrity or espect for the law whatsoever and feel that they should have carte blanche to break these laws by speeding and do so with impunity - They then feel that when they are caught they can comit perjury, and pervert the cause of justice not because they are forced to do so, but because in their warped opinion it is acceptable to do so. Then they will bleat about being bullied, scare tactics and victimisation when they are caught and censured for their delberate enforced choice to break the law.


You brought Operation Cheetah into the discussion, but are now apparently uncomfortable with it beibng discussed:

MattBlackBigBoysBMX

Tourist Tony wrote:

It's an example of what perverting the course of justice REALLY means.

The law doesn't make the same differentiation.