Now Clarkson is wriggling off the hook...
Comments
-
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.[/quote]
Trot posted on a website is not what we were talking about.Cunobelin wrote: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:
Parts of the booklet are simply not true; I just noticed the stats quoted don't even add up.
I still believe the whole purpose of that booklet was to get people to pay fines wether they were guilty or not. You are yet to state wether or not you disagree with that.
Just because someone disagrees with one law doesn't mean they have total disregard for all laws. I know you have several times illustrated your inability to differentiate between the seriousness of different offences, but thankfully most people still can.
I have a general respect for the law, as most people do, but there are one or two laws that I have utter contempt for.
Does this make me a bad person devoid of morality?
No.
It simply means I can think for myself, and do not need laws to tell me how to behave in a decent manner. Just because I don't agree with a law, doesn't mean that I will automatically break it. :idea:
I am quite happy to discuss the booklet mentioned, we can continue by you answering the above issue in bold.
I am not interested in discussing what might have been posted by one of the users of the SS or PPP forums, as I support neither.Wheelies ARE cool.
Zaskar X0 -
Parts of the booklet are simply not true; I just noticed the stats quoted don't even add up.
I still believe the whole purpose of that booklet was to get people to pay fines whether they were guilty or not. You are yet to state whether or not you disagree with that.
The majority of the statements are not untrue at all. They were not contested or criticised y the ASA either. The simple statement of the booklet is "We are aware of these "fixes" - don't try them or you will get nicked for them as well"
That is not asking anyone to pay fines whether guilty or not, it is asking them not to pervert the course of justice, commit perjury by lying to the court falsifying details or making claims you know are false.
Stats are never wholly accurate when out of context of the whole.
Take the claim that "road deaths should have dropped, but have stayed constant" beloved of the pro- speeding lobby. Fails to take account of the rise in the number of journeys, number of vehicles and miles travelled. The "null hypothesis" is that deaths should have risen, and hence a static total is in fact a "decrease" when corrected.
Which comes back to the earlier points....I have a general respect for the law, as most people do, but there are one or two laws that I have utter contempt for.
Does this make me a bad person devoid of morality?
No.
It simply means I can think for myself, and do not need laws to tell me how to behave in a decent manner.
It doesn't matter which laws you have contempt for - if you break them, you get censured - it's that simple. You cannot decide whch ones you keep and which ones you break.
As for need ing laws to behave - the number of speeding fines shows that there is a large number who do appear to need exactly this!<b><i>He that buys land buys many stones.
He that buys flesh buys many bones.
He that buys eggs buys many shells,
But he that buys good beer buys nothing else.</b></i>
(Unattributed Trad.)0 -
Cunobelin wrote:The majority of the statements are not untrue at all. They were not contested or criticised y the ASA either.
The ASA received a complaint.
The complainant raised two issues.
The ASA agreed with the two issues raised by the complainant.
That is how it works.
It is not proof that everything else in the booklet is correct, unless for example, you think that 20+20=50.Cunobelin wrote:That is not asking anyone to pay fines whether guilty or not, it is asking them not to pervert the course of justice, commit perjury by lying to the court falsifying details or making claims you know are false.
Then why do they refer to genuine reasons for someones innocence as "tricks" and those who may be genuinely innocent as "cheaters" and then state that those people who may be genuinely innocent are better off accepting the fine and points rather than face court, after lying about the genuine reasons not being able to prove someones innocence?
Asking them to pervert the course of justice is exactly what they are doing.Cunobelin wrote:Stats are never wholly accurate when out of context of the whole.
Yeah, ok, I guess in your world 20+20 does actually = 50.
Cunobelin wrote:Take the claim that "road deaths should have dropped, but have stayed constant" beloved of the pro- speeding lobby. Fails to take account of the rise in the number of journeys, number of vehicles and miles travelled. The "null hypothesis" is that deaths should have risen, and hence a static total is in fact a "decrease" when corrected.
That's a bold claim which I doubt you can substantiate considering the vast number of extremely complicated factors involved that you haven't mentioned.Cunobelin wrote:It doesn't matter which laws you have contempt for - if you break them, you get censured - it's that simple. You cannot decide whch ones you keep and which ones you break.
Not necessarily true. It's why we have policemen enforcing the law as they see fit and when they deem necessary. Ever asked yourself why a policeman might choose not to "censure" a motorist for driving at a particular speed when a camera would definately result in a conviction?Cunobelin wrote:As for need ing laws to behave - the number of speeding fines shows that there is a large number who do appear to need exactly this!
Somewhere (and I can't be arsed to look for it ) in some ancient statute that forms a pillar of our judicial system, it states something along the lines of that which is practiced by a great number of reasonable citizens shall not be made illegal.
Considering the millions of motorists that do drive above the speed limit at one time or another (for arguments sake, and for that of reality, lets call it all of them), then maybe it is proof that we don't exactly need this.
Wheelies ARE cool.
Zaskar X0 -
Somewhere (and I can't be arsed to look for it Laughing ) in some ancient statute that forms a pillar of our judicial system, it states something along the lines of that which is practiced by a great number of reasonable citizens shall not be made illegal. /quote]
Nice try, and I couldn't agree more!
There are some 33 million vehicles, and 2 million speeding offences each year Even forgetting the fact that many of these will be the hardened recidivists, that is about 6% of the mooring population!
Are you really suggesting that this is a majority?
Surely the argument here is that it states something that is practiced by a great number of reasonable citizens shall be made illegal and the 6% minority who through incomepetence arrogance or stupidity cannot obey it are censured accordingly?<b><i>He that buys land buys many stones.
He that buys flesh buys many bones.
He that buys eggs buys many shells,
But he that buys good beer buys nothing else.</b></i>
(Unattributed Trad.)0 -
Besides - why just claim you dion't know who was driving?
The top 10 excuses from Northumbria are:
1. I had passed out after seeing flashing lights, which I believed to be UFOs in the distance. The flash of the camera brought me round from my trance.
2. I was in the airport’s flight path and I believe the camera was triggered by a jet overhead, not my car.
3. I had a severe bout of diarrhoea and had to speed to a public toilet.
4. There was a strong wind behind my car which pushed me over the limit.
5. My friend had just chopped his fingers off and I was rushing the fingers to hospital.
6. The vibrations from the surfboard I had on the roof rack set off the camera.
7. I had to rush my dying hamster to the vets.
8. A violent sneeze caused a chain reaction where my foot pushed down harder on the accelerator.
9. There was a suspected case of foot and mouth and I had to rush to see the cow concerned.
10. The only way I could demonstrate my faulty clutch was to accelerate madly.<b><i>He that buys land buys many stones.
He that buys flesh buys many bones.
He that buys eggs buys many shells,
But he that buys good beer buys nothing else.</b></i>
(Unattributed Trad.)0 -
I never said it was the majority, and you can drive past a speed camera above the legal limit without getting flashed, as well as drive over the speed limit where there are no cameras, so your 6% is a massive underestimation.
"Cannot" obey is a also a massive assumption.
Good of you to ignore the majority of my post, are you sure you are not rothbook?
He also likes to go quiet when I point things out to him that he can't argue against. Wheelies ARE cool.
Zaskar X0 -
ALl - can you verify this.MattBlackBigBoysBMX wrote:Cunobelin wrote:The majority of the statements are not untrue at all. They were not contested or criticised y the ASA either.
The ASA received a complaint.
The complainant raised two issues.
The ASA agreed with the two issues raised by the complainant.
That is how it works.
It is not proof that everything else in the booklet is correct, unless for example, you think that 20+20=50.
[/i][red]Let's make it really simple for you....
The majority were not contested as they were not incorrect or the "Lies" you claim
Much of this booklet is corerect and true, you are sinmply not acepting this.
20 + 20 = 50
SImple - I go shopping and buy 20 bananas, 20 apples and ten cabbages. When asked about frui purchases - t I have bought 20baananas + 20 apples , but the total is still 50 - YOu cannot assume the number of bananas and apples is incorrwect if you do not have the full facts - i.e. quoted outsifde the original context of shopping lists as a whole
[/i]Cunobelin wrote:That is not asking anyone to pay fines whether guilty or not, it is asking them not to pervert the course of justice, commit perjury by lying to the court falsifying details or making claims you know are false.
Then why do they refer to genuine reasons for someones innocence as "tricks" and those who may be genuinely innocent as "cheaters" and then state that those people who may be genuinely innocent are better off accepting the fine and points rather than face court, after lying about the genuine reasons not being able to prove someones innocence?
In this context you have assumed that everyone is telling the truth and that no-one will ever claim they didn't know who was driving (fior example) and thus commit perjury. NOt the case, these are simple satatenmnts about methods used illegally to pervert the course of justice.[/b/
Asking them to pervert the course of justice is exactly what they are doing.
No - you can choose top defend your position, if you choose not to then that is a matter of persobnal choice. NO-one is asked o pervert the course of justice - that is an absurd statement.p/b]
Cunobelin wrote:Stats are never wholly accurate when out of context of the whole.
Yeah, ok, I guess in your world 20+20 does actually = 50.
]SImple - I go shopping and buy 20 bananas, 20 apples and ten cabbages. When asked about frui purchases - t I have bought 20baananas + 20 apples , but the total is still 50 - YOu cannot assume the number of bananas and apples is incorrwect if you do not have the full facts - i.e. quoted outsifde the original context of shopping lists as a wholeCunobelin wrote:Take the claim that "road deaths should have dropped, but have stayed constant" beloved of the pro- speeding lobby. Fails to take account of the rise in the number of journeys, number of vehicles and miles travelled. The "null hypothesis" is that deaths should have risen, and hence a static total is in fact a "decrease" when corrected.
That's a bold claim which I doubt you can substantiate considering the vast number of extremely complicated factors involved that you haven't mentioned.
Exactly the point, the simoplistic claim that road deaths should have dropped is flawed for exactly the same reasonsCunobelin wrote:It doesn't matter which laws you have contempt for - if you break them, you get censured - it's that simple. You cannot decide whch ones you keep and which ones you break.
Not necessarily true. It's why we have policemen enforcing the law as they see fit and when they deem necessary. Ever asked yourself why a policeman might choose not to "censure" a motorist for driving at a particular speed when a camera would definately result in a conviction?
So " I only shoplifted, and I was caught by a CCTV so it shouldn't count is an equally valid defence?Cunobelin wrote:As for need ing laws to behave - the number of speeding fines shows that there is a large number who do appear to need exactly this!
Somewhere (and I can't be arsed to look for it ) in some ancient statute that forms a pillar of our judicial system, it states something along the lines of that which is practiced by a great number of reasonable citizens shall not be made illegal.
Considering the millions of motorists that do drive above the speed limit at one time or another (for arguments sake, and for that of reality, lets call it all of them), then maybe it is proof that we don't exactly need this.<b><i>He that buys land buys many stones.
He that buys flesh buys many bones.
He that buys eggs buys many shells,
But he that buys good beer buys nothing else.</b></i>
(Unattributed Trad.)0 -
MattBlackBigBoysBMX wrote:I never said it was the majority, and you can drive past a speed camera above the legal limit without getting flashed, as well as drive over the speed limit where there are no cameras, so your 6% is a massive underestimation.
"Cannot" obey is a also a massive assumption.
Good of you to ignore the majority of my post, are you sure you are not rothbook?
He also likes to go quiet when I point things out to him that he can't argue against.
Any more ridiculous than claiming "all" though.
and "cannot" is not an assumption, either they speed deliberately or cannot control the vehicle sufficiently to remoin wuithin the limits, or are one of the psychometrically unsuitable drivers who literally "cannot" control their risk taking behaviour.<b><i>He that buys land buys many stones.
He that buys flesh buys many bones.
He that buys eggs buys many shells,
But he that buys good beer buys nothing else.</b></i>
(Unattributed Trad.)0 -
Cunobelin wrote:MattBlackBigBoysBMX wrote:I never said it was the majority, and you can drive past a speed camera above the legal limit without getting flashed, as well as drive over the speed limit where there are no cameras, so your 6% is a massive underestimation.
"Cannot" obey is a also a massive assumption.
Good of you to ignore the majority of my post, are you sure you are not rothbook?
He also likes to go quiet when I point things out to him that he can't argue against.
Any more ridiculous than claiming "all" though.
and "cannot" is not an assumption, either they speed deliberately or cannot control the vehicle sufficiently to remoin wuithin the limits, or are one of the psychometrically unsuitable drivers who literally "cannot" control their risk taking behaviour.
If they are choosing to speed, then the option of not speeding must exist, therefore you are still wrong to assume "cannot".Wheelies ARE cool.
Zaskar X0 -
No comments on the rest of the post - rather Rothookish don't you think?<b><i>He that buys land buys many stones.
He that buys flesh buys many bones.
He that buys eggs buys many shells,
But he that buys good beer buys nothing else.</b></i>
(Unattributed Trad.)0 -
Cunobelin wrote:
Let's make it really simple for you....
The majority were not contested as they were not incorrect or the "Lies" you claim
Much of this booklet is corerect and true, you are sinmply not acepting this.
The ASA investigate the complaint, not everything.
I am not claiming that nothing in the booklet is correct, but at least you have just admitted to some of it being lies.Cunobelin wrote:20 + 20 = 50
SImple - I go shopping and buy 20 bananas, 20 apples and ten cabbages. When asked about frui purchases - t I have bought 20baananas + 20 apples , but the total is still 50 - YOu cannot assume the number of bananas and apples is incorrwect if you do not have the full facts - i.e. quoted outsifde the original context of shopping lists as a whole
Lets get this straight, there are two outcomes in their statistics; survival and death.
There is no third outcome, your analogy is toilet.
Or can you suggest some other state of existence between either:
a) Being alive
or
b) Being dead?
:roll:Cunobelin wrote:In this context you have assumed that everyone is telling the truth and that no-one will ever claim they didn't know who was driving (fior example) and thus commit perjury. NOt the case, these are simple satatenmnts about methods used illegally to pervert the course of justice.[/b/
No I am not assuming that everyone who claims they didn't know who was driving is telling the truth, the booklet is doing that. Nowhere does it state that the "illegal methods" can be used legitimately.
Asking them to pervert the course of justice is exactly what they are doing.Cunobelin wrote:No - you can choose top defend your position, if you choose not to then that is a matter of persobnal choice. NO-one is asked o pervert the course of justice - that is an absurd statement.p/b]
Read the booklet again.
They state legitimate reasons for not being guilty whilst saying they are not legitimate and then suggesting to just take the fine.
It is so simple and obvious I cannot understand why you do not grasp this.Cunobelin wrote:Take the claim that "road deaths should have dropped, but have stayed constant" beloved of the pro- speeding lobby. Fails to take account of the rise in the number of journeys, number of vehicles and miles travelled. The "null hypothesis" is that deaths should have risen, and hence a static total is in fact a "decrease" when corrected.
That's a bold claim which I doubt you can substantiate considering the vast number of extremely complicated factors involved that you haven't mentioned.
Exactly the point, the simoplistic claim that road deaths should have dropped is flawed for exactly the same reasons
So you agree that it is complicated, and agree that both claims are flawed, but still think your claim is correct with no other justification? :roll:
Not necessarily true. It's why we have policemen enforcing the law as they see fit and when they deem necessary. Ever asked yourself why a policeman might choose not to "censure" a motorist for driving at a particular speed when a camera would definately result in a conviction?Cunobelin wrote:So " I only shoplifted, and I was caught by a CCTV so it shouldn't count is an equally valid defence?
No, because a policeman would intervene in that situation. Once more you are accidently agreeing with me.
If you are asking me to verify wether or not all motorists break the speed limit at some point in time, then I cannot practically or physically do this, but I can show you several roads where never have I seen a car adhere to the limit, and if you care to point one out I'll buy you a pint. Wheelies ARE cool.
Zaskar X0 -
Not necessarily true. It's why we have policemen enforcing the law as they see fit and when they deem necessary. Ever asked yourself why a policeman might choose not to "censure" a motorist for driving at a particular speed when a camera would definately result in a conviction?
The same applies, if you really feel that you were driving safel;y and that your speed was justified - appeal. That is why it is there!
YOu are forgetting thatthe Police dealing with speeding is a red herring more to do with lesseningthe chances of getting caught than with any real interest for road safety.
There is a law, it is broken, there is an efficient menthod of catching this offence, the driver is penalised. That is fair.
Speeding (which you seem to want to trivialise) is a symptom of risk taking behaviour. Drivers caught speeding by cameras have more than double the chances of being iinvolved in an "injury" accident than the "average" motorisst. Other research has shown that speeding is also lonked to other high risk-taking driving suich as tailgating, unsafe overtaking and other offences.
Fortunately the loopholes tha allow these drivers to lie and evade their due punishment are being closed, and of course that is unpopular, it is allos hypocritical to claim that expecting the driver amd vehicle owner to take responsibility is "bullying"
We now have a law in place that makes the owner of a vehicle actually responsible for it!
All you need to do now is acceopt that tresponsibility and ensure that you know who is driving your vehicle.
PS[/quote]Lets get this straight, there are two outcomes in their statistics; survival and death.
There is no third outcome, your analogy is toilet. [/quote]
Nice try again, but there is always a third option, no matter how inconvenientthat may be for you. No set of records will ever be complete, and any study will have less than 100% response. In this case we could have missing cases for a number of reasons. For example.
1. Inadmissable to the study due to a flaw
2. Not available for other reasons.
3. Dispute as to whether the outcome (death / survival) was due to the accident or later causes sucha s a surgical intervention
Ad infinitum....
As said - you need the original paper before you can claim that the statsistics are wrong. The fact that this does not fit your agenda...........................
What would really be inetresting though is which of the "legitimate reasons" you feel are being stated as a trick. The booklet states that these are ruses that are used to avoid tickets. Is this untrue, are you actually sayingthat no-one has ever used the "I don't know who was driving" ruse dishonestly?They state legitimate reasons for not being guilty whilst saying they are not legitimate and then suggesting to just take the fine.<b><i>He that buys land buys many stones.
He that buys flesh buys many bones.
He that buys eggs buys many shells,
But he that buys good beer buys nothing else.</b></i>
(Unattributed Trad.)0 -
Cunobelin wrote:No comments on the rest of the post - rather Rothookish don't you think?
Rather hasty to try and be that smug, don't you think? Wheelies ARE cool.
Zaskar X0 -
Cunobelin wrote:The same applies, if you really feel that you were driving safel;y and that your speed was justified - appeal. That is why it is there!
Not at all the same, and there is no appeal as the offence is absolute.
You never answered this point:
". Ever asked yourself why a policeman might choose not to "censure" a motorist for driving at a particular speed when a camera would definately result in a conviction?"
and you know why. A policeman can differentiate between someone driving dangerously and someone driving safely whilst outside of the limit.Cunobelin wrote:YOu are forgetting thatthe Police dealing with speeding is a red herring more to do with lesseningthe chances of getting caught than with any real interest for road safety.
What!!! :shock:
When officers are patrolling the roads, it is entirely about safety. How you can come out with such rubbish is beyond me.Cunobelin wrote:Speeding (which you seem to want to trivialise) is a symptom of risk taking behaviour. Drivers caught speeding by cameras have more than double the chances of being iinvolved in an "injury" accident than the "average" motorisst.
Speeding and getting caught speeding are totally different. You might have well said "drivers who fail to observe a bright yellow box are more likely to have accidents".
Of course drivers with poor observation are going to crash more, just look at the stats for cause of accidents and you will see that poor observation is the cause of over a third of accidents, far more of a problem than speeding.Cunobelin wrote:but there is always a third option, no matter how inconvenientthat may be for you. No set of records will ever be complete, and any study will have less than 100% response. In this case we could have missing cases for a number of reasons. For example.
1. Inadmissable to the study due to a flaw
2. Not available for other reasons.
3. Dispute as to whether the outcome (death / survival) was due to the accident or later causes sucha s a surgical intervention
Ad infinitum....
As said - you need the original paper before you can claim that the statsistics are wrong. The fact that this does not fit your agenda...........................
I don't need the original paper, I have the booklet and it's shonky figures to view.
If you want to prove that your above 3 reasons for the erroneous maths are correct, when any statitician could just omit that data from the set so it still made sense, then go ahead, fill your boots, but at the moment you are simply guessing, as guessing fits your agenda.Cunobelin wrote:are you actually sayingthat no-one has ever used the "I don't know who was driving" ruse dishonestly?
No, I clearly have never said that. My point was, as if you don't already know, that the booklet intends to mislead the reader into thinking that a couple of the "ruses" mentioned cannot be used in legitimate circumstances.
As I said before, this is to get genuinely innocent people to cough up and perjure* themselves.
*(obviously not in the strict legal sense, as it is outside of court)Wheelies ARE cool.
Zaskar X0 -
What!!! Shocked
When officers are patrolling the roads, it is entirely about safety. How you can come out with such rubbish is beyond me.
You really are having problems understanding the basics aren't you?
Re-read the comments - not your absurd interpretation of the sentence.
Lets make it very simple.
A speed camera is more efficient than catching speeding motorists than a Traffic Policeman as it works 24 hours a day and does not need coffee breaks, doesn't need to go home in the evening, or take time out to write reports. It also means that more speeding motorists can be caught as there can be a number of cameras on a section of road.
Lets take a section of road 4 miles long with a speed camera. You will need 3 police offficers to maintaing the same cover with three 8 hour shifts. Another officer will then be needed to cover the time taken for paperwork etc. Let's leave out leave or sickness absence.
It is financially and physically impossible to maintain the same cover as the camera provides with the same eficiency.
The argument that Police should supervise speeding is about reducing the chances of getting caught, not an incease ine Road Safety.
You simpy refuse to recognise the valid cobtribution that cameras make by catching those incapable of obeying the law through arrogance, stupidity or an inability to drive properly.
The answer, which you will not like is to have both. By clamping down on the behaviour of these drivers the cameras have an important and valid safety task. The Police also have a valid task - the answer is to have both.
]I don't need the original paper, I have the booklet and it's shonky figures to view.
If you want to prove that your above 3 reasons for the erroneous maths are correct, when any statitician could just omit that data from the set so it still made sense, then go ahead, fill your boots, but at the moment you are simply guessing, as guessing fits your agenda.
You again need to read the post and not your interpratation...
For example gives possible exclusions - unless you have the original paper you will never know. As opposed to you refusal to even contemplate anything outside your fixed interpretation, and narrow fixed viewpoint.
I am right, I think the figures are wrong, but i din't need to look into this further because I cannot be wrong - therefore I am right?<b><i>He that buys land buys many stones.
He that buys flesh buys many bones.
He that buys eggs buys many shells,
But he that buys good beer buys nothing else.</b></i>
(Unattributed Trad.)0 -
Speeding and getting caught speeding are totally different. You might have well said "drivers who fail to observe a bright yellow box are more likely to have accidents".
Of course drivers with poor observation are going to crash more, just look at the stats for cause of accidents and you will see that poor observation is the cause of over a third of accidents, far more of a problem than speeding.[]/quote]
Somewhat flawed - to say the least.
You are ignoring the risk- taker mentality here. Speeding is merely an example of risk taking behaviour. Risk takers by definition do not always assess the full observatioanl information and hence will take risks such as speeding without adequalte observation - so risk taking and observation are linked. Recidivist speeders who are high risk takers are phychologically less likely to maintain full observation and hence more likely not to see a camera because part of the risk taking mentality is that this information is not processed.
Adeqate observation and speeding can easily be linked as symptoms of the same pyychometric profile.
Now we know you don't actually need to see the research to make your own conclusions about it, but you might just like to have a look at;
. Iversen,-Hilde; Rundmo,-Torbjoern Personality-and-Individual-Differences. 2002 Dec; Vol 33(8): 1251-1263
They issued questionnares that included measures of risky driving, accident involvement, sensation-seeking, locus of control and driver anger. Results showed that those who scored high on sensation seeking were more often involved in both speeding and ignorance of traffic rules. Respondents involved in risk taking-behaviour experienced near-accidents and crashes leading to both injuries and material damage more often than other drivers.
So we have a situation where the recidivist speeders are at risk because they are also the ones committing the other offences as well. Despite your assurances otherwise these are the ones who are the main problem.
Speding remains a symptom of a generally poor and often dangerous driving attitude and an inceresed hazard arising from that driver to other road users.
There is no way you can disconnect speeding from dangerous driving.<b><i>He that buys land buys many stones.
He that buys flesh buys many bones.
He that buys eggs buys many shells,
But he that buys good beer buys nothing else.</b></i>
(Unattributed Trad.)0 -
Cunobelin wrote:
You really are having problems understanding the basics aren't you?
No, you are just moving the goal posts again.
Speed cameras catch people who are driving past the camera in excess of the limit.
Policemen can catch dangerous drivers.
You equate that all people who speed are dangerous, I do not.
Having more officers patrol our roads is nothing to do with lessening the chances of getting caught for speeding, there are a myriad of dangerous offences that policemen can spot and deal with, driving too fast is one of them. A camera is no substitute.
"You simpy refuse to recognise the valid cobtribution that cameras make"
Your opinion, not fact.
"catching those incapable of obeying the law "
I already pointed out your earlier mistake, yet you still propagate it. For the majority it is an unforced choice.
"The answer, which you will not like is to have both."
I have never stated that we can not have both.
That's not the first time I have written those words on this forum, either.
Your problem Cunobelin, which incidently is the same as rothbooks, is that you have made an assumption about my agenda and my thoughts.
I have never said I am totally against speed cameras, I simply don't think they contribute to overall road safety to the great extent that you do, and unlike you do not have an irrational hatred of car users.
"the cameras have an important and valid safety task."
Theres the example. Looking at the official stats it would appear that speeding is low on the list of accident causation, so in the grand scheme of road safety is not that important, and far less important than many other problems we have on our roads that cannot be policed by automated machines.
"I am right, I think the figures are wrong, but i din't need to look into this further because I cannot be wrong - therefore I am right?"
Not at all.
The figures do appear to be wrong, anyone can see that. If you want to prove me wrong then go ahead.
Do it convincingly and I'll buy you a pint to show that I am not bitter about being wrong.
Speak to you later, I'm off to meet the missus for some booze and grub. Wheelies ARE cool.
Zaskar X0 -
unlike you do not have an irrational hatred of car users.
Only those who break the law. I have the same high opinion of cyclists wiothout lights ans those who cycle on city pavementsa and pwedestrian areas.
I simply have a high moral standard, and feel thatthe "I am only breaking trhe law a little bit andit's all OK because I can do it safely" is an unacceptable popsition.
There is a law - obey it , and if you choose not to then don't bleat.
There is an offence of allowing your vehicle to be riven without insurance, that has been tightened up, again - live withit, make sure you know who is driving your vehicle, and don't use it a s a copout when caught.<b><i>He that buys land buys many stones.
He that buys flesh buys many bones.
He that buys eggs buys many shells,
But he that buys good beer buys nothing else.</b></i>
(Unattributed Trad.)0 -
Are there really no laws that you disagree with?
A morally just person should not need laws to dictate to them what is reasonable behavior.
Driving without insurance hasn't been tightened up recently (has it?), but there is the offence of permitting someone to drive without insurance.
It's quite funny really:
plod: "So sir, you would like us to charge your son with Taking Without Owners Consent?"
punter: "No, of course not officer."
plod" "Then I am charging you with permitting an uninsured driver to drive your car."
Very, very few people unwittingly drive without insurance, it's a shame the fines are often less than the insurance premiums would be! :roll:Wheelies ARE cool.
Zaskar X0 -
Yes. I remember one of the SS troopers, who claimed to be a policeman, referring to ANPR checks on insurance as "stealth tax" work.
You see, they aren't going to have a collision, so they don't need insurance. They may even be members of IAM, so they are better and safer, and less likely to have a collision.
Anyway, so many people drive without insurance that it is obviously a bad law. You can't say it isn't a majority because only a few people get caught....
Etc.If I had a stalker, I would hug it and kiss it and call it George...or Dick
http://www.crazyguyonabike.com/doc/?o=3 ... =3244&v=5K0 -
Do SS pay you to keep them in the limelight?
0 -
Cunobelin wrote:unlike you do not have an irrational hatred of car users.
Only those who break the law. I have the same high opinion of cyclists wiothout lights ans those who cycle on city pavementsa and pwedestrian areas.
You're Jonathan Woss are't you?
Send the fiver to SS . 0 -
Afwaid not!
I have a form of dyslexia where I cannot read what i write, I read what I think I wrote (if that makes sense, hence I tend to miss spelling errors.<b><i>He that buys land buys many stones.
He that buys flesh buys many bones.
He that buys eggs buys many shells,
But he that buys good beer buys nothing else.</b></i>
(Unattributed Trad.)0 -
A morally just person should not need laws to dictate to them what is reasonable behaviour.
How charmingly naive!
The whole point (in extreme context) is the Hobbes Leviathan theory.
There will always be those who do not agree with Society, and Society must therefore enforce their adherence to their rules.
Only then will they abide by the Society's rules - when the fear of the reprisal exceeds the gain.
PS - Let's get realistic you missed the last lines!plod: "So sir, you would like us to charge your son with Taking Without Owners Consent?"
punter: "No, of course not officer."
plod" "Then I am charging you with permitting an uninsured driver to drive your car."
Punter - "As in points on my licence and a fine"
Plod - "Yep - exactly"
Punter " - In that case arrest the little Scrote - He's all yours!"<b><i>He that buys land buys many stones.
He that buys flesh buys many bones.
He that buys eggs buys many shells,
But he that buys good beer buys nothing else.</b></i>
(Unattributed Trad.)0 -
If I had a stalker, I would hug it and kiss it and call it George...or Dick
http://www.crazyguyonabike.com/doc/?o=3 ... =3244&v=5K0 -
MattBlackBigBoysBMX wrote:You equate that all people who speed are dangerous, I do not.
Jumping right in here.
I don't really think there is just "good" and "dangerous" as the only 2 options, but of course it is not like that.
Would you agree that the same driver in the same situation is more dangerous at 10mph over the speed limit than at 10mph under the speed limit?
Possibly depending on the road not MUCH more dangerous, but still.....
From my experience there is a relatively small % of drivers that I really trust to make the judgment, and so we have speed limits........0 -
Which is the problem in a nutshell, and hence the Hobbesian reference.
The concept of the speed limit is that it is a correct speed for the "average" driver. Of course we know that all drivers are better than average, nd therfore can drive faster than the limit with total safety and never have an accident, but are these over-inflated egos really the best ones to make this decision?
MaxPower magazine surveyed their readers and found that some 90% of the respondents believed that they were "good" or "very good drivers" . They also felt that aggression and fast driving were an integral part of this 60% of these drivers giving themselves high marks also admitted driving aggresively and fast. Again, are they really the best people to decide that they can break the speed limit safely.
There is proof that recidivist speeders are more dangerous though, the two factors of risk taking behaviour and speeding are connected and linked conclusively.
Read the paper I referenced earlier,Results showed that those who scored high on sensation seeking, normlessness and driver anger reported more frequent risky driving compared to those who scored low on these variables. They were more often involved in both speeding and ignorance of traffic rules. Respondents involved in risk taking-behaviour experienced near-accidents and crashes leading to both injuries and material damage more often than other drivers
Alternatively look at the new trend in psychometric testing of Fleet drivers. Risk taking behaviour is recognised by the transport industry as being undesirable, but not by the pro-speeding lobby!
Taking the proof aside, it is so simple.
Speed, get caught, pay the fine
Don't speed no problem
Why is that so difficult a concept?<b><i>He that buys land buys many stones.
He that buys flesh buys many bones.
He that buys eggs buys many shells,
But he that buys good beer buys nothing else.</b></i>
(Unattributed Trad.)0 -
Cunobelin wrote:
Taking the proof aside, it is so simple.
Speed, get caught, pay the fine
Don't speed no problem
Why is that so difficult a concept?
It isn't.
Why do you think I have difficulty understanding that?
Again, I have never said I drive in excess of the speed limit (though it is possible that I might have), I do not condone breaking the law, and I have never been prosecuted or accused of any offence, and have never paid a FPN.
I did get a parking ticket once, which I paid immediately. I surprised the girl at the council offices who took my money by being incredibly nice, I'm quite sure that she really wasn't used to it! Wheelies ARE cool.
Zaskar X0 -
Wot I wrote........
Taking the proof aside, it is so simple.
Speed, get caught, pay the fine
Don't speed no problem
Why is that so difficult a concept?
Wot you seem to think I wrote.....Taking the proof aside, it is so simple.
Speed, get caught, pay the fine
Don't speed no problem
Why is that so difficult a concept for MattBlackBigBoysBMX to understand
You really need to re-read the post - it is a generic statement as part of a longer response proving that there is a problem with speeding, and hence why speed limits are necessary.<b><i>He that buys land buys many stones.
He that buys flesh buys many bones.
He that buys eggs buys many shells,
But he that buys good beer buys nothing else.</b></i>
(Unattributed Trad.)0 -
Ok, I wasn't sure that our conversation had ended and your posts turned to the general forum. :roll:
It still all boils down to you (Cunobelin) thinking that the "problem with speeding" is much, much greater than I (and the UK department for Transport ) do. Wheelies ARE cool.
Zaskar X0
