Warning drivers to slow down leads to criminal conviction
Comments
-
What is the difference between this man's actions and those of a solicitor who advises his client on the possible ramifications of when he should make himself available to the police so they can administer a breathiliser (sp?) test?
Is the solicitor not obstructing the police?
*Sets rod down and opens a tin settling back for a nap“New York has the haircuts, London has the trousers, but Belfast has the reason!0 -
Greg66 wrote:rjsterry wrote:I really can't get my head round why it's such a huge problem to stick to the speed limit,rhext wrote:But although they're arbitrary, they're necessary and once they're set, breaking them is against the law.
One might assume, therefore, that both of you would tend to applaud someone who took action intended to draw drivers' attention to the need to observe the speed limit.
Unless, of course, you were of the view that every driver who was so warned was, in truth, an inveterate and recidivist speedster. That being something for which there is no evidence...
To labour the point somewhat, perhaps if I find I have exceeded the speed limit, I should not get the car back under the speed limit, but rather I should seek out the nearest speed trap asap and speed through it, thereby incurring the lawful punishment for my sin.
Absolutely. You should probably wear sackcloth and ashes on your way!
I might agree with you if this individual took action to draw driver's attention to the need to observe the speed limit all the time.... I suspect the individual we're discussing doesn't fall into that category. And the judge thought so too!0 -
TailWindHome wrote:What is the difference between this man's actions and those of a solicitor who advises his client on the possible ramifications of when he should make himself available to the police so they can administer a breathiliser (sp?) test?
Is the solicitor not obstructing the police?
*Sets rod down and opens a tin settling back for a nap
I think the reserved space in your sig can be filled with the words "Be even more mischievous"0 -
Well there was a reason for posting itW1 wrote:Let's not get started on that. I fear Brekkie's head may explode, Mars Attack style....
What certain people seem to forget is that there is so much more to road safety than simply speed. Cameras can't pick up on all manner of bad, inattentive or rude/aggressive driving and cannot exercise discretion as the good old fashioned traffic coppers (a rare breed these days). Cameras however are very good for fining people for speeding which is easy to measure, hence the focus on this aspect of road safety at the expense of others. Unfortunately this blinkered approach has bred a generation of 'driving zombies' who think the only thing you need to do to be safe on the road is to drive slowly - but who are not particularly safe.
There's a very good argument that the real criminals are the ones fleecing motorists with underhand speed camera tactics, not helped by people who slavishly assume that any speed limit must be appropriate or valid (or go along with it because they hate cars and it suits their purposes)."I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
mybreakfastconsisted wrote:But speeding's almost never a victimless crime. Other people use the roads, it is entirely reasonable for them to assume other people will obey the law. Speeding is aggressive, anti-social and bullying. The chances of getting caught are tiny, yet people still ***** and moan about a "stealth tax" they could easily have avoided.
<Sigh>
1. Empty three lane motorway. Driver drives at 71 mph. Please identify the victim, aggression, AS behaviour, bullying etc..
2. M1 any weekday. Outside lane is a queue of cars moving at 80-85 indicated on the speedo. Please identify as above...0 -
Speeding isn't concentrated on to the detriment of other aspects of road safety. 6000 cameras would take 18000 coppers to replace them, who wants to pay for that?
Cameras free up time for the cops to concentrate on other bad driving, and the new ASSETT cameras can detect tail gating, as well as uninsured cars or cars driven erratically.
There's no evidence that drivers thinkl all they need to do is obey the speed limit and they're safe, that's plucked out of thin air. If drivers do think that then they're bad drivers whatever methods of detection exist to catch them.
Traf pol were moved to street crime under Blair, nothing to do with cameras. We need more trafpol and more cameras, they aren't mutually exclusive.0 -
Not sure where you get those stats from but if you look at the number of speeding tickets/speeding convictions compared to fines/prosecutions for all other forms of motoring transgressions, I think you'll find that speeding outnumbers all the rest. Hence my assertion that speeding is concentrated on at the cost of other aspects of road safety.mybreakfastconsisted wrote:Speeding isn't concentrated on to the detriment of other aspects of road safety. 6000 cameras would take 18000 coppers to replace them, who wants to pay for that?.
No problems with cameras that pick up on other types of bad driving, got any links? Not seen or heard of any being used so far. Also on picking up uninsured and untaxed drivers I am all in favour.mybreakfastconsisted wrote:Cameras free up time for the cops to concentrate on other bad driving, and the new ASSETT cameras can detect tail gating, as well as uninsured cars or cars driven erratically.
However seems the cops are happy to reduce costs/increase revenues with speed cameras but I don't see greatly increased numbers of traffic police.
My own experience/observation of dozy twunts who drive like that, nothing more.mybreakfastconsisted wrote:There's no evidence that drivers thinkl all they need to do is obey the speed limit and they're safe, that's plucked out of thin air."I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
Stevo 666 wrote:
Not sure where you get those stats from but if you look at the number of speeding tickets/speeding convictions compared to fines/prosecutions for all other forms of motoring transgressions, I think you'll find that speeding outnumbers all the rest. Hence my assertion that speeding is concentrated on at the cost of other aspects of road safety.mybreakfastconsisted wrote:Speeding isn't concentrated on to the detriment of other aspects of road safety. 6000 cameras would take 18000 coppers to replace them, who wants to pay for that?.
No problems with cameras that pick up on other types of bad driving, got any links? Not seen or heard of any being used so far. Also on picking up uninsured and untaxed drivers I am all in favour.mybreakfastconsisted wrote:Cameras free up time for the cops to concentrate on other bad driving, and the new ASSETT cameras can detect tail gating, as well as uninsured cars or cars driven erratically.
However seems the cops are happy to reduce costs/increase revenues with speed cameras but I don't see greatly increased numbers of traffic police.
My own experience/observation of dozy twunts who drive like that, nothing more.mybreakfastconsisted wrote:There's no evidence that drivers thinkl all they need to do is obey the speed limit and they're safe, that's plucked out of thin air.
I'd like to see the stats for crimes detected, I have no idea if speeding is the main offence or is it's TS10s or CU80's- traffic light offences or using a mobile.
ASSET cameras:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/ ... tbelt.html
I think seeing bad drivers is common, we have no idea whether the drivers are bad drivers because of speed cameras, that's a bit of a leap of faith.0 -
er. . . . could speeding simply be the most prevalent offence, or perhaps the most prevalent offence that is easily detectible? (a quick look locally suggests that observing the 30 limit is a rarity!). Even if the latter it is still a cost-effective use of resources to reduce an offence known to be dangerous.Stevo 666 wrote:
Not sure where you get those stats from but if you look at the number of speeding tickets/speeding convictions compared to fines/prosecutions for all other forms of motoring transgressions, I think you'll find that speeding outnumbers all the rest. Hence my assertion that speeding is concentrated on at the cost of other aspects of road safety.mybreakfastconsisted wrote:Speeding isn't concentrated on to the detriment of other aspects of road safety. 6000 cameras would take 18000 coppers to replace them, who wants to pay for that?.0 -
Thanks for the link, although there is perhaps a small amount of irony in the fact that it's a link to a Daily Mail articlemybreakfastconsisted wrote:I'd like to see the stats for crimes detected, I have no idea if speeding is the main offence or is it's TS10s or CU80's- traffic light offences or using a mobile.
ASSET cameras:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/ ... tbelt.html
I think seeing bad drivers is common, we have no idea whether the drivers are bad drivers because of speed cameras, that's a bit of a leap of faith.
The quotes from the AA person and the Speed Cameras Dot Org person in that link are pretty much spot on:
Motoring organisations gave it a mixed reception. AA president Edmund King said: ‘Tailgating is more dangerous in most cases than speeding so I think most motorists would welcome it.
'But it needs to be a safety measure, not a money-making machine.’
Campaign group Speed Cameras Dot Org said the device should not become a replacement for traffic police.
A spokesman said: ‘We cautiously welcome a device that can detect several potential offences, but it remains to be seen how accurate it is and how fairly it will be used.
‘It’s a pity that the main actions that cause the most accidentsnamely not paying attention to the road, misjudging distances and other drivers’ intentions, cannot be detected by a device of any sort.
‘More police patrols and better driver education are the only ways to reduce accidents.’
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/ ... z1AMJ5tesw"I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
Edmund King is a twit, tailgating is nowhere near the main cause of accidents.0
-
Don't know if it is or isn't but for every vehicle rear-ended one must suspect the driver was going too fast for the gap / their reaction time / performance of car under braking. So tailgating and speed are significant; many people (most people?) drive too close and drive too fast.mybreakfastconsisted wrote:Edmund King is a twit, tailgating is nowhere near the main cause of accidents.0 -
This. Needs an answer. I've been beaten up on here before for this view, but heck - who cares.rjsterry wrote:I mean what exactly is one going to do with the extra 15 seconds that one might save by driving at the 'natural safe speed' rather than the (presumably) slower speed limit?
Speeding isn't about saving 15 seconds. Try this. My regular drive to work makes me late - I drop the kids off, the school doesn't allow drop-off before 8:30; it takes ~30 minutes to drive to work. My boss is fine with this but sadly, I don't work for my boss. I work for the people who rely on me to be available in the building, to do my job that allows them to theirs. Much as it's not usually a big problem being a few minutes late, I prefer not to be. And by nature I like to be punctual or better.
So - trundling along a NSL at not ~60, but closer to 45 due to the not-a-care-in-the-world drone ahead of me and with half of Buckinghamshire behind us, and knowing that there are only two places I can safely pass, I'm more than less inclined to pass [when safe], which involves exceeding the limit for a brief time - I'd rather not be over there for longer than necessary thanks. Once I've dealt with the drone it's quite likely that the road ahead is clear for a few miles - we're in bumpkinsville here, not the metropolis. So it's likely that for the sake of a brief infraction of the law, I can save not 15 seconds, but a good few minutes.
These same drones who trundle along in their own world are also far far more likely to dither and wait at the two roundabouts further on the route, which again amplifies the tailback that builds up behind these bumbling over-cautious drivers.
It's not impatience or the need for speed that causes me to pass these people; it's the certain knowledge that if I don't I'm likely to be stuck behind them for the next 15 miles as they dither at the roundabouts, and drop the speed from an agonisingly slow mids 40s to something in the 30s for bends that really don't deserve the term bend in the road.
And once past these people, I can then bimble along at or about the limit on these nice safe NSL roads, knowing that I've got more chance of getting to work closer to time than not, whilst the drone with his or her own personal fan club closely following them disappears in the distance in my mirrors. 15 seconds? A handful of minutes.0 -
So Cib, you have planned your life to necessitate speeding.0
-
A camera can't stop a car if it commits an offence. A copper can. I'd rather have no cameras and all the money put into the traffic police. Unfortunately the opposite has occurred, so even if a camera can detect tailgating what if that car has false plates?
It takes a copper to stop a drink driver; an uninsured driver; a dangerous driver; those who undertake; middle lane morons; old people who can't see properly.
The focus on speed has created a generation of zombies who cannot comprehend what good driving is except for the mantra of "speed kills". But actually bad driving kills, under or over the "limit". And cameras don't stop that.0 -
W1 wrote:A camera can't stop a car if it commits an offence. A copper can. I'd rather have no cameras and all the money put into the traffic police. Unfortunately the opposite has occurred, so even if a camera can detect tailgating what if that car has false plates?
It takes a copper to stop a drink driver; an uninsured driver; a dangerous driver; those who undertake; middle lane morons; old people who can't see properly.
The focus on speed has created a generation of zombies who cannot comprehend what good driving is except for the mantra of "speed kills". But actually bad driving kills, under or over the "limit". And cameras don't stop that.
Aspirin doesn't cure cancer, that's not an argument to ban aspirin, and there is no evidence of these zombie drivers at all, there is no evidence speed cameras make drivers more dangerous.0 -
mybreakfastconsisted wrote:W1 wrote:A camera can't stop a car if it commits an offence. A copper can. I'd rather have no cameras and all the money put into the traffic police. Unfortunately the opposite has occurred, so even if a camera can detect tailgating what if that car has false plates?
It takes a copper to stop a drink driver; an uninsured driver; a dangerous driver; those who undertake; middle lane morons; old people who can't see properly.
The focus on speed has created a generation of zombies who cannot comprehend what good driving is except for the mantra of "speed kills". But actually bad driving kills, under or over the "limit". And cameras don't stop that.
Aspirin doesn't cure cancer, that's not an argument to ban aspirin, and there is no evidence of these zombie drivers at all, there is no evidence speed cameras make drivers more dangerous.
I wonder - do you even read anything, or just randomly click and type until something happens?0 -
W1 wrote:mybreakfastconsisted wrote:W1 wrote:A camera can't stop a car if it commits an offence. A copper can. I'd rather have no cameras and all the money put into the traffic police. Unfortunately the opposite has occurred, so even if a camera can detect tailgating what if that car has false plates?
It takes a copper to stop a drink driver; an uninsured driver; a dangerous driver; those who undertake; middle lane morons; old people who can't see properly.
The focus on speed has created a generation of zombies who cannot comprehend what good driving is except for the mantra of "speed kills". But actually bad driving kills, under or over the "limit". And cameras don't stop that.
Aspirin doesn't cure cancer, that's not an argument to ban aspirin, and there is no evidence of these zombie drivers at all, there is no evidence speed cameras make drivers more dangerous.
I wonder - do you even read anything, or just randomly click and type until something happens?
Yes, you said there's a generation of zombies out there who dumbly obey the limit and assume everything will be fine.
You have no evidence for this any more than I have evidence there's a load of lycra nazis out there who punch kittens to death.0 -
CiB wrote:
This. Needs an answer. I've been beaten up on here before for this view, but heck - who cares.rjsterry wrote:I mean what exactly is one going to do with the extra 15 seconds that one might save by driving at the 'natural safe speed' rather than the (presumably) slower speed limit?
Speeding isn't about saving 15 seconds. Try this. My regular drive to work makes me late - I drop the kids off, the school doesn't allow drop-off before 8:30; it takes ~30 minutes to drive to work. My boss is fine with this but sadly, I don't work for my boss. I work for the people who rely on me to be available in the building, to do my job that allows them to theirs. Much as it's not usually a big problem being a few minutes late, I prefer not to be. And by nature I like to be punctual or better.
So - trundling along a NSL at not ~60, but closer to 45 due to the not-a-care-in-the-world drone ahead of me and with half of Buckinghamshire behind us, and knowing that there are only two places I can safely pass, I'm more than less inclined to pass [when safe], which involves exceeding the limit for a brief time - I'd rather not be over there for longer than necessary thanks. Once I've dealt with the drone it's quite likely that the road ahead is clear for a few miles - we're in bumpkinsville here, not the metropolis. So it's likely that for the sake of a brief infraction of the law, I can save not 15 seconds, but a good few minutes.
These same drones who trundle along in their own world are also far far more likely to dither and wait at the two roundabouts further on the route, which again amplifies the tailback that builds up behind these bumbling over-cautious drivers.
It's not impatience or the need for speed that causes me to pass these people; it's the certain knowledge that if I don't I'm likely to be stuck behind them for the next 15 miles as they dither at the roundabouts, and drop the speed from an agonisingly slow mids 40s to something in the 30s for bends that really don't deserve the term bend in the road.
And once past these people, I can then bimble along at or about the limit on these nice safe NSL roads, knowing that I've got more chance of getting to work closer to time than not, whilst the drone with his or her own personal fan club closely following them disappears in the distance in my mirrors. 15 seconds? A handful of minutes.
CiB - what you need is a skateboard: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/australiaandthepacific/newzealand/7903795/Extreme-skateboarders-filmed-overtaking-lorry-on-busy-New-Zealand-road.html0 -
CiB wrote:
This. Needs an answer. I've been beaten up on here before for this view, but heck - who cares.rjsterry wrote:I mean what exactly is one going to do with the extra 15 seconds that one might save by driving at the 'natural safe speed' rather than the (presumably) slower speed limit?
Speeding isn't about saving 15 seconds. Try this. My regular drive to work makes me late - I drop the kids off, the school doesn't allow drop-off before 8:30; it takes ~30 minutes to drive to work. My boss is fine with this but sadly, I don't work for my boss. I work for the people who rely on me to be available in the building, to do my job that allows them to theirs. Much as it's not usually a big problem being a few minutes late, I prefer not to be. And by nature I like to be punctual or better.
So - trundling along a NSL at not ~60, but closer to 45 due to the not-a-care-in-the-world drone ahead of me and with half of Buckinghamshire behind us, and knowing that there are only two places I can safely pass, I'm more than less inclined to pass [when safe], which involves exceeding the limit for a brief time - I'd rather not be over there for longer than necessary thanks. Once I've dealt with the drone it's quite likely that the road ahead is clear for a few miles - we're in bumpkinsville here, not the metropolis. So it's likely that for the sake of a brief infraction of the law, I can save not 15 seconds, but a good few minutes.
These same drones who trundle along in their own world are also far far more likely to dither and wait at the two roundabouts further on the route, which again amplifies the tailback that builds up behind these bumbling over-cautious drivers.
It's not impatience or the need for speed that causes me to pass these people; it's the certain knowledge that if I don't I'm likely to be stuck behind them for the next 15 miles as they dither at the roundabouts, and drop the speed from an agonisingly slow mids 40s to something in the 30s for bends that really don't deserve the term bend in the road.
And once past these people, I can then bimble along at or about the limit on these nice safe NSL roads, knowing that I've got more chance of getting to work closer to time than not, whilst the drone with his or her own personal fan club closely following them disappears in the distance in my mirrors. 15 seconds? A handful of minutes.
Teehee. It may have partly been me then as well. But FWIW, I can see that it may well be safer for you to be calmly driving ahead of the bumbler, having briefly exceeded the speed limit so as to execute a swift and safe overtake, rather than sat behind them getting wound up, and wondering when they are next going to rapidly reduce speed without warning. Hell, I do this regularly on my bike (in central London, I'm not that quick). So a small amount of careful speeding in certain circumstances can save you a few minutes on a half hour journey. On the other hand the fact that it is difficult to get from your children's school to work in time is not really something you could offer as a legal defense were you to be caught speeding. It must be a problem that thousands of people have to deal with.1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
Pinnacle Monzonite
Part of the anti-growth coalition0 -
To a great extent for the relatively affluent, where one lives, works and sends children to school are choices, as is driving children to school.0
-
But I wouldn't defend it - if I get caught, I know that I've broken the law so can do nothing but accept it. Not an issue.rjsterry wrote:...the fact that it is difficult to get from your children's school to work in time is not really something you could offer as a legal defense were you to be caught speeding. It must be a problem that thousands of people have to deal with.
Unless you both want to stay in the same job for ever, never progress and not be in a position to fund the blighters through Uni in a few years time it isn't a choice. When I first started this commute it was 1 day a week to school with a 25 minute trip to the office, then 4 days on the bike if I fancy it. Traffic volumes have increased, made up largely apparently of numpties who genuinely believe that a modern car will fly into the nearest ditch at anything close to the prevailing speed limit, and the other half is doing alright thank you in her job and is required to work more days and more hours which overlap onto the morning school routine. It now takes me longer to get here on more days per week than it did when I took this position.alfablue wrote:To a great extent for the relatively affluent, where one lives, works and sends children to school are choices, as is driving children to school.
Was I supposed to prevent her from progressing up her career ladder as it'd change my morning routine? Pffft. In a year's time it won't be an issue again as they'll both be off to school under their own steam; problem sorted methinks.
Your 'choices' are actually an alignment of changing circumstances that put us where we are.0 -
CiB wrote:
But I wouldn't defend it - if I get caught, I know that I've broken the law so can do nothing but accept it. Not an issue.rjsterry wrote:...the fact that it is difficult to get from your children's school to work in time is not really something you could offer as a legal defense were you to be caught speeding. It must be a problem that thousands of people have to deal with.
Unless you both want to stay in the same job for ever, never progress and not be in a position to fund the blighters through Uni in a few years time it isn't a choice. When I first started this commute it was 1 day a week to school with a 25 minute trip to the office, then 4 days on the bike if I fancy it. Traffic volumes have increased, made up largely apparently of numpties who genuinely believe that a modern car will fly into the nearest ditch at anything close to the prevailing speed limit, and the other half is doing alright thank you in her job and is required to work more days and more hours which overlap onto the morning school routine. It now takes me longer to get here on more days per week than it did when I took this position.alfablue wrote:To a great extent for the relatively affluent, where one lives, works and sends children to school are choices, as is driving children to school.
Was I supposed to prevent her from progressing up her career ladder as it'd change my morning routine? Pffft. In a year's time it won't be an issue again as they'll both be off to school under their own steam; problem sorted methinks.
Your 'choices' are actually an alignment of changing circumstances that put us where we are.
Well they are choices - difficult choices but that's hardly unusual. I can certainly see why you've come to the conclusion that the occasional brief and careful breaking of the speed limit to be able to keep to a timetable (accepting the risk of being caught and fined) is preferable to moving house or changing job (both of which might not 'fix' the problem). And as you also point out, sooner or later circumstances will change to remove the problem anyway. If I'm honest, I probably would have come to a similar conclusion.1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
Pinnacle Monzonite
Part of the anti-growth coalition0 -
mybreakfastconsisted wrote:Speed cameras are for revenue collection in the same was as fines for spraying graffiti or fines for urinating in the streets are revenue collectors.
You can avoid donating the extra revenue by not speeding, not spraying spaffing cocks on walls and not taking a wazz in the gutter.
I appreciate a lot of the graffiti around where I live. Also, I believe a lot of street urination is due to the council not providing sufficient/suitable services.FCN 9 || FCN 50 -
I told you I've seen plenty of examples and CiB has given a good example above - this is evidence. Just 'cos the evidence is via our own experiences and not on a conveniently quotable source on the internet that you like to cherry pick from, doesn't mean there's no evidence. Far from it: unfortunately for you the evidence goes against your argument so you try to deny it.mybreakfastconsisted wrote:Yes, you said there's a generation of zombies out there who dumbly obey the limit and assume everything will be fine.
You have no evidence for this any more than I have evidence there's a load of lycra nazis out there who punch kittens to death."I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
Thing is that exceeding the limit isn't necessairly unsafe; it's just exceeding an arbritrary limit. Not in built up areas, but on NSL roads that go across country with no peds, schools, houses etc for miles. Not saying that 90 is fine in these situations, but it isn't dangerous per se to do ~68mph along roads like this for a short time, when circumstances allow it.
This dovetails neatly with the RLJ When Safe thread. Just because something is illegal, it doesn't always follow that contravening that law makes the act unsafe. Illegal and unsafe are two entirely different concepts.
Worth noting that under current guidleines, an indicated 68 is probably ok. taking into account the 10% + 2mph guideline and recognising that all speedos can read slightly fast but not slow, so 68 on the speedo is probably ok for Plod's hairdryer.
I enjoy punching kittens too.
Have a good weekend y'all.
0 -
Is punching kittens illegal? It's certainly almost always safe, so likely legal :?0
