Help - Search - Members - Calendar
Full Version: S172 to get increased penalties!
FightBack Forums > Queries > Speeding and other Criminal Offences
jimmy ferrari
Mr Darling has decided we are obviously a bunch of liars, so is to increase the penalties for 'failure to ID driver'

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/newspaper/0,,...1143664,00.html
Snarf
Interesting that - I wonder if this audit of 5,000 speed cameras includes Talivans? I'm sure as hell that the one I was caught by in Reading (famous Vastern Road one) isn't there because of safety issues, but is there because there is some confusion over the speed limit and therefore they can make money. I'm sure there weren't any accidents there before the van turned up.

I'm sure there will be some "fiddling" in the figures somewhere though, they wouldn't want to make themselves look greedy or bad would they? icon_wink.gif
jimmy ferrari
Snarf, the revue is for the fixed cameras, the mobile ones are as we know a law unto themselves icon_evil.gif
Divbad
QUOTE (jimmy ferrari)
Mr Darling has decided we are obviously a bunch of liars, so is to increase the penalties for 'failure to ID driver'
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/newspaper/0,,...1143664,00.html


Same offence, same defence. They can up the fine to a billion quid and a thousand point!

If the CPS can prove the Keeper (not necessarily the RK) knew the identity and failed to disclose this information and it was in the Keeper's power to disclose and the Keeper was legally required to disclose it, then, and only then, does Captain Darling's proposal matter a toss.

What's the penalty for lying to parliament / the press / the country?
BritishBlue
QUOTE (jimmy ferrari)
If the CPS can prove the Keeper (not necessarily the RK) knew the identity and failed to disclose this information and it was in the Keeper's power to disclose and the Keeper was legally required to disclose it, then, and only then, does Captain Darling's proposal matter a toss.


Moreover, when will the establishment realise that their laws are only enforceable by consensus?

Our traffics laws are a JOKE because they clearly aren't working:-
- Drivers still use mobile phones
- Not all drivers wear seatbelts
- Driver still hog the middle lane on motorways
- Drivers still park with one or more wheels off the road
- Driver still break the speed limits **
- Cyclists still ignore red lights and cycle on pavements

** They actually enjoy this law being broken because it nets them tens of millions of pounds :!: icon_eek.gif
Captain A
This might provide some comfort against the likes of Darling http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/...n/2004/490.html
DW190
QUOTE (BritishBlue)
QUOTE (jimmy ferrari)

If the CPS can prove the Keeper (not necessarily the RK) knew the identity and failed to disclose this information and it was in the Keeper's power to disclose and the Keeper was legally required to disclose it, then, and only then, does Captain Darling's proposal matter a toss.


Moreover, when will the establishment realise that their laws are only enforceable by consensus?

Our traffics laws are a JOKE because they clearly aren't working:-
- Drivers still use mobile phones
- Not all drivers wear seatbelts
- Driver still hog the middle lane on motorways
- Drivers still park with one or more wheels off the road
- Driver still break the speed limits **
- Cyclists still ignore red lights and cycle on pavements

** They actually enjoy this law being broken because it nets them tens of millions of pounds :!: icon_eek.gif


Seat belts and mobile phones will soon be catching up.

If they see a niche in the market the penalty will rise for these offences netting even more
jimmy ferrari
I think it will be all very interesting when we get our right to silence laugh.gif
Divbad
QUOTE (jimmy ferrari)
I think it will be all very interesting when we get our right to silence laugh.gif


If we live that long...
jimmy ferrari
Have faith, a little bird has paid me a visit :!: icon_wink.gif
DW190
A little bird paid me a visit today. A 4" spread on the screen.puke.gif

Divbad. Got that phone call today 7 July Appointment with the butcher.
jimmy ferrari
That's normally considered lucky DW :!:
Maybe the butcher is going to give you a BIG steak :!:
DW190
Nah Jemmy

Its a plumbing job but they use scalpuls not blow lamps.
Monster
What is proposed is to reduce unsuitable cameras. Why is it that some people are never satisfied?

Surly if all the cameras were appropriately sited then you should be glad that the low life that speeds past a school at 3.15pm should be caught on camera and prosecuted.

How gutted would you feel if he knocked a kiddie down and failed to stop. Then claimed his right to silence?

It is mentioned in a link above that our road traffic laws are a joke. It’s not the laws that are a joke it how many people don’t abide by them.

How can not wearing your seat belt ( a proven life saver ) be a joke ??

Get your priorities right.

The laws are there for everybody. You can’t just pick a chose which ones you like and dislike.

If they are broken then a suitable penalty must be paid, either financially or by improving your driving.

All too often I read posts where the writer is locked in their own little bubble. The laws are for an entire Nation. They may seem inappropriate at times but they have to be made for the lowest common denominator.

Lets get things into perspective shall we.
AtW
QUOTE (Monster)
Lets get things into perspective shall we.


I dont have problem with static cameras (apart from SPECS), the real problem are sneaky dodgy laser talivans, something that was without a doubt intentionally put outside of review.
Mika
Hi Monster,

Come on you can’t have it both ways.

I agree that inappropriate speed increases the risk of having an accident, so why do your colleagues behave like this?

If we follow your logic, how many of them also get involved in other forms of ‘criminal activity’?

Can I suggest that ‘you’ start leading by example?

Are you able make it to Cardiff Crown Court on Monday and Tuesday of next week? The truth about the ‘activities’ of the “Safety Camera Partnerships” may be about to become public. icon_redface.gif
paulf
Monster,

I am not totally sure of the tone of your post, but it seems to me that you agree with the use of speed cameras regardless of where they are situated and whether or not they are static or those sneaky mobiles.

I, and I am sure others who post on here, am/are not totally against policing the roads with the use of cameras, esp. in built up areas and near schools etc. (I have a child and leave in a village that road users use as a rat run - no cameras on this road).

Don't you think that it's a little naive (and I am not saying you said anything to this effect) to suggest that the only reason the police use cameras is to reduce road traffic accidents and not for financial reasons?

QUOTE
"Police chiefs predict that 3m motorists will receive £60 fines and three penalty points for speeding this year, against 260,000 in 1996. Police forces and local authorities keep most of the money to cover the cost of speed enforcement, but a surplus of £20m is expected to go to the Treasury this year"
Tamara-D
QUOTE (Monster)
What is proposed is to reduce unsuitable cameras.  Why is it that some people are never satisfied?


NO camera is suitable.

QUOTE (Monster)
Surly if all the cameras were appropriately sited then you should be glad that the low life that speeds past a school at 3.15pm should be caught on camera and prosecuted.


Along with all the innocent parents who also get caught by dodgy technology, but were not speeding.

QUOTE (Monster)
How gutted would you feel if he knocked a kiddie down and failed to stop.  Then claimed his right to silence?


Firstly, you will always have fatal accidents invloving children, both on main roads and outside of schools, regardless whether a camera is there or not. As a parent I see daily other parents allowing their children to run wild and have no control over them. More emphasis should be placed on education of the children and the parents to the dangers of roads rather than this false sense of security that a so called 'safety camera' will give them.

Secondly, if he was a low life who failed to stop then it clearly would be an issue of dangerous driving and not simply speeding.

QUOTE (Monster)
It is mentioned in a link above that our road traffic laws are a joke.  It’s not the laws that are a joke it how many people don’t abide by them.


Not a joke, but bad. Bad laws and legislation will generally stick out like a sore thumb and as you will hopefully see soon, will be overturned by common sense. What we need is a complete overhaul of our road systems, speed limits and enforcement policy.

QUOTE (Monster)
How can not wearing your seat belt ( a proven life saver ) be a joke ??


This is an example of an overall sensible policy. But there will and I am sure have been situations where the seat belt has caused increased injury and even death to the wearer.

QUOTE (Monster)
Get your priorities right.

The laws are there for everybody.  You can’t just pick a chose which ones you like and dislike.


Yes you can, that is what a democracy is all about. We are not talking about laws against theft, or criminal damage or even harm, we are talking about laws that are debatable because of their overall effect on society and if they are enforceable. A law that is 'bad' and has a negative effect on society will be hard to enforce because of common law and human rights.

QUOTE (Monster)
If they are broken then a suitable penalty must be paid, either financially or by improving your driving.


They are only broken if the legislation behind them is capable of enforcing them. In the case of speeding the legislation is in a mess, primarily because 'they' are breaking the law in order to secure a conviction.

The only winners are the treasurers. The losers are the vulnerable, the poor and the many thousands of people who have lost their lives due to poor roads, bad policing and greed.

QUOTE (Monster)
All too often I read posts where the writer is locked in their own little bubble.  The laws are for an entire Nation.  They may seem inappropriate at times but they have to be made for the lowest common denominator.  

Lets get things into perspective shall we.


I understand your opinions because of your status Monster, and I respect you for that, but your perspective is biased and you need to look into some of the evidence against this type of speed enforcement again, more thoroughly, and you will see that these so called speed cameras that are supposed to save 100 lives a year, are actually killing many many more.

Tamara
AtW
When number of otherwise law obiding citizens become criminalised to the tune of 10%, then something is definately wrong with the laws. This is why cannabbis (sp?) is turned blind eye on and I see no reasons why safe speeding should be made example of in terms of prosecution.
peteturbo
Monster

There is too little talk of other ways of reducing accidents; Better road design, visibility, road furniture.

One that winds me up no end is the talk about children running out into the road, this is a hideous, hideous possibility which we simply do not do enough about. Cameras and 20mph limit good, FENCE BETTER!!!!! One of Essex's favourite camera dual carriageways is famous for pedestrians running across it and getting killed. PUT UP A FENCE (and bridges). Now fences dont answer everything and they have their drawbacks,but we all know startlingly bad examples of road planning, thats my point.

Road designers, policemen and politicians would be far better employed engineering out traffic risk in the first place for a genuine reduction in accidents rather than wasteing so much energy on such a minor, but measurable item.

If the gov were serious about speed why not use in car gps to restrict all cars to the speed limit? And you can stop speeding with your blue lights too.

Peteturbo
Divbad
Monster et al,

I am all in favour of fair laws being enacted by a properly elected government, properly drafted to make it clear who can / cannot do what, fairly enforced by impartial public servants... so long as these laws achieve their stated objectives.

There are roads that I regularly travel - at 20mph in places - with a 50 limit clearly posted. If you know the pub (coffee only!) you'll have seen the sign, "Ride like a knob and you will die".

Sure, we all know it's 70 on the m-ways, but 70 in a 44 tonne truck in driving (ha!) sleet over diesel spills at 6pm after 8 hours behind the wheel is not the same 70 as a Class 1 police rider with 20-years on the track, 6-pot Brembos, double wavey discs, ABS, linked brakes and a stopping distance from 100mph of less than 110 feet riding at 6am on an empty, straight 4-laner full of morning sunshine.

To say, "70 is safe, 77 is not" is arrant nonesense. What is safe depends on so many factors, speed being 20th in the list. Yet no-one is prosecuted for numbers 1 to 19 unless they happen to ram a police car.

Anyone seen any stats on the speed of crashes? My guess is that most happen at 30mph or under (before braking) and almost none are over a ton.

It would make a bit more sense if local residents & drivers - not officials - were consulted about the roads they live & travel regularly on; they know where the accidents are & (generally) what is a "safe" speed, and also where the presence of a camera OR OTHER FURNITURE would address any perceived problems of speeding.

The street I live on has a loose gravel covering and is double-parked 24/7. Young kids play football in the street (nice, ain't it). My safe speed is anything from 1 to 10mph; the legal limit is 30. You can tell when people are doing >15 'cos they skid everywhere, spraying gravel into MY paintwork & invariably lose it on the sharp dog-leg at the end. The wall there is being rebuilt every so often...

Turn left, pass the infant school,, pass the junior school, 200yards more to pass the old folks home over the humps that started when I turned left, & slowly through the chicanes (limit = 30, norm = 20 - 25) and stop for the lollipop-patrolled zebra crossing. Easy, safe, calm & fast enough for the conditions. Everyone who lives here is happy with the road speeds.

Well done to Manchester (actually Trafford) for doing this.

Through the camera'd lights, under the bridge, past the gatso RIGHT ON A BLIND 60 degree BEND, at 28mph, and onwards up the wide-open hill with 100% visibility at "about 30". Limit = 30, max safe speed here is more like 50 for those who can drive. Gatso flashes will dazzle oncoming traqffic, especially as drivers need to look through the corner & under the (dark) bridge to avoid parked cars & nutters sweeping out without a 2nd glance.

Boo, hiss to Manchester / Trafford for doing that!
DW190
Well I've not heard from Monster for ages and what a welcome for his return.

3 Cheers hip hip, hip hip, hip hip.

Put a camera outside every school in the country and set em a 15 MPH

Or send the talivans there 8.15 - 9.15 and 3.15 - 4.15

Were it really matters.
MrK
2 gatsos where placed in norfolk on a route I use frequently. Although there are 50 limits around junctions on this route the gatso's are enforceing areas of the national speed limit.

Is there somwhere I can send a bill for wear and tear on break pads? I've not yet been behind a car that's not slowed (sharply) to 50 to pass the cameras.

People assume it must be a 50 limit BECAUSE there is a camera. In norfolk the speed camera isn't generally used on 'fast' roads. They are, to my knowledge, used mainly in built up areas (and I see this as a good thing).

I do not blame the drivers; they ARE aware of the speed limit. Their aggressive breaking PROVES that subconciously people do not know why the speed camera is in that location and they assume and (under the pressure of 3 points and £60) that it MUST be a 50mph limit.

I can only conclude that this camera's dangerous - eventually, there will be an accident due to hard breaking.

And no - it's NEVER been an accident black spot.
BritishBlue
QUOTE (Monster)
It is mentioned in a link above that our road traffic laws are a joke.  It’s not the laws that are a joke it how many people don’t abide by them.

How can not wearing your seat belt ( a proven life saver ) be a joke ??

Get your priorities right.


Welcome back Monster! smile.gif

Turning to my previos post:
QUOTE (BritishBlue)
Our traffics laws are a JOKE because they clearly aren't working:-  
- Drivers still use mobile phones  
- Not all drivers wear seatbelts  
- Driver still hog the middle lane on motorways  
- Drivers still park with one or more wheels off the road  
- Driver still break the speed limits **  
- Cyclists still ignore red lights and cycle on pavements  

How many of these offences get nabbed by Speed Cameras icon_question.gif

I can see where you're coming from Monster, but the reality is that people aren't afraid of getting caught anymore. The odds are in their favour because there are less Police Officers patroling the roads to show them the error of their ways :!:

How exactly do you persuade someone who's lost all faith in the Police and our Legal System to show more respect icon_question.gif
Divbad
MrK - could I correct you?

QUOTE
It's not yet become an accident blackspot, but it will once people driving at a legal 60 start rear-ending people slamming on to get down to 50 / 40 / 30 / 20 because they see the camera & assume they have missed a speed limit change and / or are approaching a blackspot junction etc.  

As these crashes start adding up, it will qualify as a 'blackspot' & the limit will be reduced to 50 / 40 / 30 and the camera will start earning it's keep - no more netting-off - from drivers who know the road & 'genuinely' miss the new speed-limit signs
jimmy ferrari
Monster, firstly I think you posted on the wrong thread, the reduction in 'unsuitable' cameras would apply to my 'new government figures' post in speeding, where Darling has really said 'we are going to remove cameras in the wrong places, although his minister David Jamieson said on News 24 a few months ago, ALL the cameras are in the right places icon_evil.gif
Can I smell something icon_question.gif
Tamara is correct in saying that parents don't supervise/educate their children properly, maybe you should be arresting them, for wilful neglect?

And seatbelts don't always save lives.
MrK
QUOTE (Divbad)
MrK - could I correct you?  

QUOTE
It's not yet become an accident blackspot, but it will once people driving at a legal 60 start rear-ending people slamming on to get down to 50 / 40 / 30 / 20 because they see the camera & assume they have missed a speed limit change and / or are approaching a blackspot junction etc.  

As these crashes start adding up, it will qualify as a 'blackspot' & the limit will be reduced to 50 / 40 / 30 and the camera will start earning it's keep - no more netting-off - from drivers who know the road & 'genuinely' miss the new speed-limit signs


How stupid of me.
Monster
Well, what a lot of replies. :?

I’ll try to reply to you all in order.

Mika : The still from the provida tape is quite misleading. I assume that this is the tape the General has. I would like to see it all (I’ve been ‘off-line’ for some time and trying to catch up). The one thing I’ll point out is that the zoom is set at 56. This is over half of the zoom and sets the ‘phantom’ police vehicle at some distance in front of the ‘real’ vehicle. This gives a false impression of where the Police vehicle is. The real Police vehicle would have much more reaction time for the hazard (even at 123mph). For the record we set out zoom at between 22 and 33. 22 will get the bonnet in the shot to show the Police vehicles position on the road. Hope this clears it up a bit. Without seeing the whole tape it’s impossible to give a definite answer.
Two days in Cardiff? - I’d lose my licence in the first on the M4! laugh.gif

Paulf : No, I don’t agree with all the positioning of the cameras. I’m sure some are sited for revenue collection. This is what the original posting was about – reducing the badly sited ones.

Tamara-D : I’m a bit disappointed with your posting. NO camera is suitable – I strongly disagree with that.
Innocent parents caught by dodgy technology? – What’s that all about?
Blaming parents for not controlling their children? Read the highway code again. Always expect a child to run into the road. They haven’t read it! Don’t blame the innocence of a child on a driver unaware of hazards – That’s low.
Bad laws should be challenged.
Seat belts have caused injuries. But they save more lives than not. Belt up ! icon_wink.gif
The laws are the current laws. They have been set and must be abided with, even if you disagree with them.
Cameras killing more than saving lives – No evidence of this at all. icon_evil.gif

Atw : Turning a blind eye to Cannabis has caused an even greater number of users and crime in London. It’s too late to undo this very very bad policy. Turning a blind eye to speeding will inevitably increase the overall speed of each road. Allowing the untrained/ over confident drivers no limitations.

Peteturbo : Fences on all roads. People jump over them into the paths of unsuspecting drivers. Underpasses have been closed as people tend not to use them. They have been replaced with traffic light controlled crossings. People running/walking into roads is and always will be a very big problem. Drivers MUST be able to react to every person on/near a road. Raising speed limit will shorten this reaction time.
I very much agree that better road design and training is the way forward. (Bad news is that this needs to be funded some how – guess how?)
I’m more than happy to stick to the speed limit with blue lights on. Every time I put them on I’m at greater risk to myself and others. It has to be balanced with the need to get to wherever we are going. It’s up to the public – You either want Police to arrive quickly or not.

Divbad : It’s all very well saying one vehicle/driver can react quicker than another. Problem is is that law needs to be universal. A speed limit needs to be set at it’s lowest denominator.
Local residents do get involved in local planning. Speak to your council. (or become an MP icon_wink.gif )

DW190 : Cheers. I agree with what you say.

MrK : I cannot comment on this camera – Don’t know it.

BritishBlue : You are quite right. People aren’t afraid of getting caught anymore. We do need more Police on the roads. (How will this be funded? Cameras?). Since Safer Streets in London Traffic Police were taken off traffic patrol onto street crime – result – less robberies more road deaths. You’ll be pleased to hear there are more traffic Officers coming into London monthly.
Police should not be the used for the cameras. We have lost too much faith from the public over them.

Jimmy Ferrari : Posted my thread in reply to another. Don’t agree with your comment about the parents. Yes they should have more control/ teach their children road sense but you must remember that we are talking about children – Easily distracted (like some drivers). I’m guessing you don’t have any. ohmy.gif

People who don’t wear seat belts are more likely to die in a serious collision then those who do. FACT.


Sorry for the long reply.

icon_eek.gif
Mika
Hi Monster,

Right that does it – “miss leading” - a copy of the complete traffic video is on its way to your garage. icon_wink.gif
Divbad
Thanks for replying to all, Monster.

You say the law needs to be "one size fits all" - I disagree, and so does the law:

Single carriageway, NSL. What's the legal limit? The answer depends on the weight and loading of my vehicle (e.g. trailer / caravan).

A speed limit does not need to be set at all. The law could be used to enforce safe driving irrespective of mph. It's just that politicians & judiciary likes to see things in black & white, right & wrong... well, safety and so much else simply is not a binary issue.

How would you / the law / an objective observer define, say, "reckless driving" or "driving without due consideration" - and how would this be distinguishable from "assertive, confident driving"? All very grey areas, I think.
Tamara-D
Thanks for replying to everyone Monster. wink.gif

QUOTE (Monster)
I’m a bit disappointed with your posting. NO camera is suitable – I strongly disagree with that.


And you are entitled to disagree. I will give you my reasons in my answers below.

QUOTE (Monster)
Innocent parents caught by dodgy technology? – What’s that all about?


These speed cameras are unreliable, inaccurate and unfair. Unreliable because they are affected by other factors such as the weather, traffic flow, reliability of the parts and trustworthy operators. Inaccurate because of all the same reasons, plus the fact that some were never intended to be used to measure speed/distance anyway, are not calibrated properly/frequently/at all and are not operated properly. Unfair for all those reasons, plus the camera can't make decisions based on circumstances, the road signing and speed limits of this country have not been properly reviewed since they were first introduced and of course people are forced to: 'pay up or else'

So, you can say to the 15-20% estimated, probably more, who have received an incorrect NIP, that they should have to pay a fine, have increased insurance premiums, maybe lose their jobs, their homes, split with their families and as I understand it take their own lives in order to satisfy the false belief that speed causes deaths to young children outside schools.

QUOTE (Monster)
Blaming parents for not controlling their children? Read the highway code again. Always expect a child to run into the road. They haven’t read it! Don’t blame the innocence of a child on a driver unaware of hazards – That’s low.


So when a child runs RIGHT out in front of you, while you are travelling at 67mph on a dual carriageway, and you have no time to react and you hit the child, you will accept responsibility for the death of the child?

That is exactly what happened here where I live. The end result is that they are now calling for the speed to be reduced on this road to 30mph, even though it is through a cutting, with no footpaths, no buildings, no turnings - nothing. The child was not supervised and the parents were probably sat at home with their feet up and could not care what their children were up to.

Of course the loss of a child is horrible, but the continuous emphasis on the driver to be responsible for every child that is going to leap out has got to stop. More responsibility should be placed on parents, schools, local authorities and government to make sure children, parents and cyclists take road safety courses and that parents are held accountable for failure to control their children.

You see these type of parents at the supermarket. They park up, open their doors and out leap the children, who then proceed to run straight across the car park with a complete disregard for anyone and anything around them. The same children are then seen running around inside, their parents no where in sight.

Pedestrians and cyclists are also supposed to follow the highway code, yet whenever there is an accident, it is always assumed the car was speeding. It is time that people, particularly cyclists, were made more accountable for their actions.

QUOTE (Monster)
Bad laws should be challenged.


I am glad you agree, therefore as S172 is bad law, we have the right to fight back against it.

QUOTE (Monster)
Seat belts have caused injuries. But they save more lives than not. Belt up ! icon_wink.gif


Absolutely, and of course we all do!

QUOTE (Monster)
The laws are the current laws. They have been set and must be abided with, even if you disagree with them.


As I said before, if the law is so obviously bad that it fails to protect the innocent, then it cannot be enforced. There are more than one that I can think of.

QUOTE (Monster)
Cameras killing more than saving lives – No evidence of this at all. icon_evil.gif


Say that again when the full figures for 2003 show an increase in fatals.

Sorry for the long rant, and thank you for your thoughts Monster. biggrin.gif

Tamara
Tamara-D
QUOTE (Divbad)
A speed limit does not need to be set at all. The law could be used to enforce safe driving irrespective of mph. It's just that politicians & judiciary likes to see things in black & white, right & wrong... well, safety and so much else simply is not a binary issue.


And don't forget the money to be made!

You are absolutely spot on Divbad!

wink.gif

Tamara
Monster
Mika,

I'm keeping an open mind about the vid. Just wanted the 'zoom' on the record for a balanced debate.

Divbad,

QUOTE
Single carriageway, NSL. What's the legal limit? The answer depends on the weight and loading of my vehicle (e.g. trailer / caravan).
If you're suggesting a different speed limit for each type of vehicle; bike, old 60's car, latest 2004 model, then it'll never work.

Most of the collisions involving speed I have dealt with involve a late model car (any age motorbike). If you go by this theory then the newer cars should have a lower speed limit?

QUOTE
A speed limit does not need to be set at all. The law could be used to enforce safe driving irrespective of mph. It's just that politicians & judiciary likes to see things in black & white, right & wrong... well, safety and so much else simply is not a binary issue.


No speed limit = bad driver driving faster = more collisions.

QUOTE
How would you / the law / an objective observer define, say, "reckless driving" or "driving without due consideration" - and how would this be distinguishable from "assertive, confident driving"? All very grey areas, I think.
An example. A police Officer driving above the speed limit = highly trained driver using the vehicle within his abilities. (hopefully)

A Police Officer driving recklessly or WDC = Driving without Due care.

Although I agree that many drivers could very easily drive above the speed limits quite safely how does anybody tell the difference between a good confident driver and a reckless one? Thus one rule for all. An off duty Police Officer will still get done for driving over the limit regardless of his/her training.

Many drivers 'think' they are good confident safe drivers - Until they hit that tree.

If we removed the speed limits then all the Police would be was: 'I told you so' whilst picking the arm out from the top branch.

Tamara-D wrote;

QUOTE
I am glad you agree, therefore as S172 is bad law, we have the right to fight back against it.


I don't agree that S172 is a bad law. There needs to be some way to locate a driver of a vehicle (not just for the speed offences).

QUOTE
Say that again when the full figures for 2003 show an increase in fatals.


Cameras haven't been the cause of a rise in road deaths. The lack of funds to get Traffic Officers on the street has (+ the fact that more born again bike riders and moped riders kill themselves).
Captain A
'No speed limit = bad driver driving faster = more collisions'

Monster, what complete nonsense.

All research has shown that raising or lowering speed limits does NOT change the speed at which most cars are driven ( http://www.ibiblio.org/rdu/sl-irrel/index.html ).

Bad drivers ignore speed limits, therefore your observation is rubbish.
Monster
I'll amend my statement

No speed limit = over confident driver driving faster = more collisions.

I'll stand by this one.
Monster
On most roads in London where speed limits have been reduced so has the collision rate, including KSI's.
Monster
If you had a road currently on a 50mph speed limit and then said “No speed limit on this road”, what do think the outcome would be?

Some drivers would remain at their ‘safe’ speed 30/40/50mph.

Some would touch over the 50mph and as they drove the road each day get faster and faster until they reach their limit.

Problem is – How do they know what their own personal limit is? Lose control on a corner, feel wrong?, come off the road?, miss the car turning into the road?

Some drivers would just go as fast as their car will take them, regardless of any road hazards.

The speed limit is there to ensure that each and every driver drives well within their own personal limits. We cannot have a road system where everybody drives as fast as they can until they crash and decide that was too fast.
bulletmagnet
QUOTE (Monster)
Mika,


Tamara-D wrote;

QUOTE
I am glad you agree, therefore as S172 is bad law, we have the right to fight back against it.


I don't agree that S172 is a bad law. There needs to be some way to locate a driver of a vehicle (not just for the speed offences).


Monster,

Are you saying then that the right to silence should be abolished and Police forces issued with thumb screws as well?
DW190
If S172 was being used as it was intended and the form ended at the information only it would be more acceptable.

Trouble is the forms are so designed that when the signature is applied the form is more than just the information for which is what it was originally intended.
Captain A
On most roads in London where speed limits have been reduced so has the collision rate, including KSI's

Monster, you really are losing it ! Next you'll be telling us that TRL 323 actually says that 'one-third of accidents are caused by speed' and that this is true!!

Treat others as you would have them treat you. In your case - don't treat people as if they were idiots.
Odd Job
QUOTE (Monster)
Mika,


Tamara-D wrote;

QUOTE
I am glad you agree, therefore as S172 is bad law, we have the right to fight back against it.


I don't agree that S172 is a bad law. There needs to be some way to locate a driver of a vehicle (not just for the speed offences).



So how about a new law - lets call it "S172 Proper Crimes". Can you see all the burglars, rapists, muggers, thieves, etc, queueing up to name themselves as the committers of such crimes. But the problem is that such a law would not work, because these lowlife scum have a fundamental right that is not afforded to respectable citizens - THE RIGHT TO SILENCE.
Tamara-D
QUOTE (Monster)
I don't agree that S172 is a bad law. There needs to be some way to locate a driver of a vehicle (not just for the speed offences).

There is no possible way to locate a driver of an offence using a form. It can and should only be done by good old police work.

S172 is bad because it breaks human rights laws and removes the right to silence. If you changed it to accomodate these two, it would not be worth using it in the first place.

Even if it was used for information only, there would still be a requirement for a policeman to follow it up - and that is basically going back to how things used to be.

S172 was introduced to force people to give evidence - even if they were not guilty of any offence.

QUOTE (Monster)
Cameras haven't been the cause of a rise in road deaths. The lack of funds to get Traffic Officers on the street has (+ the fact that more born again bike riders and moped riders kill themselves).


The camera has been the catalyst. The reliance of the camera instead of police patrols is the main cause of the increase in deaths. Other causes include inattention caused by continued emphasis on checking the speedo, looking for hidden camera vans and increased braking.

QUOTE (Monster)
On most roads in London where speed limits have been reduced so has the collision rate, including KSI's.


There is no statistical measure to know whether that is the case. But there are published reports on increases in collisions at sites elsewhere, where the NSL limit was reduced to 30mph.

QUOTE (Monster)
If you had a road currently on a 50mph speed limit and then said “No speed limit on this road”, what do think the outcome would be?


There should be advisory speeds instead of limits. You can't judge safe speeds in miles per hour.

QUOTE (Monster)
Some drivers would remain at their ‘safe’ speed 30/40/50mph.


Yes they would, but I would not say that 30 in a 50 is necessarily 'safe' and I would not say that 50 in a 50 is 'safe' either. Going to slow can cause a crash and therefore deaths. Driving at 45 in a 50 could cause a crash and a death if it is not appropriate for the conditions.

QUOTE (Monster)
Some would touch over the 50mph and as they drove the road each day get faster and faster until they reach their limit.

Problem is – How do they know what their own personal limit is? Lose control on a corner, feel wrong?, come off the road?, miss the car turning into the road?

Some drivers would just go as fast as their car will take them, regardless of any road hazards.


Those three scenarios happen anyway with or without speed limits. With an advisory speed (like those coming off a motorway with a sharp bend) you can learn what your limits are, depending on conditions and type of vehicle.

QUOTE (Monster)
The speed limit is there to ensure that each and every driver drives well within their own personal limits. We cannot have a road system where everybody drives as fast as they can until they crash and decide that was too fast.


You are always going to have idiots who drive way too fast for the conditions. You also have so called 'safe' drivers who toddle along at 25mph in a 50 limit and cause just as much havoc as those who break the posted limits.

We need to see some more of these police officers that Blair keeps telling us he has introduced since 1997, policing our roads. We also need a propper debate on speed and driving policy.

Tamara
reginald
Why do so many people still use their mobiles while driving. How many people do you see not wearing seatbelts. How many pushbikes without lights. Why aren't they being prosecuted. Because they have not got a cheap and simple solution as with the gatso, yet. More camera's means less traffic cops. I saw a lorry driver on the M6 this week with a tin of pop in one hand a phone to his ear in the other (nothing against lorry driver's but due to their vehicle size they need extra diligence). If they were really has concerned about road safety as they make out then they would tackle phone users and similar distracted drivers by having more traffic police on the roads. A police presence focuses the drivers attention. How about some of the scam money being used to fund more traffic police and less camera's. At least you can reason/argue with a person as opposed to an inflexible gastso. A traffic cop can be used for more than just speed traps but a gatso as only one use. (I don't work for the police. I have been done for S172))
Tamara-D
QUOTE (reginald)
How about some of the scam money being used to fund more traffic police and less camera's.


All cameras should be scrapped and all scammers should be made to clean litter up from our streets.

Money from scammers is money extorted from innocent people. Our hard earned taxes should be paying for more traffic police, instead of being used to fund phantom jobs in the government and road improvements in Spain.

Tamara
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.
Invision Power Board © 2001-2019 Invision Power Services, Inc.