>>I was also pleased that the officer did seem to be taking a reasonable approach based on the road conditions and was only targetting flagrant speeders.>>
Whilst appreciating your view (which I would probably concur with after personal experience of the conditions etc) the fact remains that the law was/is being broken and a police officer, whatever his personal views or those of his superiors may be, is paid to enforce the law.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
What\'s for you won\'t pass you by
|
"a genuine attempt to catch the flagrant speeders."
I read 'fragrant' the first time around. It touched a chord; there are a lot more fragrant motorists exceeding limits in out neck of the woods.
|
|
|
the fact remains that the law was/is being broken and a police officer, whatever his personal views or those of his superiors may be, is paid to enforce the law.
I agree however one of the ridiculous things about speed enforcement is that 30 can, in one place/time be downright dangerous though perfectly legal and elsewhere 40 can be quite safe though illegal. Likewise 70 can, in one place/time be lethal though legal and elsewhere 100 can be quite safe though punishable by a ban.
I have said before most speeding convictions are 1000th sec snapshots in time hence, while catching the flagrant speeders is clearly worthwhile, too much time is spent worrying about 45 in a 40 when resources should be targetted more accurately, at the other 99.99% of the time that a driver is on the road. I.e the legality and safety of the vehicle, the amount of alchohol and other drugs that the driver has consumed etc etc etc.
|
I agree however one of the ridiculous things about speed enforcement is that 30 can, in one place/time be downright dangerous though perfectly legal and elsewhere 40 can be quite safe though illegal. Likewise 70 can, in one place/time be lethal though legal and elsewhere 100 can be quite safe though punishable by a ban. I have said before most speeding convictions are 1000th sec snapshots in time hence, while catching the flagrant speeders is clearly worthwhile, too much time is spent worrying about 45 in a 40 when resources should be targetted more accurately, at the other 99.99% of the time that a driver is on the road. I.e the legality and safety of the vehicle, the amount of alchohol and other drugs that the driver has consumed etc etc etc.
Doesn't matter how ripped they are as long as they aren't dangerous. Of course 'flagrant speeders' usually know what they're doing unless they get caught. If it isn't 'flagrant' it's probably accidental therefore dangerous.
The sensible approach to speeding is to see whether people drive dangerously or not. Trouble with that is it depends on someone's judgement. No one will accept that if they have a reason not to, so there are absolutes: speed limits and the like.
Round and round. Absolutely unbearable really.
|
|
|
|
