That's actually an interesting point because it is all about personal accountability and responsibility isn't it?
'Cause here I am giving everybody who has been snapped the benefit of the doubt and going of course, "It REALLY COULD have been someone you didn't know was driving YOUR car."
And then everyone else is really just taking the mick and trying to evade a legitimate prosecution by going "Neh neh - you can't prove it - I can go as fast as I want and you can't stop me - neh neh"
Well, that's really clever but it doesn't endear me to the cause. - And it's takes one very close to the teacher in class who says "if the guilty party doesn't stand up then you're all staying in after school"
Now, I don't want that, but it seems a lot of people do, they really want the teacher to have to prove they threw the paper or swore or whatever when they know jolly well who did it.
This is speeding - so lets all put our sensible hats on -
|
"Most" speeding offences are victimless crimes. Following your line of arguement, everyone who commits any crime at all should plead guilty. In the real world they don't. Every murderer, rapist etc pleads not guilty and it has to be proven in law that they are. Why should the "criminal" in a speed camera case not have that right as well? The evidence from some speed cameras is just the photograph of the back of a car. The keeper of the car with the recorded number plate then gets a NIP. This evidence, in a serious crime trial would be laughed out of court.
How many blue Ford xxxxx are registered? How many different number plates can be legally bought with the same combination on? Are you sure that you can prove it was that driver?
Would you throw an empty crisp packet down and then go and confess?
I have the right, in law, to be assumed innocent until proven guilty
|
mjm - at last, the lone voice of common sense in the widerness of bigotry and arrogance!
|
Re the BBC vehicle: if a company os the owner, then it's under an obligation to keep records of who's driving.
As regards the rest: I would feel a right chump if I could't say who had been driving my car at any given time. IT'S MY CAR, for goodness' sake, and I have a responsibility for the valueless lump of steel.
And I find it very hard to believe that any responsible driver can seriously suggest he can't say who was driving his car at any point over the preceding 3 months (to pick a period at random).
It's time we stopped treating avoidance of liability for speed camera fines as some sort of game. I live in this country and even though I didn't vote for this Government and I think speed cameras are solely there to raise revenue for an endless army of consultants and jobsworths, I have a duty to obey its laws.
I don't have the right to decide which laws I obey and which I don't, except on grounds of conscience. And, if I disobey a law on the grounds of conscience, I am honour bound to take the consequences.
Glad to get that off my chest!
--
Stevie
Lakland 44-02 Sunburst
Yamaha YTS-23
|
"And I find it very hard to believe that any responsible driver can seriously suggest he can't say who was driving his car at any point over the preceding 3 months (to pick a period at random)."
I can't believe you really mean this GM. We have two cars insured for both my wife and myself to drive. I doubt very much if I could tell you who was driving one of the cars at a particular time a week ago never mind 3 months...Would you suggest a log book in the car for us both to sign in every time one of us gets in the car.
Sorry if I misunderstand you........
|
You both know one of you did it - what's the right thing to do morally?
I know, neither of us will take responsibility - there's a logic (abdication of responsibility) there which has caused society a lot of problems
Still, hey - are you bov vered?
|
|
|
|
" I have the right, in law, to be assumed innocent until proven guilty"
" "Most" speeding offences are victimless crimes."
So, you can do what you like and as long as the police can't prove anything that's all right then. fine I'll come around to your house and throw a brick through your window and run away, as long as no one recognises me I'll be all right. We have an obligation to obey the law that is how civilised democracies work.
I drive 60-65,000 miles a year all over the UK. I see at least one acccident each day - Thursday this week coming back from Glasgow there were 3 on the A74/M6. I would be fairly sure that most are caused by speeding.
I'll type this slowly so the hard of understanding can get it :
if you don't speed you won't get caught - if you get caught by a camera on a motorway than you have been doing over 80mph - it wasn't anyone elses fault except yours
for all those people going on about how all the cameras are one big moneymaking scam then it really is very very simple - if you don't break the speed limit then 'they' will get rid of the cameras.
around 100 people are killed or maimed on UK roads EVERY day - think of that before you whine about the speeding laws.
|
So people dont die because of bad driving at legal speeds?
or from alcohol or drug related driving?
or from cars that are driven when in a n unsafe condition?
or from negligent driving etc etc etc.
The speed cameras only catch those who speed; not those who drive bad or without insurance etc or in a poorly maintained car !
They are revenue based not accident driven! If you genuinely want to see better driving and less deaths on the road then you should be wanting more traffic police and less speed cameras.
I dont drive recklessly, but I do speed occasionally (we all do if we admit it!) but its a case of where how and when !
30 mph outside a school at kicking out time is dangerous, 100 mph on an empty motorway at 11pm at night in good conditions is not dangerous! the wrong one will cost you your licence though!
And speed alone does not kill ! I have driven at speeds well in excess of the speed limits and I am still alive !
|
Yorkiebar, you're doing what we criticise the politicians for doing: conflating the law against speeding with safety.
The law against speeding doesn't necessarily prevent accidents; it's just that, for most drivers, the faster they drive, the more likely they are to have an accident.
Of course they're revenue-based. The point has already been made: if the law says you must observe a certain speed limit, then it is not reasonable to complain if you get caught disobeying the law.
|
My point is there are more offences committed on the roads than just speeding.
I have no problem with accepting speeding fines/points if I break the law!
But what about other (imo worse) offences ? Cameras do not work against these.
the person who drives at 30 mph eveywhere is a safe driver? he certainly doesnt get the cameras to flash ! But he is likely to cause more accidents than a person driving at 60 on an open A road ?
|
YB, my point is this: it's a blunt tool, but it's cheap and we all know about it. The problem isn't with revenue cameras, it's with the way the money is spent (how many traffic police could be funded from the cameras?).
|
Then its nice to agree, even if from slightly different viewpoints.
But I do hate it when people jump on the speed is the issue bandwagon when it is so clearly just 1 part of it !
|
|
|
|
Nobody is whining about the speeding laws - they are commenting on them in a mature and sensible way. It may well be that 100 people are killed or maimed on UK roads every day. Take out the drunken pedestrains, skids, collisions during ill judged overtaking manoeuvres etc and you will be left with very few incidents in which inappropriate speed was the ONLY cause. Most people would rather see the rigorous enforcement that is used to enforce speeding legislation applied to thugs and city centre drunks when the clubs and pubs are emptied. To burglars, untaxed, uninsured, unregistered and unroadworthy cars. Rick picking there if heads were banged together to do the job. Sitting in a nice warm office firing off penalty notices in so much easier and it looks good on the crime clear up stats. The home county of the dreadful Br*nstr*m has a 6% clear up rate on domestic burglaries - I bet the council tax payers there are well pleased with that result!
|
I guess this is a 'never the twain shall meet subject' - but, you know what, that dismays me
MJM - I wouldn't throw a crisp packet on the ground and then run and confess
Because I simply just wouldn't throw a crisp packet on the ground, I don't feel the urge to commit crimes and then try and get away with it - aren't I a clever one? No. It's just about DUTY to SOCIETY. Respecting the wishes of others.
Is speeding a victimless crime? I guess by comparison you're saying littering is - well not if other have to pick up after you. And at some time, in some place speeding will lead to a situation which will mean someone else has to pick up the pieces -
Fundamentally, what I don't understand is why, if you admit you broke the law and you've been snapped doing it, you believe the taxpayer should be compelled to provide extra proof of your crime - 'if you can't do the time....'
Armitage, even in your own examples if you combine inappropriate speed with any of those other circumstances you have potential tragedy - what is the role of speed in skids?, are you going faster when you overtake and on and on
Having been in a speeding vehicle and scared myself silly - I don't need to go beyond the speed limit to know I would find the addition of an extra driving complication hard to deal with
As for the policing of speeding and the thug situation - well you know I guess if there were no cameras there'd be even fewer coppers chasing yobs - they'd be tearing up the motorways chasing speeders - it's simply best use of national resources
|
Mini 30 owner,
you are a good boy arn't you. Have you read 1984 by George Orwell?
Armitage S,
My friend "in the trade" came home in a 1978 Porsche 911 SC a few weeks ago, in Targa red. We went for a test drive in it, to see if the heater worked ok, you know what I mean? Considering the road conditions and the car, we did some very appropriate speeds. There was no way, however that I was going to risk my life, or anyone elses, or even the car doing it. We didn't even scare ourselves too much.
|
Yup - you've got my number MJM
So, can you justify though? Please, I would like to know
I have read 1984 - have you?
The way I see it - if everybody could drive and there was obviously no issue with speed then we wouldn't have legislated to protect member so f society from speed
I mean - lots of people hated safety belts - nobody moans now
So why then - do tell?
|
Yes, and Animal Farm.
Speed does not kill. If it did then every time an aircraft landed(automatically) there would be a few hundred bodies to unload.
Speed in the wrong place or at the wrong time in the right circumatances will kill.
Would you really drive past a school or along a high street at 30 mph in a blizzard? No flash from camera, so it must be safe, then.
The national speed limit was set, arbitarily to save fuel in some crisis or other, nothing to do with safety.
I will keep to 30 limits etc, unless a slower speed is required.
You original question: -
If I get flashed, and I know its me, I will say so. If I don't, I won' perjure myself.
|
Snap - and?
Of course speed itself doesn't kill, nor do knives, bullets, planes, trains yada, yada...
Concepts alone don't kill
All it takes is a bit of human intervention - that would be you, and me and all the other drivers -
You can take any element out of your equation (the school or the blizzards) and the equation changes - same with speed - take it out and the equation changes
Did I say that the speed limit alone (we're back on concepts here - see above) caused accidents? No.
You want to think I said that as it suits your argument - unfortunately speed never occurs in isolation - everytime you drive, you reach a bend, you pass a school, it rains, it snows it freezes, there is sun glare, yada yada - you are not the only holder of this knowledge - we all know it
If the speed limit was not set for safety purposes - does that mean it has no effect on safety - No
Many, many people would drive too fast in given conditions unless there was a speed limit to guide them
The hard bit for you to accept is that because the law protects everybody from the people who can't drive safely above it also stops you from driving above the speed limit
That is called LIFE and it is part of living in a free liberal democracy
It's why the drink drive limit is fixed - because you know some people can hold their drink better than others - It's why I can't come and burgle your house just because I fancy it -
In life there has to be some absolutes - not everything is relative
You may be a relatively better driver than me but the speed limit applies to us both
And the way round it is campaign for change, put up or move to places with no speed limits - I think you'll find that most societies have found that it's in their own (overall) best interests to have limits
|
|
|
"The evidence from some speed cameras is just the photograph of the back of a car. The keeper of the car with the recorded number plate then gets a NIP. This evidence, in a serious crime trial would be laughed out of court."
I'm no expert, obviously, but when Colonel Mustard was done in the library with the lead piping I think the first person you interrogated was Pete the plumber
You admit it was your vehicle but you accept no responsibility for who, where or how it was being driven -
All right for some
|
Complaining about a law is one thing (protest about the inappropriateness of some speed limits if you like) but complaining about the **enforcement** of the law is quite another. If you've been nicked by a camera then own up and cough up. I've been 'flashed' and I just paid up. I have three cars shared between my wife and myself plus in the course of the average month drive many others - including cars I'm trading or fixing or hiring. I know what I've driven and when I've driven it. If anyone's memory is so flaky that they genuinely don't have this level of recollection then I would suggest writing things down in a log book.
I think at the nub of the speed camera debate is the shock that the middle classes experience when they find that there is a law that applies to them. A bit like the recent case of the old chap who was incandescent with rage that he'd been nicked for driving around with his foglamps on. They think that the police should be out catching rat-faced chav youths rather than targeting 'ordinary decent people' like them.
If you think speed doesn't cause accidents then take a walk around a large salvage yard and have a look at all the BM's Mercs etc etc with ABS, EBD, TCS etc etc that have front-end damage and air-bags gone off. They were sure going faster than their drivers (and the technology) could stop. As an (lapsed) IAM observer I have been scared many a time by the driving of a new associate - and that includes smart people driving smart cars - but at least the ones I saw were trying hard to improve.
|
agree, if guilty accept it and own up
but lets clear up the point of this. Speeding cameras only catch 1 part of the problem on the roads.
Speed alone does not kill ! It is inappropriate speed that does.. 30 mph outside a school is perfectly legal. However it is not safe ! A camera would not flash, but a traffic cop may say driving without due care and attention etc.
100 mph on an empty mtorway in good conditions in a properly maintained car is not dangerous. But if caught you could lose your license.
I find other problems more worrying than speed alone.
Typical nanny state mentality where you are scared of speeding so you dont do it, rather than being urged to drive according to conditions; which is sometimes way lower than the speed limit.
|
|
Sometimes I wonder if some of these people are put into these forums by the government to hammer home their spiel, just as the soviets used to put people into meetings.
|
Sometimes I wonder if some of these people are put into these forums by the government to hammer home their spiel, just as the soviets used to put people into meetings.
I hope by 'these people' you were not referring to me. If you were then you're a complete idiot if that's what you really think.
|
I suspect Ashok was not referring to Aprilia who has been around on the forum long enough for his virtual credentials to be well known. However, the technique is one well known to the marketing departments of commercial companies, particularly in the US, and I have suspected its use for commercial reasons relating to certain car makes on this forum too, although not recently.
|
If by any chance you are referring to me then you are wrong but welcome to your opinion.
I am not backed by anyone but am fed up with being told how speed is so dangerous when it alone is not.
My replies may become repetetive but someone has to remind people that it is driving standards that are important on the road. Every time I see anyone jump on the speeding bandwagon I am happy to jump on the opposing bandwagon.
Bring on the traffic cops, get rid of the speed cameras!
My opinion anyway !
|
|
Oh no! I am 'these people'
I think you'll find that all governments were quite adept at 'putting people into meetings'
Still, I'm sure you 'rebels' will have your day
Tooting Popular Front, is it?
|
|
|
|
|
|
thoroughly agree
|
|
Well Butch, why don't you and Sundance, and all the other 'Outlaws' round up a posse, get on yo hosses, get into town and tell the Sherriff what to do with his pesky laws?
|
>>speed is so dangerous when it alone is not. <<
Your right - speed does not hurt or kill.
It's the stopping quickly that does.
An old one but just trying to lighten the mood on this one.
|
Yorkiebar - "I am not backed by anyone but am fed up with being told how speed is so dangerous when it alone is not."
I agrre with you on this but why do people keep banging on that "speed alone doesn't kill" and it's always put across so pedantically
Everyone know that speed alone doesn't kill and in the same spirit of pedantry we could all rightly claim that:
Alcohol alone doesn't kill
Not wearing your belt doesn't kill
Driving a banger doesn't kill
Driving uninsured doesn't kill
Driving poorly doesn't kill
We just don't live ALONE though
|
|
|
|
|
|
