nice bit in the mirror (i think) today about a guy who denied his scamera ticket for speeding because there were not enough speed signs on the road and got off with it...
it seems the police have still been operating the camera for a least a month since it was pointed out that signage was insufficient for the speed to support a prosecution
must be a case of perverting the course of justice against the police here for ticketing people they know to be innocent
hope someone complains loudly
|
Wow! Last night I saw a speed trap. This morning I got to the top of the road and noticed someone had turned the signs round so the 30 limit / NSL were effectively swapped.
Dunno wether the rozzers did it or if they just took advantage of the happy situation.
|
|
take photos someone may need a defense
|
In most - though not absolutely all - 30 zones, national speed limit is a tad risky and it might be more than just speeding you get done for.
Now if scamera photos were used as evidence in careless driving (or worse) prosecutions, the dangerous drivers would suffer the penalties they deserve. The flip side would be that if the photo is not enough to secure conviction, the driver wasn't careless so must have been careful. Safe drivers who exceed limits that are inappropriatly low (what training/qualifications to those who set limits have?) would have nothing to fear.
Hang on ...
Target dangerous drivers ???
Avoid alienating safe drivers - the vast majority ???
Reduce accidents, injuries and deaths ???
Can't make any money out of that. My mistake, please ignore the above.
GJD
|
"Safe drivers who exceed limits that are inappropriatly low"
Says who - you?
Ho Ho Ho!!!
WHEN will people learn that this NONSENSE that "speed limits have been set for untrained drivers" means THEM!!!
How come I have been teaching advanced driving for 15 years (the last 5 teaching, qualifying and re-testing instructors) and I do not call myself a "GOOD" driver who does not have to obey the speed limits?
Rubbish or what!!
|
|
|
|
> WHEN will people learn that this NONSENSE that "speed limits have been set for untrained drivers" means THEM!!!
That would be the non-licensed transport ministers, then, responsible for setting them in the first place.
|
|
|
If everybody was trained to advanced driving standards then there would be no need for limits.
Unfortunately this is not the case at present and only a small percentage of drivers have advanced training.
For the majority the posted limit becomes a target, considered to be a "safe" speed because the authorities have put up a sign to say so and in the case of an accident the first thing that they say is "But I wasn't exceeding the limit". Hence the 70 mph pile-ups in fog and the 30 mph accidents at junctions.
Would it not be better to improve the training, including retesting at intervals, and downgrade the status of the posted speeds to advisory status? In the case of an accident the onus would then be on the driver to prove that his speed was not inappropriate.
There has been plenty of discussion on here on the merits and demerits of speed limits, but even a driver without advanced skills can see that a 30mph limit on a dual carriageway is inappropriate and is therefore tempted to view a 30 mph limit in town in the same light.
If the authorities posted appropriate limits rather than blanket coverage then IMHO drivers would be less inclined to exceed them because they would see that there was a valid reason for that limit.
|
|
Bully. To follow your logic means that historians talk rubbish, as they weren't there. And Einstein must have been a nutter as he was never a beam of light. (Good socialist, mind you).
|
|
|
|
> Bully. To follow your logic means that historians talk rubbish, as they weren't there. And Einstein must have been a nutter as he was never a beam of light. (Good socialist, mind you).
No, to follow yours means that historians talk sense if they have never been trained or examined in history.
And Einstein would have been a better physicist if he'd never studied, or been tested in, physics.
But that his expertise in physics made him the ideal socialist minister (social policy areas only, barred from any input into science, technology, education or other relevant areas).
|
|
|
