But they're not just used to weed out the nutters. Anyone who strays a little over the limit seems to be fair game. I'm very happy and encourage cameras in built-up areas and on the open road where there's a genuine black spot such as a junction but I've seen too many on open safe roads to not believe that they're used for revenue generation as well.
The only cameras that really seem to work well are the average speed cameras.
|
|
|
I am with you up to a point BB. I think if we can have plain clothes police we can probably cope with disguised cameras. What bothers me is the 100% enforcement of easy to detect, cheap to operate, revenue raising systems. 66 in a 60 is not the end of the world, it also isn't that wise depending on the conditions. However a lot worse things than speeding are going on in UK and I think time and effort should be devoted to the things that the public are concerned about (endless list omitted!). Speeding is against the law but so are a lot of other things which are of greater concern, to me at least.
|
|
|
|
To the chap who can't see that these speed cameras are a game ,y perception of the matter is that the authorities are profiteering from them pure and simple. We all know that excessive speed is dangerous and limits are there for a reason. It is the enforcement by cameras that is wrong. Much better to have enough traffic police to catch speeders and use their judgement on appropriate punishment. Cameras cannot make judgements ....only money and resentment. Being pulled over is more deterring than a ticket through the post.
|
Bill Black is right when he says speeding can be dangerous. But is there any real evidence that "safety" cameras prevent accidents? If there isn't, we're back to the revenue raising issue. And people legitimately resent that.
When you look at the image the police have got for themselves on TV, it's of a lot of blokes who enjoy driving fast chasing another lot of blokes who also enjoy driving fast. OK, sometime those being chased are drug dealers or whatever, but you get the impression expensive resources and time are being squandered.
In the meantime gangs of feral kids are out kicking people to death with the police nowhere in sight. How can we have our policing priorities so badly wrong?
|
Bill Black is right when he says speeding can be dangerous.
Can be dangerous, yes. Can also be quite safe - I speed every day doing tens of thousands of miles a year. Yet I haven't crashed since I was a teenager (doing 45mph in a 60 limit by the way)
Think it was in Jeremy Clarkson 's column where he said the government continually tell us that speed kills, yet fine us when we prove them wrong.
Being an idiot on the road is far more dangerous IMHO and I'd welcome more efforts to combat that particular menace.
|
"Think it was in Jeremy Clarkson 's column where he said the government continually tell us that speed kills, yet fine us when we prove them wrong." Typical JC, but if everyone kept to a speed limit of say, 5mph, road fatalities would be cut right down to zero probably. Visit Stoke Mandeville and see how many have proved them right.
"Much better to have enough traffic police to catch speeders"
Couldn't agree more, but we also need a higher profile police presence on the high street, who's going to pay?
The problem regarding funding here is political, and despite all the comments here - speeding is illegal, and thereby antisocial, that should be enough.
Had I been the man with the pregnant wife I would have phoned for an ambulance and/or police and made her as comfortable as possible during the wait. What do you think would have happened had the birth actually started? If the truth be known he was probably unfit to drive at that particular time anyway - a friend of mine fainted at the first sign of blood.
Bill
|
Typical JC but if everyone kept to a speed limit of say 5mph road fatalities would be cut right down to zero probably. Visit Stoke Mandeville and see how many have proved them right.
At 5mph fatalities would be zero, however it's then not transportation. I can't imagine a 3mile commute taking 45 minutes would solve many issues, nor would a 100 mile delivery taking a whole day.
Had I been the man with the pregnant wife I would have phoned for an ambulance and/or police and made her as comfortable as possible during the wait.
Oh my aching sides. Phone for an ambulance if you're in a hurry? You'd be quicker phoning Pizza Hut and asking one of their delivery drivers to take you on the back of their moped.
Edited by Garethj on 29/04/2008 at 14:58
|
|
|
|
Did a speed awareness course 15 months ago and Warwickshire have figures that show both KSI and other accidents have fallen where the cameras were installed.
Now someone is going to say they are massaging the statistics . . .
Some people just don't want to know the truth which is that speed makes accidents less avoidable (At 90 you need more space and time than you do at 70) and gives worse consequences (at 60mph a car has 4 times as much KE as does one at 30mph - the speed you might hit someone when braking from the 90/70 mentioned).
A KSI accident for those who don't know is one where someone is Killed or seriously injured.
|
Some people just don't want to know the truth which is that speed makes accidents less avoidable (At 90 you need more space and time than you do at 70) and gives worse consequences (at 60mph a car has 4 times as much KE as does one at 30mph - the speed you might hit someone when braking from the 90/70 mentioned).
I've got no problem with the truth, but I'd rather be on the same road as an alert driver looking all the way down the road and interpreting hazards correctly than a distracted dimwit who barely looks past the end of the bonnet. Even if the alert driver was doing 70 and the dimwit was doing 50.
|
I've got no problem with the truth but I'd rather be on the same road as an alert driver looking all the way down the road and interpreting hazards correctly than a distracted dimwit who barely looks past the end of the bonnet. Even if the alert driver was doing 70 and the dimwit was doing 50.
Regretably the dimwit is also likely to be doing 70 as well! And even the alert driver can't anticipate everything.... hence the need for limits.
|
|
|
|
The other point to be made is that you know what the speed limit is for the road you are on (or should do if you are paying attention when driving) so it is your choice if you decide to exceed that limit.
If people didn't speed they wouldn't have cameras... and I suspect that using cameras (especially fixed ones) is cheaper than using a policeman to do the same job, which then frees up said policeman to go out and catch other criminals....
If you don't want to get caught, don't speed, if you do speed, don't moan about it, it was your choice.... and if you don't like the limits on that road them have a go at the local council who set it....
|
If you don't want to get caught don't speed if you do speed don't moan about it it was your choice.... and if you don't like the limits on that road them have a go at the local council who set it....
Here Here!
C'mon, fess up. All those anti speed cameras - have you been done by a camera :-) Does wonders for a sense of injustice doesnt it.
As you can guess, I'm fairly ambivalent about cameras but thats because I havent been snapped yet.
|
chap in today's DT sums it up for me... taking his wife to hospital at 0500 and she thinks she's about to give birth, having felt the babies head
he got done for 37mph in a 30mph limit via a camera.... i'm not saying that expectant fathers should be entitled for a 'free for all', but in those circs discretion could kick in. A camera cannot give discretion...
so the dangerous oik with no docs, stolen or poorly maintained car, etc, etc can do what he likes (car won't be registered), whilst minor transgressions by decent folk mean a financial penalty and points on your licence
how fair or proportionate is that?
|
..and she thinks she's about to give birth, having felt the babies head..
...he got done for 37mph in a 30mph limit via a camera....
The thing that shocks me is that he was only doing 37mph in such circumstances!!
OTOH, I'm sure is willing to pay on a cost/benefit calculation.
On the general point of camera concealment: would anyone expect other forms of crime to be given such leeway. Imagine, if you will, police officers about to enter or raid a premises in pursuit of illicit drugs or other pernicious contraries (love that expression!); would they then stand about outside talking in loud voices with blues & twos still going for 5 minutes about what they expect to find & how they're going to nab suspects in a pantomime-esque way? No? well, this is what speeders seem to expect in an analogous sense.
|
"Think it was in Jeremy Clarkson 's column where he said the government continually tell us that speed kills, yet fine us when we prove them wrong."
Typical JC, but if everyone kept to a speed limit of say, 5mph, road fatalities would be cut right down to zero probably. I suggest a visit to Stoke Mandeville (or similar) to see how many have sadly proved them right.
"Much better to have enough traffic police to catch speeders"
Couldn't agree more, but we also need a higher profile police presence on the high street, who's going to pay?
The problem is funding, and funding is political, and despite all the comments here - speeding is illegal, and thereby antisocial, that should be enough.
Had I been the man with the pregnant wife I would have phoned for an ambulance and/or police and made her as comfortable as possible during the wait. What do you think would have happened had the birth actually started? A friend of mine fainted at the first sign of blood at his son's birth.
Bill
|
|
|
ijws said:>> Did a speed awareness course 15 months ago and Warwickshire have figures that show both KSI and other accidents have fallen where the cameras were installed.>>
Do you happen to know where the figures can be accessed?
With respect, woodbines, crimes are given leeway all the time. It's called prevention. In the local town centre the police are out every Thursday, Friday and Saturday night to discourage those who've had too much to drink from too much in the way of anti-social behaviour.
If you put a traffic car by the side of the road, there's the same deterrent effect. Which would you rather do? Persuade people to slow down or collect revenue?
Remember the instant tickets for anti-social behaviour and Tony Blair was going to march yobboes to the nearest cash point to collect? Impractical, because yobboes don't have a number plate attached to them. Cars do, so effectively the same strategy works. Easy source of dosh.
|
It was in the course material of which I was given a paper copy.
It may be on the safety camera website.
|
|
On the general point of camera concealment: would anyone expect other forms of crime to be given such leeway. No? well this is what speeders seem to expect in an analogous sense.
Firstly, speeding isn't necessarily a crime. It is a traffic offence in a similar fashion that many others are e.g. bald tyres, lighting offences etc. ( I would agree that some speeding offences could be a 'crime', but they are usually few and far between).
Secondly, there ARE many offences, that most people would accept are out and out criminality, whereby they are dealt with leniently, with an officer using discretion.. e.g. a kid nicking a Mars bar or a youth stopped with the worlds smallest seizure of herbal cannabis...
i watched a traffic cops type programme last night where the traffic cop made the owner of a Range Rover peel off some illegal film covering on the front windows, so that he wouldn't have to issue a ticket to the owners wife who'd been stopped driving...apart from the inordinate amount of time the stop took when he could have been gainfully employed elsewhere... the principle is sound... to achieve the end result
I see no reason why low level speeding couldn't be dealt with similarly if the circumstances permit...of course a camera can't do that... and there's revenue to consider
|
|
|
|
chap in ... got done for 37mph in a 30mph limit via a camera.... i'm not saying that expectant fathers should be entitled for a 'free for all' but in those circs discretion could kick in. A camera cannot give discretion...
That's why the court is there. Mr. Walton said that there special mitigating circumstances, which were accepted by the court - he was given an absolute discharge.
It is interesting to read the comment by the CPS:
"Mr Walton pleaded guilty to speeding. The first time he gave his reasoning for driving at excessive speed was at court. He failed to provide any of the information that he raised in court at the time he was caught speeding and the Crown Prosecution Service received no communication from Mr Walton in the days before his court hearing.
If Mr Walton had provided us with the relevant information, the case could have been reviewed again and a decision could have been made as to whether it was in the public interest to proceed."
|
>>That's why the court is there. Mr. Walton said that there special mitigating
circumstances which were accepted by the court - he was given an absolute
discharge.
An absolute discharge is still a court conviction, albeit with no penalty. To achieve this 'justice' he had to pay a solicitor £300. If he'd paid up for the ticket and copped his 3 points he'd have been £240 better off. That in reality is what officialdom would prefer we all do... For a minor transgression at 5am I don't believe that to be reasonable.
It is interesting to read the comment by the CPS:>> If Mr Walton had provided us with the relevant information the case could have been reviewed again and a decision could have been made as to whether it was in the public interest to proceed."
I do not for one second believe that the CPS would, upon receipt of a letter from this man, have rolled over and stated they were not going to prosecute him. They are working under the same 'targets' that everyone else is.. common sense, human decency, looking at the bigger picture etc... do not feature very much in today's Britain.
Edited by Westpig on 29/04/2008 at 16:29
|
|
|
|
|
C'mon fess up. All those anti speed cameras
That's me.
- have you been done by a camera :-)
Nope.
Does wonders for a sense of injustice doesnt it.
Only if you take a stance based on emotion rather than principle.
|
>> Does wonders for a sense of injustice doesnt it. Only if you take a stance based on emotion rather than principle.
Exactly my point.
How many on this board whinge about cameras because they've been caught bang to rights eh?
Guess we'll never know.
|
|
|
|
|
If you don't want to get caught don't speed
Well yes, that is self-evident. However, it also completely misses the point.
Hypothetically, imagine that parliament decided to ban the wearing of red jumpers at the weekend and the police patrolled around town issuing fixed penatly notices to anyone breaking the law. In this analogy, your statement would be:
"If you don't want to get caught, don't wear a red jumper at the weekend".
If I ask, "Why can't I wear my red jumper at the weekend", the only answer is "because it's against the law".
Only being able to say "because it's against the law" is not good enough - ever. If the state wants to prohibit something, it must be able to explain WHY we should not be allowed to do it.
Speeding is not a synonym for dangerous. Sometimes, driving above the speed limit is dangerous. Sometimes it is safe. Sometimes, it is possible to drive dangerously below the speed limit.
One of the things that the state has prohibited is dangerous driving. I am entirely happy with the reasons why I may not drive dangerously. Personally, I would like to see a lot more policing of that law. If I am caught driving dangerously, whether above or below the speed limit, and whether I cause an accident or not, I expect the law prohibiting dangerous driving to be applied to me.
Another of the things that the state has prohibited is driving above the speed limit. Given that driving dangerously while above the speed limit is already covered by the prohibition of dangerous driving, the only additional effect of the prohibition of speeding is those situations where driving above the speed limit is not dangerous. I am not at all happy with that being prohibited, because when I ask "why may we not drive above the speed limit when it is not dangerous", the only answer seems to be "because it is against the law". As explained above, that explanation is not good enough.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
For the life of me I just cannot understand the widespread perception that the apprehension and subsequent prosecution of speeding offenders is some sort of game.
Although it is not always obvious or well articulated in the objections, I think the fundamental problem is that an offence called "speeding" makes no sense when offences called "driving without due care and attention" and "dangerous driving" already exist.
Logically, a driver could be convicted of speeding in one of two situations:
1) They were driving without due care and attention and/or dangerously
2) They were driving with due care and attention and not dangerously.
A conviction for speeding in situation 1 is difficult to understand - why not prosecute for the due care and attention or dangerous driving as applicable?
But a conviction for speeding situation 2 is the real problem. If a driver is driving with due care and attention and not dangerously, why should they be prosecuted for anything at all?
This logical contradiction is not a problem with speed cameras themselves, it is a problem with the existence of "speeding" as an explicit offence. It is therefore not a new problem. But the advent of cameras has brought about a huge increase in the enforcement of the law and so highlighted the inherent logical problem in a way that couldn't have happened before widespread camera use.
>>I have seen somehorrific injuries resulting from high speed (ie well over the speed limit) crashes. Very often with the innocent party bearing the brunt.
And were the drivers who caused these incidents driving carelessly or dangerously?
I’m certainly in favour of the authorities using any means possible to weed out these nutters who ‘know’ it will never happen to them
"Any means possible" is a far-reaching phrase. I'm not for one moment suggesting you meant to include it, but it does include, for example, mounting machine guns on police Hiluxes and driving around shooting dangerous drivers to take them and their cars off the road.
I am in favour of the authorities assessing individual cases on their individual circumstances, convicting drivers who are careless or dangerous of the appropriate offence, and not conviciting drivers who are neither careless nor dangerous of anything at all.
|
|
Very rational post GJD. Excellent.
|
Sussex speed cameras issued fines totalling £4.11m in 06/07.
According to MP for East Worthing and Shoreham Tim Loughton, speed cameras generate revenue more than they save lives.
|
I don't understand why some people have difficulty in realizing that speeding fine is a revenue earning exercise for govt. rather than caring for public safety!
Bit off topic:
In yesterday's Dispatcher, it was mentioned that the EU regulatory board recently cut the cost of mobile roaming to a great extent. However, the British MPs tried their best to prevent that (though they are not successful in doing that). It was disclosed that MPs had good rapport with top bosses in mobile companies and MPs tried to preserve their interest instead of common public!!
The govt. is bankrupt! They need money anyhow. Now fewer motorists are caught speeding - so they are now going to reduce the speed limit - already doing 20 instead of 30 in many town centers!
|
Speeding is optional.
So if anyone is stupid enough to speed and get caught I have zero sympathy.
|
|
|
|
I am in favour of the authorities assessing individual cases on their individual circumstances, convicting drivers who are careless or dangerous of the appropriate offence, and not conviciting drivers who are neither careless nor dangerous of anything at all.
So, that's all very simple & straightforward then. If I understand this correctly: you can go at whatever speed you want to. If you have an accident (when going at whatever speed etc.) you may be prosecuted for one of the 'careless/dangerous/without due care' categories.
Wouldn't that be a bit like saying, (to use an analogy) own all the guns you want, take them out & fire them around, but if you shoot somebody by accident, we'll (probably) prosecute you ? Would that inhibit irresponsible behaviour or reduce road casualties do you think?
|
If I understand this correctly: you can go at whatever speed you want to. If you have an accident (when going at whatever speed etc.) you may be prosecuted for one of the 'careless/dangerous/without due care' categories.
You don't understand me correctly, on two counts.
1) Where did I ever say you can go whatever speed you want? I never suggested that speed is irrelevant. Depending on the circumstances of the individual case, speed alone may be sufficient evidence of dangerous driving. The point is that, if driving is dangerous, an offence already exists for that. If driving is not dangerous, a conviction for anything is uncalled for.
2) Causing an accident is not a prerequisite for conviction and the severity of the offence and appropriate sentence is no less if an accident was avoided only due to cirumstances outside the driver's control. You missed, or may not have seen, a point in my other post (emphasis added): "If I am caught driving dangerously, whether above or below the speed limit, and WHETHER I CAUSE AN ACCIDENT OR NOT, I expect the law prohibiting dangerous driving to be applied to me."
Wouldn't that be a bit like saying (to use an analogy) own all the guns you want take them out & fire them around but if you shoot somebody by accident we'll (probably) prosecute you?
No. It would be like saying, if you own a gun [a car], understand that there is an offence called "dangerous firing of a gun" [dangerous driving]. If you ever fire your gun [drive your car] in a manner that would not reasonably be considered safe, regardless of whether you actually shoot somebody [cause a road accident], you have committed that offence. You are free to fire your gun in a manner that *would* reasonably be considered safe. In doing so, you commit no offence.
|
|
|
|
|
For the life of me I just cannot understand the widespread perception that the apprehension and subsequent prosecution of speeding offenders is some sort of game. I have seen some
They should get off their fat backsides and try to weed out, as you put it the girlies in their 106's either on the fag or phone or both, or lorry drivers on the phone, or ....and so it goes on. There will always be nutters and they should be banned for life, but we all speed, yes all of us, yes even you cos it is IMPOSSIBLE not to as limits change up and down and down and up all within ridiculously short spaces and most not appropriate for the circumstances. Most 'speeding' is not dangerous persay, but sticking like ess aith one tee to an old army blanket, up the chuff of the guy in front is dangerous and it is these folk that should be banned for life. Drive too slowly for the circumstances and your mind wanders. Ban walkman/ipod like devices in cars where the driver wears an earpiece. Ban overly loud 'music' in cars where you can't think cos of the row. Ban for life anybody doing more than 20 past a school, but for crying out loud, have some reality and sense about the subject of 'speeding'
VBR...................MD
|
|
I meant aitCh
|
|
It's OK Martin, a lisp can be quite charming on a man of a certain age I'm told ;-)
|
|
|
|
for crying out loud have some reality and sense about the subject of 'speeding'
Some people just can't MD.
They know people commit offences and drive dangerously and carelessly, and they want someone to be punished. Trouble is, specific instances of careless and dangerous driving are so variable and so complex to understand let alone describe that overload sets in immediately.
There's something so reassuringly clear about a speed limit. Never mind that it's too low or has been imposed by a committee of self-serving idiots or that it isn't being exceeded dangerously or by much. It's a law that has been contravened, and that enables intellectually lazy and wimpish individuals to feel virtuous and call people unlucky enough to get fined for this mere technicality stupid. Very annoying attitude that. Makes one wish the sanitary inspector would make a lightning swoop and condemn their bathroom or kitchen. That would learn the carphounds.
|
|
Anyone might think you felt strongly about this Lud!
|
|
Not really. Just growling in my sleep.
|
I think i've worked it out. Some people are happy with 'rules', because it means they don't have to think for themselves and are in a comfort/safety zone imposed by others. So even the fact the risk assessment/research etc for the rule is completed by others and they don't have to bother, is in itself comforting.
That works o.k. as long as the rule is relevant and/or the person imposing the rule has taken the trouble to get it right....or as can often be the case... amend it when circumstances change.
However, quite often the rule isn't necessarily relevant or has become out of date. What do you do then? Carry on complying.. or challenge it.
In extremis Emily Pankhurst etc chose to challenge the law (rule) because she and others felt the law was badly wrong. Somewhat more low key and less dramatic, but some speed limits are plainly wrong, because they are set far too low e.g. 20mph limit for a school that is in force 24 hours a day 365 days of the year.
If the French can have variable limits for motorways depending on the weather, why can't we? If the Spanish can have traffic light speed limit compliance devices, instead of cameras, why can't we? if various countries can have variable limits o/s schools, why can't we?
I don't for one minute condone speeding as an absolute right, because at times it can be lethal, however it has to be 'horses for courses' not a blanket, hysterical, all speeding is wrong.
maybe we need a 'Speed Ombudsman', someone qualified who can assess public complaints and compel local authorities to have a re-think if they've got it wrong.
Edited by Westpig on 30/04/2008 at 07:17
|
But that don't produce revenue do it?
MD
|
After a good nights sleep I am now starting to see the funny side of all this wasted eloquence trying to refute the irrefutable. Speed kills and maims (which is often far worse) punktum. It?s similar to hearing heavy smokers disputing the dangers of smoking despite the statistics, just because they had a grandfather who smoked like a chimney and lived to be 101. Same thing with heavy drinkers who will cut down when they feel a habit forming. Well, what the hell, maybe you?re all right, the sands of time are running out for us all so why not enjoy ourselves behind the wheel while we can, come what may. One positive spin-off from road fatalities is after all a steady supply of transplantable organs, so it's not all gloom and doom.
BB
|
Speed kills and maims (which is often far worse) punktum.
Since you seem keen to evangelise the mantra, perhaps you might enlighten the rest of us as to what contructive benefit is offered by the phrase "speed kills" in a discussion on road safety. Because the only fact that I can see it adds to the mix is: if all vehicles were at all times stationary, nobody would ever be killed or injured by a moving vehicle.
Which is true, but utterly useless.
>>It?s similar to hearing heavy smokers disputing the dangers of smokingdespite the statistics just because they had a grandfather who smoked like a >>chimney and lived to be 101.
No it isn't. Nobody is suggesting that smoking [driving dangerously] is acceptable just because some of the people who habitually do it happen not to die prematurely [cause a road accident]. However, one of the things people sometimes do while smoking [driving dangerously] is to read the newspaper [exceed the speed limit]. What is unnaceptable is to punish anyone caught reading a newspaper without bothering to establish whether they were smoking a cigarette. And it is unacceptable for two reasons. Firstly, those who were not also smoking a cigarette have done nothing wrong and so punishment is underserved. And secondly, those who were smoking a cigarette have not been punished severely enough.
|
|
|
|
So you do an assessment of a road no one is around, built up area, hedges/walls/gardens, daylight, no traffic about, 5 am etc and decide that as that it is safe to drive at 70.
Then a toddler runs out of a driveway and across the footpath . . . . . . not likely but possible as the family is leaving early to go somewhere.
Too late to slow down as you are doing 70.
That is why there are limits and that is why we should not be upset if we get fined for exceeding them.
|
So you do an assessment of a road no one is around built up area hedges/walls/gardens daylight no traffic about 5 am etc and decide that as that it is safe to drive at 70.
I can't imagine it's ever safe to do 70 in a built up area! However if the houses are set back from the road and you've got good visibility, good road and traffic conditions then 40mph in a car is fine. Or do you disagree?
That is why there are limits
And the limits wouldn't be so widely disregarded if there wasn't some hand-wringing plea about doing 70mph in a built up area, killing fluffy kittens or children with promise in their cute wide eyes.
However I fully agree that complaining when you get caught is poor form.
|
|
|
We are all fantastic drivers and would be capable of doing 100 in a 30 zone. (Let us assume.)
However not everybody else is.
Limits exist, and should be enforced, to protect US from the rest of THEM.
Until an accident has happened, it is difficult to identify whether an individual is driving dangerously/without due care.
|
|
the limits should be set at a reasonable level.....some are not
|
|
So you do an assessment of a road no one is around built up area hedges/walls/gardens daylight no traffic about 5 am etc and decide that as that it is safe to drive at 70.
If that is an honest and genuine attempt to assess the road ahead [*] then it suggests a serious lack of hazard perception ability. Since it is possible to cause accidents and kill people without exceeding the speed limit, hazard perception is a vital skill. If someone with the best will in the world is getting it that wrong there is a serious problem. And it's a problem that won't be fixed simply by the imposition of some points and a fine. It will be fixed by retraining.
However, it is hardly proactive to only offer retraining to people who have already caused an accident. I have been flying aircraft for longer than I've been driving cars. In order to be allowed to keep my pilot's licence, I am required to spend at least an hour every two years demonstrating to an instructor or examiner that my skills and judgement are still what they should be. I have no idea why I am allowed to keep my driving licence for decades without a similar requirement.
[*] As opposed to an "I don't care, the road is my playground and I'll drive as fast as I like" attitude problem, which is completely different. There are people with that attitude problem. They are a minority, albeit a highly visible one at times. That attitude falls squarely into the category of dangerous, regardless of whether the speed limit is exceeded, and the only issue is making sure they are convicted of something stronger than speeding.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
