Safe Speed Forums

Neither have they made provision for the event that you're standing at the lights and you see a bloody great big artic with dodgy brakes bearing down on you. (happened to my father)

What would you do in that situation?

I know what I'd do - and I'd sooner go to jail than pay the fine.



By all accounts, you have plenty of excuse to go around murdering lots of people. So what's stopping you?

Cheers
Peter

_________________
Only when ideology, prejudice and dogma are set aside does the truth emerge - Kepler

The problem is that if you extend this line of thinking you end up with terrorists who think that their actions in blowing people up are perfectly legitimate and justified by a higher purpose. So where do you draw the line, which laws are we allowed to break and under what circumstances? Are there different categories of laws, those that it is sometimes okay to break, and those that it isn't? Who decides which laws are in each category?

Absolutely wrong. It's the job of the courts to interpret law in the context of the facts of each particular case. That's how murder beomes (or doesn't) justifiable homicide.

But haven't you just agreed with my point here? The fact that we have a concept of "justifiable homicide" is because our legislators have explicitly created our legislation to permit that judgement to be made.

I wonder how many people would be in favour of the flip side of the argument here - if you think people should be allowed to exercise discretion and break the law for a higher purpose, surely we should also allow the police / courts the discretion to punish people for legal acts where a court decides that nonetheless they shouldn't have been doing whatever they were doing? For example, I would argue that if you drive a vehicle that does 4mpg, then although that is legal, it is morally despicable, and if you're going to allow people the discretion to drive through red lights when they think it appropriate you should also be in favour of a judge ordering the imprisonment of people who drive cars with inappropriately high fuel consumption. Or perhaps you only want the discretion to work one way, always in your favour.......

You will let us know if and when you or any member of your family are being conveyed to hospital, won't you?

You wouldn't want to be branded a hypocrite and benefit from the extra few minutes an earlier arrival at hospital might afford you or a loved one in the survival stakes??

I'm sure from what you say that you literally would much rather die yourself or lose a close member of your family solely due to a traffic hold up than someone else risk their licence to save your (or your loved one's) life.

Wake up and smell the coffee, Steve: If this is not sorted out now or sooner real people are going to literally die through delay.

Tell all of us again you'd rather let one of your own children die in the back of a delayed ambulance rather than someone interpret the spirit of the law in such circumstances and get out the way.

Yes or No?

I wouldn't choose either of those options, I would prefer the law to allow people to act in a way that contributes to the overall well-being of society. For this reason I frequently write to my MP to comment on weaknesses in forthcoming legislation, to attempt to do my part to help ensure that these problems don't arise. For example, I wrote to my MP less than two weeks ago to give some specific examples of how legitimate activities would be criminalised according to the letter of some proposed new legislation. When was the last time you wrote to your MP to try to improve the quality of our legislation?

And there's the rub. Quality of legislation! You have a point that most people, including myself (well, alright, just once), don't write to their MPs often to comment on potential failings in future legislation. However, most legislation really isn't held up for public scrutiny to any real extent. Sure, anyone can go online and look through Hansard, order copies of Acts and, presumably Bills, White Papers etc. But people have lives to lead as well, and time is precious. You could spend literally all day checking this sort of stuff out. Better IMO to comply with the spirit of the law, which at one time was really all anyone had to do to avoid prosecution. On the roads that means it ought to be enough that a driver is behaving safely first and not taking the mick second, and usually the two will be the same thing.

_________________
Make everything as simple as possible, but not simpler - Einstein

Ding ding ding!

Steve, it's coffee time! By all means, please do write to your MP and bring this story to his attention (I have mine already)... Great that you want the law to reflect and allow people to 'contibute to the well-being of society'

Getting the law changed COULD take years.... But I'm sure it would be a wonderful, well worded and thought through change.

In the meantime, for example (and only as an example), let's say some life threatening accident (God forbid) happened to someone very close to you tomorrow (ie. not enough time to change the law to write in every possible conceivable reasonable excuse for breaking it).

Would you prefer to see other motorists break the law and get out of your (relative's) way??? (If this is true answer YES)

But if you think the law "must be obeyed at all times" and you'd rather risk dying legally than someone else breaking the law to facilitate your (relative's) treatment, then answer "No"

Straight forward question, Someone else breaks the law OR you (or a close relative) possibly die.

Come on, Steve. We're all sitting waiting for your answer.

Oh no it isn't...

_________________
"Politicians are the same the world over... We build bridges where there aren't any rivers." - Nikita Kruschev

Very funny - really!

BUT - this could go on for ever, so I'm calling a halt. No more gentlemen please.

_________________
Paul Smith
Our scrap speed cameras petition got over 28,000 sigs
The Safe Speed campaign demands a return to intelligent road safety

Can I suggest that we are above the petty idea of holding an ambulance up? I for one will continue to preempt if possible and get out of the way of emergency vehicles, and will do so no matter what regulation is violated provided that safety for any third party is not compromised in the process.

I've not read the case, and don't have time to do so now. however, if it is as reported, contrary to Basingwork's intimations, this one should be taken further up the line to claim damages for vexatious prosecution.

Quite. I wonder if we couldn't legislate for common sense? It doesn't seem unreasonable or impractical to me that anyone accused of breaking the law should be able to defend himself with a claim of 'plain common sense'.

We need common sense - we can't replace it with even a million petty regulations.

_________________
Paul Smith
Our scrap speed cameras petition got over 28,000 sigs
The Safe Speed campaign demands a return to intelligent road safety

I agree with Paul's comments - unfortunately "common sense" ain't so common - especially when there's a few quid to be made out of someone else's kind gesture.

The law is a joke - plain and simple

Yep, this is absolutely vital, but it has to work both ways. I've recently been involved (at work) in fielding questions regarding our teaching of a rather common engineering process after someone was unfortunately injured. Sadly the chap concerned had failed to apply what is commonly referred to as 'good engineering practice', something that isn't taught as such, but is inculcated through the repeated transmission of safety and husbandry messages. In this instance the reverse situation applies, the'system' should be able to defend itself against accusations of failure in duty of care (or whatever) with the response that the individual should have applied common sense. We'd see a lot less petty cases coming to court if a plea of common sense failure could be adopted by the defence.

Having said all this though, I believe that red light cameras use an inductive loop buried in the road- the same type that Truvelo speed cameras use. If you go over the inductive loop slowly enough (say, 5mph or less) the system doesn't trigger.

I remember this clearly because a little while back they were having problems with the nearby Handy Cross roundabout (M40 J4) getting blocked up in heavy traffic due to people ignoring the traffic lights in use there. They considered traffic light cameras, but rejected the idea because the queued-up traffic wasn't going fast enough to trigger them. They put jam sandwiches up there now.

If you've got an ambulance waiting behind you at camera'd traffic lights, I don't think you're in any danger by creeping over to the left to let it through.

_________________
“For every complex problem, there is a solution that is simple, neat, and wrong.” - H. L. Mencken

I would still not obstruct an ambulance or fire engine at traffic lights, even if it meant driving safely across the line whilst lights on red. I might not be so keen to move for a police car, however, since they are a party to this nonsense.
I would, however, not plead guilty if charged and would not pay any fine whatever the consequences to me. If the law then decided to imprison me for assisting an emergency vehicle to make progress, then that shows the sort of people the CPS/Scammers/Police want in our prisons.
At least I'd have my 15 minutes of fame in the national papers and I bet my costs would be recovered on appeal. No appeal court would uphold such a conviction anyway.

Exactly. Me too. 100%. Lives before regulations - every time. No exceptions.

_________________
Paul Smith
Our scrap speed cameras petition got over 28,000 sigs
The Safe Speed campaign demands a return to intelligent road safety

You asked for posting to the thread to cease, but it seems to be rumbling along regardless, so here goes...
As I pointed out above, if you apply this logic, you will end up condoning terrorism. A few innocent lives lost in suicide bombings to save far more lives if the desired result is achieved, e.g. withdrawal of troops. What you said above could equally be used by those people to justify their actions; they believe they are putting lives before regulations. Are you still so sure there should be no exceptions?

That's a misunderstanding - I wanted the potentially endless comedy routine to finish.



We need nothing more than common sense to make the determination. I'm certain that we must use it, and I speculate that perhaps we should legislate for it.

_________________
Paul Smith
Our scrap speed cameras petition got over 28,000 sigs
The Safe Speed campaign demands a return to intelligent road safety

That's mixing politics with real-life practicalities and there really is no comparison.
To commit murder, or to commit conspiracy to encourage murder, is quite different from the committing of a very minor technical offence in order to facilitate a practical need in society. In such a case the entire thing is very minor and the intention is just a spur-of-the-moment decision to assist in a perceived public need.
If we're going on this tack, then what about the requirement to self-incriminate in motoring offences, and only in motoring offences. That's a grave infringement of our basic principles of law, but they have been overturned. Are you happy with this? I'm not and it's one of my prime objections to unmanned electronic enforcement of any laws.