Safe Speed Forums

if you do that in North Wales no doubt you will get charged with sec 5 public order act, or incitement of racial hatred

Err...no.
You'll get ASBOed and your bike will be confiscated

I live in Wales and speak Welsh ( not terrribly fluently, it is the NE ) so the racial hatred thing will have to be confined to the odd monoglot English draftee from Cheshire operating Arrive Alive Vans

sect 5 Public Order hmnnn I guess I'll have to argue political protest....?

_________________
Richard Ceen
We live in a time where emotions and feelings count far more than the truth, and there is a vast ignorance of science (James Lovelock 2005)

Nine counts of careless driving and you lot are basically defending this person. I thought this site was supposed to be about driving safely?

Let's face it, you simply want to drive at whatever speed you like and the "safe speed" argument used on this site is merely to provide some sort of justification for doing so.

Well let me just so this: ha ha! Your comrade-in-arms has been banned from driving for a year, and fined £900 with £600 costs.

As for the issue about the police having to be a bit determined to catch him, firstly, they're only human, and secondly, he drove carelessly nine times - how many does it have to be before it's right for the police to make an effort to catch the person?

I wouldn't defend this person. However I want to defend our rights and stop the march of draconian disproportionate mis-use of powers.

We were unable to tax my wife's disabled tax class car this month because DVLA's computer won't talk to the the disability computer in Blackpool. The car was not in use and on our drive, it is mot'd and insured. So I had to make a 200 mile trip with documents to tax it on threat of the car being crushed or impounded.

Apparently I have to comply with every crumb of hidden law but those scroats don't have to offer equal access under the DDA act.

The government (AKA big brother) is currently making life tougher than the kids on mini motos. That is the reason for backlash on this thread.

I have anti government feelings, but that is quire understandable having watched a family member die with food and water withdrawn and then her death removed from the CJD stats as "probable CJD" I cannot stand the corruption. Making a law for one use and using it for another falls into this category too.

Whilst you dance with glee at the bikers fines, next week, next year, it will be you for failing to carry you ID card or three wrongly placed wheely bins. Or putting your washing out on a wind farm day. (Help us god, they will be taxing wind use next.... Excuse me sir can I see your wind extraction liscence please.... )

_________________
Speed limit sign radio interview. TV Snap Unhappy
“It has never been the rule in this country – I hope it never will be - that suspected criminal offences must automatically be the subject of prosecution” He added that there should be a prosecution: “wherever it appears that the offence or the circumstances of its commission is or are of such a character that a prosecution in respect thereof is required in the public interest”
This approach has been endorsed by Attorney General ever since 1951. CPS Code

...yet not one accident? The standard for careless driving is purely subjective, so perhaps he wasn't actually being careless at all?! Did that never occur to you, or are you one of these people who believes that because the powers that be who stand to make a lot of money from speeding and other fines say that if something is de jure dangerous then it must be true?

The question is WHY was it careless?

1- Was it careless because he was speeding?
2- Was it careless because he had a hand off the bars?
3- Was it careless because he was speeding AND had a hand off the bars?

If the answer is 2 or 3 then I too must be guilty of careless driving - my bike doesn't have indicators and I have to take a hand off the bars to signal.

If the answer is 1 then surely that's covered by its own legislation and he should have been charged with SPEEDING, not CARELESS DRIVING.

The truth is the authorities didn't like him taking the p*ss so threw the book at him.

_________________
Science won over religion when they started installing lightning rods on churches.

Sorry, no! You are just plain wrong, to the point of trolling.

Absolutely no-one has defended the biker’s speed.
The posters here have been discussing the action of taking a hand off the handbar – which has nothing to do with speed, whereas your post is concentrated on speed – the classic non sequitur.

_________________
Views expressed are personal opinions and are not necessarily shared by the Safe Speed campaign

Which bit was "careless" exactly?
As others have pointed out was it his speed, his hands off the bars...what?



Tish tush! Driving at a "safe" speed without interference from authoritarian dickheads is what we want.
How many more times do i have to tell you, that the numerically displayed speed isnt an important consideration where that action is concerened, ie "safe" driving? Will you ever make the connection or are you deemed to forever wander the crust of this planet alone muttering " 31 in a 30 ban the bugger!"
Drive without reference to a speedo for 12 months and then tell me its not possible to drive "safely".



Ya know, i knew you were a troll from the moment you posted up your first nonsense, thanks for confirming what i already suspected; That you have no interest in driving safely, you just want to impose your incorrect assertions on everyone, just like the purplehelmets in power who wont listen.
Theres simply no way to educate the ignorant and uneducatable displaying such levels of plebity as you have.



Most police are indeed human, but have you seen brunstrom lately? very planet "X" indeed, maybe he's your hero?



You still havent demonstrated to anyone here which part of his driving/riding was "careless". Want to make an attempt on it yet or are you content to trot out "what you read" rather than give it any serious contemplation?
I give speed cameras the V's everyday, am i being careless? or am i just demonstrating my rights as an archer to practice on a sunday ( its against the law not to ya know!) so you must obey the law. Here, have a couple of these: VVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVV

_________________
"Safety" Scamera Partnerships;
Profitting from death and misery since 1993.

Believe nothing- Question everything.

I don't condone what this berk did, I just wish I thought the police put so much ingenuity into catching other kinds of repeat offenders, eg burglars/muggers etc.

"Which bit was "careless" exactly?
As others have pointed out was it his speed, his hands off the bars...what?"

I don't know which bit the jury thought was careless, but they convicted him of it. Nine times. I wasn't at the trial. However, just going on the small amount of information that is available in that article, perhaps the jury thought it was careless of him to concentrate on the speed camera instead of on the road.



"Tish tush! Driving at a "safe" speed without interference from authoritarian dickheads is what we want."

In your desperation to have a go at me, you've COMPLETELY missed the point. I was only mentioning speed in the context that this site is about driving faster but carefully - in other words I was mentioning careless driving. Perhaps, with your obviously superiour knowledge, you'd like to tell us all how it is driving safely when you're waving at a camera? It's hardly concentrating on the road now is it? You might wish to note that I didn't mention that he was convicted of speeding, but I mentioned that he was convicted of careless driving.

"How many more times do i have to tell you, that the numerically displayed speed isnt an important consideration where that action is concerened, ie "safe" driving?"

Again, you've missed the point.

"Will you ever make the connection or are you deemed to forever wander the crust of this planet alone muttering " 31 in a 30 ban the bugger!""

Again, you've missed the point.

"Drive without reference to a speedo for 12 months and then tell me its not possible to drive "safely"."

Again, you've missed the point.



"Ya know, i knew you were a troll from the moment you posted up your first nonsense,"

Which was what exactly?

"thanks for confirming what i already suspected; That you have no interest in driving safely,"

You really are a fool aren't you. This motorist was convicted of careless driving. Yes? I have every interest in driving safely. Try reading what I actually write, rather than what you imagine that I've written.

"you just want to impose your incorrect assertions on everyone, just like the purplehelmets in power who wont listen."

So it's incorrect to want people to concentrate on the road now is it?

"Theres simply no way to educate the ignorant and uneducatable displaying such levels of plebity as you have."

Strange, because that's exactly what I think of you. Perhaps this time you will actually read what I have written. Don't worry though, I won't be holding my breath.



"You still havent demonstrated to anyone here which part of his driving/riding was "careless". "

But how could I in the middle of your post! (Think about it.)

"Want to make an attempt on it yet or are you content to trot out "what you read" rather than give it any serious contemplation?"

Er, I wasn't at the trial and neither were you. And you may wish to note that it was a jury, not just a magistrate, that convicted him of careless driving.

"I give speed cameras the V's everyday, am i being careless?"

By not concentrating on the road, yes. But let's face it, driving at up to 105mph at the same time as taking your hands of the bike isn't exactly going to help your case.

"or am i just demonstrating my rights as an archer to practice on a sunday ( its against the law not to ya know!) so you must obey the law. Here, have a couple of these: VVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVV "

I actually think that most drugs should be legalised, because they do no more harm to other people than do alcohol or tobacco. So if also want to moan at me for being authoritarian, it isn't going to work!


[just an extra note to say that I thought by saying "have a couple of these" and with the word "roll" (the smiley) you were talking about drugs.]

"Sorry, no! You are just plain wrong, to the point of trolling."

I'm happy to admit that I do make mistakes, but I'm really not trolling. But I suppose it will be like when a leftie goes on the Daily Mail boards - it will just seem that way.

"Absolutely no-one has defended the biker’s speed."

Um, I'm not sure I said they had. But all the same, I hardly think the following is a condemnation:

"Fair play to the guy and bummer that he was caught out."

It just seemed to me that, at the time of writing my first post, no-one had condemned this man for driving carelessly. Driving at high speeds (but supposedly safe speeds) is something this site is trying to defend, and yet, when someone drives at high speeds but doesn't concentrate either, you seem unwilling to condemn him. I hope that makes sense.

"The posters here have been discussing the action of taking a hand off the handbar – which has nothing to do with speed, whereas your post is concentrated on speed – the classic non sequitur."

Hmm, don't try and be too clever - my post isn't concentrated on speed in that sense at all. I guess I didn't say it that well, but what I was trying to say is that, if you want people to accept that it's okay to drive at any speed as long as it's a "safe" one, then you have to condemn someone who has been convicted (in this case by a jury) of driving carelessly.

The dictionary defines "care" as "serious attention, especially to the details of a situation or something". Would you really say that looking at a speed camera whilst waving your hand at it was applying serious attention to the road in front of you?

I'm actually pretty much on your side believe it or not. What has happened to you sounds terrible.

I also have strong feelings about the government. In particular since the Met Police (in 2000 or 2001 I think) held protestors on a road junction on Oxford Street for eight hours, without access to food or toilets etc. They simply wouldn't let them move from this junction. Apart from the protestors, there was also one businessman who was just going to the bank, and a mother who had planned to join the protest only for a short while before going to pick up her young child from creche.

However, although I might think that the government is too authoritarian, at the same time I know that thousands of people are killed on the roads each year, and tens of thousands seriously injured. I don't want myself or anyone I know to be one of them. Which is why it's one thing trying to say that you can safely drive faster than the speed limit (which is bad enough when it might be some other factor than your own actions that result in a crash), but it's even worse when someone who has been driving faster than the speed limit is doing so carelessly. What I'm saying is that there at least needs to be consistency in the argument.

Finally, it's not so much that I'm dancing with glee at the biker's fines, it's more a reaction against the lack of condemnation for his careless driving.

Working on your post count?

But you still haven't answered the question of which part of his driving was "careless"

As Sixy has pointed out, she (and I for that matter) take our hands off the bars countless times during the course of any journeys we undertake when on two wheels, does that make us careless as well?

_________________
What makes you think I'm drunk officer, have I got a fat bird with me?

This site isn't even remotely about 'driving faster'.

It's about the importance of driving at an appropriate speed

And about the dangers and absolute futility of prosecuting perfectly safe driving.

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

wiki: a troll is someone who intentionally posts derogatory or otherwise inflammatory messages about sensitive topics in an established online community such as an online discussion forum to bait users into responding

If you don’t want to be viewed as a troll then refrain from making posts of such a style.



That doesn’t make logical sense, you may as well have said: “if you want people to agree that x = y then you are going to have to accept that x != y”

I strongly suspect that many here are greatly more educated and experienced in this field than the majority of that jury, hence you can’t be surprised if ‘we’ do have a differing opinion.


How do you know he was looking at the speed camera whilst waving? How do you know he wasn’t concentrating on the road? Look at the photo for a clue........

Let’s put it like this: Would you say that someone looking at a road sign whilst changing gear is not giving serious attention to the road in front by enough to warrant a charge of careless driving?

Is there genuinely any doubt in anyone's mind that the reason this charge was brought, and convicted, was the (potentially offensive) anti-authoritarian sentiments engendered by the man's actions?

Sure, they can wrap it up in a careless driving charge, and secure a conviction no doubt based heavily on jury selection and pushing the "his gesture showed disrespect, so he must have been disrespectful/careless of other road users and their safety" line, but neither having a hand off the bars, or triggering a speed camera, constitutes careless driving.

I have no doubt that, on viewing the pictures, someone in power decided to 'get their own back, and put him in his place', by bringing the resources to bear to locate and charge this man. The charge was probably all they could think of to trump up. I doubt very much whether any sort of public order offence would have stuck, since I do not believe that directing obscene gestures at a machine carries the same weight as towards a person.

So the Judge was probably talking to the Prosecution, not the Defendant....

_________________
It's tricky doing nothing - you never know when you're finished

Hmmm.
How exactly do we know where perfectly safe driving/riding crosses into careless driving or worse, dangerous driving?
Does reaching ones destination without crashing mean one has driven safely throughout the entire journey?