Safe Speed Forums

Ah you mean like Capital Punishment perhaps or maybe transportation for stealing a loaf of bread...those kinds of "laws"???

You accuse me of missing the point but its you thats missed it and by a country mile, that point is that there IS no point to enforcing a law that penalises drivers for safe driving regardless of the measured speed, because the measured speed isnt any indicator on its own OF safe driving.
A trafpol on the other hand can make a judgement on that quite easily and HAS to report for the offence of speeding purely because "the law says so". Yet that dosnt mean its right and proper to prosecute for safe driving, now does it? Hence the opposition to it.




My brain is always engaged, many thanks for your concern, but please, dont let me stop you from getting your point across.



No. All this shows is the lengths the states stazi will go to, to secure a pathetic conviction for someone effectively telling them to twat off.
This case isnt about speeding unless youd not noticed.




Are you being deliberately obtuse or does it come naturally?
Do you really think it only cost £600 to persue this case? What about all the time taken to trace him, officers overtime etc? Or dont you factor that in?



It does no such thing, ive attempted to get through to you but you just dont seem capable or willing of understanding the situation that i and others have discussed here.
At what point do you think his driving suddenly became "careless"?



"One of your comrades in arms has been caught, ha ha ha"...or words to that effect. Sounds malicious to me and adds nothing positive to the debate.

Which bit of his driving was "careless"?



How can we condemn him when we dont have all the facts, we wernt on the jury, remember? And neither were you yet you presume to judge him anyway.



That statement makes no sense whatsoever. Whats the point in condemning someone for safe driving even if theyre exceeding a speed limit? All such an attitude does is to drive a wedge between public and police.




So a clean licence, not speeding fines or other endorsements (in spite of my speeding ) and i shouldnt be driving?
You missed entirely the point i made regarding the speedo too; its entirely an unecessary item to have in a car, i know as i drove without one for longer han i care to mention. Didnt have any crashes tho, or tickets....





Im hardly desperate and so far its you looking like a fool, sorry but its true.



Not at all, debate goes nowhere if people dont have different opinions, its the ones who dont see whats obvious that irritate me, but they never upset me.

btw can you use the quote function correctly?

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

Believe nothing- Question everything.

This sounds suspiciously like another trollish-type comment. Would you care to explain it please?

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

"Ah you mean like Capital Punishment perhaps or maybe transportation for stealing a loaf of bread...those kinds of "laws"???"

Eh?

"You accuse me of missing the point but its you thats missed it and by a country mile, "

Here we go again, your arrogance is bouncing out of your head.

"that point is that there IS no point to enforcing a law that penalises drivers for safe driving regardless of the measured speed, because the measured speed isnt any indicator on its own OF safe driving."

Yes, I have ACCEPTED that argument for the sake of this thread!!! For goodness sake, wake up!

"A trafpol on the other hand can make a judgement on that quite easily and HAS to report for the offence of speeding purely because "the law says so". Yet that dosnt mean its right and proper to prosecute for safe driving, now does it? Hence the opposition to it. "

How many times do I have to say this, I'm not talking about his breaking the speed limit, but his convictions for careless driving.




"My brain is always engaged, many thanks for your concern, but please, dont let me stop you from getting your point across."

Whatever.



"No. All this shows is the lengths the states stazi will go to, to secure a pathetic conviction for someone effectively telling them to twat off.
This case isnt about speeding unless youd not noticed."

You're right, really it's about careless driving unless you'd not noticed.




"Are you being deliberately obtuse or does it come naturally?"

Oh do fuck off with these lame and pathetic comments of yours.

"Do you really think it only cost £600 to persue this case? What about all the time taken to trace him, officers overtime etc? Or dont you factor that in?"

So what if it cost more, he was convicted of careless driving nine times. I think that it was right for the police to do this; you obviously don't.



"It does no such thing, ive attempted to get through to you but you just dont seem capable or willing of understanding the situation that i and others have discussed here."

Bullshit. It's you who doesn't seem capable or willing of understanding the situation here.

At what point do you think his driving suddenly became "careless"?

I don't know, I WASN'T AT THE TRIAL! But nor were you! The jury found him guilty of careless driving. What evidence do YOU have that makes you think that they were wrong?




"One of your comrades in arms has been caught, ha ha ha"...or words to that effect. Sounds malicious to me and adds nothing positive to the debate.

The point was to get across to everyone, including you, who wasn't willing to condemn him, that if you don't, then other people might well feel inclined to do so perhaps more strongly.

"Which bit of his driving was "careless"?"

Which bit of "I wasn't at his trial" do you not understand?



"How can we condemn him when we dont have all the facts, we wernt on the jury, remember? And neither were you yet you presume to judge him anyway."

You moron, the jury found him guilty.



"That statement makes no sense whatsoever. Whats the point in condemning someone for safe driving even if theyre exceeding a speed limit?"

Because I'm NOT condemning people on this thread for driving safely! I'm saying that you need to condemn people who don't drive safely. Yes?

"btw can you use the quote function correctly?"

It's hardly worth bothering with things like that when I'm responding to abusive messages from people like you. And yes, I know I said "fuck off" but (a) it was justified as I'm just responding to your abuse, and (b) you can put the word abusive in quotation marks all you want, but it doesn't change the fact that you have been abusive.

ONCE AGAIN

jr135, do you ride a motorcycle?

EDIT: please do make an effort to use stacked quotes properly, it makes for much easier thread reading for everyone.

Steady on, gents, please.

There are some points worthy of debate in here, but please try not to sling mud at one another. Points scored in that way just turn the rest of us right off and dilute the argments.

Ha! I just came back to this thread to post just such a message, and you've beaten me to it. Thanks.

And the overriding point is that insults and mud slinging do not win debates or resolve differences. They just cheapen all of us, which is why they are against the forum rules.

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

"Are you having a laugh? You’ve done it again!"

Alright, let me try this. What if we didn't have any laws on speed but we did on other motoring issues such as using a mobile phone whilst driving. He used his phone regularly but when he saw the police he then started waving it about and looking at them rather than concentrating on the road. Should we get rid of the police in that situation?

By the way, if that's not a valid question then do me a favour and just delete it.



"Nope. The prosecution managed to convince the members of that particular jury that the driving fell below the expected standard, nothing more. **"

Um, right, so basically you're saying in effect that you're not willing to condemn anyone no matter how they drive?


"Because this is Safespeed!
Seriously though, many here have a wealth of knowledge, experience and wisdom significantly above the typical cross-section of the population – this is a ‘single issue’ [safe transport] website after all!"

So by reading a short article and seeing just one or two photos you can ascertain whether someone is driving carefully or not can you?


"All at the same time? I say again, I’ve seen no photo of the biker appearing to look at the camera with his arm raised. Even if he was, I ask again: is exceeding the speed limit, looking at a road sign and changing gear considered as ‘careless driving’? If not then what is the difference?"

Well what DO you consider 'careless driving'?

As an additional point, this driver has been called dim by someone else on here - perhaps the jury decided that someone of his intelligence simply didn't have the ability to look at a camera, raise his arm, and drive at speeds of up to 105mph carefully.



"It means that you cannot possibly justify your opinion of condemnation of the biker (over the trust you place in the judgement of others) – as demonstrated by your lack of ‘arms waving/eyes wandering’ argument."

Now I genuinely don't understand what you're saying. There wasn't a lack of arms waving as we know from the photo. In another photo I saw he was looking up at the camera. Perhaps you're trying to say that I have a low opinion of him but a high opinion of the jury... Well, they had as long as they needed to discuss and evaluate the evidence, plus there would have been 12 of them. They decided, based on the evidence in front of them (which may have included their own thoughts on this driver's intelligence), that he wasn't paying serious attention to the road.


"** These things are subjective, open to interpretation, subject to politics and open for reversal. Say we capitulate so accepting that the guy was careless, then he appealed and was acquitted, must we then all change our minds accordingly? Please!"

No it's a case of accepting that a jury found this guy's driving was careless. If he appealed then there must have been something that wasn't accounted for before, in which case it is fair enough for you to accept whatever new verdict comes out. I say again that you weren't on the jury so haven't seen all of the evidence, so really, what choice does someone have but to accept a jury's judgement in a case like this?


There’s usually no subjectivity when assessing the deadness of a corpse

I certainly accept that but there is subjectivity as to whether, say, the person you can see on a CCTV tape is the same person that is standing in front of you. Anyway...

"Go and Google ‘murder acquittal’. I will never place my complete faith in trials by jury."

But what you are then saying is that you are always going to make a judgement on whether someone is guilty based on newspaper articles and the odd photo or two.


"which is not true, nor can ‘we’ condemn him."

Well at least some people were defending him.

I was reluctant to answer this question as I could foresee more unnecessary comments thrown at me from a certain poster.

No, I don't ride a motorcycle. However, all along I haven't been going on what I thought might be careless, but the fact that a jury found him guilty. And no doubt not everybody on the jury rode a motorcycle, but I'm sure that both prosecution and defence would have mentioned the relevant issues.

Ill ignore the usage of inappropriate language by "jr" to ask this question:

He says a jury found the rider guilty. Didnt a jury also find the Birmingham six the Bridgewater four and the Guildford four guilty too?

The fact is that juries get it wrong when evidence isnt right and in the case of the rider of this bike, i think they got it wrong again.
We dont know just exactly what it was that made his riding "careless" because the authorities havent said so, lets face it, theyve got nothing else to go on except a dammed scamera photo, and whats that tell us about safe driving? Obviously theyre just out to make an example of someone who treats their "best" efforts at road safety with contempt...as they should be.

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

Believe nothing- Question everything.

Not me. When I'm riding down the M40, I sometimes sit up and rest my left hand on the tank for a while. That's not dangerous driving, is it?

Sometimes I look at my watch when I'm driving - that's not dangerous driving, is it?

_________________
Pecunia Prius Equitas et Salus

I find my shoulders get sore on long rides, so I've been known to rest my left arm across the tank and lean on it...

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

“Strike three and you’re out!”


How on earth did you come to that conclusion?
From the information given (due to the nature of the evidence I strongly suspect there isn’t any more) there is not enough to convince ‘us’ that the bikers actions were careless.


I refer you to the end of my last post – the part that you conveniently didn’t quote!
I suspect some disingenuous behaviour on your part.


Irrelevant. We are discussing the reported actions of the biker.
You are trying to evade my (very relevant) questions.
I suspect that had you been on the jury, you would not have been able to convict that biker of careless driving without application of some personal bias.


I ask yet again - "All at the same time?” You’re now manipulating the facts.
Since when were IQ’s factored into a prosecution?


You wish everyone to accept subjective judgement as irrefutable fact.


Have we really not seen all of the evidence? I suspect we have! If we haven’t (what else could there be?) then we cannot possibly be in the position to agree with the verdict.

What do the last 3 posters above me have in common? It’s quite obvious!
(hint: it is something that I would wager that you have none of)


Investigators put just a little bit more effort into a murder investigation than a victimless technical driving offence.


My what logical disconnect you have! I have made my position clear - remember that part you conveniently didn’t quote?



You’re backpedalling!
Now you’ve been given a chance to argue the case for the charge of careless driving, failing miserably in the process, I have to tend towards believing the biker really wasn't being careless!

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

Well, having forced myself to read through this thread I'll say this much.

jr135 - you expect 'us' to condem this man's careless actions when many of us don't actually agree that his actions WERE ACTUALLY CARELESS. (based upon the evidence available)

Now personally I couldn't care less what the jury thought because I don't allow other people's opinions to affect my own. If there was more evidence at the trial then fine, but other than maybe CCTV recordings of the event or a past history of poor driving I can't see how there can be. Therefore based on my own experience and knowledge and the evidence that I have seen I cannot see that he is guilty of careless driving.

I've riden at speeds in excess of 105mph and was in full control and perfectly safe. I've riden at speeds in excess of 70mph whilst giving hand signals before changing lanes etc and was in full control and perfectly safe. And guess what, I've looked at roadside furnature whilst travelling at speed and still been in full control and perfectly safe.

Now PLEASE learn how to stack quotes because your posts simply do not scan.

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

I'll ask it again as it seems to have been ignored by jr135.

_________________
Prepare to be Judged

I was told he PLEADED guilty. If that is so the jury didn't have to find him guilty and, similarly, no precedent is set.

Does anyone know if I'm right here with regard to the plea?

Of course if he pleaded guilty he has no right of appeal unless the plea was under duress

Roger,
various news reports state: "The jury cleared him of dangerous driving but convicted him of nine counts of careless driving. He then pleaded guilty to a further nine charges of speeding."

Allow me to answer for JR...


Am I right?

_________________
Pecunia Prius Equitas et Salus

Obviously?

Oh dear, BottyBurp, like most other people, you really haven't actually been reading what I write. I have never argued on what I PERSONALLY thought was careless (although I have made suggestions). What I have been saying is that this driver was convicted by a jury on nine counts of careless driving. Perhaps you should ask the jury to backpedal?

Why not just answer the question?

Actually this is a pretty stupid argument. This driver apparently couldn't drive carefully with speed cameras about, and what the courts have done is removed HIM from the roads.





Okay, let me ask you a simple question: would you generally condemn someone who had been found guilty of careless driving by the courts?





You suspect wrong. Perhaps you would like to quote it again.




No we're NOT! I keep saying that we shouldn't try to take the place of the jury on this, who would have seen all the evidence. So what evidence do you actually have that the jury were wrong on this? Anymore, for the record, please answer my question.



I am NOT trying to evade any questions; however, I have repeatedly said that I'm not going to speculate on what evidence the jury did or didn't see.



Um, and that would have been different from everyone else because?






I am not manipulating the facts. The fact is that we don't actually know all of the evidence anyway. I have only been suggesting what the jury might have been told.



I didn't specifically say they were.





In what way?




I would suggest not but I really don't know. Nor do you.



Well there could be more photos for a start. What you are doing is arrogantly assuming that you know better than the 12 members of the jury.





I don't know but I strongly suspect that it's completely irrelevant to the actual argument that I've been taking. You may wish to have a think about that before you reply.





Okay, now do I have your permission to delete this bit, or will you say that I'm deliberatedly trying to get out of answering some vitally important point?




No, I really don't. I didn't conveniently not quote anything. Why not just get on and quote it again?





Now that's an interesting side-stepping argument from you... You said that no-one was defending him, remember? (And yes, I realise that I've done the same thing here, but it's only in response.)




I have NOT failed miserably in the process, because I have NEVER sought to argue for the charge of careless driving!!! My god, do you and others really read anything that I say???

WAKE UP.