Safe Speed Forums

Not according to the law which makes it illegal to carry anything you intend to use as a weapon.

Yes, giving out more guns is clearly the solution to gun crime. This is by far the most logical argument I have ever read....

Swiss gun crime is usually "domestic" ;popcorn: according to their papers. and Wildy

But licences have been granted in the past to totally unsuitable characters - like Hamilton who murdered a class of 5 year olds and their teacher.


Of course - thugs and organised crime rings can get hold of illegal weapons and be prepared to use them.


But still - very thankfully - a minority of the population and the sort we try to detect and arrest s a priority

_________________
Take with a chuckle or a grain of salt
Drive without COAST and it's all your own fault!

A SMILE is a curve that sets everything straight (P Diller).

A Smiley Per post
FINES USfor our COAST!

Approach love and cooking with reckless abandon - but driving with a smile and a COAST calm mind.

Intention - that's the key word and the "mens rea" which convicts in the courts.


If someone is waving a gun at me and our lads/lasses - they have to make a decision as to whether this person intends to shoot them ... if they end up shooting the person - full debriefing of the officer and we usually get a bad press too,

_________________
Take with a chuckle or a grain of salt
Drive without COAST and it's all your own fault!

A SMILE is a curve that sets everything straight (P Diller).

A Smiley Per post
FINES USfor our COAST!

Approach love and cooking with reckless abandon - but driving with a smile and a COAST calm mind.

Where "weepej" have you seen this statement about "Everywhere" having NSL (National or No Speed Limits) as myself, and I think everyone on this forum have not seen this statement on any websites or other forums?

So the answer lies with you as you have either a) made it up or b) found this statement somewhere on another website!

The simple answer is to either PROVE the statement or withdraw it as it appears to be just you making false statements.

The problem lies with the fraternity who have a total disregard for the law of the land and these people will NEVER have any respect for the law whatever it may be, so as has been said many many times why should the poor errant motorist who makes a mistake now and again be put in the same category as the ones above?

Why do councils / camera partnerships not install flashing warning signs which would with the 1st sign issue a notice of the posted limit then 2nd sign warning again then 3rd sign with cameras display the offending registration no. and recorded speed with a facing photo of the driver issued with the NIP (on this one were I work we have security cameras that are as clear at night as in the daytime) so there would be no need for the police / authorities to try and trace non-existant drivers as the evidence would be irrefutable in the photo of the driver / vehicle and also the errant driver would know that a prosecution is pending but the answer lies in one sentence "More Cost & More Importantly NO REVENUE"!

_________________
"There But For The Grace of God Go I"

"He Who Ain,t Made Mistakes Ain,t Made Anything"

Spannernut

Well, the messages are conflicting, on this board it seems to be that it should be OK to exceed a speed limit if the driver thinks its safe to do so.

i.e. that all speed limits should be advisory only.

Paul Smith hiself suggested to me that sometimes it was OK to do 70 in a 30.

What do gun control laws have to do with the sweeping statement you made?

While you have already admitted that you have found yourself in a situation where you would have pulled a gun if you had one, not all of us are that unbalanced.


Do you really believe that a law is going to stop somebody from obtaining a gun if they really want one?

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

Yup, a conservative society with a very strong pro gun lobby.

They say gun crime is so low in Switzerland it doens't "need" to be recorded.

Hmmm.

No, it'll make it harder, and they will have to act in suspicious ways though.

If you get caught by a speed camera today though, with their big orange boxes, and numerous signs preceeding them then should you really be driving a car?

Incorrect. You've turned 'can be' into 'all are'.
The main message is one of discretion (trafpol). IMO this has come about because (at east some) limits which are sometimes or permanently set needlessly low.

Harder?

If I so desired, I can walk in to at least 3 different pubs right now and buy a handgun for around £250 with no questions asked and I wouldn't have to "act" suspiciously at all.
And as a bonus, if I haven't actually fired it during the course of what I need it for then the dealer will buy it back from me at a reduced price.

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

It also works the other way round for the pedestrian as well Both parties are "wiser after the event"

But most drivers do not want to hit anything as it hits their pockets on insurance and repair bills if one is to look at the cash aspect instead of the human one.



Once upon a time - there were adverts every commercial break on Green Cross/Clunk Click/Two second gap/weaver bird/drink driving....


The messages got through to all road users and Green Cross was very successful for many years due to consistent regularity in its appearances.

The Green Cross Code Man (Darth Vader ) is still involved with the campaign and passed comment in a BBC Radio interview recently that his Green Cross Code prevented more pedestrians deaths at its campaign height .. but the cash for the campaign was sacrificed in favour of automated enforcement. (When asked what he meant .. he replied speed cameras I choked on a doughnut break at the time. )

_________________
Take with a chuckle or a grain of salt
Drive without COAST and it's all your own fault!

A SMILE is a curve that sets everything straight (P Diller).

A Smiley Per post
FINES USfor our COAST!

Approach love and cooking with reckless abandon - but driving with a smile and a COAST calm mind.

Riiiiight.

It does make it more difficult but, it still doesn’t stop those who want one from getting one, and it's those who go out of their way to get one who are the most likely to be the ones to use them.

_________________
Useless laws weaken necessary laws.

Situations, and you don't know what they were, but I bet that doesn't stop you thinking it was to do a bank over or mug an old lady...

I'm taking about defense situations here myself.

The warning signs are used in areas with no such enforcement - a la crying wolf.

Speed cameras need not be yellow/orange or even visible. Even if so, the detection of them doesn't form a part in the mental driving process. Real hazards are in the road or have a potential to be in the road; speed cameras are neither.
Many are hidden behind signs and foliage. Many mobile sites are just plain hidden.

http://www.speedcam.co.uk/gatso.htm
I don’t agree with all of the sentiments written on that page, but this is enough to give you an idea of what I mean: hidden and not yellow – and those are just the fixed sites!

True, but again I figure then guy driving round in a tonne of metal owes more to the concept of duty of care.

With no money to be generated, why would they do that, unless you're suggesting its to breed complancency.

You see, I got to the bit that asserted: -

There is no safety justification for such a low limit, other roadworks are 50mph and there is no danger to workmen

And realised it was a silly partisan assertion and wanted to stop reading.