Safe Speed Forums

Ling said "If I went into a pub where people were smoking, I would complain. If it wasn't resolved, I would report them. So, I know you are just making all that rubbish up. Most people are really pleased with these new laws."

Well it isn't just my local, there are many others - you need to get out abit.

I don't smoke, have never smoked and don't particularly want to breath in other peoples smoke. However, I freely walk into the pub and can freely leave (just like foreigners who come to this country). How dare this nanny state pass a law for us anti-smokers believing we are so feeble minded we can't make a decision to leave a smoking environment.

Whilst I am an anti-smoker, I respect smokers who defy the ban. They are saying enough is enough and sticking two fingers up to the legislators. What next? A law banning the wearing of under-pants for more than a month for hygene reasons?

I didn't say there weren't, but stopping people dying on the roads trumps them all.

_________________
Regulation without education merely creates more criminals.

So, you respect smokers who defy the ban. Who else do you respect? People who break laws that you, personally, don't like I guess.

What a hell of a situation, if everyone took your attitude that it is OK to decide WHICH laws will be complied with and which not. There are case where extreme public disagreement can pressure for bad laws to change, but this is not the case here with speeding/cameras or smoking. In fact the public support turned what was going to be a weaker smoking law into a stronger one! The time for protest is before laws are passed, mainly. If you lose, then you lose. This is not unjust, just because you don't like the laws.

I will add that this is a million miles away from people who protest against the Government in Zimbabwe or stand up in Tibet for what they believe in. We are discussing minor laws here in a country where full legal recourse is available, not massive human rights issues in some dictatorship. There is a big difference, I hope all agree, just in case this degenerates into those kind of arguments. These speeding/smoking/foxhunting laws are not some socially unjust law like compulsory abortion in China where compliance (rightly) is a social nightmare. I think we would all agree with this massive difference, I am not suggesting anyone here compares this stuff.

The reason I don't believe your rubbish about the smoking is that many people prefer the non-smoke atmosphere and will stand up for their right. To break this law, the landlords will have a big risk. I can say I have never been in a pub (or restaurant or ANY situation) where the law is being defied. The compliance is tremendous and the legislation has caused a big change in people's attitudes.

There are still people who refuse to wear crash helmets on bikes, refuse to wear seatbelts, refuse to obey laws like speeding and smoking, but these are very small minority and when the vast majority of people accept them, there is massive social pressure on these single-issue idiots to change.

People do become obsessed with their own issue, which is pointless when there is no real popular support for it. I imagine quite a few people would say they would like speeding convictions to be annulled and cameras removed, just as many people want parking fees to be abolished and road tax removed. But in the real world, it won't happen. So why spend your life fighting against what has become a good part of society? Patently the general arguments on this board get ignored, and the movement has lost a load of previous momentum. People who speed get punished. Easy. After a few endorsements, I guess they should slow down a bit.

_________________
I am Ling!
Visit www.LINGsCARS.com
I am car sales whirlwind. I like speed cameras.
Rent new car from me, save £££s.

Who should determine them then?

Highway engineers?

The police?

Or local politicians?

Incorrect.

The opposite of relaxed is "tense".

You do not here anyone saying "I am alert, I need to relax". You hear loads of people saying "I am tense, I need to relax"

You can be relaxed and alert; you cannot be relaxed and tense.

1. Relaxed, confident, alert... all go together.

2. Tense, fatigued, nervous... all go together.

Even Radox know this. They sell relaxation, tension relief in the bath. Are they quite mad not to mention alertness on their bottles? Radox relieves alertness and helps you relax does not make sense. Radox relieves tension and helps you relax makes perfect sense. You think Safe Speed would understand even Radox have got it right! They spend £millions researching and getting this stuff right. Yes - I base my argument on a bottle of soapy suds.



As a driver, the first set is best. As a pilot or passenger, I would prefer the first set to the second set. Listen to the voices on the radio talking to ATC. They are relaxed. Calm, confident, alert and relaxed.

If a voice came on tense, fatigued, nervous, alarm bells would ring in the radar centre.

-----

It is these kind of basically incorrect posts made by self-appointed experts that show up the basic mistakes in rationalle, here, IMHO.
No one else has pointed out RobinXe's mistake. You (plural) tend to cabal together and back up any incorrect statement, as long it is perpetuated by your own "side".

_________________
I am Ling!
Visit www.LINGsCARS.com
I am car sales whirlwind. I like speed cameras.
Rent new car from me, save £££s.

Whoever currently determines them. A mixture of all three I guess, along with national politicians. There is no groundswell of opinion for change, Safe Speed is a very minority and small voice (seems to be getting smaller as more people and more newer drivers learn to live with the rules). I appreciate all the drivers here think, and possibly could drive safely above the speed limit most of the time. However, the limit exists for public safety, for us all - not just for you.

I will add, if a local limit is wrong (you think), you can easily write and ask for it to be changed by the local authority. I am sure in some instances speed limits could be intelligently changed. But, I am more concerned with overall policy which is not half bad.

_________________
I am Ling!
Visit www.LINGsCARS.com
I am car sales whirlwind. I like speed cameras.
Rent new car from me, save £££s.

Dear Ling
Using Chinese abortion was a bit extreme, but when you consider that China could not support its birth rate and would have plummeted the country into anarchy and starvation then it is reasonable proportionate.

As for smoking, well just because you don't see it, doesn't mean it doesn't happen - what a sheltered life you must lead. The Landlord and patrons takes the "risk" of a £5,000 fine (the smokers only £1,000 each), but what price do you put on civil liberty, i.e. the right to chose your own actions?

In our case, the Police do turn up on the car park, but do nothing as they know we will give them such a headache and mountain of paperwork if they try to act, that its not worth the bother.

You seem to support a law merely because it is enacted by the UK parliment, the Mother of Democracy, not because of its reasoning. Then you praise such democracy with the utmost exhaltation.

Well the wonderfully democratic British Government passed the following:
Aliens Acts 1905 & 1919
Aliens Restrictions Acts of 1914 & 1919
Aliens Order 1920
Special Restrictions (Coloured Alien Seamen) Order 1925

The UK had made it illegall for Jews to work in the Civil Service or be on Jurys, as well as making it illegal for black seamen to disembark in UK Ports. All tis was while Hitler was still in short trousers!

Can I assume that in 1925 you would be telling everyone that we should obey zenophobic law because it was just that - a law made by the government? Isn't this how the Holocaust started - blind compliance?

So what if I break the law, it's much better to be the big bad wolf than another sheep in the fold.

Speed restrictions are now the thin end of the wedge of state oppression of the masses. Once they control our every motoring movement, what next?

All was fine, all those laws were repealed/changed and altered... until this last bit (above).

Yes, there have been many bad laws in the past, as there are many laws in other countries that need repealing and changing. I am sure there still may be odd examples here. There are many still in China.

But to say that speed limits are thin end of the wedge of repression of the masses is just lunacy and shows the extremes of this organisation (whose logo is a representation of "SS" in red and white - not very tactful to Jews, I suggest, although I do not think it was deliberate -if it was "KKK" would that be acceptable? No. And while we are at it, you should note Safe Speed is pretty much white, middle-class, and male... however, moving on...).

It demeans every other civil liberty to argue speed limits is "repression". In my case (and judging by compliance and fuss) the vast majority of cases we WANT speed limits to control every motoring movement. I want to know that speed is controlled on roads where my family and me are driving/walking/cycling or simply looking at. It is not pleasant to have de-restriction.

Smoking is not "civil liberty". Civil liberty is being free NOT to breathe smoke. In that pub. Patently you are making that story up, as anyone like me walking in would demand the landlord's attention. If I was fobbed off it would develop into a stand-off until I got some action (eventually via the police). So, landlords do not do this, patently you are making this up (lying about it). They would lose their licence. I, for one, would make representations to the licensing committee if it developed into a fight. But... it doesn't because it is untrue.

Yes, laws should be obeyed. You can't cherry pick which laws to obey.

Not to say there are not inequities. Of course there are. But, in the generality, the situation is quite fine. If the authorities say "30mph", then 30 it is, 99% of people accept that. The 1% of people who may think breaking speed limits is an honourable cause is the mental margin. You will find some people against every small thing. I do not agree with disobedience of that restriction is a sensible policy. For a start, most other road users and pedestrians will be expecting you to be doing around 30, max... so it is unfair on the weaker people to suddenly have you and your super-brain civil liberty attitude doing 50 mph.

_________________
I am Ling!
Visit www.LINGsCARS.com
I am car sales whirlwind. I like speed cameras.
Rent new car from me, save £££s.

Prior to the early 90s, speed limit changes were subject to approval by the (then) DoT, having been originally set by traffic engineering professionals. Now they are set by local politicians without central approval requirement.

Without considering whether this would make them higher/lower/the same, do you think the old or the current system is better?

I do not have an big opinion. Should I? Does it affect my daily life? I have not witnessed a massive change of unreasonable/mental speed limit movements. Have you?

I would have thought that local politicians who are answerable to local people are a reasonable set of people to make local decisions. They will know the local roads, I guess. I also guess they consult experts, police, residents and come to some pretty good compromises. I'm sure they also make the odd mistake, like many of us, that would need correcting.

I would think that even if a committee of local primary school kids made the decisions, from a choice of 20, 30, 40, 50, and 60mph... many would remain the same as they are now, as 95% are pretty indisputable.

It's sad that in the many and varies causes and inequities you could fight for..., in your sig you choose to fight against a reduction in national speed limit from 60 to 50 mph. a) is that proposal real, b) have you considered it may make things NICER on the roads, c) does it matter that much?

_________________
I am Ling!
Visit www.LINGsCARS.com
I am car sales whirlwind. I like speed cameras.
Rent new car from me, save £££s.

OK, what if the local politicians and the traffic professionals had divergent opinions?

Who should have the final say?

Local politicians of course. They are elected. They represent the people (with varying results). They can be voted out. Politicians should always have the final say as long as the framework is some sensible democracy.

Imagine if a "traffic professional" had the final say, and he (or she) turned out to be a nutcase with weird opinions.

_________________
I am Ling!
Visit www.LINGsCARS.com
I am car sales whirlwind. I like speed cameras.
Rent new car from me, save £££s.

Re your petition, you have twice as many people signing than the petition that "Calls on The Sun newspaper to back the social work profession"

That's good, then. Going well?

More people would pass under one bridge on the M1 in one hour than have signed that petition.

Woah!!! We have a joint customer/supplier. I sell a lot of cars for Wood BMW in Bournemouth, last year did loads! You do the plants. You see, we converge!

_________________
I am Ling!
Visit www.LINGsCARS.com
I am car sales whirlwind. I like speed cameras.
Rent new car from me, save £££s.

Dear Ling

My point is you accept that some laws were unjust, but it seems only after they have been repealed.

I think my point is where I see an unjust law I act with my conscience, I don’t submissively comply.

As for smoking in pubs, you say “Civil liberty is being free NOT to breathe smoke. In that pub. Patently you are making that story up, as anyone like me walking in would demand the landlord's attention.”

Well accusing me of making things up is not really helpful, indeed very offensive (I put it down to a cultural difference), but I do respect you reasoning nevertheless. Next you will be telling me that I am making it up when I say lots of people use hand held phones when driving. And have you ever witnessed a murder? If not, do you claim it doesn’t happen?

The Civil Liberty argument often goes to the heart of speed restrictions and enforcement.

Of course the civil liberty is to be free to choose not to breath smoke, and indeed you would be free to leave my local if you didn’t like the smoke. As the Landlord also smoke’s it would be quite amusing to see you “DEMAND the Landlord’s attention” (pmsl).

Oliver Cromwell brought in a law banning the eating of mince pies on Christmas Day and it has not been repealed! Can you assure me that you won’t be eating mince pies on Christmas Day? Are you suggesting that mince pie lovers should write to their MP seeking a repeal before the eat one on Xmas day? Will you be DEMANDING the attention of hotel managers who serve mince pies at Christmas lunches?

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

hahaha, this is what makes me laugh. You have to use old and archaic laws to make your point!

The bad laws were repealed, that is the real point. I am sure there are lots of old legacy silly stuff still alive, but this is just nonsense.

Now, if you act with your conscience, that doesn't wash. We cannot have a country where everyone acts with their conscience, as many people don't have one, or have a quite different one. The law does not quite work like that. A tax fraud may well be acting with his conscience as he doesn't think he should be taxed quite as much. But that doesn't make it right.

Your concept of conscience is a joke. Try the defence in court. If the law says don't stop on the hard shoulder for a pee, you can't simply argue that your conscience is not troubled by that law and you think it's a bad law.

What a joke attitude! Every time you speed past a camera or push another 5pmh out of an "unjust" 30mph limit (in your opinion) you must walk tall, afterwards! Brave boy. What a hell of a conscience!

_________________
I am Ling!
Visit www.LINGsCARS.com
I am car sales whirlwind. I like speed cameras.
Rent new car from me, save £££s.

Hahahaha, are you back? I thought you were out until moderation was required?

Answer: No, unless you update the Safe Speed website with corrections and clarifications I choose to make. There will be quite a few. You want a list?

_________________
I am Ling!
Visit www.LINGsCARS.com
I am car sales whirlwind. I like speed cameras.
Rent new car from me, save £££s.

Dear Ling

Didn’t Nelson Mandella make that famous speech in court where he admitted to murder and terrorism but said he was prepared to die for his beliefs? Are you going to mock him for ‘walking tall’?

Perhaps we could use more modern laws that have been repealed. For example until recent times it was illegal to engage in a homosexual act. Before the repeal would you have said homos should abstain from sex? Would you have reported them and demanded attention from whomever, just because a law said it was illegal? Or would you have said that homo’s should be free to act upon their conscience regardless of the law?

I don’t obey the law, just my concience. And I have faced a prison sentence for a crime of conscience and received a £30 fine – so the court do recognise that the concept of conscience over law.

Not my petition, though I support it 100% (I tried to start one but I was pipped at the post ). 10,000 is not bad after ten days. Feel free to sign it! In fact, why not put a link to it on your website?

(By the way, has anyone notced how many of the rejected petitions at the No. 10 site are down to the petition founders putting their name in the box where they're meant to put what they are proposing, e.g "We the undersigned petition the Prime Minister to Fred Smith"? )

I actually said "This is probably my last input", not that I was out. Are you going to start misrepresenting statements?

By all means provide your list and we can discuss it (edit: you'll have to prove the claims rather than just state them). I've given you mine, do you want to discuss the points on that list, or do you accept them?

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