Safe Speed Forums

The what is this: the credence that we give to a person's pronouncements depends on what we know of his background and training. It is not ad hominen to ask about that background.

_________________
When I see an adult on a bicycle, I do not despair for the future of the human race. H.G. Wells
When I see a youth in a motor car I do d.c.brown

Hmmm...



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem

To query someone's opinion on the correct way to perform a heart bypass operation because he is an adulterer or a BNP member is ad hominen To query someone's opinion on the correct way to perform a heart bypass operation because he is a bricklayer is not ad hominen.

_________________
When I see an adult on a bicycle, I do not despair for the future of the human race. H.G. Wells
When I see a youth in a motor car I do d.c.brown

Indeed dcb. Johnny's post was certainly not "ad hominem" but asking whether or not the person ist an SCP worker. The person in question, however, make a lot of "ad hominem" about me und various members of my family - simply because he cannot chink an argument which use COAST .. Good practices as advocated by the Highway Code with the odd referral to the relevant Statute of Law - und a call for properly trained police with a professional attitude as the base.


NOTE ./. we do not at all want a type of "police officer" (calling himself "Not Saying from anywhere in the UK") who blaggards on a motoring site that he

Quote:

1. Let off a driver at twice the speed limit - as this mislead the fools on sites like Pistonheads/// (the ones who want to believe that sort of nonsense .. like the "happy ever after of the fairy story"
2. Thinks all police officers are above the law und should not be prosecuted if they make a mistake which kills someone .. because they are on "plleesss bizniss.. beeen twained und have an exempt-sham" (you only need to read this person's comments back in archives of OverKellett/the inusrance farce on M6/Northumberland tragedy/Stockwell/ und many others to get the picture of the type we would not wish on the UK police und the UK public

Such officers undermine professionalism .. und undermine a serious call which demands better/common sense und strictly professional enforcement by real police officers und less automated nonsense which fails to address the "speeding problem" in reality und which certainly fails to improve driving standards und responsibilities on the part of the road users.


By the way .. if GDS ist an SCP manager who feel he has to invent umpteen persona to present his case - then that action alone tells us he has lost the argument. . If he ist this person - but advocates illegality by deliberately creating a needless hazard - then he would be being unprofessional in the eyes of his employers who probably read this forum as Claire gets in the news rather more often than this SCP manager does

If he ist genuine ... He would also be liable in the eyes of the law .. especially in a civil court which does not demand quite the same onus of proof as a criminal court. I think they would go on "tort" of "duty of care to others" if something happened as a result of his actions in the "village he lives in"

It ist not "ad hominem" to point this out by the way. I am pointing out the type of police officer the public actually want und not the type who feel they have to join in stupidity to "be accepted by a set of hoons" on the one hand , that GDS has made more than one ad hominem on a member of my family as a constant .. but I suppose some think it OK for this person to call someone a liar in their own home as this ist in efffect what he ist doing here.. for no other reason than the person believes that speed cameras are the "salvation of road safety " when we all know they cannot deliver such und try to suggest how we might educate to eradicate danger

NOT the word IF. as it give a benefit of doubt. I am not being "ad hominem" but trying to point out that there are dangers in behaving like a "knob" in public if you are SCP or other "pillock of society" (By the way .. that ist internet joke amongst us all as until Claire gently corrected me on the phone once.. .. I really thought I was talking about "pillars of society" )

_________________
Nicht ganz im Lot!
Ich setze mich immer wieder in die Nesseln! Der Mad Doc ist mein Mann! Und ich benutzte seinen PC!

UND OUR SMILEYS? Smile ... und the the world smiles with you.
Smiley guy seen when you read
Fine me for Safe Speed
(& other good causes..)

Greatest love & Greatest Achievements Require Greatest Risk
But if you lose the driving plan - don't lose the COAST lesson.
Me?
Je ne regrette rien!

A direct observation was made, followed by the claim of the background; there was no argument based on/against the person (the only "therefore" moment was the claim of the background - which isn't ad hominem. Any subsequent claim based on that could have been ad hominem).

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

Oh yeah and travelling at 20mph in a 20mph or even 20MPH in a 30 where you can only see 10 feet in front of you? We are talking a dry perfectly clear day not adverse weather conditions, isn't that what all speed limits based on? Sheeeshhh. I would suggest if had an accident while driving within the speed limit that offence would more than likely be driving without due care and attention and possibly manslaughter depending on the severity not one of breaking the speed limit. Nobody as far as I am aware has ever been prosecuted for speeding while travelling at 30mph on this road they have been for other offences however.

_________________
Flash.
(Everybody is entitled to my opinion)

Don't be daft.

1. I'm only saying it as if I'm right then GDS is not who he wants readers to believe he is, so is trying to mislead us. And the whole magical nimbylante village story would be confirmed to be on the same scale of realism as Trumpton.

2. By accusing me of ad hominem are you suggesting that calling someone what I did is an insult? I never kew you felt so strongly about SCP employees!

3. GDS has already wheeled out the "In Gear's not really a copper" line (an SS troll litmus test if I ever heard one), thus himself placing importance on what people's true background is, so I think he took the gloves off first!

But your original assertion that driving down a road at or below the speed limit automatically means you are driving legally is wrong, right?

You wrote:



I disagree with this; it's not legal if it's dangerous.

Did I say that in relation to not speeding? I am sorry but I miss typed it then. Please accept my apologies, I will go back and check and do so after I have typed this and sent it so as not to pretend otherwise .

_________________
Flash.
(Everybody is entitled to my opinion)

especially one in particular?

_________________
Time to take responsibility for our actions.. and don't be afraid of speaking out!

Ja.. it ist careless/undue/inconsiderate .. which are different motoring offences.

Sadly for us all out there .. a speed camera does not manage to cop this.. und mobile cam operators are only interested in speed despite Greenshed's assertions that they nab other offences. (also posting as chunky und GDS as posts are now becoming all too similarly familar ) .. in addition.. to Highway66/Steak und Cheese/Puff the Magic (Mushroom) ./miles simpson/pitmansboots/black boots . red kite .. und countless multiple accounts which all suggest plenty to me. (Und all are against forum rules .... all forum rules.. ) There ist something wrong with a person who need to be so many multiple personalities to present his opinion.

He must thus be Insecure? He Knows we are right then! by virtue of his own actions. Miaow! PURRRRRRRRRRRRRRR! :bounce:


If this were the case as he claim more than once though - I would expect to read about this in the local press here. He would not be able to resist the positive press release after all. Since not one person has seen such in the press.. nor do archives reveal any such positive story for mobile speed cameras or fixed ones .. whatever.. that claim would appear to be the bunkum we know it to be.

Mad DOc und me are husband und wife with many a shared interest und a true deep ... quite mad .. love for each other und we are open und honest about being very happily married to each other on these boards. IG happen to be a cousin und a best pal to us who also has interest in road safety matters. He also happens to be a police officer.. but has already said that his patch will not tolerate downright dangerous at any darned speed... but the offence would not be "speeding" if inappropriate 30 mph in a 30 mph.. but one of undue care etc. Different und more serious offence. IG has posted since 2004 - that they have a normal tolerance on speeding which ist around "guidelines but that common sense get used" - but has posted that their patch ist tough on substandard driving/riding whatever the speed.

_________________
Nicht ganz im Lot!
Ich setze mich immer wieder in die Nesseln! Der Mad Doc ist mein Mann! Und ich benutzte seinen PC!

UND OUR SMILEYS? Smile ... und the the world smiles with you.
Smiley guy seen when you read
Fine me for Safe Speed
(& other good causes..)

Greatest love & Greatest Achievements Require Greatest Risk
But if you lose the driving plan - don't lose the COAST lesson.
Me?
Je ne regrette rien!

Wildcat - I have absolutely no idea what you are talking about.

Whether Claire said the police retain fine revenue or the local authority retain it she is wrong. Either she deliberately lied to Sky News or does not know very simple FACTS about camera use. Which is it? Either way she knows the truth now if she has read my posts.

I am aware of the ACPO "guidelines". I am also aware that not one single police force operates below them and that many operate way above them. If I was given a ticket at 31-34mph I would opt for court and the police would lose. There is a reason for the guidelines and that is certainty of a conviction. If I was offered a course at 31-34 mph I would refuse to attend and request a court hearing. They would be laughed out of court. But, of course, this does not happen, never has and never will.

I repeat - courses are offered as an ALTERNATIVE to a fixed penalty. None have ever or are ever offered below 35mph. This is a simple matter of FACT.

I came on this site thinking it was a road safety site in the first instance. It now appears to be a site that deliberately distorts the truth and makes excuses for law breaking.

And finally, I am in fact a retired Headmaster. Two of my colleagues within our village campaign are police officers - one currently serving and one retired. That is how I know my stuff in respect of these courses.

Please do not spread mistruths and lies.

Your claim of your position, as well as your contacts, means nothing. Besides, even well-meaning police officers have been known to get it wrong.


I will accept this if you can find campaign pages to support your claim; claims from non-spokespeople within forums are not a reflection on the campaign.
We (on this forum at least) give good reasons why some aspects of the law is used inappropriately and explain how subsequent behaviours are inevitable, which is not the same as 'excusing law breaking'. As for distorting the truth, see below...


Ah, so you did get your fact wrong - I thought so!
Care to remind us where the money from the fines now goes?


You are wrong; the proof has been given in an earlier post! Your claim remains entirely unsubstantiated.
Exceeding the speed limit is an absolute offence. If it can be shown that someone exceeded it by even 1mph (with corroborating evidence), then there is nothing in law to prevent the prosecution.

For anyone else reading: challenging a speeding conviction at 34/33 on the basis that the threshold falls outside the guidelines is dangerous and will very likely result with a court hearing and it's subsequent failure, as well as additional costs.


Care to substantiate this claim?

"Caught at 34mph in my Focus in Suffolk by scamvan, offered and accepted SACourse instead of points."

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

ALL fine revenue goes to The Treasury, as you well know. So why does Claire - a self proclaimed expert - tell the press otherwise? I originally referred to the police as numberous posts throughout this site appear under the illusion that police place cameras to raise money for themselves. How can they when it ALL goes to The Treasury? Neither do LA's receive a penny from placing cameras.

The police have to be 100% certain an offence took place and of a safe conviction - at 31, 32, 33, 34 there is a measure of doubt and any such court case would be thrown out. This is FACT. Show me a FP or an invite to a SAC at those levels. No one on here can or will because none exist. This is a lie that suits the SS agenda.

There are technical reasons why 31 in a 30 wouldn't be supportable but 32 could be. In practice the lowest I have seen is by a Police Officer at 33 mph in a 30 mph speed limit but that had other anti-social elements to that prosecution. In general most police and partnerships operated speed enforcement well above the ACPO thresholds but all can go down to them if they so desire. I do have misgivings on the 34mph in Suffolk report as in any case below the ACPO thresholds because I have not seen any office that operates below the thresholds. Every time I have investigated a specific claim that speeds below the threshold has been prosecuted it turns out the claimant was not telling the truth.

It isn't any use asking on here for specific comments because they haven't got anyone who is involved in the process that would be able to comment. They may forward In Gear who claims to be form Durham Police but he doesn't even know how many officers thay have in their enforcement vehicle so his credentials are dubious, in fact I say they are false, Durham have never heard of him.


I believe you are correct in finding thsi is not a road safety site or campaign becaise you will struggle to find a road sfaety achievement since its formation. Struggle, is an understatement as I believe there are none.

Where does the money from The Treasury go? What are all the sources for LA funding?
So the councils indeed can see it as a revenue raiser


Even if true (and there may be even more posts to the contrary), it doesn't validate your original claim.

You gaffed! You misrepresented! You failed! Now you're moving the goal posts to suit!


Except for the fact I've given proof of my rebuttals (already linked), yet you haven't given a shred of evidence to support your original claims? How can you support your claim without some form of evidence?
Again you fail!

The amount of the 'measure of doubt' is itself variable and isn't necessarily up to +5mph inclusive.

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

That's funny. The last time you said that I responded to you and it went unacknowledged, yet here you are making the same failed claim

I'm not one of the spelling police, but it occurs to me you are typing without thinking.

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

Steve - the more bizzare claims you post the more I laugh, thank you!

This is the story I refer to:

http://news.sky.com/skynews/Home/UK-New ... rchresults

This is the quote your expert leader made:

She (Claire Armstrong) believes speed cameras and ever-decreasing speed limits are purely a money-making exercise.

"The councils see it as a revenue-making opportunity and it's no longer about safety on the roads - that's why motorists are getting so annoyed."

This is just not true because they do not get the money it goes to The Treasury and is not ringfenced for anything. You may as well say speeding fines go to pay for road repairs, the NHS or to pay for the unemployed. There is a reason Swindon stopped using cameras - becuase they were not raising revenue for them.

Claire appears to be deliberately mis-leading the public or she is telling lies. Which is it?

Your link provides no proof at all. Neither convictions or courses happen at 31,32,33 or 34. I ask you again or anyone else - prove your claim by showing me a FPN issued below 35mph or an invite to attend a course below 35mph. You cannot because no such evidence exists. Admit it - you have no evidence, you have failed and you are making up stories to further the fast failing SS agenda.

Personally, I would have said that the fact that 82% of drivers are now admitting to exceeding speed limits (which not so long ago would have been the equivalent of admitting that you fancied your granny), the vast number of people against reduced speed limits and cameras, when you read the comments in larger newspapers, after a "speed" related article and the total lack of "speed kills" stickers in car windows these days, would suggest to me, as someone who does a lot of driving over a lot of years, that the general publics perception of "speeding" and road safety is changing very quickly.

Is it not true that the Conservatives if they get in will drop the SCPs?

_________________
My views do not represent Safespeed but those of a driver who has driven for 39 yrs, in all conditions, at all times of the day & night on every type of road and covered well over a million miles, so knows a bit about what makes for safety on the road,what is really dangerous and needs to be observed when driving and quite frankly, the speedo is way down on my list of things to observe to negotiate Britain's roads safely, but I don't expect some fool who sits behind a desk all day to appreciate that.

That was the report I was referring to. Nice of you to eventually link to it I can't help but notice the lack of the word police!


Ringfencing is a red herring. It still raises revenue and the councils see this (and they benefit from it).
Don't the LAs benefit from The Treasury?


There are other better reasons, like directing that revenue towards more effective safety measures: "the £320,000 spent maintaining the cameras will instead be spent on measures to improve road safety" [Peter Greenhalgh].


The only misleading behaviour here was done by you: "[Claire said] the police get to keep speeding fine revenue"

Perhaps the bit you miss is that Claire didn't say the LAs get to keep the revenue; they merely see it as a revenue raiser (which is correct in all senses of 'correct'); on top of that they will eventually see that revenue.

Do you get it now?


It is true that my link isn't the concrete evidence you want; however, it does prove that we're not making it up (source provided). Also, it is more than you've ever given to support your claim; you've given nothing whatsoever to the contrary - again It also does prove such a conviction can happen (absolute offence).
You know getting such any FPN is difficult (few wants to share such personal details, even then the form gets returned anyway); even if I did I'm sure you would say It was faked - well you've already made fairytale claims (1)

Watch as I so easily turn the tables:
You give no proof or link at all. Convictions or courses can happen at less than 10%+2 (links given). I ask you again or anyone else - prove your claim by showing me any legislation which prevents an FPN issued below 35mph or an invite to attend a course below 35mph. You cannot because no such evidence exists. Admit it - you have no evidence, you have failed and you are making up stories to further the fast failing SCP agenda.


(1)
I've had a look for posts which state the police keep the fines, funnily enough I can't find one post, let alone numerous ones which went uncorrected by other users (especially within the short time you have joined). There is no doubt cameras are placed for good revenue, but face it, there aren't numberous (unchallenged) posts which say the police keep the fines - which is what you claimed was said. Do you want to move the goalposts again?

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