Safe Speed Forums

At risk of appearing a religious nut, which I'm not, I'd say it is breaking one of the Ten Commandments.

Do keep up. My belief and the official position of the Safe Speed campaign is published <here>, and is entirely unchanged since 2001.

So no. It isn't a 'new one' at all.

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

So I take it that you think all the police officers, doctors, judges, magistrates and so on who have been caught by camera behave irresponsibly?

And the 60%+ who exceed the speed limit on motorways are 'irresponsible'?

Clearly the position is entirely absurd. These people are mostly responsible people and mostly they select safe and appropriate speeds. CLEARLY - and there's no alternative explanation - the law has been 'exaggerated' to the point where it criminalises responsible behaviour.

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

I don't believe it's possible to significantly improve the law itself. Obviously some speed limits could be more appropriate.

Yet 15 years ago no one (well few people) felt the need to complain about speed limit enforcement. Yet these days it's a leading topic of complaint in every public house.

What's changed? Enforcement practice. Therefore enforcement practice is the problem.

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

I might not have chosen the same terms but:

A 'real criminal' is one who offends against society - he breaks valuable social norms or causes harm to others.

A person who is 'merely breaking the law' offends against statute but not aginst society. He complies with the spirit or the underlying intention of the law but not by its letter.

In the case of speeding, the 'real criminals' are the ones who use speed carelessly, recklessly or dangerously. The ones 'merely breaking the law' are driving at a safe and appropriate speed that also happens to be above the speed limit.

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

Yes, I think that it can reasonably be so referred. The continuing policy of automated enforcement - which is criminalising large numbers of otherwise law-abiding individuals who are doing nothing worse than merely going safely about their business - could be considered "obsessive" in the light of the simple (but carefully buried) fact that said enforcement is contributing nothing to road safety and may be, if Paul's theories are to be believed, reducing road safety.


A "real" criminal by his actions is having, or if not stopped may have, a real and damaging impact upon those with whom he interacts... Burglary, mugging, other violence, dangerous driving, etc...

Someone "merely" breaking the law is engaging in an activity that contravenes some purely technical legislation and that such behaviour cannot be said to detract from anyone's wellbeing - the "eating mince pies on Christmas Day" offence (although despite being the one to introduce it to this forum, I've since found out it was actually repealed in a "job lot" along with several of Cromwell's other more nonsensical laws) - but the same could be said about the draconian enforcement of metrication upon shopkeepers. I guess that "protecting" people from the non-existant concept of "passive smoking" may well be prosecuted with the same zeal.

_________________
"Politicians are the same the world over... We build bridges where there aren't any rivers." - Nikita Kruschev

What odd examples. Would you like to add accountants, bank managers and solicitors - the biggest twisters of all? I’m sorry to break your illusions, but police officers, footballers, doctors, TV presenters, pop-stars, judges, politicians, magistrates, engineers and web-masters etc. can be the most twisted people in our midst. The camera programme does not respect these redundant ideas of social class – it helps identify long standing road slobs, including ones who have not yet got the message and who have failed to make the grade. Speeding is a petty, antisocial act, and that is why the punishment should be so small.

I’m actually coming round to the idea that a better way to punish offenders would be to take away their license on each offence for a short period, say 2 weeks. Nobody could grumble about that – road slobs could take their annual leave for that time and keep their jobs.

_________________
I stole this .sig

I couldn’t agree more! It is your responsibility to obey the law, without doubt. So if you don’t, then you are, by all definitions, not being responsible! But when will you present your own case (if you have one), rather than agreeing with mine?

_________________
I stole this .sig

How about "merely breaking the law" referring to technical infringements whereas "real crime" is contravening the original purpose/intention behind the legislation.

For example, if the purpose of speed limits is to increase road safety( ) then just straying marginally over a limit will have no effect on this objective and is thus in the technical category. Driving crazily fast in an inappropriate situation would be real crime. Shame that cameras cannot differentiate between these like a policeman can.

_________________
Malcolm W.
The views expressed in this post are personal opinions and do not represent the views of Safespeed.

What about the chap who moved across a red light to let an ambulance through? Was he being responsible, or would it have been more responsible to block the ambulance in as the law demanded?

I can't understand where you are going with this. Is the drink limit to made flexible, in same logic? Or the underage sex limit? Or the tyre depth limit? Or the amount of lead in your drinking water? Should 15 years old be allowed to work in factories because they are ‘nearly’ 16? Perhaps the electric company should be allowed to put 260 volts, instead on 240v, in order to sell you more power than you need, as long as it doesn't fry your appliances!

What do you mean with this argument, malcolmw? Be clear - are you saying the limits should be devised for each and every individual case? I'd have no problem with that, if drivers could afford a 1000% increase in tax to afford it. Is that what you really want?

_________________
I stole this .sig

Do you really believe this crap? Or are you presenting an assumed position in the hope of provoking pointless debate? Might I remind you that such behaviour would amount to 'trolling' which is frowned upon here?

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

Yes, I remember that– the bloke’s car was so big he was blocking up the road and the ambulance couldn’t squeeze through. But it brings up an important point – when a higher goal exists, should laws be disobeyed? Of course they should, consequences be damned. But we are not talking of a higher goal, here, are we? There is no way you can say ‘I was speeding because I thought the bloke behind me was having a heart attack’!

Having said that, there have been some great excuses – one bloke had had a curry and said he was rushing to get to the next services to go to the toilet. At the time, I suggested there could be a new offence for this called shitting without due care and attention, or driving under the influence of vindaloo.

<sorry to readers who have this before>

_________________
I stole this .sig

That's quite an interesting debating point...

"Drink driving" - there's no doubt that driving is impaired by alcohol. The limit is purely arbitrary but there is good empirical evidence to support its level. The method of establishing blood alcohol for prosecution is reasonably tilted in the direction of the driver. The empiricism could also be said to apply to "tyre treads" and "lead in water".

"Underage sex" - a law that's probably disregarded even more than speed limits - if my step-daughter and her friends are to be believed. In any case, there are numerous exclusions and "statutory defences" provided.

"15 year-olds in factories" - irrelevent. We don't have any factories any more.

"Electric company" - supply electricity at a nominal voltage, however, there is considerable tolerance in the actual voltage.

There are not, to my knowledge, in excess of two million prosecutions a year for underage sex, underage employment, fried televisions, etc - even though they all happen. What's so special about exceeding the speed limit - other than it's become very profitable for the exchequer?

_________________
"Politicians are the same the world over... We build bridges where there aren't any rivers." - Nikita Kruschev

Hm… you seem to agree that we have a responsibility to obey the law, yet you assert that not obeying the law is not irresponsible. Is there a gaping gap in the things you say?

I'm trying settle the terminology. Let’s try to find a consistent position, or at least admit when things are out of whack.

Question - How can it be responsible to wilfully disobey the law of the land? Here are some possible answers:

a) It’s not responsible to wilfully disobey the law.
b) When I think there is a higher goal.
c) When I think it is OK.
d) When no-one is watching me.
e) Don’t know, really.

_________________
I stole this .sig

SafeSpeed was on about ‘trolling’, so thanks pogo, perhaps he’ll listen to sense now.



We still have some in Wales: http://www.newswales.co.uk/?section=Bus ... =1&id=7613



It’s the massive number of violations that does it - two million prosecutions is only the tip of the iceberg. The other act in the same class (anti-social, petty slobbery on a massive scale) is littering (and dog shit etc.). And a lot of the littering comes from people in cars – if only we had litter cameras! Although, of course, litter is far less dangerous, so perhaps the priority is right.

PS: Is speeding a special case (because it is common), and therefore a special kind of law is required uniquely for it - a 'foggy law', where sometimes it applies, and sometimes, it kind-of doesn't? It that what you mean - a special constitutional arrangement for speeding (!), so that it is subject to 'fuzzy logic', which differs according to whatever perspective you (as a driver) personally take on the matter.

_________________
I stole this .sig

Anyone else, Basingwerk?

This is barely relevant. The fact is, the British constitution is being dragged into disrepute by the sheer volume of new laws (I've heard the figure of 700 in the last decade) which put millions of ordinary people at risk of becoming criminals by going about their daily business. When the man in the street loses respect for the law, the system breaks down.

The vast majority of these laws are preventative - designed to stop something happening - when there are already perfectly good laws in place to act as a deterrent. You cannot go on sermonising "the law is the law - obey it or face the consequences", as you do Basingwerk, when so many people are beginning to question the very existence of all this legislation.

I, for one, despair at the damage so-called road safety law is doing to the relationship between police and public. It's a particularly important subject because it so visible, affecting so many decent folk who just want to get on with their lives.

Health & Safety has become the other great object of ridicule for similar reasons. No-one minds sensible precautions but when, as happened recently, a group of carol singers are told to move because they are obstructing a fire exit - which was actually one of several tracks in the middle of a large car park - one wonders if any sanity remains in the great god Health & Safety.

Of course when billions of pounds are poured into these new industries, complete with their self-serving propaganda machines, they make a convincing enough case to carry on their good work. I can only feel sorry for the likes of Basingwerk who are so easily taken in by it.

And if you want a second opinion, see http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0, ... 76,00.html

Why can you not accept that there is a huge difference between dangerous speed and safe speed?

_________________
Pecunia Prius Equitas et Salus

(f) When by not obeying the law of the land, the land and/or its residents acquire a net benefit.

This benefit can take many forms, for instance improved road safety, more efficient usage of transport system, financial benefits to some commercial aspect of the community, increase in quality of life of resident(s)...

Or put negatively, when obeying the law of the land disadvantages the land and/or its residents, e.g. by increasing accident risk, directly or indirectly.

Can you name one other law where compliance requires constant vigilance? That alone puts the speed limit law in a special category.

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