I thought that there was case law on this that dates back to before the war, possibly even before WW1, 1912 rings a bell or it could have been 1933. The memories not what it was.
--
I read often, only post occasionally
|
Thia law went way back,in the early days of the AAandRAC if the patrol man did NOT salute the plod was waiting with in those days the one stop watch per division,as their "sin" was one of ommission no offence had been commited by them.
ndbw
|
Do we seriously believe that the individual was trying to stop people from breaking the law?
No. He was trying to stop people from being CAUGHT.
This is a fundamental difference, it is more akin, in principle, to telling potential bank robbers that there were police lying in wait for them, should they rob The Midshires Bank.
|
If it stops them, I fail to see the problem.
|
|
Where's the difference between a driver warning about a speed trap and the council doing so (at the behest of the BiB) by putting up a speed camera warning sign?
|
|
|
If it stops them, I fail to see the problem.
When they avoid that police trap and go off instead to rob the National Exminster Bank, would you see a problem?
|
Not really NW no.
So you're saying it's better they rob the first bank than the second?
|
Not really NW no. So you're saying it's better they rob the first bank than the second?
If they are going to rob a bank, much much better that they should rob the one where the police are ready to catch them and take them out of circulation.
|
We're taking this a little too literally now I think.
I would honestly back up the idea of flashing someone to warn them of an impending speed trap. I'm stopping them from committing a crime. I don't know whether they're over the limit though.
I wouldn't go anywhere near bank robbers but then again, unlike the people who map the road policies, I don't think speeding is as bad as bank robbery.
A simple, probably narrowminded view but there you go. It's late, I'm tired, hungry and am going to go to bed.
|
|
|
|
If it stops them, I fail to see the problem.
If it stops who? The police or the potential criminals? This doesn't stand up to any moral scrutiny.
Do you - or anyone else - warn motorists to slow down if there is NOT a speed camera or police trap?
I return to my earlier point, would you warn bank robbers that Police were waiting for them - would you try to stop people breaking into a bank, if there were no police waiting?
You may argue that this is an extreme comparison, but the comparison is valid, none the less.
|
You may argue that this is an extreme comparison, but the comparison is valid, none the less.
But is it?
The robbers are crims.
The drivers coming the other way are not if they aren't speeding.
|
"But is it?
The robbers are crims"
...only if they rob the bank!!!!
the driver is potentially breaking the law already.
If a robber, robs and a driver speeds they are both are breaking the law and both don't respect that law, one must assume.....
I'm still amazed that speeding seems to be condoned with such vigour on here.
|
"But is it? The robbers are crims" ...only if they rob the bank!!!! the driver is potentially breaking the law already. If a robber, robs and a driver speeds they are both are breaking the law and both don't respect that law, one must assume..... I'm still amazed that speeding seems to be condoned with such vigour on here.
>>
You beat me to it!
|
sorry, didn't mean to steal your thunder ;-)
|
|
The robbers are crims. The drivers coming the other way are not if they aren't speeding.
>>
They aren't criminals until they have done a criminal act.
|
Beg to differ - who can be convicted of conspiracy without committing a crime providing they can prove intent.
Works with bank robbers and genuine criminals, unlikely to succeed against motorists.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
This is a fundamental difference, it is more akin, in principle, to telling potential bank robbers that there were police lying in wait for them, should they rob The Midshires Bank.
i doubt there'd be any plod waiting for them...too busy with their speed guns!
|
|
|
|
there was an instance many years ago in the illicit whisky distilling glen where customs officers tried in vain to catch the culprits,their efforts were always beaten by the minister who knowing the problems capture would have on his poor parishioners would ride up the glen as fast as he could yelling at the top of his voice "the philistines be upon ye" at every house he came to giving time to hide the evidence and so preventing capture
this might not have much to do with motoring but shows where there is a will there is a way,it is actually a true story.
|
|
If I flash my headlights at another motorist, who is or is not speeding, to warn him of the presence of a speed trap this used to be a crime; maybe it is not anymore. If I see some druken man about to throw a paving slab thru a plate glass window, and prevent him from doing so, have I commintted a crime? No I have prevented one! Crime prevention or reduction is what policing is about, I think!
|
Interesting analogy, but to bring it into context with Mr "I don't do speed limits", you have to assume the minute you walk away the slab gets thrown...You have prevented nothing.
The equivalent example is you pointing out to the drunk a policeman standing nearby, and him waiting until policeman walks away before he throws the slab!...thats the true analogy.
|
|
The situation I envisaged was seeing a bod about to put a slab thru a window, talking him out of it and seeing him stagger off home, somewhat the worse for drink. Thus crime prevented! Stopping or preventing a crime for one minute or forever is still a good thing and is what the police and all concerned citizens should be doing.
|
|
|
|
defender
If I may be permitted to diverge further from the subject of motoring (because of a personal interest in Highland history), could I ask for source of the true story / identity of minister (if you happen to have such info to hand)
Thanks
|
Ahem.
Breaking the law is wrong. Helping others to evade detection is wrong. The precedent DOES NOT say that warning others of speed traps is wrong; it says that the prosecution needs to prove a bit more in order to make the case.
BUT. We are told that speeding is being clamped down on in order to promote road safety. We are told that the reason behind cameras and traps is to prevent us from speeding, not to make money from the fines. We are told that the intention behind the cameras, the vans, and the traps is to make us reduce our speed when approaching danger spots.
An individual who warns other drivers of a speed trap is helping that effort. S/he is helping to persuade other drivers to slow down.
Hypocrisy is wrong, too.
|
Hypocrisy is wrong, too.
>>
So are spelling mistakes.
|
Confucious say, if only criticism is of spelling, then argument is good.
He might have. Go on - prove he didn't. ;-)
|
It seems to me that the fundamental point that defenders of the speed trap warning use, is flawed.
You seem to say "We are trying to stop the law being broken" - fair enough. The analogies that have been used range from robbing a bank to breaking a shop window with a stone.
You are only trying to stop the law being broken if there is a chance that the offender will be apprehended. To use the analogy of the bank robbery - you would only attempt to stop the crime being comitted if you thought the offender was going to be arrested. Similarly, with the man about to smash a window - you would only stop the crime if the police were in the vicinity - otherwise you would let him smash the window if there were no police about.
Or are you saying that you flash your lights at all drivers coming tward you if you think they are exceeding the speed limit? Not just those in the vicinity of a speed trap of some kind?
|
Or are you saying that you flash your lights at all drivers coming tward you if you think they are exceeding the speed limit?
Only where their speed is excessive in view of the oncoming danger spot. And how do I detect danger spots? Well, they have camera vans aprked by them ;-)
A good point, drbe. But is seems that in this argument, one side is criticising a decision to warn others of approaching law enforcement, while the other is criticising the decision to prosecute people doing what the same prosecutor says that he is trying to do.
A point was made earlier about SCP warning signs. The hypocrisy lies in the fact that a warning sign erected by the SCP is mandatory in view of the SCP's own self-justification, while a like warning sign put up by a third party is an offence.
|
Sorry - what's SCP?
Safety Camera Partnership.
Obviously a mendacious organisation as it has two buzzwords in a name consisting of only three words. ;-)
|
And how do I detect danger spots? Well, they have camera vans aprked by them ;-)
Not in Lincolnshire they don't! They are deployed in lay-bys on straight and level 5 miles stretches of dual carriageways! Rick pickings here!
|
|
No drbe, I can't agree with you on this. I would be trying to stop the law being broken and that's it - whether an arrest follows or not is immaterial. If I stop the crime it doesn't matter whether there is an arrest or not - a crime has been stopped and that can only be a good thing.
|
|
|
Breaking the law is wrong.
Says who? Do you mean morally? It's just a framework of rules, it's not gospel. Anyone who needs the law to make a moral decision needs help.
|
Says who? Do you mean morally?
Says me. And don't forget it.
;-)
It is wrong because a pick and mix approach to the law leads to anarchy and, in the end, to more pain than abiding by it. That places a responsibility on us.
It also places a responsibility on the authorities to ensure that the law is reasonable, fair, and can command respect. Problems arise when the law is seen as unreasonable by many citizens, such as some (although not all) speed limits.
In such cases, some respond by ignoring the law; this is wrong, as the correct approach is to get the law changed. That leads on to a discussion about deficiencies in the democratic system, and so on. I'm not going there; I have a life to get on with.
I realise that I am admitting that I am wrong when I speed, even in silly limits; there is a conflict between pragmatism and punctiliousness that I am not happy with. But hey, there's nothing I can do about that.
|
Says me. And don't forget it.
;-)
Heh :-)
It is wrong because a pick and mix approach to the law leads to anarchy and, in the end, to more pain than abiding by it. That places a responsibility on us. It also places a responsibility on the authorities to ensure that the law is reasonable, fair, and can command respect. Problems arise when the law is seen as unreasonable by many citizens, such as some (although not all) speed limits. In such cases, some respond by ignoring the law; this is wrong, as the correct approach is to get the law changed. That leads on to a discussion about deficiencies in the democratic system, and so on. I'm not going there; I have a life to get on with. I realise that I am admitting that I am wrong when I speed, even in silly limits; there is a conflict between pragmatism and punctiliousness that I am not happy with. But hey, there's nothing I can do about that.
OK, a good point well put.
|
|
|
I realise that I am admitting that I am wrong when I speed, even in silly limits; there is a conflict between pragmatism and punctiliousness that I am not happy with. But hey, there's nothing I can do about that.
Original sin?
Or a motoring application of Rasputin's notion that to truly repent, one has to have sinned lots so that there is lots to repent of?
;-)
|
Rasputin is growing on me....
No, seriously, I accept that speeding is lawbreaking and that lawbreaking is wrong. From time to time (keep a straight face please) I speed because I think the limit is silly and that I am safe.
Therefore I must accept that my actions are inconsistent with certain of my views. This is not a situation that I am happy with.
However, the options are;
- change the speed limits: as an ordinary citizen, impossible.
- get elected and then change them: no thank you, those who try the greasy pole always walk away with grease on them, i.e. they become slippery themselves.
- forget it, but drive carefully and watch for funny vans.
|
|
|
|
|
|
if I may be permitted to answer tyro`s earlier question(not trying to sidetrack) tyro the man in question was a minister in glenisla in the county of angus,suggest google glenisla+minister or there is a book called history of glenisla very interesting reading on a dark highland night
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Excellent news! I have always thought that being penalised by Plod, for taking actions to prevent others from breaking the law, was very mean minded.
Except that this is not simply about preventing others from breaking the law: it is about trying to prevent others from being detected whilst breaking the law.
It is morally analagous to seeing someone equipped to commit a burglary and saying "Psst! Not at No. 73, there are cops in there". The burglar is not prevented from committing the crime, but instead helped to avoid being caught, by being freed to burgle elsewhere.
I'm sure someone will point out that there is a big difference between the offence of burglary and that of speeding, and that's true -- but the principle of warning is still the same.
The test set by the Divisional Court seems absurd. The very fact that the warning about the speed trap was given at all should be sufficient indication that the person giving the warning thought it likely that those warned would be speeding. If not, there'd have been no point in warning them.
I'd be very surprised if this one does not go to appeal ... and if it does, it's hard to see the divisional court's ruling being upheld.
|
A car heads towards you. You've no idea if it's speeding but you don't flash it to warn of the impending trap.
It hits a kid.
Do your morals help you then?
I really think we're delving too deeply into this.
If I saw a trap outside a school (which oddly enough, has never happened) then it's every man for himself. If I saw a trap on a sweeping open road, then I really don't think I could stop myself from flashing.
No I wouldn't do the same for burglars, no I wouldn't do the same for bank robbers, yes I know my argument's flawed, no I don't care.
|
A car heads towards you. You've no idea if it's speeding but you don't flash it to warn of the impending trap. It hits a kid. Do your morals help you then?
I'm sure it's a very good idea to warn people off speeding, just as it's a good idea to warn em off any other offence. But why are you saying that you would warn only if there was a speed trap there?
Are you really concerned about the kid, or about the driver who may get a few penalty points?
What about kids who cross roads where there is no speed trap?
|
But why are you saying that you would warn only if there was a speed trap there<<
Because I can't judge speed when a car's heading towards me. I'd have to flash every single car.
In all honesty, I'm concerned about the offchance of a kid getting hit but I'd do it because I disagreed with the certainty of the driver getting points.
|
Flashing .... The only time I have done that was to warn someone heading towards me at speed on a B road who was approaching a blind bend. The reason? There was a 2 car collsion around a blind bend. The cause of that collision was someone going too fast for the circumstances (damp rd + a bend) who then lost controlled and ROLLED into an oncoming.
I would never flash another car approaching a speed trap or expect them to do so for me.
Policing Speed Limits is not all about finance despite what the cynics say. I also accept that speed in the right place (and equally importantly in the right hands - i.e. the nut behind the wheel) is as safe as it can be. The trouble is, too few people have the skills required to manouver their block of metal around everyone else's...you only have to see all the accidents that qualified drivers have every single day..most are avoidable.
Until they can get that bit right, I need to be convinced that they can go even faster with the same attention and skills. They don't think they have a skill problem and nor do most drivers.
|
|
|
|
It dusk, gloomy, dark. Car coming towards me has no lights on, I flash him, he puts them on.
He was breaking the law, but now is not. Did I do wrong?
I have no idea if car heading towards speed trap is speeding or not. If he was not speeding before I flashed then what law have I broken? Moral or legal?
Its a stupendously fatuous argument put up by people who think that warning motorists about speed traps is akin to aiding and abetting a crime. There are absolutely no moral or ethical concerns to be considered here.
If the speed trap is in a dangerous place, then by getting the driver to slow down before, I have performed an act of public good. How can that be ethically or morally wrong?
|
How can that be ethically or morally wrong?
It can't RF but you should know better than that-Common sense goes out the window as soon as speed's mentioned.
Next time someone flashes me to warn me of a trap, I think I'll take down his licence plate and report him to the Police for warning me.
For what it's worth, I agree entirely with what you've said.
|
The whole speed trap situation is absurd. Some places drivers get penalised for driving at 34 in a 30 zone.
Now, I would say any person paying such attention to the reading of a (probably inaccurate) dial 18 inches away from their face is NOT paying enough attention to the world outside their vehicle .... and not able to read the road ahead properly.
Of course there has to be a threshold at which it must patently obvious to the driver that (s)he is speeding, but 4mph is too tight for safety.
Now the main thread, we can all flash our lights at oncoming vehicles etc, but it is not a normal reasonable action unless there is a good reason ... perhaps an oncoming vehicle driving at night without lights. So it is reasonable to contend that someone who has just passed a speed trap and suddenly starts flashing their lights at oncomeing traffic is not likely to be warning of the need to put the lights on.
There is a story of a radio presenter who as part of a traffic report mentioned the location of police, cannot remember if it was a speed trap or for some other purpose, the presenter was warned that he could be charged for interfering with the Police and their duties. This presenter never mentioned Police presence again.
|
"There is a story of a radio presenter who as part of a traffic report mentioned the location of police, cannot remember if it was a speed trap or for some other purpose, the presenter was warned that he could be charged for interfering with the Police and their duties. This presenter never mentioned Police presence again."
BBC Radio Northampton broadcast what roads the mobile speedcameras are going to be on. The police provide the details.
And dont come up with this "speedlimits are dangerous because it makes people look at the speedo too much" cobblers. If you have to do that you are not safe to drive.
|
|
|
|
Its a stupendously fatuous argument put up by people who think that warning motorists about speed traps is akin to aiding and abetting a crime. There are absolutely no moral or ethical concerns to be considered here.
Imagine the following hypothetical conversation:
Sensible driver: "Why do you drive so recklessly fast? You're going to kill someone."
Reckless driver: "Nah, I'm a good driver. It'll never happen."
Sensible driver: "Well, what if you get caught speeding? You could lose your licence if you get caught a few times."
Reckless driver: "Nah, all the speed cameras have bright yellow paint. And where there's a police trap, I always get flashed by a driver going the other way. Chances of getting caught are slim."
By warning other drivers about speed traps, you're helping them to break the law without penalty. Your claim of "absolutely no moral or ethical concerns" doesn't work for me.
BTW I warn other drivers about speed traps. But just because I do it doesn't mean I can defend it. It's really just a selfish thing, because I want other people to warn *me* in the reverse situation.
|
Objection. Why is the "reckless" driver the one speeding? They're not one in the same. What makes him reckless?
|
Objection. Why is the "reckless" driver the one speeding? They're not one in the same. What makes him reckless?
If I understand you correctly, your objection is that my argument is based on a flawed assumption, i.e. that speeding=reckless.
But my argument isn't based on that assumption. My argument is based on the assumption that *some* drivers drive so fast that it becomes reckless.
For example, if 90% of drivers speed, but only 10% drive so fast as to become 'reckless', my argument still applies.
|
|
|
|
Nope - a reckless fats driver WILL get caught. Thats the nature of reckless.
A good fast driver will never get caught.
|
|
|
|
If the speed trap is in a dangerous place, then by getting the driver to slow down before, I have performed an act of public good. How can that be ethically or morally wrong?
If you do it in every dangerous place, then that's a good idea: you ae encouraging drivers to avoid creating a danger. But if you only do it where there is a trap, you are creating a situation where a routinely dangerous driver can avoid prosecution, by slowing down just this once.
|
So, THIS is what's it's like in the speeding threads. I'm even more glad I don't venture in there. I've written a poem about it.
Good or Bad,
Saint or Sinner,
Black or White;
No shades between.
V
|
The point is that now an Appeal decision has been made the only way it can be reversed is by a higher court. The law of the land is now as stated in my original posting.
HJ
|
How did I miss this thread, great fun, it has been all over the place. A few points:
Speed is not dangerous, it is collisions that are dangerous so more effort should be put into avoiding collisions such as barriers between pavements and roads in relevant places.
Variable speed limits outside school should be universal, instead of 30 mph 24/7 it should be 10 mph from 08:00 to 09:00 and 15:00 to 16:00 Monday through to Friday and perhaps 40 the rest of the time, likewise motorways, 50 in rain etc, 90 when clear and light traffic.
More lives could be spent id the SCP labour force was put to work putting up barriers in relevant places outside, schools, parks, housing estates, shopping centres and enforcing safety related deffects on vehicles such as brakes, tyres, brake lights rather than speed.
It is ludicrous that a careful driver in a newish legal and safe car should be prosecuted for 34 on a 30 when a reckless drugged up yobo with bald tyres, worn out brakes, no insurance, no tax happens to go past the camera van at 30. If a child stepped out which one is going to stop quicker?
I could go on ......
Edited by Webmaster on 26/10/2007 at 01:41
|
I have to confess that I flash other cars depending on where the
scamera is e.g. I won;t do it in 30s but have no hesitation on certain 60mph roads.
|
Ssssh PU!
People have been hanged for less.
|
|
The point is that now an Appeal decision has been made the only way it can be reversed is by a higher court. The law of the land is now as stated in my original posting.
I wonder if it will actually make much difference in practice.
This ruling requires that "prosecution must prove that those warned were either exceeding the speed limit or were likely to do so at the location of the speed trap".
Now that prosecutors know the rules, that should be easily enough done.
|
And just how do they do that?
|
And just how do they do that?
"Your honour, we selected this spot fo our speed trap because the overwhelming majority of traffic was exceeding the limit. Before Mr Adam started giving his warnings, our equipment recorded that 96 out of 99 cars were exceeding the limit. After his warning, only 5 out of the next 40 breached the limit".
or
"Your honour, Mr Adam was apprehended by PC Plodski, who will testify that whenever Mr Adam flashed an on oncoming car, it braked heavily. PC Plodski will testify about the details of the vehicles involved"
etc
As long as this ruling stands (and I doubt it will), all it needs is for the prosecutor to know that this sort of evidence needs to be given in court. There should be little difficulty in obtaining it, because remember that the test set by the divisional court is not that those warned were actually speeding, but the lesser test that they were likely to be doing so.
|
>>"Your honour, we selected this spot fo our speed trap because the overwhelming majority of traffic was exceeding the limit. Before Mr Adam started giving his warnings, our equipment recorded that 96 out of 99 cars were exceeding the limit. After his warning, only 5 out of the next 40 breached the limit".<<
I'm not going to flash 35 cars.
>>"Your honour, Mr Adam was apprehended by PC Plodski, who will testify that whenever Mr Adam flashed an on oncoming car, it braked heavily. PC Plodski will testify about the details of the vehicles involved"<<
I'm not going to park up and flash every single car. I'm talking about one flash.
I can't help but return to the point. I've stopped people speeding in a supposedly accident blackspot. Surely that's what the Police want?
|
No wheels you really are pushing this to stupid limts.
"Your honour, we selected this spot fo our speed trap...blah"
suppostion and well you know it. Not proof.
"Your honour, Mr Adam was apprehended by PC Plodski, blah"
To apprehend Mr Adski, Plodski would have to be there, aqnd all the cars would brake because of the presence of Plodski"
The legal rulling about no one knowing if the warned cars are speeding or not makes perfect legal sense and well you know it.
|
"Your honour, we selected this spot fo our speed trap...blah" suppostion and well you know it. Not proof.
Read the report again. The test which the court has set is likelihood, not proof. Big difference.
To apprehend Mr Adski, Plodski would have to be there <<
If there wasn't a plodski there, Adski wouldn't be apprehended, so his case would not come to court.
all the cars would brake because of the presence of Plodski <<
All it would need is for one car to brake after being warned, and to show that that one was likely to have been speeding.
The legal rulling about no one knowing if the warned cars are speeding or not makes perfect legal sense and well you know it. <<
We'll have to agree to differ on that.
|
Good thread here - lots of arguements well put.
Although it's a good parallel, I can't sit comfortably with comparing speeding drivers with bank robbers because;
1) The 'crimes' are completely different in magnitude.
2) One is a criminal offence and the other is normally a motoring offence
3) The robbing of a bank is always an intentional act, whereas speeding is most often (but not always) an ommission of applying oneself - ie a mistake.
4) Preventing the speeding motorists from getting caught will not make any difference to whether he can do it again, unless he loses his licence. Allowing a bank robber to be caught will make all the difference in the world.
It is for this reason that, whilst I can understand the police wanting to prosecute a driver for deliberately warning motorists, that I do warn other drivers of a speed trap. If I'm to give the oncoming driver the benefit of doubt I assume that if he is going above the limit then it will be an arror on his part and NOT a deliberate act.
To compare this with drink driving, I would be the first person to phone 999 if I knew of a drunk driver leaving the pub and heading home. Why - because;
1) He is not fit to drive and could injure or kill someone
2) His is a deliberate decision to get in that car and drive. He is dangerous from the moment he turns the key. Our speeding motorist is not.
|
I'd just refer them to the highway code - nowhere does it say a flash of the lights is an indication of a speed trap.
90: Flashing headlights. Only flash your headlights to let other road users know that you are there. Do not flash your headlights in an attempt to intimidate other road users.
I'd flash anyone unless they were in a blacked out corsa/fiesta and I could hear them coming.
|
Hugo, I think part of it comes down to deterrence.
If regular speedsters can rely on being warned of any situation where the speeding might lead to prosecution, then they are free to speed away the rest of the time. The knowledge that they do risk prosecution is the one deterrent effect the law has and I don't think it's completely true to say that it won't make any difference to whether they can do it again unless they lose the license.
Points on a licence are a first step to losing it -- not an inevitable progression, but they do bring it closer. Three points on a clean license will not prevent someone from speeding again, but it will have some deter, at least to some extent.
Part of it comes down too to the fact that there are very different views about the effect of speed, and that's where the comparison with drink-driving gets interesting.
I used to know a serial drink-driver, who had several crahses while drunk, tho mercifully he didn't injure anyone ... and I'm sure we all know drivers who have driven over the limit and returned home safely.
I'm not condoning drink-driving in any way, but the point I'm making is that an increased alcohol level does not make an accident inevitable, it just increases the risk. It's the same with speeding, where there some folks would argue that the risks are lower, but I think we'd all agree that there is some sort of progression in both cases. Drive marginally over the limit and and you'll probably get home safely, drive at five times it and you'll probabably crash. Same with speeding: 10% over the limit and you'll probably still be safe, three times the limit and you'll probably cause an accident.
And of course, the point that is usually overlooked by those who oppose speed controls -- that speed has many adverse effects other than increased accident rates, including noise, pollution, and driving away non-vehicular road users (pedestrians, cyclists, horse-riders etc).
Most of the arguments I see in favour of warning drivers about speed traps seem to me to be disingenuous. The excuse is often given about helping drivers to slow down, but I've seen nobody claiming to warn drivers in the absence of a trap. The equivalent with drink-driving would be to warn only if breathylyser patrols were at work, and never to proactively alert the police.
|
>>Of the 5 or so people I regularly get lifts off day to day, 4 have points. 2 of which have six points. All are speeding points.<<
Not one driver drives any differently - simply because they hold the speeding system in such low regard.
>>And of course, the point that is usually overlooked by those who oppose speed controls -- that speed has many adverse effects other than increased accident rates, including noise, pollution, and driving away non-vehicular road users (pedestrians, cyclists, horse-riders etc).<<
Absolute rubbish and you know it. Sorry, but this is getting silly now. My car, on most 30 roads around here will bog down simply because the roads incline slightly. Therefore, I need 3rd gear. If I could slot it into 4th or even 5th and sit at 37mph upwards, I'm using less fuel and making less noise. Similarly, ifI am going down a road, the car will run away with itself unless it sits in third and even second. I need those gears to engine brake lest I always dab the brakes. More noise, more emissions, more aggravation.
Come up with your tinpot arguments as to why speeding is the be all and end all of crimes but for God's sake, don't come out with the most flimsy reasoning and excuses you can...although I fear that's all you're left with now.
|
Absolute rubbish and you know it.
Well, that's a well-reasoned argument, isn't it.
My car, on most 30 roads around here will bog down simply because the roads incline slightly. Therefore, I need 3rd gear. If I could slot it into 4th or even 5th and sit at 37mph upwards, I'm using less fuel and making less noise.
You are forgetting tyre noise and wind noise, and you are also forgetting that not all cars have the same set of gear ratios.
If you really believe that the noise made by an average car going at 37mph is, in general, less than one going at 30, then carry on.
|
>>Well, that's a well-reasoned argument, isn't it.<<
No - the argument follows.
>>You are forgetting tyre noise and wind noise, and you are also forgetting that not all cars have the same set of gear ratios.<<
Are you being serious? Tyre and wind noise? Ooooh - not wind noise. I'm often kept up at night by the wind whooshing past speeding cars. It annoys me how people can be so inconsiderate as to put crappy tyres on their cars too thus adding to the noise.
If you really believe that the noise made by tyres and the wind is a problem, then carry on.
|
If you really believe that the noise made by tyres and the wind is a problem, then carry on.
According to the scientists working on this issue for the EU, "the sound of the wheels on the road accounts for most of the noise made by a car travelling faster than 30 km/h"
europa.eu.int/comm/research/transport/news/article...l
And yes, I am happy to believe them.
|
Adam and NW will you please not bicker over every little detail. I've deleted the latest exchanges. Please remember DD's recent warning. It's here in case you missed it first time around tinyurl.com/7jtl5
smokie, BR Moderator
|
And of course, the point that is usually overlooked by those who oppose speed controls -- that speed has many adverse effects other than increased accident rates, including noise, pollution, and driving away non-vehicular road users (pedestrians, cyclists, horse-riders etc).
A 530d would be quieter than my 330Ci. If I get one, can I have a licence endorsement letting me go faster?
Can I speed a little bit in the 911 if I choose a higher gear?
;-)
|
Well put, Hugo.
Another example; I have flashed people to warn them of an obstruction around the corner that they are quickly approaching. Others have done the same for me. Yet, assuming that they are driving with due care and attention, they should not need the warning. After all, surely they will be able to stop within the distance they can see to be safe. So why warn them? Simple: sympathy. There but for the grace of God, etc. Which is why some would not warn a blacked out Nova of a camera.
I would add a fifth reason to Hugo's list. Bank robbery is illegal because it is intrinsically wrong. Speed limits are not imposed because movement is intrinsically wrong, but because above a certain speed the risk/benefit ratio is deemed too high. It is not ok to rob a bank a little bit, but it is ok to move at a certain (slower) speed.
This is why the analogy between speeding and bank robbery must fail. The fallacy in the argument is in treating speeding as a black/white offence, rather than looking at speed as a continuum with an arbitrary (but necessary) limit.
|
This is why the analogy between speeding and bank robbery must fail. The fallacy in the argument is in treating speeding as a black/white offence, rather than looking at speed as a continuum with an arbitrary (but necessary) limit. <<
On those criteria, Hugo's comparison with drink-driving also fails: just as there is a legal degree of speed, so there is a legal level of alcohol.
|
On those criteria, Hugo's comparison with drink-driving also fails: just as there is a legal degree of speed, so there is a legal level of alcohol.
Personally, my preferred level for the legal threshold would be zero. But that is a different argument.
|
The locations of the next week's speed traps are published in my local newspaper, presumably to warn motorists and persuade them to slow down.
Do eager reporters ferret out this information by keen observation, and at considerable risk of prosecution for interfering with the police in the exercise of their duties? I doubt it - I suspect the information is supplied by Mr Plod himself.
|
Many mobile speed traps are put in place following consistent complaints from local residents about idiots driving at stupid speeds through villages or other built up areas.
So one morning they send along a couple of traffic officers or a camera van in response to this pressure. Some local hero sees the equipment being set up and then decides it's a good idea to stand up the road with a sign warning people of what they're driving into. Either that or a procession of madly flashing headlights.
Result? A few hundred quid's worth of taxpayer's money wasted as the van/officers pack up and go after a pointless half hour, no benefit whatsoever to local residents who are left with the speeding problem as the deterrent value is firmly boshed by thoughtless do gooders . What's the point.....
|
|
Well said Rhino. I don't get the flashing mindset. Our local rally drivers (Subarus) and similar oiks would have carte blanche if nothing was done. I would like the idiots to be nicked and their vehicle s crushed.
|
Rhino, it isn't taxpayer's money. It's finepayer's money.
HJ
|
Ok, finepayer, taxpayer or whatever, but my point do the residents benefit from a consequential lack of action over a blatant disregard for speed limits in built up areas?
Or should the cops be forced to just stand there with signs saying 'Please slow down'? This is the practical effect of advance warning of speed traps under such circumstances. The worst offenders use the roads regularly.
|
Or should the cops be forced to just stand there with signs saying 'Please slow down'? This is the practical effect of advance warning of speed traps under such circumstances. The worst offenders use the roads regularly.
What a great idea. Police should be sent out in plain clothes to hold up signs warning of speed cameras ahead. It would cause people to slow down, and would be far cheaper then investing in the speed trap equipment. All they need is a bit of plywood, some paint and a brush.
|
I suspect the information is supplied by Mr Plod himself.
Almost certainly supplied by them - my own local force publishes the list of mobile camera locations on their website. But it's up to Mr Plod to make the operational decision about whether to advertise his actions or not.
|
As I said earlier, there are some good arguements here and I hope that we can continue to keep them fresh.
Obviously there are different views and these should be aired but keep it cool (not mentioning any one in particular but I hope they'll Focus on this) and interesting, or if you cannot add anything new then I would prefer not to see the old arguements posted again.
Thanks in advance
Hugo - BR Moderator
|
The arguments have become more general compared with HJ's original post, but as they have I think it's worth pointing out once again that speed in itself is less dangerous than following too close behind another vehicle.
I agree with speed cameras in built-up areas, but on motorways taligating is much moree of a cause of accidents than people doing 80 mph where it's safe to do so. The sanctimonious 'partnership' who have installed cameras between J14 and J18 of the M4 would have spent their money far more sensibly on some device which flashes 'keep your distance' at those who don't.
|
it's up to Mr Plod to make the operational decision about whether to advertise his actions or not.
May be. But it blurs the distinction between legitimate and illegitimate sources of information. It's a bit like the difference between a "leak" and a press conference.
Supposing the speed camera HAD been announced in the paper and the web-site - would it then be OK to flash drivers to warn of something that was already in the public domain?
|
All the above comments about speeding & bank robbers, brought back images in my mind of The Sweeny TV srties, & all the securuty van robberies (motoring related)they seemed to have.
Guess they don't do them anymore, 'cos they only have credit card slips & cheques & little real £$£$ & trackers & armourplated & sat nav & .....
VB
|
Reading this thread, may a humble exile respectfully suggest its
contributors have too much time on their hands?
|
Reading this thread, may a humble exile respectfully suggest its contributors have too much time on their hands?
Well, it's politely put, no swear words, isn't inane babble, and is unlikely to expose HK to a legal liability, so I guess so!
|
is unlikely to expose HK to a legal liability, so I guess so!
Nor HJ. ::[red face]::
|
Security van raids and bank jobs by "firms" are well out of favour now. Not enough dosh to make it worth while.
Banks hold ups are left to single idiots who get trapped inside by the auto shutting doors.
Van raids are targeted now (every van raid is now an inside job) for untraceble valuables (gold, diamonds, foreign exchange)
|
Security van raids and bank jobs by "firms" are well out of favour now. Not enough dosh to make it worth while.
Spoken like a real expert!
Banks hold ups are left to single idiots who get trapped inside by the auto shutting doors.
>>
How long were you sent down for?
Van raids are targeted now (every van raid is now an inside job) for untraceble valuables (gold, diamonds, foreign exchange)
So that's the next job the Woodham mob are planning is it?
{I think this discussion has run it's course, so locked - DD}
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
