I was asking question, if that's considered rude, then so be it.
[cite]Posted By: Off_it[/cite]And for the record, I can't stand those fecking cyclists who jump red lights. I shouted at one once from about two yards away and then chased him down the road for a few yards, just to reinforce my message that what he had just done was wrong.
You should've seen the look on his face. The little sh*t almost broke the land speed record trying to pedal away. The mate I was with was doubled up with laughter at the whole incident for a good couple of minutes!
And yes, I had had a drink! )
I agree, people cycling through reds is dangerous for everyone involved.
Off_it...stop being such a self righteous pontificating bore!
I knew your kind at school....I bet you were a prefect.
Laws were made for the guidance of wise men and the blind obedience of fools...I don't profess to be either but you have to admit that since the mid seveties the world has slowly but surely gone legislation mad....you are no longer a free man in your own country but spied upon and treated as a number....particularly by local authorities....if you can't see it Off-it you must be blind mate.
I was brought up in very different times, when you had freedom for which many of our grandparents/great granparents fought and many of their generation died fighting for. And for what...so these petty beurocrats that you seem to think know best for us can lord it over us....Well here's a message from members of my generation...... piss off and leave us alone!! You youngsters can do what you like and stew in your own juice but don't expect us to embrace your pathetic bloody minded pettiness.
If they bring in ID cards(and don't get me started on that one), I can't wait for the first snotty nosed prat that asks to look at mine....I've got a little speech already lined up for that little Nazi.... whoever they are!
[cite]Posted By: Rothko[/cite]Len, do you think there should be a speed limit on any road? and if so, by how much should someone be allowed to break it by before they are subject to being pulled for it?
In my opinion all roads should be like the "Heathrow" stretch of the M 25 where they have variable speed limits which take account of conditions both weather and traffic.
I would say a tolerance of about 10 MPH is reasonable. There are times when it is necessary to break the speed limit to avoid trouble for example on motorways when lorries are changing lanes.
Well I was just seeing if there was a difference between someone flooring it on a motorway or on a residential road? All roads should have varible limits, so does that include residential roads in built up areas, or just motorways?
So Len it is alright to break the law as long as there doesn't turn out to be a victim, thus we should only prosecute speeding drivers when they kill or maim someone even if they were driving at 100mph?
Until we get Len's Law :-) then if you get caught speeding you get a fine, it is all quite simple, don't speed and you don't get fined.
If you are "just a few" mph over the limit then the punishment will be less than if you were, say, 30mph over the limit.
[cite]Posted By: LenGlover[/cite]
The full absurdity of the whole thing is that I could legally drive on a Motorway in thick fog with zero visibility at 70 MPH! No account is taken of road and weather conditions so speed limits are not about the safety of road users despite the "spin" they are about licensed extortion.
Actually Len, I think you could probably get done for dangerous driving in those circumstances, even if you weren't going over 70. Mind you, even the most advanced speed camera would have a job seeing you to take a snap! )
Surely 70 mph is the MAXIMUM speed limit and it's up to us to use our own discretion and nous to reduce that depending on circumstances and road conditions? Maybe I'm barking up the wrong tree with that one.
Tell you what though, it's interesting to me - a non-driver - how the attitude of "normal law abiding people" changes whenever they sit behind the wheel of a car. It's amazing how many bad drivers there are out there - but it's never you (in the collective sense), it's always everyone else!
As for the revenue raising thing, of course that's what they do and we all knwo it. Which makes it even more puzzling why so many people fall into their traps and give them the satisfation.
[cite]Posted By: Rothko[/cite]Well I was just seeing if there was a difference between someone flooring it on a motorway or on a residential road? All roads should have varible limits, so does that include residential roads in built up areas, or just motorways?
I'm just trying to follow the logic
The Highway Code states 30 MPH as the limit in a built up area.
At certain times of the day in some areas, eg the school run, that could be too fast. Variable speed limits would allow you to bring it down to 20 MPH for example. Conversely at 2 in the morning when there is nobody around why do you need a 30 MPH limit? 40 or even 50 MPH may well be safe.
Technology in the form of cameras has been used to persecute motorists so why not use it to introduce more sensible speed limits?
[cite]Posted By: Salad[/cite]So Len it is alright to break the law as long as there doesn't turn out to be a victim, thus we should only prosecute speeding drivers when they kill or maim someone even if they were driving at 100mph?
Until we get Len's Law :-) then if you get caught speeding you get a fine, it is all quite simple, don't speed and you don't get fined.
If you are "just a few" mph over the limit then the punishment will be less than if you were, say, 30mph over the limit.
My point is one of emphasis. There has been an inordinate amount of money spent on criminalising motorists where more often or not there is no victim compared to solving crimes with a victim.
Blatant abuses of the speed limit should be punished such as 70 in a 30 but there is scope for discretion in my opinion which would have an added bonus of perhaps restoring some faith in the police and other authorities amongst the basically law abiding majority of motorists.
[cite]Posted By: Rothko[/cite]Well I was just seeing if there was a difference between someone flooring it on a motorway or on a residential road? All roads should have varible limits, so does that include residential roads in built up areas, or just motorways?
I'm just trying to follow the logic
They seem to manage quite well in Germany...but then again no one over there is bothered if you want to go like greased lightning out in the fast lane...it's a place for the big boys, so stay out of it if you want to poodle along and that's fine too.
Over here some folk will just sit in that outside lane at 70 or there abouts and selfrighteously sit there for yonks cause the law says you shouldn't be doing over 70...well bollox!
Speaking of Breaking the Law surely the Local Authority not sure which it falls under who put the Camera up on the A2 London bound tucked into a layby just before the South Circular turn off are doing just that. They are required by law to make sure these Cameras stand out, this one is hidden & is clearly there to catch people out nothing else.
[cite]Posted By: Ketman[/cite]Speaking of Breaking the Law surely the Local Authority not sure which it falls under who put the Camera up on the A2 London bound tucked into a layby just before the South Circular turn off are doing just that. They are required by law to make sure these Cameras stand out, this one is hidden & is clearly there to catch people out nothing else.
You mean it's there to catch out people who are breaking the rules? Whatever next, plain clothes policemen? TV licence detector vans? Gold tops on trains?!
[cite]Posted By: Ketman[/cite]Speaking of Breaking the Law surely the Local Authority not sure which it falls under who put the Camera up on the A2 London bound tucked into a layby just before the South Circular turn off are doing just that. They are required by law to make sure these Cameras stand out, this one is hidden & is clearly there to catch people out nothing else.
They brought that in to plicate everyone and show that they were just there for safety reasons. Having seen revenues drop off because everyone slows down as they're painted bright yellow, they're now going back to painting them grey and hiding them.
I thought that it was supposed to be a deterrent around potentially dangerous spots....How can you be deterred by something you cant see?
because you took a driving test and had to pass a test to confirm you could adhere to the rules of the road, so you know what the rules are and you shouldn't need to be deterred, you should know the rules and stick to them!
they should put cameras everywhere if it stops all road accidents! at traffic lights to stop women putting on make up (at the lights not just in general), making phone calls, cutting up traffic, not indicating, using bus lanes, skipping red lights etc.
[cite]Posted By: suzisausage[/cite]because you took a driving test and had to pass a test to confirm you could adhere to the rules of the road, so you know what the rules are and you shouldn't need to be deterred, you should know the rules and stick to them!
they should put cameras everywhere if it stops all road accidents! at traffic lights to stop women putting on make up (at the lights not just in general), making phone calls, cutting up traffic, not indicating, using bus lanes, skipping red lights etc.
Suzi...I learned to drive in 1964...the rules have changed beyond belief...to tell you the truth I don't know what half of them are...I just do my own thing.
Oi ya cheeky git!
My dad helped me buy a two year old B reg mini for my 17th birthday...it cost £325.00.
EME 325B was the registration...it was a greyish blue colour.
Only down side was I had to get rid of my Vespa GS.
I agree Suze. But the facts are that people speed. You may not but you cant just say "You know its against the rules of the road so don’t do it"
This is not the point being discussed however…..Its the manner in which its being done.
If these cameras were ONLY there as a deterrent then why the need to hide them? Its not because they're hoping that the potential for a speed camera to be hidden somewhere will stop people. Its because its offers a revenue stream.
For example. What is more of a deterrent to stop street crime? The potential for the camouflaged OB to be around the corner hiding behind someone's hedge, or the sight of uniformed OB in hi-vis jackets?
I'm happy for the Govt to put up as many cameras as they like but don’t go hiding them behind bushes…...
[cite]Posted By: Charlton Dan[/cite]I agree Suze. But the facts are that people speed. You may not but you cant just say "You know its against the rules of the road so don’t do it"
This is not the point being discussed however…..Its the manner in which its being done.
If these cameras were ONLY there as a deterrent then why the need to hide them? Its not because they're hoping that the potential for a speed camera to be hidden somewhere will stop people. Its because its offers a revenue stream.
For example. What is more of a deterrent to stop street crime? The potential for the camouflaged OB to be around the corner hiding behind someone's hedge, or the sight of uniformed OB in hi-vis jackets?
I'm happy for the Govt to put up as many cameras as they like but don’t go hiding them behind bushes…...
we've had this discussion before, and I can' tfind the thread at the moment as it probably started as something else and went off on a tangent.
the fact is, if people didn't speed, the traffic police wouldn't have to put up speed cameras discreetly or not to deter or to catch people out, to make money or to deter people.
its surely designed to prevent accidents, a bigger deterrant would be to let people knock someone down and see how they deal with it, but its not suitable for all people to have to go through that. people should stop being so selfish with their "i'm alright jack" attitudes to everything. I for one wouldnt know how i'd cope if i knocked someone over going 70mph or even 20mph in a 30 zone so i would rather stick to the rules, be observant than take my chances. if everyone else did the same, they wouldn't have to use cameras to deter people. if it makes money to be put back into other road safety gestures or whatever it goes to (I don't know and i don't know if you lot know for a fact where the money goes either) then why the hell not. if people hate paying the government money then don't break the rules so you don't have to. don't complain about it.
why not hide them behind bushes? you shouldn't be speeding/breaking the law anyway. you're arguing with a rule. a rule that is there for a reason!
*slaps head and sighs*
edited to say: it is the point thats being argued because its a non argument about where the cameras are and the reasons for them being put there. its a rule that shouldn't be broken. no matter which way they try to prevent it - its trying to prevent people breaking a rule. you can't argue with the way you've been caught out.
you can't also have high vis police in jackets on every corner - you have cctv to assist people trying to prevent crime or to prevent it.
I agree, I see no problems with cameras being hidden, in fact I wish they all were because it would be safer since less people would slam on the brakes as they approach them
As Mr Zimmerman once sang "to live outside the law you must be honest".
Law breaking only justifies the need for law enforcement.
If people feel so strongly about the imposition of unfair laws then fight against them. And that doesn't mean trying to wriggle your way out of paying fines on technicalities.
Speed, get caught, don't pay the fine, go to jail.
If 100,000 people did it the justice system would collapse. Be like the suffragettes or the Chartists and have the courage of your convictions (literally) rather than just displaying the bravado of the bar room.
Comments
I agree, people cycling through reds is dangerous for everyone involved.
I knew your kind at school....I bet you were a prefect.
Laws were made for the guidance of wise men and the blind obedience of fools...I don't profess to be either but you have to admit that since the mid seveties the world has slowly but surely gone legislation mad....you are no longer a free man in your own country but spied upon and treated as a number....particularly by local authorities....if you can't see it Off-it you must be blind mate.
I was brought up in very different times, when you had freedom for which many of our grandparents/great granparents fought and many of their generation died fighting for. And for what...so these petty beurocrats that you seem to think know best for us can lord it over us....Well here's a message from members of my generation...... piss off and leave us alone!! You youngsters can do what you like and stew in your own juice but don't expect us to embrace your pathetic bloody minded pettiness.
If they bring in ID cards(and don't get me started on that one), I can't wait for the first snotty nosed prat that asks to look at mine....I've got a little speech already lined up for that little Nazi.... whoever they are!
In my opinion all roads should be like the "Heathrow" stretch of the M 25 where they have variable speed limits which take account of conditions both weather and traffic.
I would say a tolerance of about 10 MPH is reasonable. There are times when it is necessary to break the speed limit to avoid trouble for example on motorways when lorries are changing lanes.
Not sure what you are asking me?
I'm "self-righteous" and "pontificating"?
Nice one - that almost makes me sound intelligent. Almost!
I was a "Ginge" yesterday, apparently. So, am I getting better or worse?
;o)
I'm just trying to follow the logic
Until we get Len's Law :-) then if you get caught speeding you get a fine, it is all quite simple, don't speed and you don't get fined.
If you are "just a few" mph over the limit then the punishment will be less than if you were, say, 30mph over the limit.
Actually Len, I think you could probably get done for dangerous driving in those circumstances, even if you weren't going over 70. Mind you, even the most advanced speed camera would have a job seeing you to take a snap!
Surely 70 mph is the MAXIMUM speed limit and it's up to us to use our own discretion and nous to reduce that depending on circumstances and road conditions? Maybe I'm barking up the wrong tree with that one.
Tell you what though, it's interesting to me - a non-driver - how the attitude of "normal law abiding people" changes whenever they sit behind the wheel of a car. It's amazing how many bad drivers there are out there - but it's never you (in the collective sense), it's always everyone else!
As for the revenue raising thing, of course that's what they do and we all knwo it. Which makes it even more puzzling why so many people fall into their traps and give them the satisfation.
The Highway Code states 30 MPH as the limit in a built up area.
At certain times of the day in some areas, eg the school run, that could be too fast. Variable speed limits would allow you to bring it down to 20 MPH for example. Conversely at 2 in the morning when there is nobody around why do you need a 30 MPH limit? 40 or even 50 MPH may well be safe.
Technology in the form of cameras has been used to persecute motorists so why not use it to introduce more sensible speed limits?
My point is one of emphasis. There has been an inordinate amount of money spent on criminalising motorists where more often or not there is no victim compared to solving crimes with a victim.
Blatant abuses of the speed limit should be punished such as 70 in a 30 but there is scope for discretion in my opinion which would have an added bonus of perhaps restoring some faith in the police and other authorities amongst the basically law abiding majority of motorists.
They seem to manage quite well in Germany...but then again no one over there is bothered if you want to go like greased lightning out in the fast lane...it's a place for the big boys, so stay out of it if you want to poodle along and that's fine too.
Over here some folk will just sit in that outside lane at 70 or there abouts and selfrighteously sit there for yonks cause the law says you shouldn't be doing over 70...well bollox!
Butter wouldnt melt eh?
You mean it's there to catch out people who are breaking the rules? Whatever next, plain clothes policemen? TV licence detector vans? Gold tops on trains?!
I know, I know - just ignore me!
They brought that in to plicate everyone and show that they were just there for safety reasons. Having seen revenues drop off because everyone slows down as they're painted bright yellow, they're now going back to painting them grey and hiding them.
I thought that it was supposed to be a deterrent around potentially dangerous spots....How can you be deterred by something you cant see?
they should put cameras everywhere if it stops all road accidents! at traffic lights to stop women putting on make up (at the lights not just in general), making phone calls, cutting up traffic, not indicating, using bus lanes, skipping red lights etc.
Suzi...I learned to drive in 1964...the rules have changed beyond belief...to tell you the truth I don't know what half of them are...I just do my own thing.
Must of had fun and games reverse parking a horse and cart :-)
My dad helped me buy a two year old B reg mini for my 17th birthday...it cost £325.00.
EME 325B was the registration...it was a greyish blue colour.
Only down side was I had to get rid of my Vespa GS.
i thought it was for bored people to have pointless disagreements, but what do i know !
no, that is what the internet as a whole is for. that and porn!
This is not the point being discussed however…..Its the manner in which its being done.
If these cameras were ONLY there as a deterrent then why the need to hide them? Its not because they're hoping that the potential for a speed camera to be hidden somewhere will stop people. Its because its offers a revenue stream.
For example. What is more of a deterrent to stop street crime? The potential for the camouflaged OB to be around the corner hiding behind someone's hedge, or the sight of uniformed OB in hi-vis jackets?
I'm happy for the Govt to put up as many cameras as they like but don’t go hiding them behind bushes…...
we've had this discussion before, and I can' tfind the thread at the moment as it probably started as something else and went off on a tangent.
the fact is, if people didn't speed, the traffic police wouldn't have to put up speed cameras discreetly or not to deter or to catch people out, to make money or to deter people.
its surely designed to prevent accidents, a bigger deterrant would be to let people knock someone down and see how they deal with it, but its not suitable for all people to have to go through that. people should stop being so selfish with their "i'm alright jack" attitudes to everything. I for one wouldnt know how i'd cope if i knocked someone over going 70mph or even 20mph in a 30 zone so i would rather stick to the rules, be observant than take my chances. if everyone else did the same, they wouldn't have to use cameras to deter people. if it makes money to be put back into other road safety gestures or whatever it goes to (I don't know and i don't know if you lot know for a fact where the money goes either) then why the hell not. if people hate paying the government money then don't break the rules so you don't have to. don't complain about it.
why not hide them behind bushes? you shouldn't be speeding/breaking the law anyway. you're arguing with a rule. a rule that is there for a reason!
*slaps head and sighs*
edited to say: it is the point thats being argued because its a non argument about where the cameras are and the reasons for them being put there. its a rule that shouldn't be broken. no matter which way they try to prevent it - its trying to prevent people breaking a rule. you can't argue with the way you've been caught out.
you can't also have high vis police in jackets on every corner - you have cctv to assist people trying to prevent crime or to prevent it.
Law breaking only justifies the need for law enforcement.
If people feel so strongly about the imposition of unfair laws then fight against them. And that doesn't mean trying to wriggle your way out of paying fines on technicalities.
Speed, get caught, don't pay the fine, go to jail.
If 100,000 people did it the justice system would collapse. Be like the suffragettes or the Chartists and have the courage of your convictions (literally) rather than just displaying the bravado of the bar room.