Another fffing speeding ticket

[DodgyAgent]

See you in a year then Dodgy?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/l...re/7200134.stm

This anal sex thing is not as bad as it is sometimes "cracked up" to be

[Ardesco]

Speed doesn't kill, bad driving kills. Driving past a school at 40mph would classify as bad and reckless driving.

Speeding law is a farce, one backed up by and old boys club who are quite happy for the government to ignore our rights and control every aspect of our life. Even European judges have questions this governments current speed policy.

I am very much afraid that if one begins seeking to justify departures from the basic principles of modern criminal procedure and the very essence of the notion of a fair trial for reasons of policy, and if the Court starts accepting such reasons, we will face a real threat to the European public order as protected by the Convention.
I understand the reasoning behind the departure from the basic principles of a fair trial in the case of speed violations: namely, that such offences represent hundreds of thousands if not millions of cases, and that the State is unable to ensure that in each of this vast number of cases all the procedural guarantees have been complied with. I repeat: I understand this line of reasoning, but I do not accept it. In my opinion, if there are so many breaches of a prohibition, it clearly means that something is wrong with the prohibition. It means that the prohibition does not reflect a pressing social need, given that so many people choose to breach it even under the threat of criminal prosecution. And if this is the case, maybe the time has come to review speed limits and to set limits that would more correctly reflect peoples' needs. We cannot force people in the twenty-first century to ride bicycles or start jogging instead of enjoying the advantages which our civilisation brings. Equally, it is difficult for me to accept the argument that hundreds of thousands of speeding motorists are wrong and only the government is right. Moreover, the government is free to breach the fundamental rights of hundreds of thousands of its citizens in the field of speed regulations. In my view, the saying “the ends justify the means” is clearly not applicable to the present situation.
My understanding is the following. I think that in such situations any Contracting State to the Convention has just two options – either to prosecute offenders in full compliance with the requirements of Article 6 or, if that is not possible owing to the huge number of offences committed by the population, to decriminalise an act which is so widely committed that it can be considered as normal rather than exceptional. In my view, there should be no “third way” in the field of criminal liability.

http://cmiskp.echr.coe.int/tkp197/vi...&skin=hudoc-en

If you want to read it all, suffcie to say 2 people stood up for law and the rest caved to let the government do what they want, something that Judge Pavlovschi obviously took exception to judging by the amount he wrote in his dissenting comment.

[tay]

Seems some people are forgetting that speed limits are not there for when things are normal, they are in place for when unexpected events occur out side the drivers control. Going slower gives you more time to react and avoid a tragic comsequence. I am sure DA can drive down a quiet suburban street safely at 45mph every day of his life... but there might be one day when a small child does something very silly...

Its not about speeding limits in optinal conditions, its a speeding limit to negate to a reasonable degree the chance of serious harm in an unexpected situation. As for 30mph.... its been proven that the dmg to a pedestrian goes up drastically after this point (actually gets worse after 20mph, but 30 brings another increase in dmg as well as a decrease in reaction time).

Everuyone thinks they are a good driver... newsflash.. you are nowhere near as good as you thik you are.... and unless you want to run the risk of havoing the same nightmare every night for the rest of your life of mowing down a small child... do yourself a favour and chill and become a driver with the ability to mitigate othe peoples mistakes.

....and yes I know about the typos... dont care.

[Spacecadet]

Speed doesn't kill, bad driving kills. Driving past a school at 40mph would classify as bad and reckless driving.

Speeding law is a farce, one backed up by and old boys club who are quite happy for the government to ignore our rights and control every aspect of our life. Even European judges have questions this governments current speed policy.





http://cmiskp.echr.coe.int/tkp197/vi...&skin=hudoc-en

If you want to read it all, suffcie to say 2 people stood up for law and the rest caved to let the government do what they want, something that Judge Pavlovschi obviously took exception to judging by the amount he wrote in his dissenting comment.

Bad driving causes accidents, the excessive speed then kills

[oracleslave]

This anal sex thing is not as bad as it is sometimes "cracked up" to be

[BrilloPad]

I suggest the fine and points deducted should depend on age.

Up to 30 and you get hit hardest.
Reductions each decade thereafter.
60s and onwards it goes up again.

Speed contributes to the severity of the accident.

Caught once but I still break 60/70 limits every day.

So you are aged 59?

[DodgyAgent]

I am interested to hear the logic whereby doing 31 mph is unsafe whereas 30 mph is not. Why is it safe to drive within a speed limit of 70 at 70 in wet hazardous conditions on a motorway whereas it is "unsafe " to do 71 mph on an empty motorway at 3.00 am in the morning.

Speed limits are arbitrary and bear no relation to safety whatsoever. They are there simply because it enables some sort of control to be legally enforced, so in other words for the benefit of the enforcers. What is happening is that the system is being abused in order to raise revenue. I am quite happy to discuss speed limits in respect of how to impose a law to curb speed, and I am also happy to accept the "getting caught" argument. But please dont expect me to accept any sort of pious morality over breaking a speed limit.

[Spacecadet]

Speed limits are arbitrary and bear no relation to safety whatsoever. They are there simply because it enables some sort of control to be legally enforced, so in other words for the benefit of the enforcers.

Absolute crap, and barely deserves an answer. Limits need to be there or else a significant majority of drivers would see nothing wrong with driving at full speed everywhere on any road.

Agreed, 70mph does seem a bit slow on an empty motorway, however the police generally won't do anything up to 79mph (unless they're having a zero tolerance clampdown)

[Ardesco]

Bad driving causes accidents, the excessive speed then kills

Therefore good driving at speed should be perfectly safe and legal. I don't think anybody here is going to demand the right to drive past a school at 40MPH at kick out time. Arbitary speed limits policed by cameras are not the way to go.

Take 2 drivers.

One drives 50MPH through a 40MPH zone on a bright sunny day with high visibility.

One drives 40MPH through a 40MPH zone during a blizzard on a foggy day with visibility of approx 2 metres, there large patches of ice on the road and it has not been gritted.

Which one is the danger who should be stopped and fined?

[tay]

Speed limits are arbitrary and bear no relation to safety whatsoever.

Not true. There is definately an underlying logic to it.

If you are interested in it, there is a lot of information about it on the interweb. Look at some of the dmg curve research.

Anyone with children knows that kids do silly things, and I know that if my kids ever make a foolish mistake I hope to god the driver who is confronted with it, is doing 30mph and not 45mph... Think about your child dying in your arms DA and then think how comforting it would be for you when the driver says "Oh well it was the kids fault, I was fine doing 45mph"... wonder how arbitary the law would feel then aye.