Reply to: Good old Jeremy

[IR35 Avoider]

80 on a road that was not that long ago deemed fit to be 70mph

I've been commuting the length of that road since 1992, and I can confirm that a long part of it that now has a 50 limit used to be 70. And I'm pretty sure that other parts (nearer the elevated section) used to be 60, if not 70.

[vetran]

Speed cameras could save lives, however they are being abused to provide revenue and an appearance of doing something.

Mobile laser cameras have repeatedly been proved as inaccurate but are still in use.

Councils impose speed limits on the basis of revenue not safety. Why are the press not all over them? Why hasn't this changed?

If the camera can't provide sufficient evidence of who was driving then prosecution shouldn't be pursued. Improve cameras so all people caught can be recognised, enclose picture with speeding fine.

If cameras cannot be justified as the best solution to a traffic problem then they shouldn't be used. Speed sensitive signs with random cameras are more effective in preventing accidents 100% more but they don't make cash or provide prosecutions so they don't satisfy government targets.

Traffic officers are even more effective but their numbers have dropped significantly in the last 10 years.

Its an farce except its not funny, why choose one the least effective solution to save lives and make the plank of your road safety policy? The government is killing thousands needlessly because they want the cash and ccan't be bothered to fix road safety.

[Vito]

If the government's sh1t, get rid of it if there's a better alternative so that the A40 has an 80 mph speed limit. Or should we all choose as individuals which laws we choose to keep or not?

Having said that, I think mass disobedience (although I don't see Clarkson as part of that) has a place in changing laws so maybe I'm talking myself out of it. Maybe I just don't like Clarkson and I'd like to see him done. Nothing wrong with personal vindictiveness IMHO.

Come on Old Greg, you are surely not kidding yourself that we have a genuine choice as to who our government is and that its a true democracy are you?? Thats like being offered the choice of being shot or strangled...my choice would be neither but that is not an option...

[Vito]

[QUOTE=TheFaQQer;298492]I'm not prepared to argue QUOTE]

Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha

[Bagpuss]

Speed camera law means you either have to incriminate yourself or another person, if you can do neither it's up to them to prove who was driving the car. Most times they will push it as far as possible even if they have no evidence, hoping to get the money via intimidation. IMHO, this is an utter bastardisation on how the legal process should work. Guilty until proven innocent, or rather Guilty until we can no longer prove you were or you pay up through the stress of the whole sorry affair.

Don't expect them to be so tenacious if someone robs your house.

[Xenophon]

Teflon Nick Freeman

http://www.freemankeepondriving.com/

The site even says "Nick Freeman aka Mr Loophole" at the top! Classic.

[Bagpuss]

[QUOTE=DimPrawn;298572]Lets look at this. Speed limits are imposed because of risk. If you drive faster there is more risk of harm, and so your are prosecuted, regardless of any harm caused. All based on statistics.
[QUOTE]

Bogus statistics. The fact is speed is only a factor in a small minority of accidents. This is why the accident rate has remained the same over the last 10 years despite exponential growth in speed cameras.


The guy who runs this site has compiled statistics based on actual data, at it reveals who fraudulaent the governemnt claims are, especially the 80% of children die if hit at 40 rubbish.
http://www.safespeed.org.uk/

and read this..

In May 2005 they decided that speed camera side effects needed to be researched.

In December 2005 they discovered that neglect of a statistical bias had exaggerated the main benefit of speed cameras by 400%. The claimed '100 lives per year saved at speed camera sites' is downgraded to 25 lives saved.

In June 2006 they discovered that the ongoing beneficial trend in road crash serious injuries was just a feature of the way these crashes are reported. Hospitalisation statistics don't show the same trend. Road deaths don't show the same trend.

In September 2006 they discovered that the proportion of injury crashes involving any speeding vehicle nationally was only 5% - not the 'one third' that they had previously claimed.


In March we learned via Freedom of Information request that the speed camera side effects research (announced in May 2005) had been axed. It is inconceivable that the side effects DON'T cost more than 25 lives per year, meaning that speed cameras are making road safety worse. But DfT doesn't want to hear this, which is the only possible reason for axing the most important research.

So here's the truth. Speed camera policy has failed catastrophically. Department for Transport KNOWS that it has failed but won't admit their deadly mistake and pull the plug. They seem to be hoping that speed cameras will fade away over the next five years, yet they know that the policy isn't working and is costing lives. If that's not a reason for road users to get angry, I don't know what is.

[Old Greg]

Lets look at this. Speed limits are imposed because of risk. If you drive faster there is more risk of harm, and so your are prosecuted, regardless of any harm caused. All based on statistics.

What if it were proposed that, based on statistics, if you were found on the streets after dark, you are young and black, and you have a record for petty crime, you should automatically be fined and criminalised, as statistically you are more likely to be mugger and cause people harm.

It would be thrown out as nonesense, but it is no different from making people criminals for driving a car because they fall into a statisical grouping.

So do we abolish drinking and driving laws on the same basis?

[DimPrawn]

Speeding is an odd criminal offence because it is (in its conception, whether or not it is in reality) about risk, not harm. It and other traffic offences like drinking and driving are not unique in that. Health and Safety regulations are another example. If laws are purely about harm and not risk, then we need to ask the questions: Will there be more harm overall? and: If there is more harm, is it worth it in the name of liberty?

There is an extreme libertatian view that laws relating to risk should be repealed. E.g. if someone drinks 10 pints and drives home without hurting anyone, fair enough, but if they kill someone, they should be very harshly punished. The idea is that people will themselves choose not to drink and drive because they will measure the risk themselves.

I don't agree with the above view myself so I suppose the trick is to find a middle ground.

Lets look at this. Speed limits are imposed because of risk. If you drive faster there is more risk of harm, and so your are prosecuted, regardless of any harm caused. All based on statistics.

What if it were proposed that, based on statistics, if you were found on the streets after dark, you are young and black, and you have a record for petty crime, you should automatically be fined and criminalised, as statistically you are more likely to be mugger and cause people harm.

It would be thrown out as nonesense, but it is no different from making people criminals for driving a car because they fall into a statisical grouping.

[Old Greg]

[DodgyAgent]

I'm in a zen place at the moment. Normal ranting service will be resumed shortly.

You slag.

[Old Greg]

Very good and well put, an unusual phenomenon on this site

I'm in a zen place at the moment. Normal ranting service will be resumed shortly.

You slag.

[DodgyAgent]

No, I'd punish people who broke the law. Or maybe slightly less Draconian (and more British) - I'd punish people who were caught breaking the law.

If you can't do the time, don't do the crime. It bugs the hell out of me that people who know the speed limit, and know how to drive, and know how fast they are driving then whinge when they get caught.

I only speed in a 70 mph zone. However, if I get caught doing that, then I know that there is only one person that I can blame, hold my hands up and take the punishment.

In other words "keep it simple".

Are you a member of a golf club by any chance?

[TheFaQQer]

Most drivers do not drive within the speed limits, especially on that road. Would you punnish all drivers?

No, I'd punish people who broke the law. Or maybe slightly less Draconian (and more British) - I'd punish people who were caught breaking the law.

If you can't do the time, don't do the crime. It bugs the hell out of me that people who know the speed limit, and know how to drive, and know how fast they are driving then whinge when they get caught.

I only speed in a 70 mph zone. However, if I get caught doing that, then I know that there is only one person that I can blame, hold my hands up and take the punishment.

[DodgyAgent]

Speeding is an odd criminal offence because it is (in its conception, whether or not it is in reality) about risk, not harm. It and other traffic offences like drinking and driving are not unique in that. Health and Safety regulations are another example. If laws are purely about harm and not risk, then we need to ask the questions: Will there be more harm overall? and: If there is more harm, is it worth it in the name of liberty?

There is an extreme libertatian view that laws relating to risk should be repealed. E.g. if someone drinks 10 pints and drives home without hurting anyone, fair enough, but if they kill someone, they should be very harshly punished. The idea is that people will themselves choose not to drink and drive because they will measure the risk themselves.

I don't agree with the above view myself so I suppose the trick is to find a middle ground.

Very good and well put, an unusual phenomenon on this site