Reply to: Speeding fines

[BrilloPad]

Why can't I get a copper when I need one, like attending a burglary in progress, but there are so many out on traffic duty much of the time.

The issue most have been complaining on here is being caught by camera. Being caught by plod in person seems to be considered fairer.

[conned tractor]

Full marks for not reading anything I posted, but no doubt you were too busy, like you were too busy to slow down and/or look at your speedo or notice the camera - your choice

Hands up gov' its a fair cop. I did glance over it. Was it good? Any chance of paraphrasing? Your right, I am too busy.

The thing that stuck out was you saying I was a whiner. And I bit.

[Peoplesoft bloke]

Do-gooder.

Does anybody question the law on here? (obvoiusly our peers look down on us crims)

When were sppeding fines introduced? Why? Does it stop people speeding? Does it save lives? Or just create more revenue?

Why can't I get a copper when I need one, like attending a burglary in progress, but there are so many out on traffic duty much of the time.

Fines for putting your bins out wrong, fines for not paying the correct tax, fines, fines, fines, I do see it as indiscriminate taxation. Although society would class me as a child killer for attaining a speed which was within the limits a little while ago but then changed.

Haven't got time for a long winded argument at the moment, so this is all just to poke the flames a bit and retreat. I will leave you all to your do-gooding and self-gratuitous back patting for maintaining within the law. Whether right or wrong. No civil law was broken.

Full marks for not reading anything I posted, but no doubt you were too busy, like you were too busy to slow down and/or look at your speedo or notice the camera - your choice

[conned tractor]

Except for that one about staying under the speed limit.

Correct me if I am wrong, but that comes under criminal law.

Civil law deals with making right any loss caused to another and not hurting another person - the more humane and less money orientated side of the law. But like i said please correct me if i am wrong - I could possibly be talking out of my orafice on this one, but this is my simple understanding.

[Moscow Mule]

No civil law was broken.

Except for that one about staying under the speed limit.

[conned tractor]

Indeed not - by "whiner" I meant people like the OP who has been caught bang to rights and is trying to wriggle out of it.

Do-gooder.

Does anybody question the law on here? (obvoiusly our peers look down on us crims)

When were sppeding fines introduced? Why? Does it stop people speeding? Does it save lives? Or just create more revenue?

Why can't I get a copper when I need one, like attending a burglary in progress, but there are so many out on traffic duty much of the time.

Fines for putting your bins out wrong, fines for not paying the correct tax, fines, fines, fines, I do see it as indiscriminate taxation. Although society would class me as a child killer for attaining a speed which was within the limits a little while ago but then changed.

Haven't got time for a long winded argument at the moment, so this is all just to poke the flames a bit and retreat. I will leave you all to your do-gooding and self-gratuitous back patting for maintaining within the law. Whether right or wrong. No civil law was broken.

[The Lone Gunman]

Indeed not - by "whiner" I meant people like the OP who has been caught bang to rights and is trying to wriggle out of it.

I think he is wriggling too, but he does have a fair point and one that is being ignored by the police and the courts it seems.
The police have a duty to make sure that the equipment works and is set up in accordance with regulations. If he has been caught by an "illegal" set up then it is not wriggling.

[Churchill]

It is far easier to police and charge for speeding than it is to prosecute for bad and dangerous driving. Speeding is also easier to make money from.

BTW. I do speed. I have been stopped for it and have never been given a ticket. I have never triggered a camera.
If I get caught I will take my fine and points with good grace. This does not mean I am a whiner.

WHS. Apart from the fact that I have recently been flashed by a camera and been invited to attend a speed awareness course.

I shall sit through the four hours of preaching and endeavour never to be flashed by a camera again.

[Peoplesoft bloke]

.....BTW. I do speed. I have been stopped for it and have never been given a ticket. I have never triggered a camera.
If I get caught I will take my fine and points with good grace. This does not mean I am a whiner.

Indeed not - by "whiner" I meant people like the OP who has been caught bang to rights and is trying to wriggle out of it.

[expat]

... I'd love to see you try to deploy your "reasonable man" defence to stealing my wallet, or even to more debatable offences such as you deciding I had said something offensive in the pub and punched me, as any "reasonable man" would do. It's a fallacy. If you choose (and it is a choice) to break the law, accept the consequences when caught. I notice pretty much none of the whiners ever say they didn't break the law, they just whine about why it shouldn't apply to them.

Heh. That's a good point: if a reasonable man thinks that some twat deserves a thump, does that make it OK? I reluctantly suppose not.

[The Lone Gunman]

There are very good reasons to have speed limits, but they also need to be reasonable or drivers will ignore them.

Personaly I think there should be a change in the laws on speeding.
The speed "limit" as is should be advisory as to a sensible speed. We should then introduce absolute limits around schools, hospitals and built up areas.
In an advisory region you can ignore the advice and not get pulled, but if you have an accident you would be in big trouble. The Germans do this with insurance. The autobahn may not have a speed limit, but the insurance can refuse to pay out if you were doing above 140 on a sliding scale.

When speed limits were introduced they were based on the safe behaviour of drivers. Observations were made of drivers on a variety of roads and then the 85th percentile rule was used.
This seems acceptable as the majority of us would have been in that percentile.
There has been a worrying trend over my years of driving to demonise speed as the only cause of accidents (well that and being on your mobile). Thus they have reduced speed limits on raods as a "safety measure" when what they should be doing is prosecuting bad and dangerous drivers.
This leads to the perception, right or otherwise, that speed limits are being used for revenue making.

It seems that the wrong message is being sent to drivers. You can kill somebody whilst driving and not even go to jail for it and even if you do it will be a minimal time.
A vehicle should be in the same category as an offensive weapon and misuse of one should carry far harsher consequences. Certainly accidents will happen, but some people should be doing life.

It is far easier to police and charge for speeding than it is to prosecute for bad and dangerous driving. Speeding is also easier to make money from.

BTW. I do speed. I have been stopped for it and have never been given a ticket. I have never triggered a camera.
If I get caught I will take my fine and points with good grace. This does not mean I am a whiner.

[Peoplesoft bloke]

The problem is that all of these laws are misguided, in a literal sense. They are intended to stop dangerous driving (or at least that is the justifiable intention) but instead of enforcing a law against dangerous driving, the authorities make and enforce laws against particular actions, with no regard to the danger or otherwise of any particular action.

There is a law against dangerous driving, but it's a lot easier to enforce a law against speeding or disobeying road signs or running red lights. It is not as just, but it is easier.
.

All of that I have some sympathy with, good points, well put - and if you feel so strongly, you should be arguing for a change. For my part I accept speed limits aren't ideal but I don't think they represent a significant challenge to my liberty.

IMHO the considered actions of a reasonable person should not make him a criminal. In all other fields of the law that is true. Only in motoring law can a reasonable person performing an act which he has considered sensibly and unselfishly and which he correctly judged to be free of risk, find himself a criminal.

This is where is starts to go wrong - in most areas of the law, you did a crime so now pay the fine or other penalty - end of. I'd love to see you try to deploy your "reasonable man" defence to stealing my wallet, or even to more debatable offences such as you deciding I had said something offensive in the pub and punched me, as any "reasonable man" would do. It's a fallacy. If you choose (and it is a choice) to break the law, accept the consequences when caught. I notice pretty much none of the whiners ever say they didn't break the law, they just whine about why it shouldn't apply to them.

[Bagpuss]

The speed limits were brought in when most cars max speed was 80, cars had drum brakes, 13 inch wheels, no abs, no airbags, no crumple zones, no traction control.
Speeding in built up areas is always a no no, but 90 on a motorway or dual carriage way given the safety features of modern cars, is that wrong?

[expat]

Well, it's called 'Enforcing the Law'.

It is not a right that is 'God Given', but given by the laws of England and Wales, which I presume you are no longer subject to.

Much as you, and I, and probably other brethren here, are inclined to put ones foot down while motoring, civilisation and the Crown, has imposed a few limits on our reckless enjoyment, and quite rightly so, in this instance.

What gives them the right?

The Crown? What kind of right is it that was acquired by large-scale murder over the centuries? What other kind of right does "the Crown" have? Why am I "subject" to the Crown? Force, nothing more. I admit to being afraid of the Crown's armed force, not to being its loyal servant.

Civilisation? You mean an elected government? Which can only rightly exercise any power at all in delegation from the people, who can obviously only delegate to the government, those powers which they themselves rightly possess. So what gives the people the right to impose a universal speed limit on others? Aside of course from the fact that you think it is right...

[bogeyman]

why do the police and the courts think it's their god given right to take money from people who drive faster thatn a certain speed?

Well, it's called 'Enforcing the Law'.

It is not a right that is 'God Given', but given by the laws of England and Wales, which I presume you are no longer subject to.

Much as you, and I, and probably other brethren here, are inclined to put ones foot down while motoring, civilisation and the Crown, has imposed a few limits on our reckless enjoyment, and quite rightly so, in this instance.