Can we close the speeding debate please?

Having the old bill at motorsport events is nothing new - there was always a sneeky senator with a blue light hanging around Cadwell Park when I left on my bike in the late 1980's!

Everyone knows the law, if you break it and get caught it's tough ****, end of story.

If someone stole a car and got caught, would you whingers be there complaining about the police "over-doing" it?? Think not.

At the end of the day, excessive speed can kill people, whether you're in the middle of a town, or on some "deserted" country lane just as some mother wheels her pram out of a side road. Until you've seen what can happen, you probably won't absorb this post properly.................

precisely, EXCESSIVE speed kills, I think the point everyone is trying to make is that in this country we no longer have the discretion to use our judgement. However, that has been the case for a number of years now so I guess we are all resigned to spending our time constantly checking our speedo's instead of checking for hazards.

I think the issue is the police are out in force specifically to collect money off us for doing 5mph over the limit, rather than stopping people for overtaking in silly places etc.

sudentassu,

youre turning into a bit o a bad boy! :)

Good Point, however the only possible scenario where you can 100% sure that you won't do any damage to others is:

1. You're driving alone
2. There are no other vehicles on the road
3. There are no side roads, pedestrian crossings, or indeed any chance of pedestrians/cyclists arriving in your path
4. The road you are on has adequate barriers to prevent you leaving the road and hitting someone/something else.

Until you are in that situation you "own judgement" can only be based on you own assessment of risk, not on any finite knowledge that you won't kill someone else!

Yup eClaire, keeping the debate moving, as usual! :)

If it was pouring down with rain, blowing a hooly and you had an accident when travelling within the speed limit - would this be OK? You're not speeding so it must be alright. In fact, the accident could have been caused because you were watching your speedo to make sure you weren't speeding.

What happened to the days when the Police showed discretion and penalised only those that were posing a genuine threat - oh yes, those were the days when fatalities were going down!

This whole episode has re-inforced my growing contempt for the Police and the Nanny state that it obeyingly serves.

The organisers and drivers can't be seen to be speaking out against these bans because 'the law is the law' but how long can this persecution and abuse of power be allowed to continue?

madonkites - you are so spot on with that, I dont feel the need to comment further.

ps
blade II 4m
blade II 7.8m
Mountain board

if thats the kinda kites ur mad on

Set of Raptor II's and a Libre Full Race

(very off topic!)

Studendassu.
Sense at last.

Chip.

Madonkites, of course it wouldn't be OK, all I'm saying is:

1. There is less chance of having an accident if you don't break the speed limit.
2. A speed limit needs to be set at some level (all agree?)
3. There is no point having a limit on anything if it isn't enforced by law (all agree?)
4. If you have a law, it needs to be enforced (otherwise no point having it!)

Whilst it may well be that the coppers are sticking rigidly to enforcing the law (it's their job), I'm sure many folks on here would be the first to complain if the rozzers didn't show CONSISTANCY in their actions/prosecutions (agree?)

Now in some people eyes "SHOWING DISCRETION" = "INCONSISTANCY"

You just can't have one without the other.

My last word on the subject:

"If you stay inside the speed limits, the likelyhood is you won't get a speeding fine"

END

I'll answer your points below as best I can. My text starts and ends with << >>




Madonkites, of course it wouldn't be OK, all I'm saying is:

1. There is less chance of having an accident if you don't break the speed limit.

<<Having an accident is not solely dependant on speed. An accident may be caused by inappropriate speed but the inappropriate speed doesn't need to be excessive speed (exceeding the speed limit). An innapropriate speed can be well within the posted speed limit.
>>


2. A speed limit needs to be set at some level (all agree?)

<<Why? If drivers were educated and skilled enough to use appropriate speed at all times, then there would be no need for speed limits. Because we do not provide adequate levels of education and train ourselves to suitable standards, then I accept that some limits need to be imposed - but they have to be limits that are appropriate and can be respected by at least 85% of the users(a speed limit should be a figure derived by using the 85% rule - meaning that if more than 85% of the traffic exceeds the posted speed limit, then it is not an appropriate speed limit.)
>>


3. There is no point having a limit on anything if it isn't enforced by law (all agree?)

<<Laws must be appropriate for their intended purpose. Have you heard of a London Cabbie being done because he is not carrying a bale of hay? (By law, London Cabbies are still required to carry a bale of hay and a gallon (not sure on volume) of water for the horse). Hands up anyone who has not broken a speed limit. No-one? That makes each and everyone of us criminals.
>>


4. If you have a law, it needs to be enforced (otherwise no point having it!)

<<But if the law is not appropriate, then enforcing the law in unlawful.
>>


Whilst it may well be that the coppers are sticking rigidly to enforcing the law (it's their job), I'm sure many folks on here would be the first to complain if the rozzers didn't show CONSISTANCY in their actions/prosecutions (agree?)

<<The Police job is to 'keep the peace'. Enforcing laws is one way to keep the peace but the best form of 'peace keeping' is through education and education will have greater benefits in the long run. I'm sure people here would prefer to have consistancy of education and have the law enforced if the culprit was using in-appropriate speed.
>>


Now in some people eyes "SHOWING DISCRETION" = "INCONSISTANCY"

<<and in many other peoples eyes, showing discretion would ensure that any resultant enforcement was appropriate for the offence committed.
>>


You just can't have one without the other.



My last word on the subject:

"If you stay inside the speed limits, the likelyhood is you won't get a speeding fine"

<<But you still stand a good chance of having an accident. In fact, your chances of having a fatal accident have not improved since the introduction of speed cameras (even with safer cars), whereas they were falling every year beforehand.
>>

END

Mad on Kites,

Points:

1. We are both correct in our statements.

2. I agree with you, there are many sh*te drivers, hence I'm glad to see you agree with me that we need some limit.

3. Yes I have heard of that "hay law" and many other antiquated laws. They are no longer enforced. They only remain because nobody wants to bear the admininstration cost of revoking them. I'm sorry, but an irrelavant point. Oh, yes we are all criminals in some way, I agree.

4. I agree, better education would be preferable. But whilst we currently have one of the most uneducated populations in Europe, surviving on a diet of lager, fast-food and Eastenders, I fear we have a hill to climb on this one.

5. Again, both our points re valid.

6. and here too, both our points are valid.

despite all the agreement of your last post, you are still out on your own I am affraid!
and thats all I want to say - I will never agree with your comments as I think they are ridiculous and you are living in a little tiny world of your own on this subject!

You may be right :)