JackClark

Slightly clearer but I can't agree that speeding does not hurt anyone, in fact I'd say more people have been hurt by a speeding car than a teenager stealing a mars bar. I do agree with not calling them Safety cameras, Speed Cameras is more accurate.

lozgti1

lol.thank you

alcazar

iTrader: (2)

They catch and enforce.

Nothing to do with it? How naive.

alcazar

iTrader: (2)

OK, Jack nice try, but of all those CAUGHT speeding, how many ACTUALLY hurt someone, did any damage?

As I said...I MIGHT rape someone, because I have the tools. Should I be arrested and prosecuted?

Prosecute those who do damage, hurt, steal, of course, but stop dishing out MULTIPLE punishments to those who break an arbitrary limit.

hodgy0_2

But that is not what your point 1 said

Read it, out load if you have too

"Catch and enforce", brilliant - sounds like something a police force would do

Felix.

So, you'll be happy with a 70mph zone past a school then - no need to get involve until some poor child gets knocked down (and probably killed at that speed). Then we can prosecute that person for speeding and let the rest carry on at 70mph

On your argument, you'll be happy for people to walk around with offensive weapons and guns or going equipped items. No need to prosecute them as they have not harmed anyone or burgled anywhere - yet. But we don't. We intervene to stop something from happening. The faster a vehicle goes, the injury potential increases should it crash - end of.

People are prosecuted for damage, theft assault, etc - but you need proof to do so (innocent until proven guilty) which is the same burden of proof for someone speeding hence why you need a photo of who is driving - to prove it. Otherwise everyone will say - "not me" and no one will stick to any speed limit ever again.

Felix.

Drink drivers take risks - yet they get bans, fines, orders etc. The majority of them never hurt anyone at all - yet no one seems to bother with their punishments. At the end of the day, you know that speeding may carry these punishments, so don't do it or use the bus

But the public will want to insure more than one rider on a bike. And if the motor bike has its number plate missing, it will get pulled - but at present the law does not require a plate to be on the front of the bike.

So, ok we will get rid of all forward facing cameras and only take a pic of the back or you car, bike, van. Then, we can not prove who was driving. So no one will get prosecuted, word gets around that there is nothing the police/courts can do if you speed and everyone will do it. In fact i will lay bets that people will do it for the craic. See how fast you can get to going past a camera.

So, how are you going to do this without evidence of who was at the wheel? And what sort of fine/points are you thinking of?

Give who the fine? How can we fine someone if we can't prove they were at the wheel?

Allowing the vehicle to be driven in a manner of.......what? Going too fast, you mean speeding? Or driving in a dangerous manner - so you are now saying that speeding is dangerous? You need to specify.


Or could it be that the public stick to speed limits near schools as they are aware of speeding increasing the possibility of serious injuries. Not sure why the sight cameras in the positions where they do where you are, perhaps they have had calls from their local community at various community meetings (where speeding motorists are often high on the agenda). But if you know there is a speed change on a section of road - adjust your speed to suit. If not, just accept the fact you take a chance. If you insist that its a money making scam, then don't fall for it and just stick to the speed limits. Set off 5 minutes earlier, so you don't feel the need to speed. And i did say that speeding was not as serious as murder/rape. I don't think that's an un-credible thing to say.

Perhaps you may consider removing these so called 'multiple' punishments for speeding people and just have a single 6 month driving ban - better?

neil-h

Have a look at what's meant by intent in legal parlance.

As for your bit about multiple punishments, we've covered that already so I'm not going to waste the time/bandwidth doing it again.

alcazar

iTrader: (2)

OK, I've read it? where did I say the police do that? But they DO enforce it, so what's your point?

Drivers don't get a FPN from the courts, they get one from the SCP, with the local constabulary logo emblazoned all over it...so it BETTER be from the cops.

alcazar

iTrader: (2)

Oh please, this is the ultimate straw-man argument, (look it up). In none of my posts have I either condoned speeding, or said limits near schools are false/fake/silly. I DID say that enforcement ought to be in those areas, INCLUDING on stupid people who park illegally and dangerously.

Another staw man argument, and as such, not worth a response.

1. Agreed. those items don't harm, the user does. We HAVE laws that limit the people who can carry, and where...so now only criminals have them. OK with you? Oh...and cops, of course, but they would NEVER misuse theirs, would they Jean-Charles???

2. No disputes here....I do NOT condone speeding, only raising the point of sneaky revenue generation. WHY are there no cameras outside schools, pray tell?

Not true. You ASSUME everyone will.

And you still fail abysmally on motorcycles.

alcazar

iTrader: (2)

I know about intent. A speeding motorist does NOT intend to have an accident, or hurt anyone, so your facile argument is just that. Facile.

Regarding multiple punishments, you mean you can't justify them? I thought not.

Torquemada

Isn't a speeding motorist more likely to have an accident than a motorist who observes the speed limit though?

I'm happy that the police do their thing.

As a child, I was run over by a car doing way over the speed limit, it nearly killed me (the speed it was at should have left me as a smudge on the road). If the person involved was driving at the speed limit then I would not have been hit and would not have endured permanent physical and mental injury.

How exactly should we curb dangerous speeding?

Seems that some are only coming here with problems about things, how about coming up with some solutions instead?

neil-h

The point in contention was your argument about rape, not the comments about speeding. Though seeing you've opted to bring it up, we'll examine it some more. Now taken from the legal stand point that speed limits are in place for user safety (rather than your standpoint that it's a simple revenue stream), then exceeding them would be unsafe thus increasing the likelihood of an accident. Ergo the speeding driver could be deemed to be guilty intent to carry out the act of dangerous driving.

As for multiple punishments, I'm not trying to defend it. I'm merely stating that if anyone is making a facile argument about anything it is you and your notion that the law punishes 4 or 5 times for speeding offenses.

jonc

Alcazar, what would make a good deterrent for speeding if not fines and points on your licence? Other criminal offenses results in term in prison and a criminal record, would this be better since it won't be generating "revenue"? You argue that speeding causes no damage or hurts anyone, neither does driving whilst driving over the drink drive limit, or driving without insurance, or driving without a drivers licence, or driving on bald tyres etc etc.

alcazar

iTrader: (2)

I'll try and answer all above posts in this one, forgive me if I miss any.

Isn't a speeding motorist...? Why would that be? ONLY if he was driving dangerously or without DCA. I can get a fine and points for doing 80mph on a dry, empty, straight motorway, in daylight, and on which the ONLY accident was a woman on drugs who managed to drive the wrong way up it. How am I likely to have an accident there?

Yet I can LEGALLY drive past a school at 30mph, (or whatever the posted limit is), and CANNOT be caught for speeding there, because I'm not....yet I would NEVER do that as it IS dangerous.

My point? Let's have the artificial revenue generating limits sorted. Lets have the cameras placed where they will DETER, not just catch and make money.
And anyone who tells me that NO cameras are placed to catch and NO limits are set artificially low to catch, is living in another world to this one How else do we justify unmarked cars??????

neil-h, my points above address your first point, so I'll move onto your second:
Do you honestly believe that a motorist who feels he isn't guilty will not get a) either a £1000 fine for not giving details of who was driving, or b) a fine, plus points, plus costs, plus victim surcharge from the court? And that he will likely receive a BIGGER fine and MORE points? Because trust me, that's what happens.

By my reckoning, that's FOUR punishments.

As an example, these are taken from a recent local paper:

MrXXXXX, Theft, compensation of £57.60, costs of £150

MRYYYYY, Using vehicle without insurance, Fined £400, Victim surcharge £40, Costs £250, Criminal court costs £150 and six points.

MrZZZZZZ: Speeding, fined £150, Costs £100, Criminal court costs £200, Victim surcharge £30, four points.

Can ANYONE explain how MrXXXXX, who actually stole from someone, got NO fine, had to give back what he stole and got £150 costs, while Messrs YYYY and ZZZZZ got HAMMERED, yet had actually, at the time of the offence, hurt no-one?

Each one got FIVE punishments, and their insurance will go up, while the tea-leaf got away scott free in comparison.

jonc: from the above, you can see my point, I hope. Other criminal offences DO NOT result in a term in prison, and the offenders don't give a rat's about having a record, in fact it's less a stigma, more a medal.

As for deterring speeding, I'm not against it. NOT AT ALL.

What I AM against is the use of speeding prosecutions to generate revenue, and the biased punishments of the motorist because he is an easy target. If it's not about revenue, drop the fines, just give points and longer bans when totting up occurs. And anyone who drives when banned goes down, no arguments, no excuses.

The argument "don't speed, then you won't be caught" is stupid in this day of altered limits, hidden cameras etc etc. It holds about as much water as the other piece of political dogma: "If you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to worry about!"

JackClark

Put a device in every car that knows the limits and your speed then reports you if you go over, that would be a solution that fits your argument, and if you keep bleating loud enough that the current system isn't fair then that's what you'll get.

dpb

I thought it was already in place for some old duffers , albeit voluntary

Turbohot

Even a motorist who happily admits to a road traffic offence and submits gets minimum two punishments:

1. Cash fine
2. Points on your licence

You won't get points on your licence if you were doing a speed that deserves that well-known Speed Awareness Course, but you still have to pay for that course. I had to pay for mine last year, and attend that course. Because I attended the course, they didn't give me any points. I was happy with that. I was obliviously doing 57 in 50, like a d7ck of course, and a sneaky camera van clocked me, which decided to park there that day; only to clock me in action.

Now, points on your licence are really bad as they lead to one losing their credibility as a driver. Depending upon the nature and severity of the offence/number of the points, one can find that their insurance has gone much higher or hardly anyone wanting to insure them, car hire companies won't give them a car to drive or charge too much for that, work may not give them a pool car to drive as they can't be insured on their car etc. etc. etc.

Basically, you commit a road traffic offence, you get shafted big style from every direction. There's a ripple effect that affects other walks of your life.

Best thing is not to commit a traffic offence, if one can help it. But $h!t happens. More so if you drive a fast car fast or have a tendency to lose track of your speed and other things etc.; reason may be any.

leeds_182

iTrader: (2)

It would be nice if people could see the difference between the courts and the police.

neil-h

The same stands for any crime that leads to a criminal record though.

jonc

OK, so you're not against deterring speeding, and going by the point you made with your examples, you want a punishment that fits the crime, just as long as it doesn't involve "revenue" generating fines, right? So what punishment would fit being caught for speeding?

Turbohot

I didn't say it doesn't. I'm just saying that a traffic offence will fetch you at least two punishments in minimum. We can call it just one punishment with two branches to it, if we prefer.

JackClark

I think that's what he's trying to say, if you get caught smoking Jazz **** you'll get fined *and* you won't be able to visit Disney world.

neil-h

Pretty much Points on your licence are just the driving equivalent to a criminal record.

Turbohot

To add, criminal record is now more stable for you than ever this a harsher punishment, whereas the points on your licence fade away after 3-4 years, don't they? And then you can act like a good boy or a good girl and don't commit any road offence again, or and commit another one like a stupid; only to adorn your licence with a new set of points for next 3-4 years. Choice is yours.

Some people I met on that Speed Awareness Course were there for like their third or fourh time! they told me that themselves. They were in their late 50's and they still hadn't learnt!

ditchmyster

iTrader: (7)

Have to say, I agree about the sneaky camera vans and the dodgy changes in limits set and placed purely to catch the un-witting motorist, of which there seems to be more and more.

It's even catching on over here in Croatia, word has obviously got round that it's a good way to make a few extra kuna out of tourists, sure it helps that they are used to this sort of thing where they come from, so the locals are trying to make them feel at home.

alcazar

iTrader: (2)

You really are docile, aren't you?

WHERE did I say I wanted to speed?
WHERE did I say I did speed?

I have no points on my license, I just hate unfairness and the systematic targeting of someone because he's easy to identify...it's a SCAM!

neil-h

I'm not sure that's a bad thing. You'll probably find the car is the most dangerous thing a lot of the population will be left alone in charge of and yet the standard of driving displayed can be quite shocking.

alcazar

iTrader: (2)

As far as so-called safety camera partnerships are concerned, they are the same thing. The third partner is the local council.

Sooooo, we have one partner who sites cameras and artificially lowers or changes limits, one who uses thee cameras and enforces it all, and one who dishes out fines...and some people STILL can't see it as the scam it undoubtedly is.

alcazar

iTrader: (2)

NO IT DOES NOT!!!!!

Did you not read my point about the teal leaf who got TWO punishments and the two drivers who got five each.
And that's BEFORE we start of the driver's insurance premiums.