Precisely, and afaik, we don't know this person's previous, although 'anti establishment' crimes are always going to be dealt with harshly, and rightly so imho - the alternative is anarchy.


The crime he commited was attempted arson, a fairly serious offence. Regardless of previous I don't think attempting to set fire to £30 odd k's worth of someone else's property deserves anything less than community service, which I agree would be a good starting point.

The cynical misuse of speed cameras is proven to be ineffective and the groundswell of public opinion reflects John's post, maybe things will change, here's hoping!

 

You ALL still don't get it! There is a law in place about speeding, and if you don't agree with the law or the fines, then simply don't speed!

IT REALLY IS THAT SIMPLE!

Not one of you has answered my question on why you think it is YOUR divine right to do as you like on the PUBLIC roads.

All this talk of it being "unfair" or a victimless crime is nonsense. It IS a crime, and nothing will change that right now, and until the law IS changed, move on and live with it.

Are you all blinkered?!

[Edited by imlach - 11/29/2003 11:39:12 AM]

 

ajm - it seems that the deomcracy you are proposing is an anarchy, as the PUBLIC have NEVER had a full say in the laws of the country, and neither will they. You see, everyone has a different opinion, and while you think speeding is a victimless crime, I'll show you countless people who have lost loved ones who think it should be a crime! so, someone in authority has to make a balanced judgement on how to define the laws of the land.

See....


[Edited by imlach - 11/29/2003 11:56:32 AM]

 

I drive at a speed that is safe to do so for the given situation. That may be 10mph, it may be 100mph. I have been caught speeding once and it was in a situation were the safe speed at that particular time happened to be higher than the posted speed limit. I didn't protest it, but I don't have to agree with it.

So by definition, those who disagree with the law DO speed, and in my case this is the reason why.

It is actually our right to do as we please, its called being a free individual. We can do what we like however we must understand that if it falls outside the confines of the law then consequences will follow. The law is there to protect us, therefore if there is a law that negatively affects us and prohibits something that does not harm someone else then that law is erronious because it is not protecting anyone.

It is my (and others) argument that the law against speeding is obsolete and should be abolished. In the case where excessive speed is the cause then laws prohibiting unsafe driving already cover it. Unsafe driving MAY include excessive speed, it may not - it depends on a case by case basis.

 

No, I am not proposing a free for all law writing session. I am proposing abolishing the law against speeding and instead relying on the laws against dangerous driving. If excessive use of speed was a factor then these laws will cover it.

 

Ajm - you are free to object to the law as you have said. However, to drive around at a speed *you* think is safe even if above the legal speed limit is your free choice, but you obviously carry the risk of fines and/or a ban which you cannot ultimately object to - you have broken CURRENT laws, so cannot complain.

The goverment (and those before it) have laid down a law for the safety of the public at large. You obviously feel you are above it.

[Edited by imlach - 11/29/2003 12:12:07 PM]

 

The only time a car is safe, is when it is at 0mph (barring 3rd party incidents!).

Any speed is unsafe, but excessive speed can increase the consequences. Show me a road you do 100mph on, and I'll tell you 30 reasons why it is unsafe even although you think you are "safe" to do 100mph in those conditions. It will not be safe at 30mph either, and your 100mph just accentuates any unforeseen problem.

 

Your proposed plan to remove speed limits is badly flawed.

So, if we have no speed limits, can someone drive at 100mph past a school? No. That would be deemed dangerous I assume. However, what defines "dangerous"? If no-one was standing outside the school, what is dangerous about it? The crime would have to be based on judgement & perception, yet I don't really think the public would be impressed with you driving at 100mph past a school even although you think it is "safe".

So, we have to have concrete laws which apply limits in certain areas. Then it is a simple black & white crime. We cannot have people driving past schools at 100mph and getting off with it, can we?

[Edited by imlach - 11/29/2003 12:23:52 PM]

 

There is the possiblity that my judgement is bad, in which case I will get what I deserve.

There is also the possiblity that I am safer than someone who never breaks the speed limit, because I am concentrating on what the safe speed is, not what the posted speed is.

Any law that criminilises someone who is driving safely needs to be reformed.

Whether you accept them or not some of those laws are a nonsense. If no one ever challenged them then none of them would ever be reformed.

I also feel compelled to suggest that there is a remote chance that you are being a tiny bit hypocritical

[Edited by ajm - 11/29/2003 12:24:10 PM]

 

Ah - the usual stuff ajm! Attack me for being hypocritical! Actually, I cycle more often than I drive now, and have not broken a limit for over 6 months....so there! ..and if I had broken one, I'd face the consequences. That is the law. You don't think it is.

[Edited by imlach - 11/29/2003 12:28:18 PM]

 

precisely, it forces the courts to take circumstances into account meaning people get punishments suited to the crime, and the public at large will no longer feel hard done by.


It is black and white crime that gets people back up though, because most of it is grey! The result is loss of respect for the law.

 

I think people driving at 100mph past schools would soon get a groundswell of public opinion formed to introduce speed limits....

 

Any proposal to abolish all speed limits is, frankly, ludicrous.

If they do nothing else, they provide the vast majority of drivers who have no idea what a safe speed for a given road is, an idea of a generalised maximum.

ajm, your views are great for an ideal world - we don't live in one.

 

Quite possibly, but I can't think of a scenario where 100mph past a school would ever be as safe either, so it couldn't happen.

 

The best way to get people to slow down is to make driving more dangerous. My solution is to attach a sharp knife to the steering wheel of every car in the land which would injure you should you hit it.

Bizarre? Yes, but it'd make you drive more carefully. It's only as dangerous as driving a 1.5 tonne lump of metal around beside pedestrians etc....

[Edited by imlach - 11/29/2003 12:36:32 PM]

 

Tiggs-Crikey, just spotted that comment.

Is there such a thing as black balling on SN? (Or it might be called afro-carribean balling now.)

There'd be more accidents through tedium if that's introduced.

 

ajm - but it would happen (100mph past schools), as there is no limit! You're inviting people to willingly speed.

 

That is the most ridiculous idea that the tree huggers have come up with yet!
Picture the scenario, the drive at 45 club are out pootling along the A road with few overtaking opportunities due to lack of road improvement funding with their flat cap on, the queue behind getting more and more frustrated until that tiny straight bit comes into view and the "whacky race" starts, you pull out, nail it and it looks like your away..................then, Bang! your GPS speed limiter cuts in leaving you stranded on the wrong side of the road facing the oncoming traffic which has just appeared! That is a far safer way of enforcing speed limits... Not! Maybe work in 20's, 30's and 40's and possibly on motorways (although I doubt the safety of people all driving at 69MPH bored stiff!) but there is always going to be situations where accidents are caused where the safest escape route is to exceed the speed limit slightly, BIG BROTHER anyone??
Rant over

 

To cheer myself up about this whole issue of speeding I've just been for a quick spin and took the beast up to 160MPH. Didn't feel unsafe at any point. Screw the law, it's totally out of date and enforced to make money.

If I had been caught by a camera, I'd have probably done something about it. If the coppers saw me, they would have to catch me before they could send me to jail for commiting the most hideous crime in the world.

Steve

 

Tiggs, and Imlach:

Do either/both of you actually drive Scoobs?

If so WHY???

Genuine question guys, not a piece of snidery:

Alcazar

 

Used to own a MY99 a few years back - had it for 2.5 years.

 

I think you will find imlach cycles around now.... which is the reason he, in his own words, hasn't broken any speed limits for 6 months...

(implying that had he been powered by internal combustion engine then he would have done!)

 

Ajm - your ASSUMPTIONS are VERY wide of the mark. If you knew me, you'd find out why.........

 

Alcazar, not that I did drive the MY99 slowly, but why do people assume that anyone with a Scoob must by definition break the law and speed....and if they don't, why would they have one? Which is the point you are trying to make....?

Says a lot about the image of the Scoob these days really

 

Ajm - also, one CAN break speed limits on the bike

 

did you ASSUME I was being serious?

lol! In that case I commend you on your restraint!

[Edited by ajm - 11/29/2003 7:21:54 PM]

 

Ach, no-one is up for it. No-one seems to be able to find a flaw in the points I'm putting forward

 

I have a belly full of fine wine, maybe I have lost my edge....

or maybe you need to re-read this thread!

 

Speeding kills - anything that stops speeding is a good idea in built up area's. But......People feel cheated by how much the road user is already penalised.

Whene i saw a speed camera smashed to bits the other week - i smiled and said like many others that had already passed "justice". It was on a long straight road thats not a blackspot or in a built up area or as said on a bed etc...why have it??? Just seems like another overzelous waste of tax payers money...well once they repair it that is..

Aint the car driver punished enough for driving a car as it is...????

 

Instead of replacing the damaged ones, spend the money putting them outside schools and hospitals, see how many get vandalised then. I bet you they all remain intact.

Steve