hedgehog

Lord Davies of Oldham, speaking in the Lords for the government, is quoted (Hansard 29 Nov 2005, Col 14) as saying the following about drivers while discussing the Road Safety Bill:

"Perhaps I may make the obvious point. First, the right to drive is a privilege, not an automatic right; it is a privilege won through competence so that one is safe on the road. Secondly, the whole House will recognise that there is often a strong correlation between the right to drive-particularly the opportunity taken to drive at excessive speeds-and criminal activity."

There you go, you only want to drive so you can get on with a life of crime, at least in the eyes of the government.

ru'

Well, he is completely correct!


Let's face it, I reckon at least 90% of the population exceed the speed limit (even if it is only be 1 or 2 miles per hour). That would, I believe, be classed as criminal activity.

Unless, of course, you are a police person, government official or famous etc. in which case it's different.

the moose

Yes, he's right.

I don't think that I've ever failed to breach the speed limit on any motorised journey I've undertaken (other than perhaps my driving lest, and that was 23 years ago).

Leslie

It read to me that he meant that criminals on a "job" are likely to drive too fast rather than that fast drivers are criminals.

I would hope thats what he meant.

Les

OllyK

I suspect you are being overly generous. The government at least, seem to beleive their own spin that exceeding a speed limit should be more socially unacceptable than drink driving.

AndyC_772

iTrader: (2)

I wonder whether there's a similar correlation between serious criminals and people who don't brush their teeth properly. Random halitosis checks, anyone

Abdabz

Whilst we all accept we breach the limit we must also accept we are breaking the law when we do so and are therefore criminals...

alcazar

iTrader: (2)

This JUST might have SOMETHING to do with the fact that no-one has yet invented a CAMERA to catch drink drivers...............

Abdabz: do you actually BELIEVE the crap you write, or are you just on a wind-up?

Alcazar

unclebuck

I think he means that those who speed are likely to be law breakers in other ways as well. This is an 'argument' that was also put forward by the police recently with regards to motorcycle riders. Basically they were calling for those prosectuted for speeding to be further investigated as likely criminals.

Suresh

More proof that the HoL should simply be abolished so that such unelected old tossers don't get a say in the running of a democracy.

Brendan Hughes

Totally and utterly agree (except that the right to drive doesn't even exist - it's a licence, permission, not a right). Most of SN (or at least NSR) seem to forget this and assume they have a right to do whatever they want on the road, then get snotty when they get caught. Arrogant *******, frankly.


This is also clear. Remember the copper caught doing 130+ in a Vectra. He was driving at an excessive speed so that future traffic cops could counter criminal activity safely.


The man is truly a learned colleague.

richs2891

Have to agree with Brendan here, especially on Lord Davies, driving is not a right bit.
Does seem a little unclear to the real meaning of his later statemant though!
And yes the HoL does need a bit of a shake up !

Shonen

But there is another angle to all this. Most criminals (as in burglars) go out with intent to commit crime. What if you are doing 30mph and try to safely pass a cyclist and speed up to 32mph to pass by safely, you have broken the law but not intentionally. I object to be told that as soon as I get in my car I am going to intentionally break the law so there fore I am a criminal, all before I have even put the key in the ignition.

Brendan Hughes

btw, AFAIUI speeding 3mph over the limit is not a criminal offence. Offence yes, but not criminal.

RichWalk

Brendan, what would he make of the fact that most 'drive by killings' are done well within the required speed limit

Brendan Hughes

Probably they have bald tyres?

OllyK

I was shocked to hear Shirly Williams of BRAKE on the radio today. She was talking about canabis use and driving. She actually admited that speed wasn't the issue, it observation and control of the vehicle. My god somebody has finally got the point through her thick skull. Watch next week her u turn and say speed is only not an issue if you are stoned, otherwise it is

alcazar

iTrader: (2)

IMO, anyone who drives after taking speed AND cannabis needs locking up

Alcazar

OllyK

Wouldn't they just cancel each other out?

richs2891

Possibly might cancel each other out, I have absolutely no idea !!
But possibly the goverment has just become aware that the current speed (sorry safety) camera's dont catch these drivers and depriving the poor goverment of hard earned currency in the form of fines !!
Richard

unclebuck

http://www.northyorkshire.police.uk/...me&storyID=260

There we go. It speaks for itself then. All speeders are clearly criminals.

Abdabz

Whilst I accept that you do not get a criminal record for being caught speeding, it is still breaking the law.

When you or I break the speed limit we are either incompetently oblivious to the speed limit on a section of road, or are consciously making a decision to break the law. You may feel that your 4 pots and excellent driving ability put you above the law in some way, allowing you to choose a speed you think is in keeping with your driving skills, but when all's said and done when you go above 70 on a motorway (for example), and get caught, you are prosecuted and found guilty, therefore being a criminal .

I believe that the Lord dude is really referring to criminals such as those who are unisured/without license, and other naughty chaps, like scousers , that will hold the law in less regard and would therefore be more likely to ignore speed limits. I find that a logical thought process.

I dont understand why anyone who chooses to break the law and gets caught has an issue with being branded a criminal, even it does (and I accept it does for speeding) sound a little harsh.
A criminal is by definition one that has committed or been legally convicted of a crime. If you've been speed or are caught speeding you are a criminal.

I love you alcazar, without you, all lager would taste of kaliber

CrisPDuk

On the contrary, Lord Davies was elevated to the Lords to perform the function under discussion, i.e: act as a mouthpiece for the government. I think you will find that the more reasonable members of the House outnumber the political zealots like Davies by a fair majority.

As to whether the House of Lords should be abolished in it's current state, I refer you to the reply I gave last time you spouted that uninformed bollox

GC8

In my opinion, Lord Davies is inferring that there is a direct correlation between motorists' speeding and other criminal activity. Put another way: people who speed are likely also, to be criminals (what we would consider to be 'real criminals'...).

Simon

Suresh

Edit. I corrected your post for you. ****

hedgehog

It is my understanding that this is almost precisely what he was saying. However, you may also note that he said there was a correlation between the right to drive, and particularily those who speed when driving, and criminal activity. So what he has said is that not only are those who speed likely to engage in other crimes but those who have the right to drive are also more likely to engage in crime than those who don't drive.

I guess that this explains why the government wants to track the movement of every car in the country then: if you drive you are considered by the government to be up to no good and likely to engage in criminal activity. Interesting insight into where the government sees the country going if you ask me.

Fuzz

I even broke the speed limit ON my driving test.... and I still passed.
That was 15 or so years ago mind you.


Andy

CrisPDuk

The very fact that you stoop to name calling merely reinforces my opinion that you are India's answer to Pete Lewis

Diesel

Whilst that sentence is a bit oxymoronic ['dont understand' & 'I accept'] it remains that speeding [Britan's safest and most popular law transgression] is NOT a crime [yet...]. It is a summary offence which is why you go to a magistrates court and not the crown court - currently this court is still reserved for murderers, rapists and pensioners with little income who cant keep up with council tax rises. In fact speeding is such a low grade offence that the focus is able to be put on cashflow administration delegated by your regional chief constable to civil servants and accountants. Whilst these 'public servants' fail to understand the principles of genuine road safety [and in a bizzarely hypocritical fashion often accumulate points themselves ] they are certainly adept at spinning it out to guarantee their pensions and salaries.

I thinkl what proves this more than anything is the fact that they dont stop to check for insurance or an MOT when they invoice you - without these documents it indicates that you are a right bad'un and 11 times more likely to be involved in an RTA - but hey £60 is sixty quid and we ALL feel SO much safer on the roads now dont we....?

boomer

unclebuck,

it sounds like NYP are playing with the wrong statistics. I believe that 45% of the UK male population have a criminal record, so if only one in four "excessive speeders" has one, then they are proportionally more law abiding than non-speeders!!!

mb