I think the idea is that society is able to deal with at least some things without making a law about it.
What a fantastic idea! ;o)
|
"As I said before, as long as it doesn't affect other people negatively, I'll continue to speed as and where I see fit. I could still easily hit and kill someone at 30mph."
Would you apply the same argument to drink-driving?
|
Surely being under the influence of alcohol reduces your ability to decide whether your actions are likely to affect somebody negatively?
A speeder is far more able to make that judgement call than someone who has had a few drinks.
|
I was talking about the principle of ignoring laws you don't agree with.
Although a speeder has less time to react than a non-speeder, in much the same way (albeit perhaps not to the same degree) as a drink-driver.
|
I was talking about the principle of ignoring laws you don't agree with. Although a speeder has less time to react than a non-speeder, in much the same way (albeit perhaps not to the same degree) as a drink-driver.
This is precisely the point I am making you seem to be missing. I will drive at a speed where I can react to things in time, while observing for any potential variables (Junctions, gates, etc)
If speed limits are so fantastic, why do they seem to be so arbitary? What is so magical about 30mph vs 28mph, 32mph, or 24mph?
|
Most people accept that there need to be speed limits to concentrate the minds of the barmy few.
People who knowingly exceed speed limits are not 'ignoring' the law. They are deliberately breaking it - perhaps partly out of habit - and if caught, will pay their fines. What else can they do after all?
Fortunately the police themselves often take a nuanced view of safe speeding. Unfortunately the enforcement of speed limits which aren't always reasonable or sensible is increasingly mechanised and in the hands of horrible faceless bureaucratic jobsworths hiding behind cameras and illiterate letters of rejection.
I know some serving police officers who use this forum would agree with this in principle although they can't necessarily admit it.
|
My views of new laws is simple:
Until current laws are kept and enforced especially with regard to burglary and violent crime (where we lead Europe), no more new laws.
Emphasis on enforcement of current laws pls.
PS and with the courts and jails incapable of dealing with current offenders...
madf
|
|
|
|
Sorry, still missing the point. I'm probably not very bright.
Are you saying there should be no speed limits, and that we should leave it to the judgment of individual drivers?
|
|
In fact, I can't even get a mss1tw quote into my message.
|
|
|
Are you saying there should be no speed limits, and that we should leave it to the judgment of individual drivers?
In a perfect world maybe...actually, at the risk of ridicule, yes that's what I'm saying. Totally unfeasible without a lot of training and turning people who drive cars into actual drivers, though.
|
I think that the very presence of a speed limit is part of the problem. The driver thinks he doesn't need to think about safety, he only needs to keep the needle below the limit, and he's OK. Without a limit, a driver would constantly have to ask - "is this a safe speed?", which IMO would be a far more healthy state of affairs. Yes, there are some who would have difficulty with that, and if introduced, there would be an adjustment period, where those who were too dull to adapt would remove themselves from the gene pool, but in the long run, I suspect we would end up with safer roads.
IMO, the same goes for warning signs, paint on the road surface, and all the other nannying that we have grown used to.
Number_Cruncher
|
Maybe we've got a bit off-topic.
|
IMO, the same goes for warning signs, paint on the road surface, and all the other nannying that we have grown used to.
What he said. ;o)
|
Oh, I absolutely agree. Like you, I have no need for speed limits.
I was really thinking of those drivers - other than the three of us - whose driving does occasionally fall below our level and who can't be relied on to drive at the appropriate speed.
|
Oh, for heaven's sake, just put a trackable chip in everyone's armpit and get it over with.
I have heard of more ridiculous ideas, but not many. The law as it stands is working pretty much as intended. Anyone who drives a registered car at a speed that triggers a camera pays a fine. It doesn't really matter if they manage to get another person so get the points, they still get a bit of a reminder in the pocket. Bear in mind, also, that the vast majority of people who have a vehicle legally registered to them will 'fess up, pay the fine and take the points. I certainly would. Most people are either fully law-abiding or not. Do you really think that the average scrote would give a tinker's cuss about keeping accurate records?
I feel really rather weary (and mildly depressed) when I hear of yet another demand that the law-abiding majority have their freedoms (and time) chipped away for no reward or benefit, while regular law-breakers will just carry on as before.
Please, in the name of God, just leave us alone.
V
|
"It doesn't really matter if they manage to get another person so get the points, they still get a bit of a reminder in the pocket ..."
"... the law-abiding majority ..."
?
|
Where's the contradiction? I talk abou the law-abiding majority in the context of people who will have to keep your proposed records of the usage of their cars*, not in the context of the people who might pay someone else to take their points. I'm pretty much crystal clear about that in my post, so please don't take my statements out of context and use them to make a dubious point for yourself.
* In order that you don't misunderstand me again, either deliberately or not, what I mean is that people who never speed, who keep their cars registered, taxed and insured, will have to keep your damned records. I really do despair of this.
V
|
Sorry, Vin. I'd obviously misunderstood your post.
I understood you, as a law-abiding person, was condoning (or being prepared to turn a blind eye to) the perverting of justice.
I apologise for suggesting you were one or the other.
;-)
And it would only be those who "can't remember" who they lent their car to who'd need to keep a record.
Or is that stating the obvious?
|
It is quite simple, just make the reg. keeper resposible for any offences where they are not able to remember who was driving! As they are if the other driver is uninsured - e.g. if Tiff did not know who was driving how did he know they had a license and were insured ? ? ? ?
Their memories will miraculously improve, or notebooks appear in cars.
All you have to know is that you don't have to set rules to make people do what you want them to do - just make sure they know it is in their best interests to do it.
|
If you regard a car as the equivalent of a shotgun in terms of killing potential, likelihood of misuse, vulnerability to theft, use by criminals, etc, then it should be:
1) Always secured in a locked cabinet (garage) when not in use
2) May only be used or kept by someone who has demonstrated a need, and whose licence application has been countersigned by a responsible person such as a magistrate, GP, etc.
3) Licence may be revoked, probably for life, after any offence relating to misuse or contravention of rules.
4) Written record to be kept of anyone borrowing it.
That should keep the roads a bit clearer!
|
This is all about criminalising people whose cars are registered to them (i.e. by definition, people who are abiding by at least one law of the land).
Why not attack the elephant in the room, namely the hundreds of thousands of cars not registered to their current keeper. By their actions:
1. They are showing that they are happy to break at least one law
2. They can drive through any speed camera at any speed with total immunity from prosecution. Provided they can complately get away from the scene of an accident, they don't even need to stop after a crash. They can drive as dangerously as they wish wothout fear of being tracked down. They don't need insurance or road tax, because they are untracable.
So why not attack that group before you try to force people like me to keep records? I'll tell you why? Because it's difficult and can't be addressed in a soundbite.
Keep some sense of proportion about howe big a problem this is, and leave the law-abiding majority alone for once.
V
|
|
Footnote: - I wasn't being serious, just pointing out the anomalies in the way we are regulated for different activities.
|
|
To save time and avoid forgetting to do it, I have already filled in this year's records.
|
Whatever happened to 'innocent until proven gulity?'
The people who don't seem to value such a right deserve none.
If the state suspects me of a crime, then they need evidence, and they need to convince a court that I'm guilty.
It's certainly not for me to perpetually prove my innocence by keeping logs of what I do and what my property is used for.
If I decide to keep records or diaries, these are for my use or defence, not for self-incrimination.
|
Vin: yours is a different elephant in another room. I would confiscate uninsured and unlicensed vehicles and sell or crush them. The ANPR system is a great and wonderful thing and I wish it were used more. Although no doubt the criminals who disobey the law re insurance and road tax would whinge about the police not going out and catching "real criminals". As we all know, speeders aren't real criminals, right?
But do say, which of the two are you: law-abiding or prepared to turn a blind eye to a bit of perverting the course of justice.
Cliff Pope: I agree with your main point, but don't you think that if we all had a legitimate daily use for a shotgun, the regulation might be a bit different? We'd all be a touch politer on the roads, for one thing.
Ashok: I'm probably missing something in what you say. The State doesn't suspect you of a crime without evidence. Once that suspicion is raised, it's for the State to prove it. Sometimes, however, laws are passed which provide for the proof to be shown in a different way.
Choosing to have a car brings with it certain responsibilities (see Cliff Pope's post above). If you don't want to have those responsibilities, don't run a car.
As you correctly point out, "If I decide to keep records or diaries, these are for my use or defence, not for self-incrimination." That's my suggestion. Keep a record so that, if property for which you are responsible for is used in the commission of a crime, you can exculpate yourself.
Sorry if I've misunderstood anyone. And thanks for the interesting replies.
|
So you go to court and present your own, non-legally required records which show that you did not commit the offence, someone else was driving. Will the court take that as proof of your innocence or their guilt?
What if the "someone else" denies it? Will your records be taken as irrefutable evidence?
|
|
I'm guessing, mjm, that you've not been through the system. What you describe is pretty much what happens now.
|
|
I've been through the "Fair cop, guv, bang to rights" once. (85 in a 60 limit). It was acted upon with far more diligence than the PC who was "hot on the case" of my stolen wallet.
|
"But do say, which of the two are you: law-abiding or prepared to turn a blind eye to a bit of perverting the course of justice."
I'm law-abiding. And I'm sick and tired of being asked to prove my innocence. I abide by the law and if caught breaking it, I'll take the pain. I'm sick and tired (I mean, REALLY weary) of the fact that my freedom is constantly being eroded by people who want to take the easy option and add a layer of pain onto me because they can't be bothered to address the core problem. And the core problem of this thread appears to be people who don't get caught after passing though a speed camera over the limit.
Do we get an idea that will address the thousands of unregistered cars that plough blithely through them? No, we get an idea to address the handful (unsubstantiated claim) of cases where people try to claim they don't know who the dirver is. And the idea is to take people like me and FORCE us to keep records. Under what penalty? In what format? Not clear, but yet another thing that I have to do to avoid becoming a criminal.
I will support 100% any police force that follows up any case of perverting the course of justice. The point I made about people who pay someone else is just that I bet that even doing that changes their behaviour. The lawmakers who allowed speed cameras with the laws that surround them are responsible for their inability to prosecute correctly, NOT ME.
Think the following through; really do give it a try. Why not create a law that means you have to log your movements at all times, so that if the Police arrest you for burglary, you can show what you were doing. Sounds stupid, doesn't it? But when someone suggests it on here in relation to motoring offences, it's taken part-seriously.
As I keep saying, leave us alone.
V
|
|
Vin! You can't say Police Force in these modern times, it's Police Service! They did away with the aggressive connotations several years ago.
|
Also they cannot describe their Crime Prevention service (leaflets etc) as such as it is not guaranteed to prevent crime. It is now called Crime Reduction and all the leaflets have a disclaimer at the bottom saying something like "The ???? Police service offers this advice on the understanding that compliance with and observation of the recommendations contained herein is not guaranteed to prevent or reduce crime in any way"
|
"Governments cannot guarantee to achieve any of the targets stated in their manifesto. Remember services can get worse as well as better, and taxes can go up as well as down. Your house may be in danger if you do not keep up your payments. Players must be 75 or over to get a pension, but this is not guaranteed.
Always read the small print. "
|
"Leave us alone", Vin? Dear me! I didn't mean you to take it so personally. I feel like a politician, almost. And, as I've said, I agree with you about those who rununinsured or, even worse, community cars etc. Might we agree on the answer to that problem, even (crush or auction)?
You suggest that whay I said is akin to a proposal to "create a law that means you have to log your movements at all times, so that if the Police arrest you for burglary, you can show what you were doing."
It isn't, for reasons I've already stated.
But let me try ("really try" ;-) ) to think through your analogy, and apply it to the case in point, Someone sees a burglary taking place at midnight. The burglar drives off in a black Mondeo with the registration number AB 05 CDE. I own a black Mondeo with the registration number AB 05 CDE. I can't provide an alibi witness - that is, I can't provide anyone who can say where I was at midnight. Two weeks later the police trace me and come and ask me what I was doing at midnight.
Don't you think I'd look pretty foolish if I said I couldn't remember who had had my car? And don't you think a court would find it a little difficult to accept that it might not have been me using the car that night?
It's only because "it's only speeding" that anyone has the brass neck to advance such an argument, isn't it?
|
Modern electronics would allow cars to have a 'log-on' facility where only permitted drivers are allowed to activate the controls. A driver card could carry digitised information about licence status and insurance. Insert card into slot on car dashboard and screen says 'you may proceed' or 'you are not permitted to drive this vehicle'. Also if car is not taxed or MOT'd, car couldn't be drriven.
I believe this is already happenning to some extent with the new digital tachographs on lorries where drivers need a smart personal card.
We're all used to this sort of thing with computers, so why not cars? The big problem would be when it goes wrong and it won't let you drive your own car!!!!!
|
Also if car is not taxed or MOT'd, car couldn't be drriven.
Not much use for legally getting your non-MOTd car to the testing station for a pre-booked appointment then, the way you can now. There is enough surveillance, cameras, form filling, DNA databases and government sponsored nosiness and down right interference that if they want to know where I am and where my car is they can check their own records. If they can't find the information, hard cheese!
|
Groovy Mucker,
Let's assume that you are not the burglar. The police arrive and go through the "Are you the owner of the vehicle with this registration number, Sir?" routine.
You say yes, because you are.
They ask you where your vehicle was on that date at that time, and where were you. You can only tell the truth. You were in bed, asleep, and as far as you know, the vehicle was parked on your drive.( You can't swear to it because you are asleep but when you woke up the vehicle was where you left it the night before.)
How are your carefully, honestly compiled records going to help you? They will show that either no-one was driving it or if they are detailed enough they will show that it was out of use but under your care.
Will the court take home-made un-verified records as evidence of innocence?
How will your records stop car cloning?
You can buy, legally, a set of number plates with whatever combination you like on them with a few mouse clicks and a bit of keyboard use.
|
mjm: I think you've identified the point at which the analogy breaks down. Have a word with Vin, will you? He's got a broken-down analogy and he probably wants to get it home.
Maybe we'd better stick with the chip-in-the-armpit after all.
Or else not overload the analogy until it can't take any more. We all know car number plates can be copied: but that's a third elephant in the police station canteen.
Rock on.
|
Deal with uninsured, unregistered, untaxed, unroadworthy vehicles being driven by unlicensed drivers before trying to deal with this minor problem.
Lest you think I've been off in analogy-land or that the vehicles described above are an exaggeration, a friend of mine collided with a motorcycle. It was uninsured, unregistered, untaxed and the rider held no licence. I have no knowledge as to its roadworthiness (though I suspect given the other facts, there's a chance that maintenance may not have been top of the rider's agenda).
Is it more important to get them off the road, or to add a legal requirement for me to keep track of who is driving my car at any given time, a log that will probably mean nothing in law, as it can't be verified?
That's all I ask. As I keep repeating, leave us alone.
V
|
|
|
|
|
|
