Policeman avoids assault charges

Elly Talbot-Cooper · 16-08-2005, 12:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by arden forester

There seems to be a view that breaking the speed limits is OK if you think it right to do. Are we suggesting law-breaking is alright for drivers? I think that if people want a change in the law it should be campaigned for, not for support of law-breaking as a cultural norm.

It's like saying a little lie is not as bad as a big lie. My point is that magistrates should hand down sentences with fairness. A policeman should not get off just because he needs his car for his job, whilst a thief gets jailed for stealing chocolate bars! It's still the property owner versus the rest! The property owner has rights, don't I know! but I also believe in fairness.

I don't have anything against SUV's 4x4's etc. It's the drivers who don't realise the speeds they do! I may get one one day, but I would go at the right speed. What a spoilsport I am!! :wink:

I am not suggesting that law-breaking is "alright for drivers", I am suggesting that the law relating to speed limits needs reforming to bring it INTO phpbb_line with public opinion and the changing face of motoring. The point I was trying to make is that I, too, would like to go at the "right" speed - I just happen to have a different view of what that is to the law at the present time. As do the vast majority of drivers.

John Carter · 16-08-2005, 02:40 PM

Speed limits are based on a communistic ideal - that we're all equal. And we're not.

Driver: Michael Schumacher.
Car: Porsche 996 Turbo, all-wheel-drive, extremely good condition.
Brakes: Ceramic racing discs.
Tyres: Pirelli P-Zero.
Road: M6.
Time: 4am.
Weather: Bone dry.

Driver: Maureen Rees (from "Driving School").
Car: Morris Marina, barely passed its MOT.
Brakes: Drum.
Tyres: Bobby-no-name remoulds.
Road: M6.
Time: 5pm.
Weather: Monsoon.

Why is the speed limit the same for both these examples? It's quite clear, to me at least, that Schumy would be a lot safer at 150 mph than Maureen would be at 30 mph.

C_steam · 16-08-2005, 04:03 PM

The answer, of course, is that for every schumi there are thirty Mo's.

Example - saturday, cumbria, M6 - monsson conditions. Most people in MIDDLE lane - average seperation about 8 metres.

I was in the outside lane - doing about 5 - 10 MPH faster than middle lane - Jag in front of me, 50M away, other car behind me - again, he stayed about 40 -50 metres back. We stayed that way for nearly 40 miles.

There were times (and I counted) that there were in EXCESS of 8 cars in the middle lane between me and the guy in front, some with no lights on, wheras I was driving on main beams and fogs.

I felt far safer than I would have had I been in the middle lane.

I have come to the conclusion that the speed limits are there to protect the idiots, not to slow down 'good' drivers. But the problem remains, we are not tough enough on banning drivers for poor driving, nor are the driving test standards sufficiently high. Ever seen the Quentin Wilson series, britains worst driver? It frightens me.

(NB - I've done a motor racing driving course and a defensive driving course, including commentary driving).

Elly Talbot-Cooper · 16-08-2005, 04:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by C_steam

Ever seen the Quentin Wilson series, britains worst driver? It frightens me.

What is worse is that the "winner" was given a new Jag. How fair is that? "You can't drive so we're going to give you thirty grand's worth of new car". Wonder how long before that was written off. :evil:

arden forester · 16-08-2005, 09:21 PM

Well, just after my last post on this thread, I went out in the car and witnessed two women in SUV's driving with one hand on the wheel and the other clutching a mobile phone. One of these drivers then proceeded up a road with parked cars and speed bumps. I could see her clearly weaving in and out in a not very safe manner.

I'm all for reassessing speed limits if there is a case for it. However, Matt's view is that it is OK to break laws if we think they are bad laws.

Quote:

When people didn't think the poll tax was fair, they didn't pay.
When people think ID cards are not fair, they won't accept them.
The granny not paying her council tax thinks it is unfair, so she doesn't pay.

I'm all for this freedom of action. But it comes with understanding the penalties involved whilst the law is in place. Otherwise we have anarchy.

Some people think it is OK to shoplift because stores won't miss a few of this and that. Some won't pay TV licences. Some drink to excess and play havoc in the street, thinking it is OK. Some people don't pay for train tickets. Some people drive without insurance. Some people, well..........!!

Are we all going to pick the laws we don't like and then avoid or evade them? No, we should be electing people that take a proper look at why there is law-breaking and trying to get a reality check on the situation. Laws do need to be revisited once in a while!

We seem to be creating a culture where selfishness is the norm and common sense and good manners are slowly relegated to the back burner! :shock:

John Carter · 16-08-2005, 10:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by arden forester

Well, just after my last post on this thread, I went out in the car and witnessed two women in SUV's driving with one hand on the wheel and the other clutching a mobile phone. One of these drivers then proceeded up a road with parked cars and speed bumps. I could see her clearly weaving in and out in a not very safe manner.

There was no need for the word "SUV" in that paragraph. Those women would be equally unsafe whatever they drove.

Quote:

Originally Posted by arden forester

Are we all going to pick the laws we don't like and then avoid or evade them? No, we should be electing people that take a proper look at why there is law-breaking and trying to get a reality check on the situation.

That's not really happening though, is it?
In the mean time, NuLab are forcing more and more petty restrictions onto us. What are we supposed to do? Accept them all?

mkpdavies · 16-08-2005, 10:18 PM

Quote:

Some people think it is OK to shoplift because stores won't miss a few of this and that. Some won't pay TV licences. Some drink to excess and play havoc in the street, thinking it is OK. Some people don't pay for train tickets. Some people drive without insurance. Some people, well..........!!

That's why we have society and democracy. We decide what is allowed and what should be punished. Most people are happy to see shoplifters punished. Most people are not happy to see people given a speeding ticket, when they were not endagering anyone.

arden forester · 16-08-2005, 11:31 PM

Here's a link for all matters concerning our views on bad driving etc!!
http://www.baddriving.com/forums_main.asp

mkpdavies · 16-08-2005, 11:41 PM

Quote:

In 2003, 3508 people were killed on the roads, 77 more than the year before. Speed cameras are creating more dangers than they solve, being unnable to deal with the real causes of accidents.'

Quote:

n Hertfordshire the number of speed cameras rose by 24 per cent between 2003 and 2004. In the same period deaths in road accidents went up by 34 per cent. In North Wales (where Richard Brunstrom has a speeding ticket league table) deaths also rose by 18 per cent.

If you're always looking at your speedo to see how fast you're going you're not paying attention to what's on the road. So yes they do cause deaths.

People need to realise it's not speeding that causes accidents it's bad driving.

Quote:

The statistic that is being referred to is readily available on the Home Office website, although very well hidden. Accidents have increased steadily since the introduction of speed cameras, almost exactly in line with car ownership in fact.

Some counties have experienced massive increases in road deaths, and some have experienced less. Fact of the matter, accidents are random, however the statistics the you will hear nutters like Brunstrom quoting are carefully chosen to prove a point.

Cameras neither prevent or cause accidents directly, however what does cause accidents is bad driving. And since the introduction of cameras, the traffic police are effectively being phased out, so bad driving will go unpunished.

Excellent examples from that forum. No wonder people have lost patience with them.

16-08-2005, 02:40 PM	#22 (permalink)
John Carter Uber Member Join Date: Mar 2005 Location: On Sabbatical Posts: 5,110	Speed limits are based on a communistic ideal - that we're all equal. And we're not. Driver: Michael Schumacher. Car: Porsche 996 Turbo, all-wheel-drive, extremely good condition. Brakes: Ceramic racing discs. Tyres: Pirelli P-Zero. Road: M6. Time: 4am. Weather: Bone dry. Driver: Maureen Rees (from "Driving School"). Car: Morris Marina, barely passed its MOT. Brakes: Drum. Tyres: Bobby-no-name remoulds. Road: M6. Time: 5pm. Weather: Monsoon. Why is the speed limit the same for both these examples? It's quite clear, to me at least, that Schumy would be a lot safer at 150 mph than Maureen would be at 30 mph. __________________ There are three kinds of people in this world: Libertarians, fascists, and those who haven't been paying attention.

16-08-2005, 11:31 PM	#28 (permalink)
arden forester Uber Member Join Date: May 2005 Location: Solihull, in The Forest of Arden, Warwickshire! Posts: 2,699 Party: None	Here's a link for all matters concerning our views on bad driving etc!! http://www.baddriving.com/forums_main.asp __________________ www.ardenforester.blogspot.com www.westminster-whispers.blogspot.com

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

16-08-2005, 04:03 PM	#23 (permalink)
C_steam Super Moderator Join Date: Oct 2004 Location: Paddling up 5hit creek..... Posts: 7,802	The answer, of course, is that for every schumi there are thirty Mo's. Example - saturday, cumbria, M6 - monsson conditions. Most people in MIDDLE lane - average seperation about 8 metres. I was in the outside lane - doing about 5 - 10 MPH faster than middle lane - Jag in front of me, 50M away, other car behind me - again, he stayed about 40 -50 metres back. We stayed that way for nearly 40 miles. There were times (and I counted) that there were in EXCESS of 8 cars in the middle lane between me and the guy in front, some with no lights on, wheras I was driving on main beams and fogs. I felt far safer than I would have had I been in the middle lane. I have come to the conclusion that the speed limits are there to protect the idiots, not to slow down 'good' drivers. But the problem remains, we are not tough enough on banning drivers for poor driving, nor are the driving test standards sufficiently high. Ever seen the Quentin Wilson series, britains worst driver? It frightens me. (NB - I've done a motor racing driving course and a defensive driving course, including commentary driving).