Flash lights £175 - shoplift, just a caution...

[cazyp]

How do you know that there is no danger at 2am? As a child did you never finish a journey in the early hours of the morning?

The early hours of the morning are exactly when even greater vigilance is required. Apart from the dark, the absent minded with a drink in are less likely to remember their Green Cross Code. The danger is still there. Or does anyone with a drink in deserve to be run over for a small transgression?

I didn't mean you, but you seem prepared to defend speeding in a 30 limit, the primary reason of that limit being to protect those not encased in a steel shell - pedestrians, cyclists, and motorcyclists. Speeding in a 30 limit is utterly selfish - selfish way beyond shoplifting - and as mentioned elsewhere on this forum, if it all goes seriously wrong, comes with a jail sentence. As it should.

One thing that really pi55es me off with people is when they think their action of going out and having a skin full entitles them to behave/act/do whatever they want and everyone else has to look out for them. If they're that irresponsible do we need them to breed?


Anyway..
Constant speed limits are outdated. The 30mph speed limit was introduced in 1930 when cars braking systems were awful. Variable speed limits depending on the time and conditions would be the way forward.

Put in more crossings, keep people on the paths except for crossings and introduce a jaywalking fine.

Teach children the green cross code at school again. Also teach them respect and reduce the arrogance that allows people to expect a car to stop when they casually walk out in front of it.

When 'they' do the above then the UK will reduce the number of casualties. Of course it'll miss out on all those fixed £60 fines though..

 

[Meldrew2]

put in more crossings, keep people on the paths except for crossings and introduce a jaywalking fine.

Teach children the green cross code at school again. Also teach them respect and reduce the arrogance that allows people to expect a car to stop when they casually walk out in front of it.

+1


.

 

[Bellow]

So... if the same 60 year old man was driving at 36 mph in a 30, and the same boys ran in front of his car, while being chased by either the Police or Tesco security, who would you blame.

There is a comparison in this case at least, even if the ones from the USA are less comparable.

And before we castigate 36mph in a 30, let us remember it is only 1 mph above "10% +2"

And if the man was doing 30mph, the kids could still be killed - there's no magic formula that says the speed limit is safe.

Ask a traffic cop, a procurator fiscal or judge.
For sure the first thing on their minds will be the speeding transgression.

One thing that really pi55es me off with people is when they think their action of going out and having a skin full entitles them to behave/act/do whatever they want and everyone else has to look out for them. If they're that irresponsible do we need them to breed?


Anyway..
Constant speed limits are outdated. The 30mph speed limit was introduced in 1930 when cars braking systems were awful. Variable speed limits depending on the time and conditions would be the way forward.

Put in more crossings, keep people on the paths except for crossings and introduce a jaywalking fine.

Teach children the green cross code at school again. Also teach them respect and reduce the arrogance that allows people to expect a car to stop when they casually walk out in front of it.

When 'they' do the above then the UK will reduce the number of casualties. Of course it'll miss out on all those fixed £60 fines though..

Yeah, yeah, blah, blah, string up or castrate anyone who behaves differently from you - try and remember that the next time you have a drink in...

If you want to get historical, remember cars are about 3 times heavier than they were in 1930, and human reaction times certainly haven't improved. Go back a bit further and realise that there were only pedestrians, motorists are the intruders.

Children behave unpredictably - fact. That is why it is for adults to protect them.

No amount of whining about revenue raised from speeding will legitimise it - or put you beyond the reaches of the law enforcers.

 

[markjay]

Fit girl with short shorts and long legs gets nicked for shoplifting - gets caution.
Fit girl with short shorts and long legs gets nicked for 36 in a 30 - gets let off with a warning.

I see your point... so us middle-aged men will get done either way...

 

[Noodle-Pulp]

I would imagine that she's probably mentally ill to be doing that. She probably needs help, not punishment.

what, this?

Ms Irimia was once engaged to the ex-Liberal Democrat MP Lembit Opik.

 

[Meldrew2]

.....If you want to get historical, remember cars are about 3 times heavier than they were in 1930.........

Remember also, that 1930's cars had solid bumpers, solid radiators, solid hood ornaments.

Modern cars are specifically designed to reduce pedestrian injury as much as possible.

Reaction times may not have changed, (although better driver education must have improved driver skills: compare Mr Toad with a typical Advanced Driver) but even if you will not accept improved reactions, braking distances certainly have improved. There were no radial tyres, ABS, servo brakes, let alone Brake Assist in 1930.

There were no NCAP ratings for pedestrian safety in 1930. And when you say that cars are the intruder, are you seriously suggesting that nobody got trampled by horses?

 

[trapperjohn]

motorists are the intruders.

Most pedestrians are knocked down on the carriagway/road not footpaths.

 

[st4]

No money in prosecuting shoplifters, a nice ripe British tax paying motorist on the other hand....

 

[oldcro]

No money in prosecuting shoplifters, a nice ripe British tax paying motorist on the other hand....

Shoplifters cost us more when shopping, motorists kill and injure thousands every year. Now which group deserves the higher punishment?

 

[st4]

Shoplifters cost us more when shopping, motorists kill and injure thousands every year. Now which group deserves the higher punishment?

Out of how many incidents (both detected and undetected) of a speeding motorist actually

a) results in a road traffic incident
b) of those incidents, how many are killed or seriously injured.

A very very small proportion

 

[MOCAŠ]

Out of how many incidents (both detected and undetected) of a speeding motorist actually

a) results in a road traffic incident
b) of those incidents, how many are killed or seriously injured.

A very very small proportion

So are you suggesting it would be better if motorists were only prosecuted for speeding if it resulted in an accident?

What about prevention?

 

[markjay]

When Gary Hart fell asleep at the steering wheel, and his Land Rover ended-up on a railway causing the death of ten people, he was sentenced to 5 years in prison.

Had his Land Rover stopped juts short of the track, he would have probably not even been prosecuted at all.

So yes, there are cases where the police and CPS will only prosecute an offence if someone actually got injured or killed...

 

[st4]

So are you suggesting it would be better if motorists were only prosecuted for speeding if it resulted in an accident?

I did not actually say that.

I was merely highlighting the case that on the vast day to day minor infractions of the speed limit, so few KSI's occur. Often camera sites are on major roads where a minor infraction pose no real risk, others this is not the case.

Whats the danger for example of a 10mph infraction of the NSL on the M40 on a clear day with light traffic?

What about prevention?

What about it, hiding camera vans and sneaky traps do not achieve this. The M74 is the only motorway with the average speed of traffic is above the NSL, yet it has camera vans galore.

Clearly then these methods fail and are extremely unpopular.

A better method I can site is on the A90. There is a junction where a lot of "accidents happen". They lowered the limit there to 50mph and a Gatso is clearly sited.

Whats achieved, a lower speed, with a great adherence to the limit where there is an elevated danger.

A bit like JBRs school example.

A sneaky van hiding take multiples of £60 achieves nothing, but a revenue stream, which is clearly the goal.

Given I have been "done" twice, and you "thrice" FPNs do not work very well do they?

As said in Marks post above, if an injury/death does happen, then a greater punishment is levied, despite the intent of the driver not to kill or injure.

Consequences of the crime are the ones that are punished by and large, not the crime itself.

However, knicking something out of Waitrose or wherever the daft bint went is hardly crime of the century, but she is well off, so no poverty excuse there, and there is a clear intent to commit a crime. Straying 3mph from the limit is hardly an intentional crime of going speeding for fun.

For example, on my speed awareness course, everyone bar me there was present for infringing 30 and 40 limits, it was only me, who was deliberately speeding. Had I been caught earlier in my overtake, I would have been above the tolerance limit to be offered the course, but my crime was intentional. To overtake safely the 5 cars on the long straight, speeds of 100mph and above were needed, and it was on my slowing down to return to the NSL I was caught.

Would I do an overtake like that again, you bet, the 320cdi motor shrinks distance

 

[MOCAŠ]

When Gary Hart fell asleep at the steering wheel, and his Land Rover ended-up on a railway causing the death of ten people, he was sentenced to 5 years in prison.

Had his Land Rover stopped juts short of the track, he would have probably not even been prosecuted at all.

So yes, there are cases where the police and CPS will only prosecute an offence if someone actually got injured or killed...

I think there was a bit more to this case, markjay. As I recall, the fact that there had been several casualties meant that the incident had to be fully investigated, as a result of which it was discovered that Hart was culpable because he had spent the previous night on the Internet (there's a warning to some of us there, I suppose) and had got little or no sleep. Had it been a genuine accident, without this contributory factor, he would probably have been treated more leniently. But driving while sleep-deprived is little different to driving while drunk or on drugs.

 

[markjay]

I think there was a bit more to this case, markjay. As I recall, the fact that there had been several casualties meant that the incident had to be fully investigated, as a result of which it was discovered that Hart was culpable because he had spent the previous night on the Internet (there's a warning to some of us there, I suppose) and had got little or no sleep. Had it been a genuine accident, without this contributory factor, he would probably have been treated more leniently. But driving while sleep-deprived is little different to driving while drunk or on drugs.

Agreed, but you can drive sleep-deprived as long as you like - in spite of it being an offence - and as long as you don't kill (or injure) someone you will not be prosecuted. If you drive erratically and pulled-over by police, you are likely to be told to take a break and get some coffee, but in most cases not prosecuted, as would be the case if alcohol or drugs were involved. Police just don't prosecute sleepy drivers unless they cause real harm...

 

[oldcro]

Out of how many incidents (both detected and undetected) of a speeding motorist actually

a) results in a road traffic incident
b) of those incidents, how many are killed or seriously injured.

A very very small proportion

ONE is ONE too many when a loved one is lost forever. Just check on Google to see how many have died where speeding was the main contributer to the accident. I could name friends I lost because the driver was speeding, but the names would be meaningless to anyone else.

 

[MOCAŠ]

***, I wasn't trying to put words in your mouth, just trying to see whether you felt that speeding infringements that are carried off safely should go unpunished. This is actually a reasonable argument - if it's not doing any harm, why punish it? However, the flaw is that it does nothing to mitigate the potential for an accident.

If it's true that motorists cannot successfully be prosecuted for warning other drivers (as they cannot tell whether the other motorist was actually speeding), then the only way for the police to combat this type of vigilante action is to revert to covert speed checks. If the motorist doesn't know the check is there, he can't warn others about it.

You question whether undetectable speed checks constitute prevention? Well, if you knew that you could be caught at any time without knowing where or when, you might be more inclined to just observe the speed limit in the first place.

You're right that my first three points did not radically alter my driving style, but believe it or not I was never really a speed merchant. The first two of those three incidents were for driving past speed cameras on deserted roads at 38 and 35 mph respectively. The first one was on a road that had been a 40 limit the last time I used it, and I failed to realise that it had been changed to 30. Still my fault, though. The second was on a downhill stretch in Amersham at about 6am, where my speed had crept up naturally (and yes, I know I should have been braking). With six points, I became a lot more careful about keeping an eye on my speedo and also keeping an eye out for cameras. My final three points resulted from an unmarked van that was sitting in a layby on the A40 into London, just ahead of the Westway where the limit goes from 40 to 50. I was doing 40 when I passed the last 40mph sign, but had reached 53 ahead of the 50 sign - so got snapped at 53 in a 40. Again, nobody's fault but my own.

But here's the point: with a total of 9 points, I adopted a self-imposed zero-tolerance policy, determined not to hit the magic 12. So, I became an avid user of cruise control and just let anyone who was in more of a rush fly by. It worked: I was soon back down to zero and have remained there ever since.

So getting three strikes worked for me. If I'd simply been warned to avoid that final speed trap, I'd have missed out on an essential wake-up call.

One further point: do you really think it is "safe" to overtake a row of five cars if you have to exceed 100 mph to do it? I'm not saying that doing 100mph is necessarily dangerous, but if you have to maintain it in order to complete the manoeuvre and are at the mercy of those five other drivers in between, I'd say it was quite a hazardous endeavour. Though to be fair, the road conditions would also have a bearing on this.

 

[st4]

ONE is ONE too many when a loved one is lost forever. Just check on Google to see how many have died where speeding was the main contributer to the accident. I could name friends I lost because the driver was speeding, but the names would be meaningless to anyone else.

Yes, but that also extents to crimes of intentional violence, drink related (but not car related etc).

Its a very emotive argument to use.

Many peoples loved ones killed by terrorism and by having those who commit acts of terror in this country...plane crashes etc. People will die on the roads every year, fact.

Its not speeding per se, its driving at an in appropriate speed for the conditions.

It may well be an infraction of the speed limit is not an inappropriate speed to be travelling at, or it may be. The 80mph down the quiet motorway vs the 33mph (when 20 or 15mph may be appropriate and 27mph inappropriate).

The blanket 3points £60 camera approach is not a good one and as I have said before, I am all for other drivers alerting each other to their presence. It may get the others to slow down, drive at a hieghtened awareness level and be more aware of their surroundings, despite it being a tip off, slow down, trap ahead

 

[cazyp]

So are you suggesting it would be better if motorists were only prosecuted for speeding if it resulted in an accident?

What about prevention?

Prevention doesn't work. You get prosectuted for trying to prevent other motorists from speeding.
http://www.mbclub.co.uk/forums/gene...thers-warn-police-speed-trap-fined-175-a.html

 

[cazyp]

Ask a traffic cop, a procurator fiscal or judge.
For sure the first thing on their minds will be the speeding transgression.




Yeah, yeah, blah, blah, string up or castrate anyone who behaves differently from you - try and remember that the next time you have a drink in...

Obviously too much to expect people to be responsible for their own actions these days then. When I do drink I don't drink to the point that I wander infront of cars, speeding or not.

If you want to get historical, remember cars are about 3 times heavier than they were in 1930, and human reaction times certainly haven't improved. Go back a bit further and realise that there were only pedestrians, motorists are the intruders.

3 times? A Ford Model A c1930 weighed 1027kg's and a Ford Focus weighs 1364kg's. The external features on a Focus + brakes are a litlle bit better though..

Children behave unpredictably - fact. That is why it is for adults to protect them.

Perhaps we should start with a bit of education as to why they should stick to the paths then? The whole 30mph argument is not about kids anyway. It's about the correct speed for the conditions. There are times when I wouldn't dream of doing more than 10mph - perhaps past a school all kicking out time. But there are 30mph wide roads with good visability and without houses that at certain times could be made into 40 - 50mph roads.

No amount of whining about revenue raised from speeding will legitimise it - or put you beyond the reaches of the law enforcers.

No, But I still have my vote.

:bannana: