Confused over speeding ticket

Crazy_Jamie

pendulum wrote: »

With the UK police being as pathetic as they are, only interested in picking off motorists instead of tackling real crime, that seems like a good idea.

I have seen police do a half jog towards an offender, then when he has bolted, simply given up due to the fact they're overweight and have zero chance of running after him. It's so much easier to pull over a generally law abiding motorist to issue a BS ticket because they know that person will stop and be easy to deal with. Real criminals aren't. And they wonder why they've "lost public support" in a lot of areas.

A camera on a two lane single carriageway strictly enforcing a 60mph limit... !!!!!!.
It's the small minority of idiots that will reply to my post supporting the police's actions which gives them the justification to do what they do.

You see, the one flaw with this argument is that individual officers are often assigned to roles and don't choose what 'type of crime' they're going to fight. The officers you saw that were unable to catch the offender were hardly going to then jump in their car and sit and the side of the road with a speed camera. Because that's not what they have been assigned to do. The implication that officers 'choose' whether to 'pick off motorists' or 'fight real crime' ignores the realities of how the system operates. Besides, I don't see how the effectiveness of the police approach in tackling more serious crime should dictate either way how they approach more minor offences.

im-lost

vax2002 wrote: »

Everybody speeds all of the time, well 99.99% of it, what a winner they are on...

Speak for yourself. I'm a law abiding citizen

Mr_Toad

~Chameleon~ wrote: »

True, but I don't like to use my brakes unless absolutely necessary :money: so always opt for deceleration where possible

You need to start sooner then

im-lost

pendulum wrote: »

It's so much easier to pull over a generally law abiding motorist to issue a BS ticket because they know that person will stop and be easy to deal with. Real criminals aren't. And they wonder why they've "lost public support" in a lot of areas.

If they are law abiding then why would there be a need to pull them over?

There's no grey area, your either breaking laws or you aren't, there's no 'generally law abiding' about it. Just because they arent going out mugging old ladies and robbing doesn't mean they are law abiding..

mark5

If there is no barrier or physical boundary to seperate you from on coming traffic then its a single carriageway no matter how many lanes there are.

Obukit

im-lost wrote: »

If they are law abiding then why would there be a need to pull them over?

There's no grey area, your either breaking laws or you aren't, there's no 'generally law abiding' about it. Just because they arent going out mugging old ladies and robbing doesn't mean they are law abiding..

"The normally careful and competent actions of a reasonable individual should be considered legal."
- Arizona Department of Transportation

A sensible idea for Americans to come up with.

As to the dual/single carriageway thing, there should be no confusion. If there is anything separating the tarmac heading in opposite directions - whether it be kerbing, grass, hedge, barrier, or whatever - then it is a dual carriageway. If there is no separation, then it is single carriageway. It has nothing to do with how many lanes there are in each direction.

This this is dual carriageway and 70mph limit: -



And this is single carriageway: -

pendulum

im-lost wrote: »

If they are law abiding then why would there be a need to pull them over?

I said they're generally law abiding, not that they're perfect and never commit any crime no matter how minor.

Crazy_Jamie wrote: »

You see, the one flaw with this argument is that individual officers are often assigned to roles and don't choose what 'type of crime' they're going to fight.

Whether it is an individual officer or someone higher up in the ranks that chooses what to concentrate on, the fact is the police spend a ridiculous amount of time catching speeders and penalising motorists. These officers would be better off spending more time on real jobs.

Explain to me how a traffic cop can spend hours with his speed gun, all in the name of preventing accidents and punishing "bad drivers", but when it comes to attending an actual collision (without injuries), a perfect opportunity to actually investigate if someone has driven carelessly, they are always too busy to attend?

It's made all the worse by the fact they choose a nice long, straight, safe stretch of road to set up their radar guns on because they know the majority of perfectly safe drivers will be exceeding the - unnecessarily low - limit there. It's like shooting fish in a barrel. As I say; they see it as easy work. To them, it beats fighting real crime.

Joe_Horner

pendulum wrote: »

It's made all the worse by the fact they choose a nice long, straight, safe stretch of road to set up their radar guns on because they know the majority of perfectly safe drivers will be exceeding the - unnecessarily low - limit there.

If you mean the bit the OP mentioned by that, then you must mean that nice long stretch of road where, if you have a blow-out at 70, you WILL be going head-on into the oncoming traffic for a collision speed of 140mph, with probably no time for anyone to react and slow down. You WILL die, as will the innocent party coming towards you.

Even the worst motorway crashes rarely have an impact speed of more than (about) 70 because what you're hitting is either stationary or moving in the same direction as you. Usually it will be MUCH lower - you can hit someone quite safely at 70mph if they're doing 69mph in the same direction!

Seeing as the energy that needs to be "lost" in an impact is proportional to the square of the speed, by doubling the impact speed you multiply the energy that needs to be dissipated by 4.

That's why having no separation to oncoming traffic warrants a lower speed imit - because the people who set them understand the physics involved.

pendulum

Joe_Horner wrote: »

... if you have a blow-out at 70, you WILL be going head-on into the oncoming traffic for a collision speed of 140mph, with probably no time for anyone to react and slow down. You WILL die, as will the innocent party coming towards you.

A collision speed of 140mph? Wrong.

Two cars colliding head on, each travelling at 70mph, each experience the same force as if they had hit a solid object at 70mph, not 140mph.

http://warp.povusers.org/grrr/collisionmath.html

Now, whether you're going at 60mph or 70mph at the time, the result of that kind of collision is going to be very much the same, so your argument is completely flawed. It also incorporates far too much of the worst case scenario of what "might" happen. Lots of bad things "might" happen just walking down the street - we still do it.

Joe_Horner wrote: »

... because the people who set them understand the physics involved.

People very much unlike you then.

Crazy_Jamie

pendulum wrote: »

Whether it is an individual officer or someone higher up in the ranks that chooses what to concentrate on, the fact is the police spend a ridiculous amount of time catching speeders and penalising motorists. These officers would be better off spending more time on real jobs.

Presumably then you have some sort of figures as to the proportion of officers/man hours allocated to traffic as opposed to other areas that you're basing this on? Because I'm curious as to what consists of a 'ridiculous amount of time' to spend on one area compared to another.

pendulum wrote:

Explain to me how a traffic cop can spend hours with his speed gun, all in the name of preventing accidents and punishing "bad drivers", but when it comes to attending an actual collision (without injuries), a perfect opportunity to actually investigate if someone has driven carelessly, they are always too busy to attend?

Hold on. First you suggest that there are too many officers on traffic duty, but then you complain that there aren't always officers free to respond to traffic incidents? Seems somewhat contradictory.

Of course the answer is that a balance is always there to be struck between those officers reacting to incidents, and those officers being placed in a position where they cannot react to incidents as easily or at all. This is true of all departments, not just traffic. Sometimes that balance is not struck, but this is to be expected of a situation where there is no accurate way to properly predict what incidents the police are going to be called to and when.

pendulum wrote:

It's made all the worse by the fact they choose a nice long, straight, safe stretch of road to set up their radar guns on because they know the majority of perfectly safe drivers will be exceeding the - unnecessarily low - limit there. It's like shooting fish in a barrel. As I say; they see it as easy work. To them, it beats fighting real crime.

So now the police are to be criticised for setting themselves up in an optimum position to catch those who are breaking the law? That's an interesting angle.

Though there is a closely guarded secret as to how to avoid being caught by the police in such circumstances; drive within the speed limit. It really is as simple as it sounds. I know you may think that that limit is unnecessarily low, but that is no reason to criticise the police. Your feelings should be directed towards the law makers rather than those who enforce the law in such circumstances.