Lancashire, it must be really nice

jaydeeuk1

Obukit wrote: »

All for quite possibly going 79mph on the motorway.

Or 31 in parts of north wales where there is/was zero tolerance. So in theory, going 4mph in total for 4 offences could lose you your license, job, house... etc

mikey72

jaydeeuk1 wrote: »

Or 31 in parts of north wales where there is/was zero tolerance. So in theory, going 4mph in total for 4 offences could lose you your license, job, house... etc

It's a crime. Zero tolerence of a crime isn't a bad thing, or do we let the policeman on the spot make up what he decides is going to be acceptable on the day, and it changes from day to day? Or do we decide to accept speeding, and just remove the limits? Raising them won't be much use, as you'll always argue you where just over the limit, that's the point of a limit, it's a maximum for that spot. Speeding is acceptable to some, as "everyone does it" ,and "everyone normally gets away with it" .

mikey72

LincolnshireYokel wrote: »

Speeding is cash cow, and we are in a position that more than 50% of the population have a speeding conviction. Now you have to ask, if a law results in more than 50% of the population being criminalised, then there must be something wrong with the law, since the implication that our society has a majority of criminals is clearly nonsense.

Furthermore, speeding law has been written such that it tramples all over deomocratic process. Take the S.172 notice, the form that compels you to name the driver, ie forces you under threat of imprisonment to confess to a crime without you being cautioned, or without the benefit of the advice of a Duty Solicitor. Not only does that walk all over you supposed right to silence, it walks all over you ECHR right to protection from self incrimination.

Furthermore, you have the fact that the operation and devices used to check speed have been shown by various independant experts to be erroneous and inaccurate, but the courts, who of course are in on the scam - the scamerati consists of the police, the councils, and the magistrates association - refuse to accept such evidence as they require the cash cow to keep milking. How can the magistrates association claim to be impartial when they have a vested interest in convicting people by being part of the scamerati ? Its nonsense.

There a huge amount of evidence that speeding is NOT by any means a major factor in RTA's., There is NO SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE WHATSOEVER that speed cameras have made a jot of difference to road death figures - road deaths were falling all over europe before cameras were invented, and continued to fall and the bottom out, as a result of safer vehicle construction, better driver training and safer road layouts. The introduction oif cameras should have produced a visible downward bump on the graph, but no effect was seen.

There is no independent scientific study to determine the effect speed has had on road deaths, and the government has steadfastly refused to fund one. Instead all we have is the massaged figures of the police waved at us as 'proof'. Other peoples figures, such as insurance companies statistics, tell a vastly different story.

The conclusion one arrives at is that its a cash scam, a money raising exercise that the authorities will not allow to be stopped.

I can live with it the way it is. If you think you have a popular view, stand for MP, convince everone to vote for you, change the law.

Sgt_Pepper_2

A

LincolnshireYokel wrote: »

Speeding is cash cow, and we are in a position that more than 50% of the population have a speeding conviction. Now you have to ask, if a law results in more than 50% of the population being criminalised, then there must be something wrong with the law, since the implication that our society has a majority of criminals is clearly nonsense.

Furthermore, speeding law has been written such that it tramples all over deomocratic process. Take the S.172 notice, the form that compels you to name the driver, ie forces you under threat of imprisonment to confess to a crime without you being cautioned, or without the benefit of the advice of a Duty Solicitor. Not only does that walk all over you supposed right to silence, it walks all over you ECHR right to protection from self incrimination.

Furthermore, you have the fact that the operation and devices used to check speed have been shown by various independant experts to be erroneous and inaccurate, but the courts, who of course are in on the scam - the scamerati consists of the police, the councils, and the magistrates association - refuse to accept such evidence as they require the cash cow to keep milking. How can the magistrates association claim to be impartial when they have a vested interest in convicting people by being part of the scamerati ? Its nonsense.

There a huge amount of evidence that speeding is NOT by any means a major factor in RTA's., There is NO SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE WHATSOEVER that speed cameras have made a jot of difference to road death figures - road deaths were falling all over europe before cameras were invented, and continued to fall and the bottom out, as a result of safer vehicle construction, better driver training and safer road layouts. The introduction oif cameras should have produced a visible downward bump on the graph, but no effect was seen.

There is no independent scientific study to determine the effect speed has had on road deaths, and the government has steadfastly refused to fund one. Instead all we have is the massaged figures of the police waved at us as 'proof'. Other peoples figures, such as insurance companies statistics, tell a vastly different story.

The conclusion one arrives at is that its a cash scam, a money raising exercise that the authorities will not allow to be stopped.

There is moving stopping you from seeking legal advice before replying to a 172.

As for the issue with speed, care to give us an example of a collision when speed was not a factor? Two stationary cars have never crashed.

fatbelly

zagfles wrote: »

Oh dear, I have to admit a few months ago I did misuse my headlights. There was a smash on a bendy road, ambulance and police were there, there was petrol/oil all over the road. On rounding the next bend a car was coming the opposite direction, I flashed my lights at him.

Clearly a complete misuse of the headlights according to the police and highway code, which states "a driver should only flash their headlights to let other road users know they are there. It also states that headlights should not be used to convey any other message...".

Lucky I got away with it. I'll know better next time.

I had a similar incident. I flashed someone to let them know there was a pig on the road ahead.

thegirlintheattic

fatbelly wrote: »

I had a similar incident. I flashed someone to let them know there was a pig on the road ahead.

Same type of thing here, unfortunately have flashed/been flashed for several accidents and once for livestock in the road. Don't see the problem with it myself - round here I've only ever seen people flashing for incidents.

LincolnshireYokel

Sgt_Pepper wrote: »

A

There is moving stopping you from seeking legal advice before replying to a 172.

As for the issue with speed, care to give us an example of a collision when speed was not a factor? Two stationary cars have never crashed.

This is a specious reply. oif course two staionary cars cant crash, but then every moving car doesn't kill the driver.. The entire basis of the speed camera campaign hangs on a soundbite "SPEED KILLS", which is clearly not true as such. If speed killed unconditionally, then every Formula One Grand Prix would result in the deaths of 20 or so highly trained drivers. the fact it doesnt is down to the fact they are highly trained (the key point) as well as going fast. Similarly, If speed kills, every time a jet airplane took off, its would result in the death of the pilot.

The fact is that, as I have already posted evidence for, speed is not a MAJOR factor in the majority of cases. According to the police;s OWN figures, Speed is only a major factor in 3% of RTA's and A contributing factor in 30% of RTA's. The MAIN factor in the MAJORITY of RTA's is poor driver training and control, and other factors including poor road layout, lack of experience, vehicle faults and driver impairment/recklessness (such as in police car chases).

So the point is if we REALLY want to reduce accidents and improve Road Safety, we should be retraining and educating drivers who fail and have a crash. if on the other hand all you want to do is raise money, then you just use speed traps and dont bother retraining, just keep letting them making mistakes, and paying more fines. Which strategy do you thin the government has adopted? Which, on that basis seems to be more important to them - road safety or revenue generation ?

And lets not forget, the Association of Chief Police Officers (ACPO) gets a rake off from the enforcement of speeding law (£18m a year last year), and a large chunk of that is then divvied up between the Chief Constables as a 'bonus' (for doing nothing except the job they are paid for). The average Chief Constable ACPO bonus last year was £60,000. So the Chief Constables themselves personally benefit to the tune of thousands of pounds from enforcing a road safety campaign shown statistically to be ineffective nonsense. How corrupt is that !!!

I want real road safety. Not fake road safety there to line officials pockets.

mikey72

LincolnshireYokel wrote: »

This is a specious reply. oif course two staionary cars cant crash, but then every moving car doesn't kill the driver.. The entire basis of the speed camera campaign hangs on a soundbite "SPEED KILLS", which is clearly not true as such. If speed killed unconditionally, then every Formula One Grand Prix would result in the deaths of 20 or so highly trained drivers. the fact it doesnt is down to the fact they are highly trained (the key point) as well as going fast. Similarly, If speed kills, every time a jet airplane took off, its would result in the death of the pilot.

The fact is that, as I have already posted evidence for, speed is not a MAJOR factor in the majority of cases. According to the police;s OWN figures, Speed is only a major factor in 3% of RTA's and A contributing factor in 30% of RTA's. The MAIN factor in the MAJORITY of RTA's is poor driver training and control, and other factors including poor road layout, lack of experience, vehicle faults and driver impairment/recklessness (such as in police car chases).

So the point is if we REALLY want to reduce accidents and improve Road Safety, we should be retraining and educating drivers who fail and have a crash. if on the other hand all you want to do is raise money, then you just use speed traps and dont bother retraining, just keep letting them making mistakes, and paying more fines. Which strategy do you thin the government has adopted? Which, on that basis seems to be more important to them - road safety or revenue generation ?

And lets not forget, the Association of Chief Police Officers (ACPO) gets a rake off from the enforcement of speeding law (£18m a year last year), and a large chunk of that is then divvied up between the Chief Constables as a 'bonus' (for doing nothing except the job they are paid for). The average Chief Constable ACPO bonus last year was £60,000. So the Chief Constables themselves personally benefit to the tune of thousands of pounds from enforcing a road safety campaign shown statistically to be ineffective nonsense. How corrupt is that !!!

I want real road safety. Not fake road safety there to line officials pockets.

So by your own admission, if speeding wasn't controlled, you'd be happy to see a large increase in accidents you admit speed contritbutes to. You admit it's 30% at the moment. Maybe you're simply hung up on the fact the government collect tax?

STOCKWIRE

im-lost wrote: »

It's nothing to do with flashing to let people pull out.

But of course you know this already, you did read it, didn't you?

It's about people flashing cars that are speeding, to warn them of speed
cameras, police etc etc

'flashers' are a bloody nuisance, they should have their licences revoked
instantly. If people choose to speed etc, then they can face the consequences
if they are caught.

Says he who has never learnt to drive a car and rides a scooter which no doubt is speed restricted.

andy13

Can someone please point out the relevant road traffic law that defines "Misuse of headlights"? I assume these motorists were given fixed penalty notices. If they didn't cough up what would they be charged with at magistrates court?