View Full Version : Speed Cameras and Article 6
Hi Guys,
Been having a look around on the net for news about how Article 6 of the European Convention of Human Rights effects a drivers right to silence if they receive a NIP.
The main point of Article 6 is that a defendant is entitled to a Fair & Free trial, and therfore by being forced to disclose who was driving the car at the time of the alleged offence a confession is being obtained under duress.
If you've received a NIP or think you might receive one soon you might find this web site intersting http://www.abd.org.uk/righttosilence.htm#echr
It gives more information about the legal rights of defendents under Article 6, and some info about a test case going to the ECHR.
Iain
i thought that the law states that your no longer allowed to incriminate yourself so they just do the owner of the vehical.but you seem to know your stuff.so if your not allowed to admit to the offence how can they justify imposing a fine etc on the car owner even if hes in the berhammas on holls.???? surly they cant convict an inosent person :rolleyes: maybe i should try reading the link before openong my gob:p
Under Section 172 of the 1988 Road Traffic Act you, as the registerd keeper, are required to say who was driving at the time of the alleged offence. If you don't then the penalty is similar to that of the offence itself ie a fine & points.
So, if you are the registered keeper and you were in the Bahamas on your holiday ( you lucky git ! ) and don't know who was driving you will still get done. If you were driving the car at the time, but don't confess, you'll get done anyway.
The Government / Courts want to do someone for this terrible crime, so the registered keeper is stuck as the poor sod having to pay the fine or grass up his mate / wife / brother.
By quoting S172 on a NIP you are being forced to confess under duress. The Government / Courts are saying :
"Because we do not have evidence to convict you beyond reasonable doubt, we insist that you confess. If you refuse we will impose penalties similar to those applicable to the original offence"
Do Rapists, Murderers, Child Abusers face the same kind of pressure to confess ? Imagine there's an armed robbery at your local bank, nothing to do with you but the police pick you up for it and tell you "We don't care if you did it, but if you don't confess to it you'll do 25 years".
I know it's a bit of an extreme example, but with the amount of new laws the Gov want to pass ( no right to trial by peers, imprisonment with out trail for things illegal in other countries etc ) I just think it won't be long before all of our basic rights are taken away. God, the Government really p!ss me off !!
Ok, I've had my little rant. I feel a bit calmer now, but this is something which really grips my sh!t ( take deep breaths, think of a beautiful place, calm, calm )
Mr_Sukebe
13-08-2002, 10:14
How about just saying
"it was a fair cop gov!"
Surely by trying to worm our way around speeding fines we're just wasting our own time, and if we take it further, the time of the plod and the courts?
Now I don't really care whether another person wastes their own time, but if you're wasting the time of the cops/courts, then I'm partly paying for it as a taxpayer.
By fighting for our basic human rights we're waisting our time ?
Good way (I read on this board I think) is to register the car under your daughter, son etc. If they are the owner but have no licence they cannot get any points - don't incriminate yourself by admitting to anything and no probs :)
Anyone know for sure if this works?
Now where can I get a kid from ;) :D
Nice one Jeff, I hadn't thought about that :D
Maybe a new business side line - rent-a-kid
Anyone in the SXOC want to lend their offspring to this venture :D
Trouble is they could wander off with thousands of pounds worth of cars, and what do we do when their 17 :eek:
The kid has to live at your address for insurance purposes anyway I think so you need a ‘keeper’ not a ‘loaner’
I must make sure not to bear any of this in mind next time the Mrs is nagging me to sprog :eek: ;) :D
Mr_Sukebe
13-08-2002, 10:41
Can I ask, how is "basic human rights" and "being nicked for speeding related"?
I can't help but think that the two are intrinsically different.
Or are you saying "it is my human right to drive a fast as I like"?
In which case, shouldn't it be someone else's right to say "I feel threatened by the potential of several tons of metal travelling at high velocities". Which is, after all why speed limits exist.
And please don't take this the wrong way, whilst I have fairly strong feelings about trying to do "the right thing", I find this an interesting point of debate.
It's about your right to remain silent, not about being done for doing 40 in a 30 zone.
All I've tried to do is make people aware that S172 breaks about 4 differnt laws ( listed on that web site ). If you've been caught on camera for speeding it's up to you to do what you want.
For me the right not to incriminate myself is a basic human right. If the police cannot prove I was doing something why the hell should I have to admit to it?? :mad:
Sounds extremist but I am sure we can all imagine where this type of legal system could end up if you take it to it’s worst degree :eek:
I think about everyone is agreed that speeding is not a cut and dried issue, some times 100 is perfectly safe, some times 30 is incredibly dangerous. Until there is a system for prosecuting people in relation to the danger they were causing rather than the speed they were travelling, people will keep finding ways round it.
If people don’t buy into a rule they will find any way of getting round it. People have bought into not drinking and driving and I think that has been mostly a success story. Don’t know about stats but the real success has been about perception. Social perception of DUI is now totally different than it was 10-15 years ago – people get nicked for DUI and don’t moan – it’s a fair cop init, unlike speeding which is often a total crock.
You’re right though – it is an interesting debate! :)
Mr_Sukebe
13-08-2002, 11:00
Ahhh, see where you're coming from mate, just having re-read your original post again.
Could it be argued that your vehicle is your responsibility, and that his would make you liable?
I'm trying to think ofa similar scenario.
How about, you own a gun (a registered one), someone borrows it and kills someone with it. The cops aren't sure who did it.
Now it's your gun, do you think you should keep quiet, or say who did it?
More to the point, who do you think the cops should nail for murder if you keep quiet?
I know it's a more extreme case, but in both cases, a crime was committed under present laws. The only significant difference to the outcome would be the severity of the punishment.
Originally posted by Mr_Sukebe
Surely by trying to worm our way around speeding fines we're just wasting our own time, and if we take it further, the time of the plod and the courts?
i'll quite happily waste the time of plod while they're still trying to nab motorists to get some dosh instead of getting real criminals.
If the only evidence they have is the fact your car was caught speeding it's not enough. What about innocent until proven guilty?
If a gun i own is used in a murder does it mean i must do the time for murder? simply because it's mine so i must have done it
Originally posted by Lewis
By fighting for our basic human rights we're waisting our time ?
What about my basic rights to live in a fair and just society ?
Instead I live in a world where all these boy races blat around at 60mph outside my daughters school, risking her life.
Untouchable they are, because all they do is refuse to say who was driving .. but it wasnt them.
If they wernt such pussys, and could actually own up .. "yeah I broke the law, yeah I got caught .. fair play" ... then wouldnt life be easier and safter ....... yep, But no, they are pussies ... fag weeds who cant take a fecking knock on the chin.
And even if they wernt driving .. it was their blonde bimbo girlfriends "init" ... then there frigging girlies should take the wrap. .. jeeze if you cant drive around and slow down intime for a speed camera .. you dont deserve to be on the road you dumb b1tch.
Christ guys .... act like grown ups ...... Speed if you like ... but the law says DONT !! ... so when you get caught for it .. admit it ? take it like a man .. you were in the wrong in the eyes of the law, even if in your own mind you were doing the right thing.
Yeah yeah yeah ..... the police should be out catching these so called real criminals ... but every law needs to be enforced otherwise there is no point in having one.
But you are right, the two cops that pulled me the otherday when I over took them ..... Ideally they shouldnt be oulling me but joining the other 300 police looking for those 2 missing girls ..... but thats just the way it is ... our government says otherwise.
The best thing you can do is vote tory at the next general election ... the speeding laws were never this tough under Maggie Thatchers reign.
There is no excuse to be caught by a speed camera ..... quite frankly I think they should get rid of the £60 speeding fine and fine you a £60 stupidity fine ! ................. but the camera was hidden .... what about the big stripy lines on the road. !
As for the new cameras that dont need the lines ??? ... well yes they are just plain unfair. .... they caught me doing something wrong ... damn them ..... mummy whaa whaa !
Mr_Sukebe
13-08-2002, 11:15
Jeff -
I'd agree that it's a very good thing that public opinion has changed so much on drinking/driving. Definitely a good move.
Ref speed limits. Obviously more difficult. The key point is that people should be able to drive to the capabilities of the situation, which would need to include;
- Road, e.g. motorway, main shopping area etc
- Road conditions, e.g. vision available, number of pedestrians around, weather, other vehicles
- Condition of own vehicle, i.e. outright ability, status of brakes, tyres, suspension
- Condition of driver, are you tired, angry, frustrated
The above is surely only a small percentage of the possible variables that should affect the way we drive, and some of these we're not even aware of.
The only way to be truly "fair" about a speed limit would be to account for every single variable that exists. Now that might be possible in another 50 years when we have a 1 terraflop processing unit monitoring everything about and around or car, which then tells us what speed is safe and notifies the police if we exceed it. In the real world, we have to come up with a feasible solution.
My opinion is that the speed limits we have are:
1. Restrictive
2. Seemingly illogical
3. A reasonable compromise on trying to ensure that as motorists we have some "direction" on the speeds we should drive to
Don't get me wrong, I'm certainly not claiming that I stick to the speed limits all the time, as that's blatantly not true.
I'm just trying to suggest that I consider the present solution a reasonable, simple, pragmatic, and cost effective method.
If we happen to be the people who get caught, well it's not that we didn't know the likely results.
Putting other people in danger with the way you drive is clearly wrong and if you do it and get caught tough sh1t, just like drinking and driving.
But put simply, I think making me admit to a crime without having any evidence is just wrong.
BTW I have never been flashed or stopped by the rozzers so that means I have never broken the speed limit right :rolleyes:
they have evidence ... a speed camera picture ... your car was doing wrong.
Were you driving it ? ... no ... then who was ? ....... you dont know ?
You let someone drive your car and you dont know who it was ?
you dont know if they were capable to drive a car like that ?
you dont know if they were insured to drive the car ?
you dont know if they were in a fit state to drive your car ?
Clearly they arenot capable of driving it, if arnt even aware of a speed camera approaching ... amkes you wonder if they even saw that cyclist ?
How irresponsible was that.
Take some responsibility man ... you shouldnt be allowed to let your car be driven without knowing who is driving it .. the roads are dangerous enough as it is.
Its your car .... have a sence of decency and responsibility.
Johnny - I agree with you m8. My problem is with the government taking away peoples rights - at the moment it's the right to remain silent / S172. But, they are also trying to introduce laws that remove your right to a trial by your peers. Another law they want to pass means that you can be imprisoned for doing something which is illegal in Saudi Arabia, but not here, if the Saudis ask our gov to do it, and without a trial.
As for speed limits - most of them were set in the 50's & 60's. There were about 100th of the number of cars about then. Car, tyre, brake & road technology have all changed since then, and so has the amount of traffic. Is it time the speed limits were reviewed ?
If you've broken the law then you should expect to be punished for it. If you can't do the time, don't do the crime. Absolutly, couldn't agree more. As for those stupid twats who do 60 in 30 areas etc - the punishments should be a lot higher than they are. If you will lose your job without your licence tough. You shouldn't have been driving like a twat. Every week in my town there is at least one person being done for driving without a licence. The punishment - points on their licence. Why ? They don't care !! :mad:
Where I live there is one camera in a town of about 60k. It's on a main road, in a 30 zone where people used to do 35-40 driving down the hill. No one has been killed or injured on this road for years before the camera was installed. But outside a lot of the schools in the town there is no traffic calming ( one school is in a 40 area & all of the kids have to cross the road to get home / to school ).
The police are spending a lot of time and effort chasing & enforcing speed laws. As other crime rates are increasing don't they need to re-prioritise ?
Originally posted by Jeff Skuse
BTW I have never been flashed or stopped by the rozzers so that means I have never broken the speed limit right :rolleyes:
No .. that means .. you are clearly drining within your limits and awareness as you are capable of slowing down intime for a grey box and a set of white lines.
Nice one .... thankyou for being safe .. AND you are not unfairly punished. :)
But the people that break the limit and get caught by that box ? ... these people claim that are capable of driving at that speed and its safe to do so ........... but they arnt aware of the surroundings ???? .... muppets. :mad:
I think what I am trying to say here is that dangerous driving is wrong and that can often be caused by speeding - but speeding isn't always dangerous - slowing down at a certain spot because you have seen a speed camera does not automatically mean you are driving safely.
The right not to incriminate yourself is, from my point of view, there to protect the innocent. Unfortunately guilty people can make themselves appear innocent, but I rather it worked that way round and have the officials bear the burden of proof.
I know it sounds far fetched but say someone else put your reg no. on their similar looking car - are you happy to be forced to admit to that crime? Have heard of exactly this scam happening more often these days.
Relaxitscool
13-08-2002, 11:36
I agree with Johnny here. If you speed and get caught you should take it on the chin, you knew the risk when you looked at the speedo.
As for the technology in cars moving on, well yes that is correct but driving standards have not, thus the limits have to take into account all the numpties who can't drive.
Rob
Even if the camera is placed on an empty DC where the speed limit has inexplicably been set to 50 and you get clocked doing 55 at 4 in the morning?
Makes you wonder if at 55 mph at 4 am in the morning .. if you cannot see an up coming speed camera ... should you be driving that fast.
it could have been a p1ss head wondering home after a night on the town.
SteveCarter200
13-08-2002, 11:56
Thge problem with the opinion of "you know youve done wrong so accept it" is that the 'criminal' must agree and recognise that he has done wrong.
I believe this is the basis of everyones views here. Jonny apears to accept the fact that if a limit is 60mph then if he breaks it and gets caught then its a fair cop, however my opinion is that just because someone sitting in an office has decided that a certain piece of road should be a 60 limit doesnt mean that I should stay at that limit. I may take it as a guide but I tnd to drive within my limits and to a speed that I feel suitable to the road conditons.
There have been TV reports on dangerous roads where there have been crashes and deaths but all of them have been within the speed limit.
It is not dangerous to speed, it is dangerous to drive faster than the road, the car, and your own skills allow. This basically comes down to driver awareness of these factors.
So back to my first comment, if I get caught speeding in a 60 limit, where it is blantantly obvious that all conditions allow higher, SAFE, speeds then I will be mighty pissed off.
Personally, I think that there should be no speed limits as such execpt in urban areas and near schools. On motorways and other out of town roads you should be able to drive at a speed that you find comfortable and safe. If however you are found to be driving dangerously (not necessarily speeding either) then a VERY large penalty should be issued.
Human Rights?????
You are all having a laugh aren't you?
No laws in this country contravene human rights.
You're talking about laws contravening legal rights which is apparent in almost legal disputes.
Its a problem inherent in our statute book process of passing laws. Thankfully, its almost impossible to remove laws once they've been passed, so in effect we are all bound by laws dating back to the middle ages. Almost all laws contravene or contradict previous acts or rulings.... Its the way it works.
If you have a problem over being unfairly prosecuted for speeding, then don't speed. The nature of the offence, coupled with the sheer number of offenders means that a quicker system needs to be employed to allow processing of fines etc without clogging up the system. Imagine if every speeding offence took the same time and money to prosecute as a robbery charge. The system would breakdown and the taxpayers bill would outweigh the GDP of this great country.
I simply reiterate my previous statement, if you have a problem with being prosecuted for speeding, then don't speed.
I speed almost everywhere except in 40 limits or lower. But then I'm grown up enough to realise that if I get caught, then I will have to accept the consequences. Same as everyone else. Thats how law in a democratic society works - we may not all stay within the law, but if we break it, we are all answerable to the same authority, and liable for the same punishment. (theoretically)
Dunc - The right to silence is not a Human Right ? Why's it covered by :
1689 Bill of Rights ( Uk law )
1951 European Convention ( European Law )
1998 Human Rights Act ( UK Law )
Why do the Government want to remove this right for other crimes ? Doesn't this worry you ?
I agree with you Steve.
The times I have been caught speeding, are the times when I have decided that 80mph on straight flat 60mph road, perfect visibility, it is safe to do so. ... that is why I was speeding.
And that was my excuse that I gave to the cops each time.
However ... Never have I, been caught by a speed camera .. because I beleive if you cant see the speed camera approaching (the white lines on the floor are not hidden) ... then you are going clearly too fast for your ability.
I do think the speed limits on a lot of roads are set to low.
But I also feel that speed cameras are fair play and if you get caught by them ... you deserved it and you were driving without paying enough attention to the road.
Originally posted by SteveCarter200
Thge problem with the opinion of "you know youve done wrong so accept it" is that the 'criminal' must agree and recognise that he has done wrong.
I believe this is the basis of everyones views here. Jonny apears to accept the fact that if a limit is 60mph then if he breaks it and gets caught then its a fair cop, however my opinion is that just because someone sitting in an office has decided that a certain piece of road should be a 60 limit doesnt mean that I should stay at that limit. I may take it as a guide but I tnd to drive within my limits and to a speed that I feel suitable to the road conditons.
There have been TV reports on dangerous roads where there have been crashes and deaths but all of them have been within the speed limit.
It is not dangerous to speed, it is dangerous to drive faster than the road, the car, and your own skills allow. This basically comes down to driver awareness of these factors.
So back to my first comment, if I get caught speeding in a 60 limit, where it is blantantly obvious that all conditions allow higher, SAFE, speeds then I will be mighty pissed off.
Personally, I think that there should be no speed limits as such execpt in urban areas and near schools. On motorways and other out of town roads you should be able to drive at a speed that you find comfortable and safe. If however you are found to be driving dangerously (not necessarily speeding either) then a VERY large penalty should be issued.
I think what Johnny is saying (please feel free to correct me if I have mis-understood mate :) ) is that no matter what speed that desk jockey has set, if you are driving safely you will see the camera and slow down in time. I think this makes a lot of sense, and using this method is quite possibly the very reason I have not ever been flashed.
However there are a number of places where these cameras are pretty well hidden so that theory doesn't necisarily work all of the time.
Opps - posted same time as Johnny :o
Relaxitscool
13-08-2002, 12:14
You guye should check out www.pistonheads.com/gassing then click on speeding and plod. This has been done to death on there.
Rob
Originally posted by Jeff Skuse
However there are a number of places where these cameras are pretty well hidden so that theory doesn't necisarily work all of the time.
Indeed Jeff .. exactly what I was gettin at.
as for hidden cameras .. the white lines on the floor are not hidden ... in the same way ... Ice, diesel and small hedgehogs on the road, directly infront of you are not hidden.
There are some which don't use lines aren't there? On bridges and what have you?
Glad I got what you meant mate, as said I have been unconciously using this system for ages.
Also nice to know there are plenty of differing opinions on the subject, and that even if the government don't want to debate the issue, then the SXOC can put the world to rights :)
Originally posted by Lewis
Dunc - The right to silence is not a Human Right ? Why's it covered by :
1689 Bill of Rights ( Uk law )
1951 European Convention ( European Law )
1998 Human Rights Act ( UK Law )
Why do the Government want to remove this right for other crimes ? Doesn't this worry you ?
Human rights are only a consequence of legal systems and law.
two points:
1) Never been caught by a speed camera either, and all the times I've been pulled for speeding I've been let off. But sometimes I've had to hit the brakes to avoid getting flashed and this upsets the traffic flow and is potentially (slightly) more dangerous because even if I'm paying attention the guy behind might not be...
2) I also once nearly got done for a car crash - despite being 200 miles away at the time. I'd sold my car, but the DVLA hadn't processed the paperwork yet so technically I was still the registered keeper. The guy who bought it was convicted of driving under the influence but he wasn't insured, so they tried to blame me, being still the registered keeper. I refused to cough up or allow my insurance company to pay and they arranged a court hearing for refusing to provide insurance details. In the end, I got off only because I'd changed my insurance the day I sold it and this "legally proved" I was the not the "owner" even though I was the "keeper" - luckily before it got to court. By the same logic, if someone nicks your car and kills someone, you can be held responsible - so watch out! And I guess, if you're the owner, and someone else speeds in your car, you're still responsible... same idea different crime.
Mr_Sukebe
13-08-2002, 12:44
Guys,
I think we're debating two seperate topics here, so I'll respond to each:
Speed Limits -
I hope that all of us here would agree that speed limits from a safety perspective should exist.
I think we also agree that where possible they should be "fair" and take into account conditions. Now the problem with that is that conditions change. Do you think that everyone road should have a variable speed limit on it? Just think of not only the cost to impliment this idea, but the confusion to the motorist.
"oh, 67mph today, only 52 yesterday, ahhh, but of course, it was really windy yesterday and at 2pm there had been a slight shower"
If you have a real feasible solution that would work, then please suggest it
Right to silence on an NIP -
Strikes me that there's 3 options on your car scenario:
1. You were driving.
2. Someone has stolen your vehicle and you've reported to the police or are about to
3. Someone is driving with your permission
I'm assuming that option 2 won't be the case. Doesn't that mean that either you or someone you know should take the rap?
After that, it's just a case of whether you want to volunteer yourself or your friend.
Am I missing something here?
Originally posted by Jeff Skuse
Even if the camera is placed on an empty DC where the speed limit has inexplicably been set to 50 and you get clocked doing 55 at 4 in the morning?
By the same token though,
If you have drive over the drink limit at 4am on a deserted road, its still drink driving is it not?
The camera is there as a law enforcement device to catch people breaking a particular law, in this case the speed limit - we all know that. The fact that the limit is 50 is of no consequence, the limit is 50, full stop. If you're travelling at 55 then you're breaking the law, and therefore you're open to prosecution.
Don't get me wrong, I detest the idea as much as the next man (I cover 50,000 miles a year) but the law is the law - which is the whole point of this thread.
The idea that speed camera infringe civil liberties is a flimsy one - if we were all law abiding citizens then we would have nothing to worry about would we? However, the British law is based on the premise that everyone is Innocent until Proven Guilty, and the camera assumes that you are guilty.
The form incriminating yourself I believe has an element of practicality to it.... After all, as the Registered Keeper of the vehicle, it is your responsibility to ensure that you maintain and operate the vehicle in a responsible manner, and that anyone you lend it to is responsible enough to be put in charge of the vehicle and they won't break the law with it. The fact that you lend the vehicle to someone with convictions for speeding and who you know drives fast could be construed as aiding and abetting... The old bill would love that!
Speeding – pretty much agree with most points, some limits are too low others are too high.
Right to silence – If you commit ANY other crime apart from speeding the police must prove that you did it. Why should speeding be any different? Is speeding more or less immoral than shoplifting? Ok, is it more or less immoral than murder? So it’s not about the moral implications is it?
I simply do not accept that it is right that I must give away this right when it comes to travelling above a set speed on the public highway, unless it is retracted from all crimes. Sorry, it's just the way I feel.
Originally posted by Mr_Sukebe
If you have a real feasible solution that would work, then please suggest it
More police patrols, without speeding "quotas" rather than speed cameras. Police drivers can tell dangerous driving from mild speeding.
Mr_Sukebe
13-08-2002, 13:04
Dav>
Nice try, but consider the cost?
At the moment, "safety" camera fines are being used by the government, and either directly or indirectly are helping to pay for the police that we have.
If we removed the cameras, we'd be on for a double wammy, i.e.
- no cash from the cameras
- a massive increase in costs for additional police required
Do you guys think that there has been a decrease in patrol cars around? (I'd love to see the stats on that).
That's because more cops are probably being devoted to "real" crimes like rape and murder because they don't have spend so much time chasing people around.
ha ... more police patrols .... sheeze .. that would cause an uproar on this board.
I can hear the blubbing and the crying now
"I got stopped by the police mnwar mnwar .. why arnt they out catching real criminals, why do they always pick on me, why arnt they catching terrorists. mnwar mnwar .. mummy its not fair"
Oh boy .. more traffic police .... I agree with you ... but we will need a whole section on this board devoted to it :rolleyes: :rolleyes:
whoops.. maybe I should take that back. I know not all police are fair, but they could be fairer than cameras, if they were properly motivated?
As for cost, check out www.abd.org.uk - esp. latest press release about swapping police patrols for camera. Also note figures about how much money drivers pay each year - (~£36 billion pa); maybe someo of the non-driving citizens could contribute towards police funds?
I dunno, best get back to work...
Originally posted by Mr_Sukebe
That's because more cops are probably being devoted to "real" crimes like rape and murder because they don't have spend so much time chasing people around.
Errrr nope...
There's less police on the beat, on patrol, and out and about because of two main reasons:
1) Dwindling numbers relative to the population to be policed - various reasons why this is.
2) More and more time spent driving a desk, filling in forms, preparing case files, court appearances etc. Most of this is due to Legislation implemented by the Great Red Plague otherwise known as the Labour Party. Some of this legislation is useful for both Police and Suspect. A lot of it is a complete waste of everyones time and money, but has been introduced to safeguard the cops from prosecution themselves because of the rise of American Litigation culture, hand in hand with the increasing barmyness of Social Services, The CPS, Political Parties and Lobby Groups (Young Lags in Borstal being given holidays, Tony Martin prosecuted for defending himself etc etc)
Of course, ultimately all the ills in our society are due to those in the media promoting a "blame culture" and increasing claims for compensation....
(hides under desk to shelter from flames)
AshT_200
13-08-2002, 13:15
Some speed limits are imposed, not for safety reasons, but for noise level restrictions. Take the A406 North Circular. 3 lanes either way, but max 50mph. It goes through residential areas and the speed limit is to reduce the noise.
Speed limits were also considered a method of reducing pollution. I.E. you use less petrol travelling at 70 than if you travelled at 90 (True in the case of my SX)
Originally posted by davidra
those in the media
Dont even get me started on the Media .... those Princess killing, gimp boys .. only in it for the money ... hastle peoples lives, make shoit up ...... dis the only decent member of the royal family.
Police time would be better spent knee-capping the media .... and critics as well ..... I hate critics ... try and tell me what I like and dont like.
Originally posted by AshT_200
Speed limits were also considered a method of reducing pollution. I.E. you use less petrol travelling at 70 than if you travelled at 90 (True in the case of my SX)
This was done in the USA. ... the old 55mph speed limit ... I was led to believe was bought in to save petrol and decrease polution.
dunno if it true ... but it works ?
Originally posted by Johnny
This was done in the USA. ... the old 55mph speed limit ... I was led to believe was bought in to save petrol and decrease polution.
dunno if it true ... but it works ?
The 55mph limit was introduced (i believe) during the suez oil crisis.
The effect is staggering - most americans drive around with their heads so totally up the backsides that the accident rate is appalling, although the deaths ratio is fairly good because speeds tend to be lower....
Personally I think the limits are pretty good over here - fast enough to keep most people on their toes.
Originally posted by Dunk
although the deaths ratio is fairly good because speeds tend to be lower....
wow maybe the government are right then in saying "speed kills" .. perhaps they are just trying to lower the speed all round so when an accident does occur then it will be at 50mph on that dual carriage way instead of 70 -80 mph.
....unfair really isnt it ????
Originally posted by Johnny
wow maybe the government are right then in saying "speed kills"
well its true isn't it? If we were all stationary all the time no-one would ever be killed by a car...:) well not often anyway
Originally posted by davidra
well its true isn't it? If we were all stationary all the time no-one would ever be killed by a car...:) well not often anyway
:D
oddly enough .. I think this is the way they are going .... buy raising train fares, road taxes, petrol prices ... sooner or later there will be no transport related deaths .... or transport :)
Originally posted by Johnny
sooner or later there will be no transport related deaths .... or transport :)
.. and the eco-fascists will have brought us all back to the pre-technology, pre-industrial garden of eden they dream of...:cool: A world of organic food and meat free-diets where everyone is happy and has everything they want in their local village commune :) :) :)
Originally posted by Johnny
wow maybe the government are right then in saying "speed kills" .. perhaps they are just trying to lower the speed all round so when an accident does occur then it will be at 50mph on that dual carriage way instead of 70 -80 mph.
....unfair really isnt it ????
Speed is a contributrary factor is a collision involving two moving objects therefore, speed kills....
There is a blur of the lines of distinction here - obviously as speed increases then so does the seriousness of injuries. But then excess speed is a major factor in only 7% of RTAs.
Speed Kills originated from the worthy cause of getting people to drive slowly in residential/school etc areas - the slower the car when it runs you over, the less injuries you're likely to sustain. Unfortunately, it also grew into a generic campaign for people to slow down everywhere.
Mr_Sukebe
13-08-2002, 14:21
Dunk,
I just had a look at the ABD site ref the 7% statistics.
Man, these guys sound like the Hitler Youth organisation prior to the fire in the Reichstag.
I know that they're trying to fight their corner, but they seem to lose a little credibility with some of their comments.
For example, here's a copy of comments copied directly from their site about why the governments view on something is wrong:
"1. Slippery Road.
Now they are really getting silly. Imagine a truck spills diesel onto a 30mph road. You are driving along this road at 30mph and skid on the diesel patch resulting in an accident, and they claim this is a speed related accident? Twaddle, absolute twaddle."
"2. Weather.
Perhaps the most ridiculous of all. This means that the accident was caused by the weather not speed, i.e. the vehicle was travelling at a perfectly reasonable speed but encountered some unexpected problem such as flooding on the roadway, or black ice. Again, if the vehicle at been travelling at excessive speed for the conditions it would have been classed under 'Excessive Speed' above."
Now correct me if I'm wrong, but the amount of people I've heard try to blame their accidents on either "slippery conditions" or "weather" is quite a number (hey, I used to to work in the insurance business a long time ago).
In reality what they normally mean is "I was driving to fast for the condition".
I see that the ABD have tried to put their own interpretation on the situation, and it's quite obviously nuts.
If I had either the time or inclination, I think I'd put my own website together as an answer to their pathetic attempts to flout the law.
If you want another great example, check out the section that states "laws were brought into being to protect the people from the government" as against "to protect the people".
These people have seriously lost it big time!!!!
Germany......... nuff said. Their autobahns are a standard that our motorways should be. If we actually spent road tax on upkeep of the roads (what it's meant to be for) we'd be able to drive faster. Build wider roads and have a speed lane and one for sunday drivers. Motorway speed limits go over my head, why when the road is clear, a good clear view, can i not push upto 120?
AFAIR we're meant to be the world's safest drivers. Why is the driving test so easy then?
Also a reason for congestion and everything else, we allowed women to drive :D what a big mistake
* runs
And don't get me started on Tax !!
When there were the fuel protests we were told that as we have a centralised tax system all tax ( Income, VAT, NI, Stamp Duty etc etc ) goes into a central fund. Therefore the public can't demand that income from Fuel & Road Fund Licence is <only> spent on road improvements because all Tax is used to cover all Gov expenses.
But - when the Gov wanted to raise NI they were able to say that the extra income this would generate could be applied directly to the NHS.
Did i miss the point ? One minute they can't apportion income directly to an expense, the next they can !
Originally posted by Kanes
Germany......... nuff said
According to the Department for transport .. Germany is number 9 in the world for the safest roads (car user deaths and road deaths)...... the Uk is number 3, Northen Ireland is number 2 and number 1 ??
.
.
any guesses
.
.
.
Great Britain ! (obviously thanks to northen ireland there)
So I wouldnt leave the last word as Germany ... I would leave the last work as Great Britain ... it may be a dull place to drive .. but thank the Humble bobby the saftey camera and the Government, if we aint the safest !!! :D
Martin T
13-08-2002, 17:25
How about this for right to silence.
You go on holiday. You leave the keys with your mates. They are all insured and legal on the vehicle. One of them gets busted.
You dont know who and they will not tell you. You get fvcked for it. Seem so fair now?
This actually happened except the bloke was in hospital with a broken leg, so he was obviously innocent. Facist wine waiters.
Originally posted by Martin T
How about this for right to silence.
You leave the keys with your mates. They are all insured and legal on the vehicle. One of them gets busted.
You dont know who and they will not tell you. You get fvcked for it. Seem so fair now?
Seems to me like they are not mates ???
Sorry to be unsympathetic to the bloke, but I like to think the people I trust to drive my car, I could trust to take wrap if they ballsed up. ... if they did that to me and put me in that situation, I would disown them. .. they arnt mates .. they are w4nkers
Yeah leagly its unfair, I'll give you that.
Again .. if they are willing to screw a so called mate over .. I certainly wouldnt put it past them to screw the insurance company over, screw the law over (which they are clearly doing) .. screw the clutch over.
No its not fair ........ but the guy just left his car with "mates" that he cannot trust ... he gave them (people with no respect for the law .. his car).
It isnt fair ... but you find that out the hard way dont you.
...pah mates !
:mad: :mad: :mad:
red_s14u
13-08-2002, 17:44
Would not a brand new sports car fitted with disc brakes, traction control, fat tyres etc. etc. driven by an experienced alert driver be as safe or safer going 90mph than an old car with drum brakes driven by a more 'mature' driver with slow reactions at the legal 70mph on a DC or Motorway ?
Personally I think the speed limits are brought down to the lowest demominator for unskilled driver's (except urban areas and schools etc where no matter how skilled u are, u cannot pre-empt a kid running out from a parked car, u just have to drive SLOW !).
Interesting points, but I can't see how the camera that nicked me on the A4something coming out of Billing last year for doing 73 in a 60 - just after the limit had dropped to 60 from 70 was doing anything to increase safety - just the size of the local c untstabularies coffers. No markings on road, no warning, no camera signs, me paying attention to road and not every smegging bridge, just moving with the flow of traffic on a piece of road that was in every way identical to the bit of tarmac 500m before.
AshT_200
13-08-2002, 17:56
Originally posted by Dunk
The 55mph limit was introduced (i believe) during the suez oil crisis.
I heard this was the same reason for Motorway Speed limits here.
gaz.thomas
13-08-2002, 19:56
There are a whole bunch of problems with this whole deal - not least of which is the question of burden of proof.
Surely proving that your car has broken the law is not the same as proving you have - yet it's up to you to prove that 'it weren't me guv'?
My car was stolen from B'ham airport around xmas. They found it partially stripped about a week later and the duty sergeant suggested 'you get it towed home while there's still summat left to tow'
About a month later I had the first of a series of phone calls from four different policae authorities in and around Brum about 'your vehicle sir'. Apparently it had been used in a number of armed robberies while not in my possession.
The copper at the airport had not 'filled in the necessary paperwork' so my registration number was never flagged as stolen (great for me 'cos it doesn't show up on a hpi check :) ) but that did mean I was prime suspect for a while - not a lot of fun.
Had he just driven through a speed camera I'd have got the fine and had to argue about it in court but because he knocked off a couple of building societies the police went to the trouble of interviewing me before sentencing.
Makes perfect sense to me
Go vote if you ain't already:
http://www.sxoc.com/vbb/showthread.php?s=&threadid=18351
:)
Nismo_Freak
13-08-2002, 20:19
They tried those ****ty cameras here in the US. Lasted a whole month before the US Supreme Court declared them unconstitutional. I believe the UK is still under the Parlimentary Constitutional Monarchy, something like that. Either way for some reason we studied the British law system more than the US one in our Government class in grade school, most likely because the class was split conservative vs. liberal and always ended up in near fist fights when we argued. Either way, me being very conservative, I found your law system to be somewhat appauling. Most of it is the shock of the Governmental control over every aspect (Liberalism), which is common in Europe. Another aspect is the fact that it seemed like no one was really organized to push decisions in the government. There is the IRA but they tend to be a little to pushy with their technique. However I do not live in the UK so im just going by what the media and books tell me. I have been to the UK once while on a flight to Germany, beautiful country. Even had a chance to go out and look around for a couple of days. I was with my Irish neighbors so I got the whole run-around plus a good cultural encounter, it took me a whole 3 hours to understand anyone.
Well, to cut a long story short the two governments are there for two very different reasons.
The UK government is there to protect the people. They make calls 'for the common good'. The needs of the many outweigh individual rights. If something is 'bad' it gets banned. Firearms, speeding, and illegal raves all spring to mind.
The US government is there to protect the rights of the people and is intrinsically MUCH more liberal. The rights of one man outweigh the 'safety' of others.
Without getting political, the best way is somewhere in the middle.
Mike
Nismo_Freak
13-08-2002, 22:01
Actually the US Government no longer really protects the rights of people. They are busy taking away our rights because of stupid f-uckers that do really stupid s-hit. Ex. Some guy just sued McDonalds and all the other Fast Food chains because he is a lard a-ss, he claims he didnt know that eating milkshakes, cokes, fries, tacos, burgers, etc. etc. was bad for his health and was the cause of his obeasity and cholesterol problems. Frankly I say strap the b-astard to the treadmill and slap some sense into him.
AshT_200
14-08-2002, 14:49
Originally posted by Nismo_Freak
Actually the US Government no longer really protects the rights of people. They are busy taking away our rights because of stupid f-uckers that do really stupid s-hit. Ex. Some guy just sued McDonalds and all the other Fast Food chains because he is a lard a-ss, he claims he didnt know that eating milkshakes, cokes, fries, tacos, burgers, etc. etc. was bad for his health and was the cause of his obeasity and cholesterol problems. Frankly I say strap the b-astard to the treadmill and slap some sense into him.
Going like that in this country. Remember CLAIMS DIRECT.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.1.9 Copyright © 2012 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.