Super Cool Really Fat Drivers club.

[Thracian]

You think it's stupid that you could get arrested for driving without having any idea how fast you were going?

I don't want an essay this time, just a nice, simple, straightforward answer.

Lisa didn't say anything about not having "any idea" how fast you were going.

But in terms of being arrested for watching the road instead of the speedo the short answer you wanted is yes.

[James.]

Lisa didn't say anything about not having "any idea" how fast you were going.

But in terms of being arrested for watching the road instead of the speedo the short answer you wanted is yes.

Lisa said if you "didn't know". If you don't know how fast you're going then it seems perfectly reasonable to expect to be in trouble.

Your second sentence is just twisitng words to suit yourself. It's not about watching one or the other, it's about awareness. Your road awareness sounds like it would be good. Your speed awareness sounds awful.

[Thracian]

Lisa said if you "didn't know". If you don't know how fast you're going then it seems perfectly reasonable to expect to be in trouble.

Your second sentence is just twisitng words to suit yourself. It's not about watching one or the other, it's about awareness. Your road awareness sounds like it would be good. Your speed awareness sounds awful.

I'm not "twisting words" at all but I don't know anyone who defends an argument by using words that knock it! You asked for a simple answer and I gave you one. Speed may have relevence in relation to the law but, unless excessive, often has little relevence in relation to safety. Situation and circumstances are the important factors.

[Guest]

Lisa didn't say anything about not having "any idea" how fast you were going.

Er, I did!

As JTB says, it seems perfectly logical to me that if you don't know how quick you are going you are driving without due care and attention.

You are correct that speed may not be the only contributory factor in an accident, and in particular a fatality, however it is a variable that can be eliminated quite easily.

[Thracian]

Er, I did!

As JTB says, it seems perfectly logical to me that if you don't know how quick you are going you are driving without due care and attention.

You are correct that speed may not be the only contributory factor in an accident, and in particular a fatality, however it is a variable that can be eliminated quite easily.

In my book there's a world of difference between "not knowing" what speed you were doing and having "no idea" what speed it was.

If you froze 100 people at any one minute and asked them what speed they were doing I guarantee they'd mostly be wrong.

Ask them for some idea of the speed they were going and a lot more would be right within quite narrow parameters.

As for easily eliminating speeding it's not been done so far, doesn't look likely to be done with all the people who are not licensed or insured to drive.

Nor would it would do nothing to combat the dawdlers who constantly cause obsctructions, the unsuitable roads, lorries being allowed to travel in the rain and cause dangerous spray, cars being built that are capable of speeds more than double the upper speed limit, bad mannered drivers who cause so much irritation, tailgaters and how many more do you want me to mention.

Attacking people who drive at 38mph in a 30mph limit when conditions are perfectly safe is simply a means of making money for the authorities and unfair victimisation of people who have caused no problems and are not nearly as potentially dangerous as those I've mentioned.

[Guest]

<<Semantics>>

You can rant as much as you like, but the roads have speed limits on them, and if you choose to go quicker and you get caught, you have only yourself to blame. It is easy money because so many people break the speed limit, and more motorists are caught because the technology has developed in such a way it is easier to catch them.

I really don't see what the problem is.

[Zingari]

it seems that there is always a small minority of people that want to pick and choose which laws, rules and safety regulations that they should adhere to , whether it be speeding , drink driving , standing at all seater football grounds , etc etc , regardless of other individuals rights.

if they do it and get prosecuted or punished in any way , then tuff shit

[James.]

Attacking people who drive at 38mph in a 30mph limit when conditions are perfectly safe is simply a means of making money for the authorities and unfair victimisation of people who have caused no problems and are not nearly as potentially dangerous as those I've mentioned.

Look at the language you choose to employ. "Attacking" people. It's not "attacking" Thracian. It's applying a law. Why should you get away with driving at 38mph in a 30mph zone? And who cares if it's less dangerous than others situations you mention, YOU ARE BREAKING THE LAW.

And what does "perfectly safe conditions" mean? How can any conditions be considered "perfectly safe"? Are you saying you can see into the future? The truth is you don't know what's going to happen on the road (which is why you seem so insistent on watching the road "instead" of your speedometer). I'd be pretty confident in saying that if the speed limit was raised to 40mph in 30mph zones (so we can accomodate your 38mph driving) then more people would die.

Just because you think you can correctly assess when you can drive above the speed limit and when you don't need to look at your speedomoter doesn't mena everyone can. That's why we have laws.

[Bellend Sebastian]

You can rant as much as you like, but the roads have speed limits on them, and if you choose to go quicker and you get caught, you have only yourself to blame. It is easy money because so many people break the speed limit, and more motorists are caught because the technology has developed in such a way it is easier to catch them.

I really don't see what the problem is.

I entirely agree. I think it's absolutely morally correct to penalise people that choose to flaunt rules that are well known to everyone, apply equally to everybody and most importantly, are intended to keep people safe. If you don't agree with the last one, what other purpose for them could there be? To raise revenue? If your goal is to raise revenue, you don't rely on something that could potentially not raise a penny, if people got it into their heads to do what they're supposed to

[Hullfox]

In my book there's a world of difference between "not knowing" and having "no idea".

That's one strange book you have.

Lorries being allowed to travel in the rain and cause dangerous spray.

What do you suggest happens when it starts raining?

Attacking people who drive at 38mph in a 30mph limit when conditions are perfectly safe is simply a means of making money for the authorities and unfair victimisation of people.

Attacking is a strong word and quite wrong. Conditions might be "safe" but you are talking about built up areas where people may do the unexpected. It is designed to give the driver ample opportunity to stop.

[stez]

That's one strange book you have.

What do you suggest happens when it starts raining?

Attacking is a strong word and quite wrong. Conditions might be "safe" but you are talking about built up areas where people may do the unexpected. It is designed to give the driver ample opportunity to stop.

obviously that is not the drivers fault, if the driver was thracian, if it were a policeman, in a pursuit, then, in tony-world, it's the policemans fault.

[Jay]

I am just baffled by this thread surely it's a wind up I mean surely nobody honestly thinks that it's ok to travel at 38mph in a built up zone and that anybody caught speeding is being attacked and victimised by "the man" to make money

only one word I can think of for this attitude and that is moronic

[Alexikokopops]

I am just baffled by this thread surely it's a wind up I mean surely nobody honestly thinks that it's ok to travel at 38mph in a built up zone and that anybody caught speeding is being attacked and victimised by "the man" to make money

only one word I can think of for this attitude and that is moronic

You have to remember that in Thracian's view the drink drivers are the victims.

[Thracian]

That's one strange book you have.

What do you suggest happens when it starts raining?

Attacking is a strong word and quite wrong. Conditions might be "safe" but you are talking about built up areas where people may do the unexpected. It is designed to give the driver ample opportunity to stop.

Built up area? It is a two lane road with mesh fencing to prevent any pedestrians crossing and you couldn't crash at 38mph and canon into a building if you tried. Especially at the crack of dawn with hardly a soul to be seen.

* If it starts raining they pull off the road into a lay-by/service station until they are no longer a danger to everyone around them. Especially on motorways. They're a bloody menace and it's little wonder they cause accidents.

But no. That would affect the economy and cost money. Speeding motorists make money.

How you can advocate the spray-spreading lorries proceeding while the 38mph motorist is penalised over nothing but a number suggests to me that either you've got a vested interest in lorries or you just refuse to properly consider the dangers of the two situations.

* The legislation involves a punitive attack on people's freedom to drive as conditions dictate. What other word would you use?

[Thracian]

You have to remember that in Thracian's view the drink drivers are the victims.

That's because sometimes and in some circumstances they are. Once again they are often being punished for something that might happen rather than something that has happened or for an incident that is someone else's fault. That's not justice but we've had the argument out before.

obviously that is not the drivers fault, if the driver was thracian, if it were a policeman, in a pursuit, then, in tony-world, it's the policemans fault.

If the policeman was driving recklessly then of course it's his fault.

[Thracian]

You can rant as much as you like, but the roads have speed limits on them, and if you choose to go quicker and you get caught, you have only yourself to blame. It is easy money because so many people break the speed limit, and more motorists are caught because the technology has developed in such a way it is easier to catch them.

I really don't see what the problem is.

The problem is the victimising attack on people's freedom to drive according to the circumstances and conditions.

But as you work in the law industry I fully understand that the more laws there are to break the more lucrative the likely returns for lawyers and government alike.

As I say, no-one is victimised/penalised for driving too slowly and causing obstruction, irritation and potential accidents. You say that so many people break the law, but that's not because they are mostly intent on being reckless criminals but simply because they consider it perfectly safe to do so.

Doesn't that tell you something?

After all, if "so many" people voted for a politician they would probably call him elected and give him power. If "so many" people voted for a ban on smoking they would doubtless say it was the right course of action.

But if "so many" people didn't agree with some European charter they would make sure they were ignored.

The authorities do what they want and according to how they wish to manipulate things. Justice and right doesn't always come into it even with the application of the laws we have. As some policemen would be able to testify if they were honest, which they're not.

[Flynny]

That's because sometimes and in some circumstances they are. Once again they are often being punished for something that might happen rather than something that has happened or for an incident that is someone else's fault. That's not justice but we've had the argument out before.

I agree entirely. Same with this "Attempted" murder rubbish. Pish posh, the lot of it.

[Hullfox]

I agree entirely. Same with this "Attempted" murder rubbish. Pish posh, the lot of it.

It's an outrage.

I know someone who carried a bomb onto public transport. They never exploded the device but they were arrested. What on earth is that all about?

Drivers who have had a few pints and those who are going too fast are victimised in the same way.

[Thracian]

Look at the language you choose to employ. "Attacking" people. It's not "attacking" Thracian. It's applying a law. Why should you get away with driving at 38mph in a 30mph zone? And who cares if it's less dangerous than others situations you mention, YOU ARE BREAKING THE LAW.

And what does "perfectly safe conditions" mean? How can any conditions be considered "perfectly safe"? Are you saying you can see into the future? The truth is you don't know what's going to happen on the road (which is why you seem so insistent on watching the road "instead" of your speedometer). I'd be pretty confident in saying that if the speed limit was raised to 40mph in 30mph zones (so we can accomodate your 38mph driving) then more people would die.

Just because you think you can correctly assess when you can drive above the speed limit and when you don't need to look at your speedomoter doesn't mena everyone can. That's why we have laws.

The idea that all laws are good laws and therefore worthy of being obeyed is nonsense.

The classic illustration of this was the ordering of the execution of the first born sons back in Biblical times. Would you agree with that? Or would you want to fight it?

While people meekly accept every law and every erosion of our personal freedom to choose, the politicians will be free to be as draconian as they wish.

And whether you appreciate it or not our government is getting more and more authoritarian and dictatorial in a whole heap of ways.

There is no need for speeding guidance to be anything but advisory and linked to different times, circumstances and road conditions.

We don't need speed cameras on downslopes or behind trees, we don't need road safety teams hiding where they know damned well the traffic moves fastest because it is so safe.

There are many ways excess speed can reasonably be reduced on British roads, many ways in which sound tuition and education can improve driving habits in this country and many things than can be done to make our roads safer without any of the above.

I've not suggested that in-town speed limits should be raised. I've said they should be advisory according to conditions and based on genuine realities. In some circumstances even 20mph is a risky speed. In others 40mph is perfectly safe.

[Thracian]

I agree entirely. Same with this "Attempted" murder rubbish. Pish posh, the lot of it.

Are you saying someone driving at 38mph in a built-up area is "attempting" to have a crash or to kill a pedestrian?.

Or if I waved a knife at someone I'd be attempting to murder them?

[Flynny]

Or if I waved a knife at someone I'd be attempting to murder them?

No, but waving a knife around would be just as fucking stupid as driving after having had a few. The point isn't intention, drivers aren't being punished for what "might happen" but for having the temerity to hedge their bets on other peoples lives in the first place.

[The Reverend]

That's because sometimes and in some circumstances they are. Once again they are often being punished for something that might happen rather than something that has happened or for an incident that is someone else's fault. That's not justice but we've had the argument out before.

If the policeman was driving recklessly then of course it's his fault.

Thracian. Drink drivers are stopped to prevent the risk of causing an accident. I cant see how you can argue against that. You're more likely to have an accident if you're intoxicated, they are just preventing it from happening in the first place. And if you get caught drink driving, having not caused an accident or done anything wrong, it serves you right for being such a cocknob. The rules are there in black and white. If you break them, you get punished, deservedly punished.

[James.]

The idea that all laws are good laws and therefore worthy of being obeyed is nonsense.

The classic illustration of this was the ordering of the execution of the first born sons back in Biblical times. Would you agree with that? Or would you want to fight it?

While people meekly accept every law and every erosion of our personal freedom to choose, the politicians will be free to be as draconian as they wish.

And whether you appreciate it or not our government is getting more and more authoritarian and dictatorial in a whole heap of ways.

There is no need for speeding guidance to be anything but advisory and linked to different times, circumstances and road conditions.

We don't need speed cameras on downslopes or behind trees, we don't need road safety teams hiding where they know damned well the traffic moves fastest because it is so safe.

There are many ways excess speed can reasonably be reduced on British roads, many ways in which sound tuition and education can improve driving habits in this country and many things than can be done to make our roads safer without any of the above.

I've not suggested that in-town speed limits should be raised. I've said they should be advisory according to conditions and based on genuine realities. In some circumstances even 20mph is a risky speed. In others 40mph is perfectly safe.

Haha. You're so predictable. I knew you were going to ramble on about how we all meekly accept laws, blah blah blah. And I'm not surprised to see you trying to link executions with road traffic laws. You were the man to describe traffic wardens as the modern day gestapo after all. Laughable.

I'm not continuing this debate. In Thracian-world you may view this as a victory. Well done. In the real world meantime I'll consider the argument rendered ridiculous by your obscure views.

[Thracian]

Haha. You're so predictable. I knew you were going to ramble on about how we all meekly accept laws, blah blah blah. And I'm not surprised to see you trying to link executions with road traffic laws. You were the man to describe traffic wardens as the modern day gestapo after all. Laughable.

I'm not continuing this debate. In Thracian-world you may view this as a victory. Well done. In the real world meantime I'll consider the argument rendered ridiculous by your obscure views.

No regrets at all about the traffic wardens comment. I witnessed another example of their unreasonable and dictatorial bullying only on Wednesday.

[andyh1884]

This all seems a bit silly. Regardless of whether you think the laws on speeding are 1984-style Big Brother government controls to break the free-thinking people of this country, they are there. You know it, and if you choose to ignore the speed limits set out I have absolutely no idea how you can then bleat on about the injustice of getting done for speeding. And as for moaning about the dastardly, fiendish schemes set out to trap the poor unsuspecting speeding motorist, I can't see how that washes either.

I've never understood the notion that you should be warned about the presence of speed cameras. Why on earth should you be given advanced warning that you might be caught breaking the law? If someone's standing in the street selling drugs to people, should they be given prior warning that they're about to get busted by the police, should burglars receive a text telling them the police are on the way & they'd better scarper sharpish?

The fact you are given warnings about speed cameras gives the impression that it's ok to do it (and they do HAVE to provide sign-posting, so if it's at the bottom of a steep hill, you'll know as you hurtle down it that you've got to slam on the anchors before you get to the bottom), these people who get off speeding fines because the camera/speed trap wasn't sign-posted properly really get on my tits. They were speeding, they knew what the limit was, they got caught, regardless of the method of detection, that should be an end to it.

I myself have 3 points from speeding. I was doing 60 in a 50 zone, a dual carriageway where there was no real justification for it to be 50, but it was. I wasn't paying enough attention to the speed I was going, even though it was perfectly safe to be doing that speed on that road. I got done, I hold my hands up, I shouldn't have been doing the speed I was. I don't feel a sense of injustice because the speed limit didn't fit with my notion of what the speed should be on that road, I'm just annoyed with myself that I wasn't paying enough attention to how fast I was going when I knew the limit was 50.

Thracian, you should move to France. In one area there, they took an interesting approach to tackling the problem of drink-driving on a particularly dangerous road where trees lined the carriageway & where drunken french people kept crashing into the trees while driving home mullered. Rather than punishing the motorists for endangering their own lives and those of other road users by stopping them & taking away their driving licence, they removed all the trees along the side of the road so the drunken motorists would trundle gently through the fields behind rather than smash into the trees. Your type of place, eh?