i just don't get...
people twining when they get done for speeding.
it's so easy to avoid, simply obey the speed limits!
i've been collared 3 times for speeding. took the punishment like the self-righteous twat that i am.
did i twine about it? did i fuck.
why not? cos that would make me a hypocritical, self-righteous twat.
( blaireau69 , the Cumbrian Travis Bickle., Sat 17 Oct 2009, 18:13, 16 replies)

Yeah, Mr Quar does that
and my answer's the same: slow down, then.
It's actually a tax, y'know.
(Juan Quar is clinging to her front teeth on, Sat 17 Oct 2009, 18:23, closed)

precisely.
if you want to pick and choose what laws you obey then ultimately something's gonna happen...
( blaireau69 , the Cumbrian Travis Bickle., Sat 17 Oct 2009, 18:31, closed)

It's
when they change a 60mph limit to 30mph for no reason on a dead straight road 4 miles long with no hint of a built-up area anywhere and then put cameras on it that gets my goat.

(as they have to the road connecting our village to the next)

It's all very well saying obay the limits, but if the limits are wrong then they should be ignored.
(dchurch bah, Sat 17 Oct 2009, 18:46, closed)

oh for fuck's sake, get a grip.
yes, there are some (increasingly) stupid speed-limits around. the police authorities do it for a variety of reasons but the main one, as we all know, is to raise revenue.
by CHOOSING to ignore the speed limit because you think yourself above the law you are inviting prosecution.
then getting angry at the feds/government/local authority/highways indicates an utter lack of responsibility.
( blaireau69 , the Cumbrian Travis Bickle., Sat 17 Oct 2009, 18:54, closed)

Well
yes and no. Speeding tickets (and parking tickets in particular) are remarkably easy to get out of. I have paid ONE ticket in 20 years of driving. I didn't receive just one, but only one got paid. The reason that was paid was simply as it was 150 miles from where I live, and after both appeals were knocked back (they always are, the people who stand to get the dosh are the people who decide the appeals), the next step is the adjudicator - it would have cost me more than the 30 quid in juice to get back up there, so I paid it. In hindsight, I would probably go back and do it properly if that happened now.

Some might say, "is it worth it?", but to me the answer is yes. In a tiny way it shows these cunts that they can't just do as they please and take the piss out of all of us with snidly little tricks like dropping the speed limits, or (as happened once) putting cones next to your car and then ticketting it.

Plus, the feeling you get when you get the letter telling you that you are no longer being prosecuted and that you have beaten them is excellent.

I always suggest to people that have been nicked to go to court at the very least. Not all mind, some have been nicked in the right place and in a place where the limit is a sane one. Take it on the chin in those instances, but for those that get nicked where they've clearly changed the limit as a revenue earner, I say cost them as much as you can. Eventually someone will be looking at stats and say, "you know that road where we dropped the limit? It seems it's costing us more since we did it."

As for being above the law - if that's how the law acts, and has simply become another arm of HMRC, then yes, we're all above it. Learn to run rigns around it and you'll be fine.

Plus, the fight is fun.

...or you can be a good little boy, do as you're told and let them get away with it to the detrement of all of us - which in my eyes indicates a complete lack of responsibility.

The "do as you're told and you'll be ok" mentality plays straight into their hands, as everyone then puts blind faith in them, and as such as a whole, no-one takes responsibility for anything.

It's your responsibility as a responisible citizen to fight and challenge everything NOT to think "oh, *they* are never wrong"; we've seen what happens to societies where that becomes the norm, haven't we?

Sorry if I'm a little harsh, but nothing riles me more than people accepting bullying - particularly bullying by men in suits who have never met you, simply to get at the contents of your bank account.

You talk about responsibility, but I cannot understand where someone taking bullying on the chin - and bullying it is - is accepting responsibility. The more people that bow down to it, the more they will continute to do it; and yet you preach about being responsible to me? Utterly incomprehensible.
(dchurch bah, Sun 18 Oct 2009, 7:30, closed)

I do believe you are correct
Good to see someone with their head staight
(M61A1 CUPID- STUNTS, Sun 18 Oct 2009, 8:08, closed)

okay, just so you understand where i'm coming from here...
i have been caught speeding 3 times in 23 years of driving.
1st time doing 55mph on a single carriageway A-road driving a 3.5t van. oops. 3points and £30.
2nd time doing an average of 113.9mph over 2.92miles on the motorway riding my bike. 6 points and £250.
3rd time doing an average of 116.4mph on the same stretch of motorway 14 months later. same bike but this time no insurance. 8 points and £450. exceptional hardship (non-earning partner) meant i kept my licence.
i then had to make a choice, either insure my van (now £1600 a year TPFT) or my bike (£1900 TPFT) cos i couldn't afford both. i chose the van, put the bike off the road until enough points had expired to make it affordable to re-insure.
and in the meantime i got on and behaved myself.
yeah, maybe some speed limits are innapropriate (generally in the minds of those who get caught) but they are still the limit.
how much more simple can it be?
stick to the limit or get punished when you get caught.
and when that happens then just take it on the chin for god's sake.
having sympathy for someone when they get points for speeding is as ridiculous as having sympathy for me having a hangover today. i chosed to get pissed last night just like i chose to speed on my bike.
responsibility is not a popular word with some people.
( blaireau69 , the Cumbrian Travis Bickle., Sun 18 Oct 2009, 8:36, closed)

exactly
the point.

"yeah, maybe some speed limits are innapropriate (generally in the minds of those who get caught) but they are still the limit.
how much more simple can it be?
stick to the limit or get punished when you get caught.
and when that happens then just take it on the chin for god's sake."

So, just do as they say and let them continue to take the piss?

Nice. No wonder it gets worse rather than better.

They are the 'limit' because someone says so - someone with a vested interest in taking money from you. Is that person right? Sometimes, sometimes not, but you are saying that you should just take it on the chin in either case, because "it's the limit".

You sir, are wrong. Things, especially authority, needs challenging constantly, else you end up in East Germany.
(dchurch bah, Sun 18 Oct 2009, 9:30, closed)

there are far better ways of challenging the authority than allowing yourself to get points on your licence.
or do you think that if you fight the law by breaking it you're being intelligent?
i don't think a 40 zone on a straight bit of duel carriageway is appropriate (generally) but i don't think that doing 60 down it and getting clocked is at all bright.
( blaireau69 , the Cumbrian Travis Bickle., Sun 18 Oct 2009, 10:57, closed)

Perhaps not
but if you fight the fine - you will usually win, and then that is logged and catalogued.

How else would you fight to get the limit changed to a more appropriate level?

I fought 11 tickets (yes, some were deliberatly incurred by me for this purpose) on one stretch of road. This stretch of road was 60mph - quite appropriate for the level of traffic/houses etc... One night at around midnight a chap hit and killed an elderly woman and her dog. He was doing an estimated 130mph (according to the report). Shortly after that the limit was changed to 40 and a camera put up.

Would that 40 sign have stopped him doing 130 at midnight? I seriously doubt it.

Anyway, each of those 11 tickets were thrown away - I got not one single point or fine.

Six weeks ago, the limit was raised to 60mph.
(dchurch bah, Sun 18 Oct 2009, 11:07, closed)

I could agree if........
there was some vague relationship between speed (not massive speed, but just cruising at a comfortable speed, which for some reason is about 30-40 k's over the limit) and safety.
A law that dos nothing to improve your safety or wellbeing is worthless and nothing more than deprivation of liberty, more people should fight such issues.
By your logic, gays shouldn't whine that they can't get married (for example), just accept that it's the law. I am sure there are many other examples of bullshit laws thats should be challenged, not just for one person to be above the law, but so that we all don't have to tolerate unnecessary crap.
(M61A1 CUPID- STUNTS, Sun 18 Oct 2009, 2:18, closed)

...but
apparently challenging immoral and wrong laws "indicates an utter lack of responsibility."
(dchurch bah, Sun 18 Oct 2009, 8:04, closed)

what i actually wrote...
"by CHOOSING to ignore the speed limit because you think yourself above the law you are inviting prosecution.
then getting angry at the feds/government/local authority/highways indicates an utter lack of responsibility."

read this through a couple of times and you may well understand it better.

did i say anything about "challenging immoral and wrong laws"? that's a whole other debate. no, i made it VERY clear that my problem is with people who cannot accept punishment when they deliberately break the speed limit and get caught. if you live in a constant state of denial about your own wrongdoings then you are selling yourself short. it means you will never learn from your mistakes.

try sticking to the point next time instead of going off on a tangent.
( blaireau69 , the Cumbrian Travis Bickle., Sun 18 Oct 2009, 8:27, closed)

there is a direct corelation between speed and safety. FACT.
if you don't understand that then you shouldn't be driving.

there are far more effective ways to challenge a law you dislike. if you want to take on the system by breaking laws you disagree with then go ahead, we both know how that'll end up.
( blaireau69 , the Cumbrian Travis Bickle., Sun 18 Oct 2009, 8:31, closed)

There is?
Not according the government funded TRL323 report. Odd that they would disagree with you isn't it?

I assume by 'speed' and safety, you mean 'speeding' and safety. Otherwise, the sentence is nonsensical.

In fact, pedestrians cause 15% of road accidents. 7.7% are caused by motorists exceeding speed limits. Perhaps we should ban pedestrians.

If what you say is true, why is it then that our motorways, our fastest roads, are amoungst the safest roads in Europe (second only to Germany's)?

In the years between 1997 and 2006 the amount of speeding fines issued per year doubled to 1.7 million. Are people routinely driving faster than they did 12 years ago? I don't think so, not if a quick glance out of my window is anything to go by.

Show me another criminal offence that 1.7 million people in this country routinely commit year on year. If a law is being broken with that regularity then surely, the law must be wrong, or the method of enforcing it is wrong.

The real fact is that governments know that driving at slower speeds creates congestion - this is also covered in TRL323 - sadly I am unable to post a link to it, as it doesn't exist on-line. Despite being paid for by our money and being in the public domain, because the report didn't arrive at the conclusion that was expected (i.e. speed is bad and causes accidents), you have to pay for it. I have paid for it and I have a hard copy. I asked for permission to scan and post on my website - it was refused by reasons of crown copyright.
They know it causes congestion, and congestion increases fuel usage. Fuel usage increases the revenue from tax. Don't believe me? Perhaps you should ask why it is that in Holland (Amsterdam and other major cities), the traffic lights in a stretch of road will all change at the same time if you are travelling at exactly the speed limit and thus ensuring an uninterupted flow of traffic.


EDIT: Found a link to the summary at least.
www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200102/cmselect/cmtlgr/557/557ap15.htm


It was investigated for use here - but was refused on the grounds (and they readily and exhasperatingly admit this) that people stopping and starting uses more fuel, and as such more dosh in the coffers. What does that tell you? It tells me that their agenda is not safety.

If you get caught out on a camera etc... then challenge it, for anything to change it will have to hurt their pockets. Why do you think up until last year you were entitled to a jury of your peers for ANY criminal offence? Now, if you want a jury for a motoring offence, you are stuffed.

I used the same tactics with the bank charge thing. My plan was to flood the county courts with claims to such a degree that the court system could no longer function efficiently. It was costing a huge sum of cash to get all the claims through the courts, only for the banks to cave at the last minute - effectively making them vexacious defendents. Of course, this had the desired effect and got the banks into the high court. The government had to do SOMETHING as the court system was becoming very inneficient, yet costing a fortune (FYI: there are over a million claims still outstanding where county court money claims have been logged at Northampton county court, so I would say that this approach DOES work very well). One judge threw out 18 such cases in one hit, simply because they were against the banks and he'd had enough of seeing them. That cost me 18k to put right and get him struck off. You can't just throw cases out of court because you don't want to deal with them (as well as a nominal hand-full of shares in LTSB, which as the time was not yet in the public domain). That's as bad, if not worse than making laws simply to extract money from people. Fighting injustices are what made this country what it used to be. I for one am not happy with what it's become. IF everyone fought everything that was wrong with the same vigour, I think we'd have a better country.

It's all very well saying there are better ways to challenge laws you don't agree with, but judging by the comments here alone, you can see that the brainwashing speed-is-bad machine is working very well, despite evidence that flies in the face of that opinion.

Buy and read TRL323. I think you may change your view. Whislt on the surface what you say seems like it ought to be true. In fact, speeding is a factor in an extremely tiny amount of accidents.

...as to knowing 'how that will end up' - I have yet to be 'punished' for these crimes. Each time, with a tiny amount of research, speeding (and parking) tickets are very easy to get out of. The more people that do it, the more the likelyhood is that someone with some sense will start to actually look at road safety properly rather than using the 'speeding' scapegoat, and the better off we'll all be. You comment seems to suggest that because it's difficult challenging bad laws, that we shouldn't even try. That is a terrible thing to be saying, and I only hope that you don't mean it. That attitude will continue to allow governments to routinely demolish our hard-earned rights because we can't be bothered to fight against them.

Until then, just avoiding the problem by driving slower and slower fixes nothing. If that's not profitable, then the limit will decrease until it's impossible not to break their limit.

Writing FACT in capital letters doesn't make something true. Research maybe, but just writing a word in capitals because you've been bought in by the brainwashing doesn't actually make something a fact.

Sorry for length, but this "Speed Kills" crap is my pet hate.
(dchurch bah, Sun 18 Oct 2009, 10:50, closed)

Yeah, right with you there
Been there and been done many times - I loathe the speed limits, and I think the positioning of some cameras is purely based on potential return, but...

Can't stand it when people say "oh, it's another stealth tax"... Wouldn't it be great if all taxes could be avoided easily? Yes, more of this! How about a tax on not being polite too...
(Super Jet Shoes, Sun 18 Oct 2009, 4:01, closed)