You are welcome as a guest, and as long as you do not abuse that hospitality, your views and comments will be respected.

............ [Associaton of British Drivers] ...... [Transaction 2007 - Working for the UK Transport Industry] ...... [Associaton of British Drivers] ...... [Transaction 2007 - Working for the UK Transport Industry] ...... [Associaton of British Drivers] ...... [Transaction 2007 - Working for the UK Transport Industry] ............

   

..... The Its YOUR Duty! Motorists Protest Page ..... The Its YOUR Duty! Motorists Protest News Page.....The Its YOUR Duty! Motorists Protest Page..... The Its YOUR Duty! Motorists Protest News Page..... The Its YOUR Duty! Ecology Truth or Myth Page..... The Its YOUR Duty! Motorists Protest News Page..... The Its YOUR Duty! Resources Page..... The Its YOUR Duty! Motorists Protest News Page.............

 


  << Previous Topic | Next Topic >>Return to Forum Index  

Another Illegal Cam sCam!

March 4 2008 at 11:54 PM
bogush  (Login bogush)
Forum Owner
from IP address 91.105.148.228

 

£1.5 million Speed Camera Blunder

Tuesday 4th March

For more than 10 years a speed camera in Dorset snapped drivers going over the speed limit - except, it turns out, they weren't.

Just a Cash Machine?
Just a Cash Machine?
Now the safety camera partnership concerned is facing up to paying back the £1.5million in fines it collected.

A paperwork blunder led to 25,000 motorists being given points and ordered to pay £60 fines.

But now the Dorset Safety Camera Partnership has been forced to admit a legal error which was spotted by a judge during a case involving lorry driver Alan Dawe last year.

She noticed that paperwork for the camera indicated a road used to mark out the 30mph zone on the A35 at Chideock, Dorset, didn't actually exist.

Instead of using the correct name Duck Street, it used Seatown Road.

It means every conviction issued by the camera towards Exeter since 1997 is void. The partnership admits other drivers might want to be reimbursed.

From:

£1.5 MILLION SPEED CAMERA BLUNDER

 


 
 Respond to this message   
AuthorReply
FW
(no login)
81.100.81.248

Re: Another Illegal Cam sCam!

March 5 2008, 12:07 AM 

Outrageous how criminals weasel their way out of paying for their crime on the flimsiest of technicalities. After all, what difference does it make if the road name recorded was incorrect?

I am sure that if this were any other crime then you would be the first to howl at the ridiculousness of letting obviously-guilty criminals get away with it on such a minor technicality.

But then logical consistency never was very high on your agends.

 
 
bogush
(Login bogush)
Forum Owner
91.105.148.228

Errrmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm

March 5 2008, 12:41 AM 

My views, and those of the majority, are perfectly consistent.

 

If someone kills me, they have committed a very serious infringement of my rights, and done me very serious harm, and I and the majority expect them to be very severly punished.

 

If someone injures me, they have committed a serious infringement of my rights, and done me serious harm, and I and the majority expect them to be very severely punished.

 

If someone burgles me, they have committed an infringement of my rights, and done me ver harm, and I and the majority expect them to be very severely punished.

 

However, if If someone drives past a sign that says 30 on it when their speedo accurately says 31 on it, they have infringed no one's rights, and done no one any harm, and I and the sensible majority don't expect them to be punished at all.

 

Oh, and if you think they should be punished for dividing communities, making a noise, putting pedestrians at possible potential risk and the lioke, fine, punish the motorist pro rata the punishment dished out to train drivers for doing far, far, worse.

 

 

However, we, the people, employ public and civil servants not only to serve the public, but to do so with civility.

We do not employ them to make up arbitrary, artificial laws criminalising perfectly reasonable behaviour.

 

And we certainly don't employ them to lie about having made up an arbitrary, artificial laws criminalising perfectly reasonable behaviour, and then proceed to punish people for breaking a law that not only hadn't they broken, but that didn't even exist.

 

That is what the sCammers are doing.

 

THey are committing the worst crime in a democracy:

Undermining the Rule of Law, and corrupting the law to use, without justification or proper authority, against the people.

 

But I wouldn't expect a F*ck-W!t like you to understand any of that.

 


 
 
bogush
(Login bogush)
Forum Owner
91.105.148.228

Errrrrrrrrrrrmmmmmmmmmm

March 5 2008, 12:47 AM 

But let me help you out here.

 

If you lived at No 29, and you went home one day, and let yourself in:

 

Would you be happy for the police to arrest you for breaking into No 29.

Or for unlawfully entering No 31?

 

Or would you refuse to try to weasel your way out of paying for your "crime" on the flimsiest of technicalities. After all, what difference does it make if the house number recorded was incorrect?

I am sure that if this were any other crime then you would be the first to howl at the ridiculousness of letting obviously-guilty criminals get away with it on such a minor technicality.

But then logical consistency never was very high on your agenda.

 


 
 
FW
(no login)
128.243.220.42

Re: Another Illegal Cam sCam!

March 5 2008, 12:17 PM 

So, your argument is that speeding is as trivial as letting yourself into your own home? What a plonker.

 
 
George Painter
(no login)
194.216.125.5

Re: Another Illegal Cam sCam!

March 5 2008, 4:12 PM 

So let's get this right.

If a transport planner broke into your house Bogush, doing £5,000 worth of damage on the way in, tied you up then used your computer to spam 50 discussion groups with 20,000 words of complete nonsense in your name bringing complete discredit to the motorist's lobby, stole the keys to your motor car, drove it around the Ring Road at 70mph through as many cameras as he could find before smashing it into the side of a tram and being arrested. You would be happy for all charges to be dropped if the police officer accidently filled in your address on the statement as Vally Drive and not Valley Road. You would gladly pay all the fines and repair the car, tram and house at your expense in the interests of "not being party to a scam".

 
 
Anonymous
(no login)
212.140.169.7

Re: Another Illegal Cam sCam!

March 6 2008, 8:00 AM 

Sadly it is about following process. If you are going to fine/tax/imprison someone, then the evidence has to be correct. Some of the speeding fines will be minor technical offences. Some will be downright dangerous driving. The second lot need to be held to account. It is up to the camera numpties to do their work properly rather than blame others.

 
 
FW
(no login)
128.243.220.22

Re: Another Illegal Cam sCam!

March 6 2008, 9:51 AM 

"Just" speeding is not a minor technical offence. Even if one were to accept that a driver travelling carefully at 40MPH is no more likely to have an accident than a driver travelling carefully at 30MPH (which is, of course, a dubious assumption given that the greater speed will always reduce the reaction time), the bottom line is that accidents can always happen, and when that accident does happen then an impact with a pedestrian at 40MPH will probably kill him, while an accident at 30MPH probably won't. So, by speeding you are setting yourself up to kill if an accident does happen. Doesn't sound quite so "technical" in those terms, does it?

(Now wait for BJ to make some lengthy errrmmmm-prefixed unsupported drivel about how he drives so much more attentively at 40MPH than at 30MPH, strangely not realizing that this simply underlines what an incompetent driver he is if he only believes that he is a safe driver at the single speed where he feels "comfortable."

Or maybe his fine argument that cars travelling at 40MPH are less likely to collide with a pedestrian at 40MPH than cars travelling at 30MPH because motorists who drive at 30MPH tend to panic and jam their foot on the accelerator when confronted with a pedestrian in the road. Really. I can dig out the exact quote if you like!)

 
 
Me again
(no login)
212.140.169.7

Re: Another Illegal Cam sCam!

March 6 2008, 1:10 PM 

The issue is whether or not exceeding the speed limit is dangerous. If it is, then the fine is justified. If not, then it is a technical offence.

Sometimes a speed limit is set low because of a hazard, such as a school entrance. During the school holidays when the school is closed, the reason for the lowered limit does not apply. So speeding past the entrance would be an offence, but not per se dangerous. Now I would recommend abiding by the limit because I would not know the reason for the limit and it MIGHT be justified. And of course it is often dangerous to drive at the speed limit, and yet you could not be fined by a camera for doing so. In fact it might be hard to even prosecute you for dangerous driving. I could go on and give further examples, but it shows that your simplistic attitudes are just that: too simplistic.

The idea that exceeding the posted limit is always dangerous (which is your position) is false. What happens when a limit is reduced? Are speeds between the old and new limits suddenly dangerous when before they weren't?

And sadly so many speed limits have been set by complete idiots. I can think of roads where the straight bit with good visibility has a limit of 30mph. Then just before the dangerous twisted bit the limit increases to ... 60mph. madness. And I know more than a few examples of that.

And to my shame I have on several occasions found myself going much too fast because I was concentrating on driving within the speed limit, rather than at a safe speed for the road ahead. That IMO is one real danger of simplistic attitudes to road safety. The real issue is driver education.

 
 
FW
(no login)
128.243.220.42

Re: Another Illegal Cam sCam!

March 6 2008, 3:53 PM 

No, the idea that exceeding the posted speed limit is always dangerous is true.

First and foremost because, frankly, I don't trust you. Well, not you personally, but I mean some other road users. My father-in-law, for example. He is under the delusion that speed limits are for sissies, and that his judgement should be the ultimate arbiter on appropriate speed. Unfortunately, his judgement is nowhere near as good as he thinks it is. The only way to deal with people like him is to strictly enforce speed limits, and since there is no way of distinguishing between people like him and people who aren't like him, that means that speed limits must be strictly enforced on all. I agree that this doesn't deal with those cases where the speed limit has not been set appropriately, but that is an argument for revising the speed limits rather than ignoring them.

Second, because you are not the only road user, and the safety of other road users depends to a significant extent on the predictability of their fellow motorists. It is necessary for their safety to be able to assume that a car will not come screaming along at 70MPH on a 50MPH road when they are about to pull out from a side road. I am sure that the highly-competent speeding motorist would argue that he was driving entirely safely at 70MPH, and since the other driver should be yielding then any accident is entirely his fault, but that is not a reasonable argument: other road users have a right to expect that you will obey the rules of the road.

 
 
FW
(no login)
128.243.220.42

Re: Another Illegal Cam sCam!

March 6 2008, 3:58 PM 

> During the school holidays when the school is closed, the reason for the lowered
> limit does not apply. So speeding past the entrance would be an offence, but not
> per se dangerous

You don't think that relying on motorists to exercise their judgement and knowledge of school term dates and detailed local information as to whether the school is being used for a summer programme in order to decide whether to bother to obey the speed limit is dangerous? Of course it is, so that's why speeding past the entrance is always dangerous.

It's like messing around with a gun because you know it isn't loaded -- the consequences of being wrong can be so disasterous that it is dangerous even if you have checked and double checked.

 
 
bogush
(Login bogush)
Forum Owner
91.105.148.228

Errrrrrrrrrmmmmmmmmmmm

March 6 2008, 7:51 PM 

FW says:

So, your argument is that speeding is as trivial as letting yourself into your own home? What a plonker.

 

And George Painter said:


So let's get this right.

If a transport planner broke into your house Bogush, doing £5,000 worth of damage on the way in, tied you up then used your computer to spam 50 discussion groups with 20,000 words of complete nonsense in your name bringing complete discredit to the motorist's lobby, stole the keys to your motor car, drove it around the Ring Road at 70mph through as many cameras as he could find before smashing it into the side of a tram and being arrested. You would be happy for all charges to be dropped if the police officer accidently filled in your address on the statement as Vally Drive and not Valley Road. You would gladly pay all the fines and repair the car, tram and house at your expense in the interests of "not being party to a scam".

 

So, let's get this right, guys, according to you two.

 

If the government decided to metricate speed limits and changed 30mph limits to 50kph (31.0685596118667mph) it would effectively be doing the same thing by legalising driving at 31mph as it would be by legalising:

Breaking into your house, doing £5,000 worth of damage on the way in, tying you up then using your computer to spam 50 discussion groups with 20,000 words of complete nonsense in your name bringing complete discredit to the tram lobby, stealing the keys to your motor car, driving it around the Ring Road at 70mph through as many cameras as he could find before smashing it into the side of a tram!

 

I don't think so, guys!

 

What plonkers!!!!

 


 
 
bogush
(Login bogush)
Forum Owner
91.105.148.228

Errrmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm

March 6 2008, 8:10 PM 

Just to clarify for FW, who claimed:

"Just" speeding is not a minor technical offence.

Errrmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm

 

Yes, it IS!

 

One day the limit might be 40mph.

 

Then somebody (perhaps with no technical training, perhaps even unable to drive) decides to lower it to 30mph.

 

Then they might metricate the limit to 50mph, making the former offence of driving at 31mph perfectly legal.

 

Then then an alliance of Greens, Brake supporters and Slower Speeds Initiative members and Street Reclaimers might win a local election and make it a totally inappropriate 20mph zone.

 

And that might lead to them being kicked out, and the new council having the speed limit properly reviewed and it being raised back to 40 as a result.

 

The road never changed.

 

But the speed you drove at could change from a slight to a major offence, despite the fact it never exceeded the appropriate speed for the road, purely on the whim of whoever decided to change the number on the stick on the side of the road.

 

And, as a result, you could suffer minor to major punishment because of arbitrary, unreasonable and unjustifiable actions of the bureacrat.

 

That doesn't just make the offence a technicality:

 

It makes the bureacrat's actions on affront to the Rule of Law and Natural Justice!

  

 


 
 
FW
(no login)
81.100.81.248

Re: Another Illegal Cam sCam!

March 6 2008, 10:29 PM 

> despite the fact it never exceeded the appropriate speed for the road

Therein lies the main fallacy in your argument, BJ. There is no intrinsic "appropriate" speed for a road that is independent of the speed limit. The maximum appropriate speed for the road is the slower of the speed limit and the maximum speed at which it is safe to drive given the conditions. So, yes, the appropriate speed for the road can vary from one day to the next if the speed limit is changed.

 
 
bogush
(Login bogush)
Forum Owner
91.105.168.167

Errrrrrrrrrrrmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm

March 7 2008, 10:21 PM 

FW says:

 

There is no intrinsic "appropriate" speed for a road that is independent of the speed limit..........

......the appropriate speed for the road can vary from one day to the next if the speed limit is changed.

 

Proof, if proof were needed, that the speed limit isn't there for a reason.

Unless you count fleecing instead of policing.

 

Proof, if proof were needed, that the speed limit is just an arbitrary figure on a stick!

 

Proof, if proof were needed, that speeding does no harm:

It's just an infringement of an arbitrary bureaucratic edict.

 

FW says so!


 
 
Anonymous
(no login)
81.100.81.248

Re: Another Illegal Cam sCam!

March 8 2008, 12:27 AM 

What are you talking about, BJ? You seem to have lost what little grasp of reality you may ever have had. The fact that there is no intrinsic appropriate speed for a road is exactly the reason that an enforced speed limit is needed: so idiots like you don't burn down it at 80MPH while sensible drivers proceed at 30MPH, creating (can you manage the maths, BJ?) a 50MPH speed differential.

 
 
bogush
(Login bogush)
Forum Owner
91.105.168.167

Errrrrrrrrrrrrrrrmmmmmmmmmmm

March 8 2008, 10:47 PM 

I've often wondered if FW stood for F*ck W!t.

 

But clearly you are one, Anonymous.

 

Firstly, the point at issue was that the other FW has posted that:

There is no intrinsic "appropriate" speed for a road that is independent of the speed limit..........

......the appropriate speed for the road can vary from one day to the next if the speed limit is changed.

 

Proof, if proof were needed, that the speed limit isn't there for a reason.

Unless you count fleecing instead of policing.

 

Proving, if proof were needed, that the speed limit is just an arbitrary figure on a stick!

 

Proving, if proof were needed, that speeding does no harm:

It's just an infringement of an arbitrary bureaucratic edict.

 

Which bit of that, exactly, did you struggle with?

 


 
 
bogush
(Login bogush)
Forum Owner
91.105.168.167

Errrrrrrrrrmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm

March 8 2008, 10:57 PM 

Secondly:

The fact is that there is an intrinsic appropriate speed for a road:

The safe speed in good conditions for most drivers to drive it.

And the safe speed that most drivers drive it in good conditions.

 

Which is exactly the reason that a speed limit is needed:

To notify those unfamiliar with the road, and the inexperienced, what that maximum safe speed for the majority is.

 

And that is exactly the reason that a strict and draconian enforced speed limit is NOT needed:

Because some people can, and do, drive somewhat faster than the safest speed for the majority, and do it far more safely than the majority drive below the limit (eg police advanced drivers).

 

And that is exactly the reason why the guidelines for speed limit enforcement, as the other FW has pointed out to me, say that speed limits should be used to facilitate the prosecution of those who drive MARKEDLY in excess of the safe speed (note NOT the speed limit!) for the road (and not, as I had erroneously paraphrased a number of times, until the other FW helpfully corrected me, the road and the conditons!).

 


 
 
bogush
(Login bogush)
Forum Owner
91.105.168.167

Errrrrrrrrrrrmmmmmmmmmmmm

March 8 2008, 11:01 PM 

And thirdly, feel free to justify your accusation that I am an idiot who burns down 30mph roads at 80MPH a 50MPH speed differential.

 

Especially as I have been driving and riding for three and a half decades, up to 50,000 miles pa, and still have a spotless licence.


 


 
 
Anonymous
(no login)
81.100.81.248

Re: Another Illegal Cam sCam!

March 9 2008, 5:10 PM 

> The fact is that there is an intrinsic appropriate speed for a road:
> The safe speed in good conditions for most drivers to drive it.
> And the safe speed that most drivers drive it in good conditions.

Now why am I not surprised that it doesn't even occur to you that the appropriate speed limit for a road might have nothing at all to do with the speed at which drivers are most comfortable driving it...

How about the speed at which, when an accident does occur, there's a good chance that the accident victim will survive?

 
 
 
< Previous Page 1 2 3 4 58 Next >
  Respond to this message   
  << Previous Topic | Next Topic >>Return to Forum Index  
 Copyright © 1999-2014 Network54. All rights reserved.   Terms of Use   Privacy Statement  
   

..... The Its YOUR Duty! Motorists Protest Page ..... The Its YOUR Duty! Motorists Protest News Page.....The Its YOUR Duty! Motorists Protest Page..... The Its YOUR Duty! Motorists Protest News Page..... The Its YOUR Duty! Ecology Truth or Myth Page..... The Its YOUR Duty! Motorists Protest News Page..... The Its YOUR Duty! Resources Page..... The Its YOUR Duty! Motorists Protest News Page............................. !!gg* .......................... !! * .....................


Visitors are requested to keep their posts "legal, decent and honest" and comply with the normal rules of society and web netiquette. Visitors are fully responsible for their own posts and any consequences thereof. However, whilst accepting no responsibility for same, I reserve the right to remove any posts I happen to come across that I feel might be "dubious". The contents of any posts, or websites linked from any posts or any pages on this or related websites do not neccesarily reflect the views or opinions of the forum owner. All copyrights, trademarks, etc, acknowledged